We don't need to pay for all this gas.They are just doing it for the war George Bush started.We don't need thier oil.

Not going to happen. Automakers as a whole, combined with oil companies, have more power and influence than the US Government. The problem will be solved when the fossil fuel reserves in the world are exhausted. No other choice when that time comes, obviously.

Bring back the EV1 ...the battery technology is available to travel 150 miles on one charge. An electric race car Ian Wright's X1 out performed Ferrari and Porche. This not Ethanol is the direction we should take.

A long-term proposition; the only long-term solution for the US. So long as we remain dependent on foreign oil, there will remain the perceived need for foreign intervention. We send troops to die on foreign soil despite the fact that the largest oil reserve on planet earth is right off our southern coast, and despite the fact that we have not built a refinery in the US since 1975.

Let's also force the morons who are in favor of this policy to drive the solar powered cars, hydrogen operated roller skates, garbage burning scows,and other ridiculous items, and leave the ordinary vehicles for the rest of us unenlightened poor souls. I'll keep my pickup, thank you.

By the looks of the vast majority of the prior comments, people confuse the public policy benefits of reducing reliance on fossil fuels (e.g. cleaner environment, planning for future oil depletion) with effective means of dealing with the Middle East. As some of the comments noted, yes, there are many reasons to move towards alternative energy, but there are relatively high short-term costs and wouldn't really do much to solve Middle Eastern issues. In other words it's a red herring, not to mention (to address the specific suggestion) that one can't legislate technological advances into existence much less legislate away economic realities (i.e. the vast infrastructure needed for personal transportation). Nevertheless, if OPEC attempted another boycott, then the West would find itself in a situation where R&D and infrastructure investment made more economic sense at a time when more technology to put it in place exists. This makes anything other than mass instability in the region (i.e. all out war) as the only real possibility of material oil disruption. The oil sheiks are already set for many generations and they obviously don't care about building more self-sustaining economies, so the lack of future oil revenues doesn't appear to be all that threatening to them. In the end, the conflicts in the Middle East predate the discovery of oil in the region, and the nonexistence of Arab oil would decrease American interest but it would not eliminate the conflict.

The adoption of alternative energy sources is paramount. Most of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia, which is a nation on the brink of disaster. The population there is quite anti-America (who would rather starve themselves from economic wealth than trade oil with the US) and also dislikes the ruling house of Saud, who pays off large sums of wealth to terrorist organizations (10 million to the Taliban) just to keep the population off its back. There are other nations in the Middle East that are blessed with stability, but the amount of oil we recieve from them is picute compared to Saudi Arabia. This leaves me to believe that the only way out is to use alternative energy.

Yes,Yes,Yes!!!If you truly want to hurt the funding of terrorism,you gotta give up that gas-guzzling Hummer!! Besides, lowering Emissions will improve the health of our citizens-especially the asthmatic children and elderly.

We are more dependent on oil from South America than the middle east. (Something the media never really tells you.) We do need alternate energy sources- but the oil-money business machine is a real obstacle. But it's time Americans realized we get more oil from other places than the middle east. Our problems are (1) political and (2) our steadfast refusal to take real, not imagined, steps toward alternate energy sources.

When will the world's people realise that these decisions that affect us all are taken by a single group of men who have their greedy short-term interests in mind for their own gain? Politicians. They are not concerend about the environment or our health as they would immediately and automatically sanction ways of creating alternative and renewable sources of fuel, but no! Let's now ruin the pristine wilderness of Alaska by drilling for more of the black stuff. Who cares as long as we're doing well? We should be looking to reduce our dependence on oil wherever it is located and if nations have to change the way they live because of it, so be it.

Hmm force the US consumer to pay more for their cars.. that'll show the mideast! The Middle East supplies over 50% of our oil.. What alternate energy source will make up that difference?

The US problem in the middle east is not about how economically dependent on their oil we are. The problem is one of alliances. Israel is our ally. The rest of the arab world (i.e. the rest of the middle east) hate Israel and, by extension, hate the US, and hope to destroy the Israeli state by any means necessary. If not for their alliance with the US, Israel would already be a parking lot. And noone in Europe (except possibly Britain)would lift a finger to prevent the carnage. Oil comes into the equation because we need it (as do many other countries) and they have it (as do many other countries) but they have more of it than does anyone else. This wouldn't solve the problem with the middle east, but is probably a good idea for other reasons. I'd only suggest that forcing the automakers to do something MIGHT not be in compliance with our Constitution.

had we pulled our giant us d i c k out of their sand 20 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess. Had we taken the time to develop alternative fuel sorces and promote them, we wouldn't be in the middle of this war, for the SECOND time.

Deregulate energy in the U.S., and let oil companies drill where they need to.

While it would be wonderful to reduce dependence on oil sources in the Middle East (with a collateral improvement of air quality), this does nothing to solve the main problem, the festering, ever-worsening struggle over Palestine.

I agree with the first part. But by Force? You want the government to force the markets to change? That would be a bigger disaster in itself. And here's another thing. You think these countries are mad at us for buying their oil? We are probably their biggest source of income. I am however all for drilling exploring and drilling for oil in our own land. But oh, I forgot, we might upset the carabu.

Wow, that's stupid of you to say that because America doesn't get all of it's oil from the middle east. It gets it from South America. Investigate something before you write an article on it.

Forcing automakers to do ANYTHING is Communist.

Forcing? Forcing? No. Strongly suggesting perhaps, but not using House and Senate or Executive Order to mandate a massive change like alternative fuel sources. That sort of action would give the 'government' far to much incentive to pursue other industries. Listen I'm all for fuel cells. They exist, but the fuel delivery system needs a little work. I agree with tencat in that 15 years is a likely senario for only the start of mass production. Why? Because we consume oil, both domestic and foreign, we exist because of oil, we eat, travel, read, express our opinions on the Internet because of oil. Oil lubricates everything we do. Hydrogen does not. We will have alternate energy fuel transportation almost instantly once the government, the oil producers,and our elected officials figure out a way to levy taxes equal to or greater than the current federal tax on a gallon of fuel. First and foremost it's obviously the income for auto makers that would be impacted. Massive layoffs, freefalling markets and on and on. . . The key is the thought of losing all of that precious revenue that funnels into the Treasury Department. Ah! What a country. Have faith because eventually we will do the right thing.

WOW! I think Times Roman is running out of letters so please don't waste them on this subject!

Not a bad idea, except it will take us 15 years to fully implement change in the automotive industries. The technology is here, but it's currently very expensive.

The government shouldn't force any private organization to do anything like that. Instead they should lift all these stupid regulations and let the companys work to their maximum potential and efficiency.

Its a good idea, but our government has no right to do it. Their not allowed to "force" comapnies to do anything. The auto manufacturers are alreday working on hydrogen and fuel cells- give them a chance to work.

I may not be an automaker, but I'm sure with the technology we have, an affordable electric car can be made.

This is so ridiculous...the US gets only 3% of its oil from the middle east...we are NOT dependent on them and alternate resources for automakers will do CRAP.

The only long-term solution which solves enviromental, political, and logistical problems. We sent men to the moon in a decade, why not make this our 00's goal? As the leader of the free world we can lead the way.

Well, we shouldn't force automakers to do anything like that, but it would be nice if other forms of energy were researched and developed, regardless of the Middle East.

It would be nice if the automakers would follow this; however, it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime. They're too lazy to change.

I do agree that we should reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil, but I do not believe it to be the right of the United States government to force industries and consumers to use a particular source of energy for autmobiles. I do believe that alternate fuel sources should be made available as an option, but no government should make it mandatory.

A good idea, but only practical if nuclear fusion can become economically viable. Hydrogen cars currently run on natural gas, while electric cars run on more fossil fuel from electric plants than petroleum cars. As for alternative fuels, the last NOVA program on PBS concerning the subject indicated that even if all of the farmland on the planet were commited to renewable fuels, it wouldn't match the current global energy demand of 10 terawatts, let alone the 40 TW demand predicted 40 years from now. Of course, such research will not be extensively encouraged while oil is prevelant and profitable!

I like the idea of alternative fuels and used to buy gasohol when it was available. However - the Government has no right to "force" any industry to do business a certain way.

This is he obvious solution to our problems at both a international and environmental level, why this is so hard for some people to grasp is beyond me. It's obvious that Bush won't do it because he made to much money from oil and has to back up his cronies at places like Enron. Oh yeah, what ever happened to Ken Lay? He's probably sleeping at the foot of Bush's bed.

This would lower dependence on oil. But while Bush is in office it will never happen. Bush is an oil tycoon. And even though he heads our nation, he stills puts the interest of his oil infront of the interest of the US. The Bush administartion recently joined to overturn California's Zero Emission Vehicle mandate. Originally, the state's clean air mandate required that 10 percent of new cars sold in the state in 2003 had to be zero polluting. At the behest of carmakers, the requirement has been whittled back to little beyond the symbolic. Today, the ZEV mandate requires that automakers produce a mere 4,300 to 9,400 nonpolluting, mostly battery-powered cars. So instead of having cars that run on little or no fuel. Bush would rather have cars that can pathetic fuel mileage so he and his partners can get more money.

The alternative fuel is out there. Why dont we have it?

There are more places where we can get oil besides the middle east (like in our own country for example). I'm all for finding an alternate energy source. However, you gotta think realisticaly here. The day that a new energy source for cars and power period will be used over our current sources will either never happen or will happen beyond anyone's lifetime in this community. All potental candidates for a new energy source still have a lot of questions surrouning them (specifcally surounding their dependability). Besies, do you think the oil companies and other energy plants want to stop earnng profits and go out of business. This is a no brainer.

A terrific idea. I am extremely in favor of this. I think that it is dangerous to have to depend on violent countries for petroleum resources. Also, alternative energy sources would probably prove to be a lot cleaner.

you CAn try that, but i don't think it'll solve anything, nor would it free the US of any involvment because it's in their best interest to be incharge and be the mediator\negotator of the whole world. abandoning national crises like these will reduce the control that the US got because once countries will start to solve things without the US they will continue doing it without the US, not to mention that as a supporter the US will still need to help israel. also, the economical concequences can be devestating, and can cause riots.

It would definitely change the policy of the United States and avoid the fear that right now they always have of angering the Arab countries so much that they won't hook us up with oil anymore. It would also be a big benefit for the environment. They should have already been doing this because it's advantageous to the environment, not only because of the current Middle East crisis.

We would not have been or would be involved in any of the problems in the Middle East (save Israel) if it were not for oil, folks. It's a very plain and simple truth. Why did we send troops over on Desert Storm? Because Iraq was threatening our supply of gym socks? It was all about OIL. And now look at the albatross that hangs around our necks. And it's all because Big Oil has had politicians in it's back pocket for decades. And President Bush, well how do you think he made his money, folks? OIL! There are alternative energy souces that have been used, hell a friend of mine even owns one of those Hybrid cars that gets like 55 MPG. We should be looking into any possible alternative to oil right now. Why? First, it helps the environment! Hello! There should be no question on that point alone! Second, It is estimated that we will have depleted the oil sources within 50 years, so eventually we are gonna have to change anyway. Why not do it now while there is still some natuarl crude oil on the planet? Third, what kind of bargaining power does anyone in the Middle East have if we don't need their oil? Come on folks, these governments over there need American dollars floating in... The oil shieks too... So there you have it, three very good, legitimate reasons to find alternative sources of automobile feul. I am surprised more people have not stood up and demanded this of the automobile companies in America.

man--wouldn't this be a great idea but an unrealistic one since the oil industry has the current BUSH administration in it's pocket....to those idiots the only energy comes from deadly oil to be plucked from the earth in a wildlife reserve. shows you the brains running the country. new technologies for energy would be a worthwhile investment of the worlds time and especially America's since we're so gluttonous with it....just think we could actually work to HELP the environment instead of harming it.

Over the long-term, energy independence is desirable, but if we're talking about the current MidEast crisis this is an absolute red herring. We are going to need oil for the foreseeable future. If we topple Saddam Hussein, we may wind up breaking the power of OPEC and being awash in cheap energy anyway. It's wonderful that Putin has recognized that Russia's future lies with the West and being a friendly provider of energy is how to prove their loyalty. Oh yeah, and just as a matter of principle, I'm opposed to the premise of this question that government has a role in telling free individuals what kinds of cars they can make.

It is absolutely essential that we adopt a long-term energy plan for this country. Part of it should be the United States being more energy independent. Today, we are more dependent on foreign oil than at any other time in our history. Considering the turmoil in the Middle East and Latin America, we should consider drilling some more on our own continental shelf. The Russians could be a temporary source of petroleum, but if they begin cooperating with the Arab countries, then we will lose that supply as well, but I don't think they will cut their own throats that way. I have really thought about it a lot, and I don't really think that drilling in the Arctic is that cost-effective. It will cost a lot of money to drill the oil in the Arctic and then transport it down to the Pacific Coast to ship it to the lower 48. It would help the Alaskans, but not many other people. What needs to happen is that the government needs to open up more tracts in the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling. The same should go for off the Atlantic coastal shelf. By doing this, we will produce by 6 times as much oil as there is in all of the Arctic. But this is merely a temporary solution. We need to come up with FEASABLE methods of alternative energy. We have the technology, now all what we have to do is make it easy for consumers to use. It really is not that simple; the technology is still in development. Probably in about 20 years; solar energy and fuel cells will be cost effective. In the meantime, we have to deal with other countries that have plentiful supplies of oil. Like what I said before, the Russians could be a source of cheap oil, but the geopolitical situation changes so fast that we need a more steady policy to guarantee economic stability at home.

Yes! I think this would be an excellent idea and one that is long overdue. There has simply got to be a better way than using fossil fuels - which presumably will one day run out anyway. I attended a lecture last night on nutrition and you can't believe how much our use of these products over the years has affected the water supply alone. If we were not so dependant on the Middle East for petroleum (in other words could think with our brains and not our greed) we might be able to be a little more rational when it comes to dealing with that situation in the long run. And we shouldn’t wait for the big oil companies to “allow” it - we should demand it!