OK, OK. I hoped to start some debate but not political titt-for-tatt!
Anyway, often the free market takes too long to be truely effective (hell it was the free market that killed the better video format...beta) and government can help push new and good ideas (within limits). That said, I'm enthusiastic about bio-diesel.
I am, however, not enthusiastic about mandates. I do, however, see a good stratagy being a compromise. Allow tax incentives to individuals who use bio-diesel (exempt bio-diesel from Federal Highway Taxes for example). In addition, I can support an EPA and other federal/state agency's advertising the benefits of bio-diesel in PSAs or Paid Ads. And lastly, I can support (with sunset legislation) a Subsidy for bio-diesel to keep it cost comptetitive until infrastructure and demand are created.
The big hump here is initial investment in "infrastructure" (followed by the fact that bio-diesel is more expensive than petro-diesel). Oil companys don't want to spend money on setting up plants to convert bio-mass into fuel and then to turn around cut into 20% of their own diesel market. Plus, it isn't fair to consumers to burden them with a mandate that helps the farm lobby at the expense of another group.
In addition, since bio-diesel costs more at this time the cost is a burden on all end users ( all of US who have trash hauled away or take trips on airplanes or who get goods shipped by air, rail and truck).
There are no easy answers here. But the advantages of bio-diesel in terms of perfomance (i.e. CO2 recycling, cleaner burning, better engine performance) are clear. Costs and who bears them, however, is a big issue. Government can have a role in enticing demand and keeping costs down, but the role must be limited to be fair.
[ May 07, 2001: Message edited by: Brian Gracek ]