“Draconian government intervention.” This phrase frequently leaps from the mouths of political critics accompanied by sneering lips and/or looks of appalled shock. Today any connotations to this phrase are negative, but the man and the history behind the word “draconian” are not completely dire, as one might believe. Draco himself was a seventh century B.C. tyrant ruler of the Greek city of Athens. Despite his ruthless prescription of death for most convicted criminals, he is given credit for first writing down the laws of the Athenian polis and for establishing the punishment of murderers as the state’s prerogative rather than that of the murdered person’s family. These two innovations tempered the subjective, despotic rule of Athens’ powerful (whose word was in effect law before Draco’s time)and decreased the tendency for family blood feuds to erupt in the wake of any given murder. Draco’s accomplishments demonstrate that some good can indeed come from an imposing, top-down style of political administration.

In general, “Draconian government intervention” should be exercised sparingly. However, in democratic societies that place a high value on liberty, some problems still exist that can be best addressed by contrarian methods, namely the strong arm of authoritarian political power. In our country’s recent past, draconian style intervention has been employed to produce armaments for use in the world wars, to racially integrate schools, and to declare certain areas of national forests off limits to logging.

We believe the next best candidate for the use of draconian intervention by our government is the forced transition of our country from internal combustion to hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. Our current slavish dependence on internal combustion engines for nearly all forms of transportation is causing many serious problems. Drilling for fossil fuels causes environmental degradation on land and at sea. High demand and low competition keep fossil fuel prices high, which can severely impact poorer citizens of our country.

Emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources cause global warming. As our own fossil fuel sources become depleted, we slowly shift our national foreign policy in favor of those countries that can sell us fuel over those that cannot. As our national exhaust increases year after year, we lose more and more goodwill from other countries, mostly in Europe, that have committed to reduce their emissions levels as per the Kyoto environmental protocols signed in 1996.

All these problems in view, we advocate the mandatory exclusive adoption of hydrogen fuel cell engines for all new non-military vehicles sold in the U.S. by the year 2013, and stringent yearly emissions testing for all combustion engine powered cars that remain roadworthy after that date. These new laws are to be enacted and enforced by increased government regulation of the automobile and fossil fuel industries.

Fuel cells are similar to common batteries. Both were invented in the Nineteenth century by Sir William Grove. Since then, fuel cell technology has improved to the point that it is now a viable primary power source for our transportation. Several cities in the developed world currently run buses powered by fuel cells, including Chicago.

We advocate the mandatory adoption of hydrogen fuel cells, since they are totally non-polluting and the cheapest potential source of fuel, but there are several other kinds of fuel cells that would drastically reduce current pollution levels and lessen supply and demand concerns as well.

The one great problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that the powering element, hydrogen, is dangerously unstable. It has the capacity to power any type of vehicle, from a tiny Japanese import all the way up to a semi or potentially a train, but with all its power comes volatility. In reality, a hydrogen power source in a car is less likely to burst into flames from an impact than conventional petroleum.

The problem is that a tremendous explosion, much more powerful than anything that could be generated by petroleum, could occur if any spark ever found its way into the hydrogen fuel source.

Therefore, we also advocate that all hydrogen fuel cell storage compartments on future automobiles be made from shock-resistant, solid state polymer material at least eight inches thick in order to provide maximum insulation from any possible sparks generated in a collision. Despite this drawback, the only entities that stand to lose from the adoption of fuel cell vehicles are oil companies. The market for petroleum will quickly decrease as older internal combustion engine cars are phased out of use.

Fuel cell vehicles are very easy to maintain. Aside from replacing the energy transferring electrodes about every 50,000 miles, the only upkeep required for a hydrogen fuel cell car is body work (as needed) and the maintenance of an adequate supply of hydrogen fuel. However, the resupply of hydrogen into fuel cell cars is a tricky operation, and many specialists would be required to train the driving public as to how to refuel safely and help those who, for whatever reason, are unable to refuel safely. Auto manufacturers would not be greatly bothered by the onset of hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles, since required construction techniques would be nearly the same as those used today.

Finally, hydrogen fuel itself would be at least as cheap as gasoline prices on a favorable day in the year 2001.

The technology already exists for each filling station to manufacture its own hydrogen. This is a tremendous boon to the environment because as combustion powered cars are retired, fossil fuel usage will be greatly curtailed. The threat of oil spills from tankers and semis would then be nearly eliminated. Since hydrogen fueling stations could be, its own “oil company,” direct competition between individual stations in a geographic vicinity would exert much downward pressure on prices. With gasoline prices expected by some to reach $3.00 a gallon by Labor Day 2001 in parts of the U.S., this would be a welcome change.

Americans would benefit from a forced transition to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in any number of the above ways, but we believe that the inertia of our current dependence on the internal combustion engine is too ingrained within the private sector to allow any voluntary change.

We propose government intervention along with appropriate trade barriers and tariffs against offending goods in order to mandate that all new non-military vehicles sold by no later than twelve years from this date be powered exclusively by hydrogen fuel cells.