Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Alternative energy sources cannot effectively replace fossil fuels at present. The world heavily depends on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline, for transportation. Transitioning to alternative energy sources is not as simple as it seems. Ethanol, for instance, is not a viable substitute as it cannot replace more than 15% of gasoline in a blend without damaging engine components. Moreover, the energy required to produce ethanol from crops like corn is not net positive, as it takes gasoline to create the fertilizer and harvest the crops. The process is so inefficient that it takes six gallons of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol. Additionally, using crops for fuel increases food prices globally and leads to starvation. Cellulosic ethanol is not yet commercially viable due to the high cost of enzymes needed to break down cellulose. Electric cars are more expensive and have limited range, and hydrogen fuel cells are too expensive and have no refilling stations. Hydrogen is not energy-dense enough for transportation, and the fuel tank would be too heavy. Solar and wind energy are intermittent sources, and we lack a reliable way to store energy. Fossil fuels provide 80% of U.S. power, while solar and wind contribute less than 1%. Nuclear power provides around 20%, but the existing plants are nearing the end of their life cycles. The Energy Information Agency projects that, at best, renewable energy will provide 10% of the U.S. energy needs by 2030. Clean diesel cars have been manufactured that emit no particulates, and carbon capture and sequestration promise to create coal power plants that emit no carbon dioxide. Stopping the use of fossil fuels would devastate the economies of oil and natural gas exporting countries and lead to job losses for millions worldwide. The global economy would come to a halt. While global warming is a concern, emissions reduction strategies are expensive and have only a marginal impact. Geo-engineering projects, such as simulating a volcanic eruption or placing sunlight shields in space, are cheaper and more effective. Some renewable energy solutions, such as a hydrogen economy, may even increase global warming. The peak oil production date is uncertain, but few experts believe it will occur before 2035, thanks to technology improvements such as enhanced oil recovery. We need oil for the foreseeable future, as alternatives are not yet available on a large scale and are not affordable for the average person.

I would first like to make note that the PRO is not allowed to alter his plan in any way after his first argument, although he may expand on everything else, I will first go over inherency, solvency, then significance and harms, covering all stock issues excluding topicality. I would like to remind the judges that it is the PRO's responsibility to cover all stock issues, and if even one is conceded (excluding inherency, that's up to the judge)that the PRO wins the round, since we are doing a policy debate. INHERENCY I believe that the PRO does not give a viable inherent barrier, without an inherent barrier the PRO and the judges both are often left misinformed on why the case isn't already being done, the PRO should show what the problem is in his inherency, then solve for that problem. SOLVENCY The PRO's plan says nothing about negotiating a contract to state how the money they pass out must be used, unless the PRO can prove that the organization they plan to give money to has absolutely no other agendas except obtaining electricity from fusion they cannot be sure that the money they put out will be used in the proper way, in which case their plan will fail. The PRO's plan says nothing about making fusion derived electricity available if it is somehow possible to get it, therefore the best they can do with this plan is research, and cannot guarantee that widespread use will come after development. The PRO has yet to show evidence that deuterium can be harvested legally. To expand on this I make note of the countless examples of endangered species living in the waters of our planet, unless the PRO can prove that harvesting deuterium out of our water will have absolutely no environmental repercussions we cannot be sure that the international community will allow the harvest of deuterium. Possibly the most important question the judge must ask is "Is this even possible?" the PRO states that fusion energy has been researched for fifty years, to no avail, and has not proved that we are any closer now than we were fifty years ago, it could be centuries before we achieve fusion power. SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS http://finance.yahoo.com...- Water pollution is already the single largest cause of sickness and death worldwide It is obvious that water pollution is a serious issue, but yet the PRO would like to harvest a mineral from our water, risking killing off species and furthering water pollution. The PRO states that "Since no fossil fuels are used, there will be no release of chemical COMBUSTION products because they will not be produced." The PRO fails to mention that there could be by products not produced by combustion, but simply states that combustion won't cause by products, other things could cause by products worse than burning oil. I would like to make a press for evidence that 1- Harvesting deuterium from water will have no environmental effects 2- There will not be by products at all, rather than just from combustion, or if there are, evidence that they won't be worse than the status quo 3- The programs he wishes to give money to have no other agendas 4- A statistic on the chance of having fusion power in the near future I believe that all of these facts are neccessary for the PRO to prove his point.

I would like to remind my opponent that he has the burden of proof in this round, as the instigator, to prove that government-funded "fracking" would do more good than harm in the United States. I also take issue with my opponent's second Whereas: "the United States furnishes just two percent of its supply from native sources, and much of the oil in the rest of the world exists in conflict areas" This is empirically false. According to the Energy Information Agency, two of the top exporters of oil to the U.S. are Canada and Saudi Arabia, which are definitely not in a conflict zone. [1] A great deal of the oil that China is currently pursuing is in conflict zones in Africa, but the U.S. has already secured much more secure foreign sources of oil. In addition, approximately 50% of the oil consumed in the United States is from domestic sources. The Energy Information Agency furthers, "In 2009, about 51% of the petroleum consumed by the United States was imported from foreign countries." [2] The rest is produced domestically. In addition, oil and natural gas are not really substitutes for each other. Natural gas is mostly used in power generation and heating; oil, in contrast, is mostly used in transportation (cars). People do not own cars that can run on natural gas. So my opponent has yet to provide a real reason why fracking would be desirable. In addition, I challenge my opponent to prove that fracking is profitable, meaning that the cost of fracking is lower than the price that the natural gas can be sold for. Countries with access to cheap natural gas sources (like Russia) will be able to keep the price of natural gas far below the price at which fracking becomes profitable. According to the Energy Technology Systems Analysis Programme, producing natural gas from unconventional sources like fracking costs 5 times more than producing it from conventional sources. [3] If fracking is not economically profitable, the U.S. would lose money by pursuing fracking. Companies would refuse to pursue a drilling technique that loses them money. The United States does not need huge increases in domestic natural gas production. We currently produce about 85% of our natural gas domestically. [4] There is no need for Congress to step up production by subsidizing fracking. In addition, fracking is bad. 1. Contaminated groundwater Fracking is dangerous because of its potential to contaminate groundwater supplies. According to Daniel Gross of Slate in 2010, "In recent years, discoveries of reserves locked in shale rock in Texas (the Barnett Shale) and in the Appalachians (the Marcellus Shale) have spurred a boom. But shale gas is also tough energy. The gas is produced via fracking—fracturing the rock with water and chemical solvents to loosen up the gas molecules. The environmental risk? The water mixed with solvents could filter into underground aquifers. Inconveniently, the Marcellus Shale overlaps with the watershed of the New York City region." [5] Any major fracking increase would likely result in drilling the Marcellus Shale, which would contaminate New York Cities drinking water. Fracking fluids contain many potential carcinogens, and according to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study, between 20% and 85% of the fracking fluids stay underground and do not return to the surface. [6] The potential for these cancer-causing drilling fluids to seep into groundwater is enormous. In addition, the natural gas itself can seep into drinking water. Josh Fox's documentary "Gasland" shows people lighting their sinks on fire because so much natural gas has seeped into their drinking water (see citation for a picture). [7] 2. Water consumption To fracture the natural gas shale rock, massive amounts of water are needed. The typical fracking well (which is usually a horizontal well) takes 6 million gallons of water to frack.[8] According to the Government Accountability Office, 36 states currently face water shortages and cannot afford to divert massive amounts of water to fracking. [9] Reader's Digest explains that the situation is dire: "The drought currently punishing the Southeast has been rated ‘exceptional' by climatologists—the kind that happens once every 50 to 100 years. As one dry month follows another, states and municipalities have imposed tight restrictions on outdoor water use for landscaping, swimming pools, and car washing, and Georgia's governor has required local governments to cut water consumption by ten percent . . . While lack of rainfall is the immediate culprit, the underlying problem is more profound: a water supply that cannot keep pace with a rapidly expanding population." [10] The U.S. cannot spare the massive amount of water that fracking requires. 3. Global warming What my opponent is proposing in this round is a government subsidy to the natural gas industry to help them pay for fracking. However, this is a move in the wrong direction. The United States should instead be subsidizing renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. From 2002 to 2008, the U.S. spent $72.5 billion subsidizing fossil fuels and only $29 billion subsidizing renewable energy. [11] If the government is going to subsidize anything, it should subsidize green energy. The International Energy Agency actually recommends that countries cut fossil fuel subsidies to encourage greater fuel efficiency, in order to decrease the use of fossil fuels. [12] Subsidies artificially drive down the price of fossil fuels and increase consumption of these dirty forms of energy. In addition, money spent on green energy creates more jobs than money spent on fossil fuels. According to the Center for American Progress, "The clean-energy sector produces more jobs per dollar than the fossil fuels industry." [13] The drilling process for natural gas shale (fracking) releases more carbon dioxide than traditional drilling techniques. According to Alternet, "Government studies show that exploiting unconventional fossil-fuel reserves generates more C02 emissions than drilling for conventional oil and gas and uses three to five times more water. ‘It's a pact with the devil,' says Randy Udall, a consulting energy analyst from Colorado." [14] Lastly, if we want to avoid the very worst scenarios for global warming (like massive flood damage and crop losses amount to a 20% loss of world GDP), we need to leave unconventional fossil fuel sources in the ground. This point is underscored by Jim Hansen of Columbia University, who says that to avoid the worst climate change scenarios, "we cannot heavily exploit unconventional fossil fuels . . . and we should not be pursuing every last drop of oil on the planet." [15] [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [2] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [3] http://www.etsap.org... [4] http://www.eia.gov... [5] http://www.slate.com... [6] http://www.mnn.com... [7] http://www.nytimes.com... [8] http://www.timesleader.com... [9] http://www.naturalnews.com... [10] http://www.rd.com... [11] http://www.grist.org... [12] http://news.cnet.com... [13] http://www.americanprogress.org... [14] http://www.alternet.org... [15] http://www.columbia.edu...

Well, you dont seem to adress my other points here, like the pope , who you cited and being a firm believer in this theory, who I just showed you quoted on Dec 11 as coming out firmly against it, saying The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. I am going to give you a little more insight into why this "movement" which is being taken very seriously by many, is quite simply scare mongering Here is a link which lists over 600 , yes 600 "disaters" that are being casued by global warming, according to the silly people pushing the notion http://www.heartland.org... Do you really believe that CO2 emissions are going to cause all of that? Can you maybe understand that sometimes people use SCARE tactics in order to get you to do things, like spend money, or vote for them. This is important to understand in life, and when you get to vote. Now, I am going to change the subject a little bit Why am I so opposed to this theory, when I am a huge fan of renewable energy, solar, and hydrogen, which is the future of energy? Becuase it is the wrong argument- and easily disproven What are the REAL problems with fossil fuels? (1) REAL POLLUTION - air pollution (SOx. NOx, Unburned hydrocarbons, ozone)and water pollution (just 1 drop of oil makes a gallon of water undrinkable) If you look at cities like Mexico City and in China- its HORRIBLE (2) WAR OVER OIL - why are we in Iraq? (3) NATIONAL SECURITY - We cant keep depending on the likes of the OPEC and Chavez for our economic lifeblood What are the REAL SOULTIONS? (1) Solar energy, other renewables, and nuclear energy (2) Higher efficiency in our usage of energy (3) Hydrogen powered hybrid vehicles, planes and transportation As much as the "global warming" crowd supports these things, rather that just saying we need to "stop" what we are doing or be "taxed" by someone, then I wont argue with them- they are good for my business, after all. But the bottom line is that the SCIENCE of Global Warming is Wrong, dead wrong, and is a HOAX and SCARE TACTIC of Al Gore, the IPCC, and others who want to chastise the United States, and gain power and money for themselves Mankind emitted CO2 is NOT responsible in any measurable way for changes in our earth's climate. period. What is responsible ? the SUN! can we do anything about it ? NO! so DONT WORRY! DONT BE AFRAID! live your life

I also must admit that my opponent has put forth very valid arguments, some of which I greatly agree with. I hope that in the future -- when I am a more developed debater -- I may challenge him again. As for my correlation of CO2 to warming, I must stand strong with it. I am aware that it was not the largest factor, but this correlation rate will continue to drop as the ppm of Carbon Dioxide rises, as it is an inverse equality. This is not me conceding the fact that there is a correlation, but that as our world becomes more laden with CO2, each molecule will have less and less of an effect. 1. Global Warming is real and is a threatI do not believe in Global Warming, as it means to show that the whole planet is warming (which I do not believe), but I understand the general use of the term now, even in ways to describe climate change. I believe that there is a vast change in our climate, and will continue to be as such. Perhaps now our data is biased on both sides, pro- or con-climate change.2. Caused by humansI am well aware of the natural cycles of warming in Earth's geological history. Never before have we experienced such a sharp upward clime of Carbonppm without a natural calamity (such as eruptions, meteor collisions, etc. ). To refute Con's claims on the 2,000-3,000ppm pf Carbon 60mya, I will use the same data as in my round 3. I used data from 66mya, 60mya, and 58mya, just to make sure I had all my bases covered, in case of his 60mya figure being an estimate. My attempted refute on your round2 source 7 was based on the grounds that our methods of measuring have become more efficient and accurate, so the data could be deemed inaccurate today (only a speculation).3. Fixing the problemWe are not ready to drop non-renewable fossil fuels. The profit is greater, and the amount of energy produced from these fuels far exceeds renewable energy. Hopefully, that can change. If not for a hopefully cleaner planet, then simply for the fact that we are going to run out one day. However, we will continue to grow in our ability to produce cheaper sustainable energy. In conclusion I have done the best in my ability to refute the claims Con has made and stabilize my views and hopes for the future. I hope to one day challenge another debater to a similar topic when I am more experienced.

Inherency- Your inherency screws over the entirety of your advantages. Your cards prove that CSP can be used now, just not on government lands. Your only advantage is the economy whos entire link, internal link, impact stories begin with the economist 08 card that says, "The next technology boom may well be based on alternative energy, there is growing concern that the supply of oil may soon peak as consumption continues to grow, known supplies run out and new reserves become harder to find. Americans have become intolerant of large, polluting industrial plants. That has opened up a capacity gap and an opportunity for wind and sunlight. The future price of these resources—zero—is known. That certainty has economic value as a hedge". Ignore the affs power tagged card and take it for what it actually says. There is nothing in the card that says the government lands are key to theis technology boom, make the aff prove this before he accesses any of his advantages. If you look to what the status-quo has to offer, you see that CSP is already a viable option and private investors can use it now. Going by the affirmative teams card we see that this technological boom is inevitable, therefore every link, internal, impact story that he offers is inevitable in the status-quo, thus the plan is worthless. He will come up with a card saying that, "government land usage will cause an increase in solar power use" but this is inadequate. In order to prove any of his advantage stories make him prove that it is ONLY in a world post plan we would see an increase in alternative energy that is adequate to raise the stock of alternative energy enough to "save the economy". Energy grid- This is a DISADVANTAGE to your plan. Read the lockwood 08 card and it NEVER states that the energy can be used with the current grid. Hence the counterplan, The USDOE should provide all necessary funding for the transition to smart grids A. Current power grid cant handle alternative energy Seeking Alpha: ETF UPDATE: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND THE POWER GRID, http://seekingalpha.com..., September 04, 2008. Our nation's aging power grid seems ill-equipped to handle our renewable-energy dreams. While new ways to generate power from sources such as solar and wind are coming fast and furious, getting those technologies to the market has become a challenge, says Matthew L. Wald for the New York Times. Our grid today was conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop one another up in order to reduce blackouts and share power in smaller areas. While only 1% of our electricity comes from wind turbines, experts believe that it could soon be as much as 20%, and our grid as it stands can't handle it. B. Smart Grid allows further integration of U.S. Alternative energy Phil, Hall, Alternative Energy Retailer: CAN A SMART GRID HELP THE SOLAR POWER CAUSE?, http://www.aer-online.com..., Monday, August 18, 2008. According to Kurt E. Yeager, the only thing that is preventing a further integration of U.S. alternative energy power sources to the nation's electric grid is…the grid. Yeager, the former president and CEO of the Electric Power Research Institute, is advocating the implementation of what he calls the "smartgrid," a series of micro grids that would more efficiently serve both the national power needs and offer more opportunities for incorporating alternative solutions such as photovoltaic power. Jobs- AGAIN, there is NO warrant to the USfg adoption of CSP on government land and its effect on jobs. every card talks about how solar power will effect jobs if expanded, but no where does it say that these government lands will have a big enough increase in jobs to save the economy. Competitiveness- Prove that government lands are key to maintaining our world competitiveness. There are WAY too many factors to be able to prove that one little thing on government lands will solve all competitiveness. The impacts to this is imaginary, we will always be a competitive nation. Your impact screws you over as well. You only use Mead 92 to impact the entirety of your case. All it says is "economic downturn leads to nuclear war"- "what if the GLOBAL economy collapsed". There is no way you are going to prove that you solve the world economy by merely putting solar panels on government land. Don't run the card that says the global economy is dependent on the US either because you do not solve for the entire US economy. Your impact is also already being solved in the status-quo, look to the 900 billion dollars we are spending on a stimulus package right now that will bring our economy back to being strong. KRITIK The affirmative attempt to find new ways to continue our consumption patterns is only another verse of same old same old. 1ac focus was not concerned with over-consumption, but only in finding better ways to consume. As long as policies continue to placate corporations with short term quick fixes, true solutions to the energy and environmental problems will never be discovered. This becomes our argument that values can change policies but policies do not change values. Policies that cater to the corporations and the marketplace for solutions are too far away from a true reduction in our human impact on the earths biosphere. Our argument is that the there are a multitude of problems that are interconnected, and just attempting to address one of these singular problems is ineffective when the attempted solution never escapes the dominant ideological ways of thinking and perceiving our place in the biosphere. Each of us as individuals play the role of the trunk on the web of environmental problems. All of the impacts discussed in the 1ac can be traced back to our desire to consume. We are not deep ecology or some environmental movement, our argument is that only we/us as individuals can offer concrete solutions by consuming less. It is not a question of acting, but one of not acting, of not consuming. Learning how to not consume has widespread effects on all of the diverse areas of the environmental mega-crisis. We contend that unless we deal with our consumption patterns, wars are inevitable. And we dismiss the affirmative solvency as idealistic and not focused on the key areas of human consumption that must be address if we are going to stave off the coming environmental destruction. The affirmative use of the state to address the environmental and energy problems is ineffective. The state serves the interests of the corporations which means money will always continue to be elevated over environmental health. Putting your hopes in the state to solve environmental problems should be avoided, the state will not solve. And the use of the state also effects true change, which is individuals reducing their consumption. We will contend that policy action by the state acquiesces individual change. The affirmative caters to individual consumption by trying to figure out how to allow individuals the ability to consume. Now is the key time to change the tide of overconsumption. The alternative of individual action is only way Your focus on alternative energy can never access a reduction in consumption. The move to increase alternative energy requires increased consumption on the frontside to create the technology needed to have alternative energy. The lack of focus on consumption allows the affirmative to increase short term energy use. The alternative is to examine your own life-place, and attempt to reduce personal consumption in your everyday life. The alternative gives you 100% solvency of reducing consumption while the affirmative only reifies the notion that consumption is a way of life and must continue. We control uniqueness on this debate, we have been waiting for government protection action to be effective, but this is empirically flawed.

From an economic point of view, why are pollution, global warming and climate change such big problems. The problem is that they are negative externality of industrial operations [1]. The idea is that the cost of pollution is paid by the world community; where as the entity which indulges in pollution reaps immediate benefits. The best economic solution would be where the polluter has to pay the cost of clean up as well.Thermal power plants (TPP) account for a large proportion of CO2 pollution as they burn large amount of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) is a process consisting of the separation of CO2 from industrial and energy-related sources, transport to a storage location and long-term isolation from the atmosphere. CCS is a neat idea which can reduce fossil fuel emission from thermal power plants by over 90% [3]. It also internalizes the cost of clean up into cost of power production using TPPs. Whatever is the cost of power production today, it does not include the cost of cleaning up the atmosphere later on. If that cost is also considered as part of production of power, CCS will definitely turn out to much cheaper.The status of CCS was raised dramatically in 2005, when IPCC found CCS to be fundamentally feasible scheme and argued for research to fill in the gaps in the knowledge [4]. Since then lots of progress has taken place in this field making it one of the foremost tools to tackle global warming. International Energy Agency (IEA) prepared a target of converting 30% of power using fossil fuel to CCS by 2040 [5]. In December 2011, 7th session of Kyoto Protocol accepted CCS as the major mechanism for reducing global emission and worked on its modalities [6]. Coal Utilization Research Council expects that CCS technology will cost less than conventional method by 2025[7]. In its roadmap CURC lists at least 12 CCS projects which are under development in United States alone [8].== Rebuttals ==Roy relies on some rough back of the envelope calculation to argue against CCS. The calculations actually bolster my case, once some questionable assumptions are addressed.Negligible reduction in global warming: Effects of global warming will be felt across the globe. The whole world will have to naturally work together in mitigation effort. Roy assumes that this is a United States policy debate and tries to prove implementation of CCS in United States will have negligible effect on global warming. He succeeds in doing the opposite.As per his calculations, United States can achieve (1317/5424)*100 ~= 24% reduction in emissions by using CCS alone. This is no mean achievement.24% reduction in emission by US amounts to (1317/30398)*100 ~ 4.5% reduction in global emission. This is also a large amount once it is considered that this reduction would be the contribution of United States alone, by only working with thermal power plants.Pro correctly points out the effect of CO2 increase on global temperature may not be linear. Some extremely approximate calculations are used to argue that by the time global temperature rise by 3.0 degrees Celsius, CCS would have reduced it by 0.1 degree Celsius. Pro ignores the fact that effect of temperature rise on our planet may be exponential. However we will ignore that for the moment.However even this is significant once we consider that this is the contribution of United States alone. Let us extend this calculation to rest of world.Globally, power generation accounts for 10 billion tonnes of carbon emission [9]. If we can save half of this through CCS, the savings will be of 5 billion tonnes. Adapting my opponent’s calculations:Percentage saving in emission = (5 / 30)*100 ~ 16.7%Over an unspecified period, instead of doubling carbon rises by 1.83Increase in temperature ~ 3*log(1.83)/log(2) ~ 2.6 degree celcius.The savings are indeed significant.Cost makes CCS impractical: As per study presented by my opponent:...carbon dioxide capture increases the busbar electricity cost (COE) from 5.0 to 6.7 ¢/kWh at IGCC plants, from 4.4 to 7.7 ¢/kWh at PC plants, and, finally, from 3.3 to 4.9 ¢/kWh at NGCC plants.There are two factors to be considered. This is the extra cost based on current technology. A major factor which is contributing to cost is that this technology is relatively new. As per CURC the cost of energy production using CCS is likely to level off with conventional production by 2025. The cost of. CCS internalizes the cost of pollution. If the cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere is factored into cost of conventional production, CCS will turn out to extremely inexpensive. CCS does not come free. However considering the benefits offered by this technology, CCS offers value for money.Pro uses weird and old argument that 'China' would never do it. Let us get thing straight. We are talking about global warming. Major global players will have to work together on this issue. If United States and China, both use 'they won’t do it' excuse to wriggle out of any action, no efforts to mitigate effect of global warming are going to succeed. Pro should not be allowed to use such arguments in this debate.3. Nuclear, Adaptation, and Climate Engineering are Better Alternatives: Pro throws in major red herrings into the debate.There is no doubt that nuclear power is a good option. However there are some major problems with using nuclear power to replace fossil fuels.I accept that nuclear power poses very little risk if proper safety precautions are taken from design stage itself. However the human and economic cost of accidents is disproportionately high. If the cost of accident relief is internalized into production cost, nuclear may not remain a very feasible option. If Pro is urging for world-wide adoption of nuclear power, nuclear technology will have to be given to large number of countries. This could be problematic. In case of world-wide adoption it is possible that the safety standards will go down, increasing the risk of accident. After the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, there has been huge political opposition to nuclear power. This makes widespread adoption unfeasible. If Pro is arguing for adoption of nuclear power by United States only, his own calculations can be used to show that the impact on global scale would be negligible. Pro mentions adaptation, however he fails to explain what he means by it. He mentions research into climate engineering. While I do support further research; as an old parable goes, 'a bird in hand, is worth two in bush'. Pro offers no evidence that any solution which may be offered by climate engineering is likely to be less expensive.If the only alternative which Pro can offer is nuclear, that makes my case for world-wide adoption of CCS stronger. We can always adopt both nuclear and CCS options to reduce emissions.== References ==[1] http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://sequestration.mit.edu...[4] http://www.ipcc.ch...[5] http://www.iea.org...[6] http://unfccc.int...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.coal.org...[9] http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Okay. Several things wrong with Pro's argument. Rebuttal: "In order to save our environment and feed a growing population we need to switch our diets to become vegetarian." In what way is the environment dying off? I know that meat comes from cows, chickens, and pigs, but it's not a non-renewable resource. Just get it from farms, which let the animals breed. Also, it's not like there's only 3 farms inn a state holding only 4 adult pigs at a time. As for the vegetarian part, we eat meat because it has protein. Fruits and vegetables don't contain protein. "We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop." This statement needs to be backed up. Also, are you referring to all of Earth's population eating twice the meat as from 30 years? Because population DOES grow, and that would make sense. If you're referring to a single person eating meat, give proof of this. "Nearly 30% of ice-free available land is taken up by livestock." livestock is animals on a farm. Thank you for showing that we have a sufficient amount of livestock to feed us humans. The next part makes no sense. "One billion people go hungry every day but most of our crops are consumed by livestock." My opponent's saying to stop eating the livestock, and eat the crops, but the crops get eaten by livestock. Therefore, we eat the crops. What does that do for Pro's case? And, again, it doesn't make much sense. Now for my argument. (Yeah, I often get into these debates and argue with new people, but take it easy.) I'll bring up the food chain as my argument: Corn -> Pig -> Human The pig eats the corn, and we eat the pig. But, we also eat corn. It's not like we're carnivores. We're omnivores; we eat both plants and animals! (and candy) Here's a food web (multiple food chains): Human ^ ^ / Corn -> Pig l l V l Chicken l l V V Cow -> Human This is a food web of cows, chickens, pigs, corn, and humans. The energy from the various locations are distributed nicely, I'd say. A tip to Pro: Do not forfeit Round 2. There's a glitch running around this site. If you forfeit a round, the entire debate is on hold until the glitch is fixed.

My apologies for my non participation in the previous round. Although I do not wish to make excuses, this was due to some work issues. I will try my best to make up for it in this last round though. Electric cars vs Gas cars. A hot debate topic thrown around for a long time now, but has anyone come to any real conclusions to state that electric cars are our future? Here you go. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I rest my case.

I am a great advocate of green energy and of alternative fuels and believe that more research should be done into the field of electric. However, I took your debate as your first statement gave the impression that electric cars are better than petrol or gas based cars now, without speculation over future advancements, which I think is not the case. Before I move on to the body of my argument against the motion in latter rounds, I would first like to response to the statements of s14tharsh in his opening. - 'Cheaper per mile fuel and maintenance wise' While electric cars are cheaper per mile for fuel, overall electric cars are still more expensive to run than their conventional counterparts, in fact the total 'cost of ownership, which includes the upfront price and running coasts such as fuel and insurance – of electric vehicles is currently around £5000 more than petrol and diesel cars' [1]. Not only is an electric car more expensive to run, but the depreciation of its value is also far greater than it's alternatives: Depreciation by fuel type [2] Fuel type/average retained value after three years: Petrol/electric hybrid 45.3% Diesel 44.7% Petrol 43.6% Electric 20.2% - 'Electricity is a renewable resource and doesn't cost much to use' I think I addressed the cost of electric cars in the previous paragraph so I won't go over that again, however the statement that Electricity is a renewable resource I find quite naïve. - http://www.eia.gov... In fact the percentage of energy for US consumption, rather than generation, that comes from renewable sources reaches only 10% [3] - 'Electric cars now have the ability to get decent range miles and match cars per fill up.' Electric cars are gradually gaining quicker charge times and longer range miles – but currently, they still don't compare. 'Most electric vehicles can only go about 100–200 miles before recharging gasoline vehicles can go over 300 miles before refuelling. Fully recharging the battery pack can take 4 to 8 hours. Even a "quick charge" to 80% capacity can take 30 min.' [4] I think you'll agree that this is not really a 'match'. Sources [1] Influences on the Low Carbon Car Market 2020–2030 - http://www.lowcvp.org.uk... on the Low Carbon Car Market from 2020-2030 - Final Report 010811_pdf.pdf [2] research from car pricing expert CAP Automotive - http://www.cap.co.uk...[3] http://www.eia.gov... [4] United states environmental protection agency - http://www.epa.gov...

extend arguments. ~rebuttals~~Chernobyl~Actually, this is not a good argument. The reactor was old, and the goverment put in place inadequate workers. [1, 2] The reasons it failed:1. A poor soviet design2. age3. poor trained workers. [1]In today's nuclear world, all of the workers in these plants are highly knowledgeable people and get training, and also better designs has prevented these accidents. No accident like Chernobyl has happened since better designs and better workers came to be, hence all newer plants have very little chance of this accident. [1] All personnel of a nuclear power plant in the US know what to do in these situations. [3]~Terrorism and bombs~My opponent claims that if we use nuclear power terrorists will become workers and obtain this weaponry. This would be hard to do. All personnel in these facilities must get federal licenses to work in these plants. [4] All employes also must get rigorous background checks and other history before they can obtain access to the plant. [4] Almost everyone who does through the plant is escorted, and only a select few get the privilege, of being alone [4] Also the plant has many guards and other security measures preventing people from breaking in. [5] The NRC has very high standards in security to prevent terrorist attacks. [5] It is very hard to break into a plant, without being shot or stopped. [5]Now, so make a nuclear weapon you need enriched uranium. As I stated last round, the uranium in these plants is only enriched by 5%. The uranium in these nuclear lants can only make controlled reactions. [6] In some cases it is only enriched 0.7%. [6]The point about a terrorist problem is essentially false. ~Government sponsorship~Um, goverment sponsorship does not make it illogical. Solar, wind, and oil all get goverment money here and there, yet are still widely used. I do not see how the government sponsoring them is bad, it is actually good. This means our goverment thinks this technology is safe, and has benefits. So if anything the sponsorship is good. Also in all reality, fossil fuels get more money then green energies like nuclear plants. [7] The goverment actually cleans up spills from gas plants. [8] The NRC does inspect the plants, and will fix the parts, but the nuclear industry itself would have to pay if there was a spill. [9, 10]----> Conclusion <----I have disproved my opponents arguments and proven his arguments false. His case revolved around the assumption that nuclear power is unsafe, this is a myth and I have proven it. He has not even tried to refute my case, and I have proven for a FACT, not an assumption that natural gas causes cancer through pollutants and the fracking causes water pollution. I also proved per kilowatt hour nuclear is cheaper and pollutes less grams of CO2 and other gases, unlike natural gas. Nuclear is ALL fields is superior to natural gas. I urge a PRO vote.Sources:http://www.world-nuclear.org... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.nei.org... [3]http://www.nei.org... [4]http://www.nei.org... [5]http://www.nrc.gov... [6]http://www.time.com... [7]http://www.dec.ny.gov... [8]http://www.nrc.gov... [9]http://www.world-nuclear.org... [10]


Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Contrary to my opponent's stance, there are numerous viable alternatives to fossil fuels that can serve as effective energy sources. Fossil fuels are merely one method of harnessing the Earth's energy. Some of these alternatives include nuclear fusion, geothermal energy, wind, and solar power. Let's delve into nuclear fusion, a particularly potent means of generating substantial amounts of energy. Given the complexity of the United States, it is imperative to explore new and superior energy alternatives. Nuclear fusion, for instance, is produced through a nuclear reactor that does not contribute to environmental issues such as global warming, acid rain, or air pollution. With our understanding of atomic structures, it would take less than five years to develop a nuclear fusion reactor. The creation of nuclear fusion would help mitigate the depletion of the ozone layer, a problem exacerbated by fossil fuels. If we continue our heavy reliance on fossil fuels, we could face similar challenges to those experienced by Australian citizens, who must wear protective clothing and face masks to shield themselves from increased UV radiation, which raises the risk of skin cancer. A single nuclear reactor could power half of the United States, meaning we would only need to construct two or three. Geothermal energy, another alternative, involves harnessing energy from the Earth's core. Homeowners who use geothermal heat pumps rate them highly compared to conventional systems, with over 95% recommending them to friends and family. Since no fuel is required to generate power, the operational costs for geothermal plants are minimal. Lastly, solar and wind power are also viable alternatives. While many fossil and renewable energy sources ultimately derive from solar energy, this article focuses on energy directly collected from the sun. Solar power offers several advantages, including zero emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, ease of installation, virtually no energy costs once installed, constant technological improvements, and widespread availability of sunlight. Wind power utilizes wind turbines to convert wind energy into electricity, with benefits such as zero emissions, minimal land use, low cost per watt, and economic benefits to rural areas. These alternatives not only address environmental concerns but also prove to be efficient and cost-effective.

Alright my opponent begins his final round by telling me that I am abusive. He does this by quoting me when I defined biopower. I would agree that this would be very abusive of me if it wasn't for my solvency specifically stating in round 1, in the last paragraph: "This plan takes away all of the political energy known as biopower and replaces it instead with the energy of the single individual and the energy of the whole." My plan throughout this entire debate has been to decrease biopower, I openly stated such. It is not my fault in any way that my opponent did not understand this. TOPICALITIES: My opponent puts no standards for voter on any of his topicalities. Thus if you as a judge agree that my opponent has won on any of the topicalities then you do nothing. However if you feel my opponent has lost any of the topicalities then the result is a pre-fiat vote in my favor. Thus the only way that anything else said in this round is important is if my opponent wins all three topicalities, otherwise I win this debate by default. Significant/Substantial: My opponent doesn't bother arguing this standard in his final round. Instead he argues that there will not be an increase in energy. Whether there is an increase in energy or not whatever happens is going to be substantial as this class will be offered nationwide. Nationwide = substantial. My opponent once again agrees that this is a reverse voting issue, and agrees with all of my standards by dropping them. Thus this issue flows to my side and results in an automatic vote for Pro. Substantial increase: See above. This class will decrease biopower whilst increasing individual power. These two being opposite ends of the spectrum. My opponent has shown no evidence on the contrary, and once again drops all standards thus agreeing that my interpretation is the most fair. Energy: My opponent once again pushes his definition which contains 3 examples. I will once again therefor remind the voters that energy, while including those examples, is not limited to them. Humans are an energy source in themselves, they can work, and they can attain an output. Without humans being used as energy society as we know it could not exist. My opponent drops my standards thus my opponent agrees: 1. Humans as energy increases the education in todays round. 2. Humans as energy makes this round fair. 3. Humans as energy gives us each equal ground to debate on. Furthermore my opponent drops my r.v.i thus he once again concedes that he should be voted against. II/III DISAD: My opponent completely drops each point I brought up in my last speech. I would ask that all of those are extended into this round as they all still hold just as much weight as they did then. He then goes on to state that I can not possibly solve for murders. Thats great, I never claimed to, I am solving for Genocide and War. As my opponent has dropped both of these points they flow to my side. IV Counter plan: My opponent drops my 4 points and 3 subpoints. Instead he simply states that his plan would cost less money, apparently he missed point D from my last round, "having an election for everything would cost mass amounts of money." Thus his counterplan would actually not save money. Once again my opponent concedes to my plan solving for genocide and wars. Therefor at the end of this round even if you agree with everything my opponent says its saving money vs stopping genocide and war. Once again I must restate that his counterplan is not mutually exclusive therefor it can and will happen at the same time as my plan. Vote Pro, my plan prevents wars and genocide. My opponents case can claim no such benefit.

First if all I'd like to appologise for getting the definition of sweaters wrong. I thought sweaters were exclusively those ugly loosely-knitted jumpers people give to each other for Christmas as jokes. I withdraw the argument about sweaters being obsolete. This debate is getting a bit petty so hopefully we can get some facts straight in this round. My oponent seems to have brought up very interesting assertions from goodness knows where and again, completely failied to comprehend my perspective. "They gave their ski coat being warmer than a sweater as an example. Once again, this debate is about SWEATERS, not coats." Since I don't really wear any sweaters (unless a hoodie is a sweater, idk) I gave one example of polyester being warmer than wool. Perhaps pro doesn't understand what an example is, but I was trying to prove a concept. The fact is, my point on warmth being a product of design, intention and manufacture still stands, and whether that is true or not Pro has failed to rebut it. "They also said I accused them of lying about what their ski jacket was made out of, I did not intend to say that they were lying, I intended to suggest that there were probably other materials used besides polyester in the jacket." Pro suggests I was wrong but hasn't asked for any proof (which I was happy to provide). The label says 100% polyester, and labels don't lie."They also said that clothes were not always made to be warm, however, the Sweater was a garment that was originally designed for warmth. I have no idea where my opponent comes from but, while there are sweaters which are designed to be rather light, most sweaters are designed to be warm." What I was trying to articulate was a sweater won't be designed to be the warmest sweater in the world, so it's irrational to say a polyester sweater isn't capable of keeping people warm enough to go without heating is unreasonable."My opponent stated that wool production is more resource intensive..." up until "...There are places where sheep cannot live, but in many of them there are other animals which can, for example, yaks and goats." Proof Pro hasn't read my argument, the sources I cited measured the carbon footprint of oil and wool, and wool produced more CO2 emissions. Carbon footprint is the measure the emissions of all resources and factors in producing a product (yes, that includes transport). This means wool definitively puts more CO2 in the atmosphere, full stop. I'm not saying making polyester is less resource intensive, but the resources used to make polyester emit less CO2. Also, in our capitalist society if using more resources doesnt come at an environmental cost, the only consequence is more jobs, growth and a better economy for everyone. "My opponent said that selling "alpaca mohair mountain goat Icelandic wool sweaters" will not succeed. I have no idea where they got that fiber from. Some of those exist as separate fibers and are sometimes blended together but they do not exist as a fiber." I meant this as joke, to highlight how ludicrous using such exotic materials to affordable clothe the masses. All of those materials are too expensive to make affordable clothes out of, otherwise department stores would be full of the stuff. And re: the durability point, Pro has not provided a single source citing this (or any) argument, and to a reasonable person the suggestion is clearly meritless. Plastic is durable. Everyone knows that. And synthetics have been purposely designed by man to be durable and suitable for clothing. "My opponent said that as usual I cited two completely irrelevant sources. First of all, they have only known me from the first round, so I do not know where they got what is usual from. Second of all, I will refrain from putting in links to some of my sources, and my opponent may not ask where I got the information from or state that I did not provide sources for the evidence from my claims." I got the usual from seeing over two rounds not a single source that actually supports any assertions. And why on earth are they withholding sources and not letting me question their ridiculous claims? Perhaps Pro is new to debating, but debating is meant to see who's facts stand up against who's. Providing links to reputable information makes a case much more believable. I regret this debate has become a bit of a factless shouting match, which is a shame. Also it's been interesting to see the phrase 'my opponent' used 42 times between us, which might be a DDO record. I hope it has been a learning experience for my opponent because it certainly has been for me (mainly that I'm not as good as I thought I was). Hopefully this debate gets some votes and we can see who's arguments people believe.

C1) Global warming is real and is a threat To deny global warming is real and is a threat is akin to denying evolution, germ theory, and gravity. Of all the articles published between 1991 and 2012, a survey of the literature looked for explicit rejections of anthropogenic global warming theory. Of the 13,950 papers, only 24 rejected AGW theory [1. . http://www.desmogblog.com...]. A second survey of the literature found 4,000 papers which held a position on climate change. Of those, 97% endorsed that climate change was real and that humans are the main cause of global warming. The study also found—as it tracks the consensus/minority opinion by year—that “the consensus has grown to about 98% as of 2011. ” [2. . http://skepticalscience.com...]. I will leave the evidence at this. Unless my opponent opposes climate change, I will expand upon this contention. But due to the fact academics pretty much agree on the issue, I will assume my opponent will concede/agree with this point. C2) Nuclear power reduces carbon emissions Climate change is predominantly man-made due to the fact humanity is emitting CO2 emissions. The way to prevent warming is to find an energy source which emits the least amount of CO2 possible. A review of the research suggests nuclear power is the *best* energy source if we are to pursue an end to carbon emissions. A review of 21 studies has analyzed the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of different energy sources. This is measured via CO2 emitted per megawatt hour. The least clean energy sources were coal, oil, and natural gas—with natural gas being the cleanest of the fossil fuels. The three energy sources which emitted the least was nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and wind. Solar power actually emits a surprisingly high amount of CO2 at 85 tones per megawatt hour (compared to nuclear which comes in at 28). Hydroelectric and wind power emit 26 tones per megawatt hour. It must be noted, however, that the error bars for both wind and hydro are much larger than for nuclear. This means the two are about even. The maximum estimate for nuclear is 130 tones per megawatt hour, whereas wind’s max is 124 and hydroelectric at 237. The minimum estimate puts nuclear at 2 tones per megawatt hour and wind at 6. The differences between the two are so minor that the study authors concluded “Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power plants are among the lowest of any electricity generation method and on a lifecycle basis are comparable to wind, hydro-electricity and biomass. ” [3. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...]. The obvious objection is wind and hydroelectric, if they are comparable from a greenhouse gas emission perspective, is why not prefer them over nuclear power. The answer is efficiency. Wind is an intermittent power source. It only produces power when the wind is blowing. This means when the wind is not blowing, no energy is being created. Another power source would be needed in order to fill in the gaps. Nuclear power, as a clean source of energy, would be the obvious choice. So even assuming we put wind power everywhere, we would need nuclear power in order to keep a constant level of electricity running through the grid to meet peak demand. Hydroelectric, although a good power source, is already maxed out. Hydroelectric, although the “best-established means of electricity generation from renewable sources”, has many issues for *future* energy production. The World Nuclear association argues, “Hydropower using large storage reservoirs is not a major option for the future in the developed countries because most major sites in these countries having potential for harnessing gravity in this way are either being exploited already or are unavailable for other reasons such as environmental considerations. ” [4. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...]. It should be noted nuclear power has actually been shown to already save lives due to the fact it emits close to zero greenhouse gas emissions. Assuming nuclear power becomes the *sole* energy source (and depending on which energy source it replaces), research has found that “nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000–7.04 million deaths and 80–240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces” [5. . http://pubs.acs.org...]. The three energy sources needed to stop global warming—nuclear power, wind power, and hydroelectric power—require nuclear power in order to prevent environmental catastrophe. Wind power alone cannot reduce emissions as it is intermittent, and either fossil fuels or nuclear power is required to fill in the gaps, and hydroelectric power will likely not be able to create more energy than it already is today. So, no matter the angle you look at this issue, nuclear power is required to prevent catastrophe. C3) Nuclear power provides cheap energy and is economically efficient Not only does it provide cheap energy, but it provides jobs. One nuclear power plant generates $450 million each year of economic output, which has translated into $40 million dollars per year income for workers. Each nuclear power plant provides 400 – 700 permanent jobs which pay, on average, 36% more than other jobs in the area. Construction of a nuclear power plant provides in excess of 3,000 temporary jobs. “Analysis shows that every dollar spent by the average nuclear plant results in the creation of $1.04 in the local community, $1.18 in the state economy and $1.87 in the U. S. economy. ” [6. . http://www.nei.org...]. In fact, other than solar power, nuclear power provides the most jobs per megawatt hour. But nuclear power plants provide the highest paying jobs and the most jobs provided in the local area—solar power makes a lot of jobs outside of the country. Nuclear power then creates the largest workforce of all of the energy sources as well as the highest paying jobs [7. . http://www.nei.org...]. Nuclear power is one of the cheapest forms of energy. Coal is generally regarded as the cheapest form of energy, but nuclear power actually is cheaper. “[N]uclear generat[es] power at 2.40 c/kWh, compared with coal at 3.27 cents and gas at 3.40 cents. ” [8. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...]. A peer-reviewed study done in Finland comes to a similar conclusion. Energy prices have been increasing all over Europe, the study argued. But nuclear power’s cost only increases 9%, whereas coal got 31% more expensive and gas became 66% more expensive. Further, newer nuclear power plants are significantly reducing uranium fuel costs in order to make nuclear power even cheaper [8]. The biggest argument against nuclear power in this area is the fact nuclear power has large up-front costs. It is well known that creating a nuclear power plant can cost about 8 billion dollars. So using a lower number of 430 million, over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant (30-40 years) a nuclear power plant can create up to 13 – 17 billion dollars over its lifetime—a 5 through 9 billion dollar return. Using the higher number of 450, we get 13.5 billion through 18 billion. Using the highest estimate of 470 million per year, 14.1 billion to 18.8 billion. No matter which estimate you use, the economic profit of a nuclear power plant significantly outweighs the startup costs. In 17 years, the original construction cost is accounted for with a 460 million dollar return. Thus, nuclear power is actually a good investment. It should be noted that the benefits of nuclear power could easily explode if government interference was reduced. The current regulatory structure “operates under an outdated regulatory system that has yet to adapt to new technology and designs, and it overregulates existing nuclear plants and technologies. … The commercial nuclear industry has a lot to offer American customers in the way of safe, efficient, abundant, and inexpensive energy, but that will require removing politics and burdensome government policies from the picture and replacing them with free-market policies to unlock nuclear energy’s potential. ” [9. . http://www.heritage.org...]. A similar conclusion was reached in a peer reviewed paper—not just by conservative extremists like me—in 2006. The paper was published in the Journal of Business Ethics. The government has significantly increased the costs while reducing the benefits of nuclear power with extensive regulation, which “has reduced the ability of entrepreneurs to develop and provide new means for the generation of energy using nuclear fuel. ” [10. . http://www.jstor.org...]. So, if government interference is reduced (or reformed), the economics of nuclear power actually becomes even better than it already is. Newer reactors are much more efficient and would make the returns much larger and make the returns come much sooner! Nuclear power = the best power

0. Use Stuxnet to control all wireless technology. Use EMP's for tech that cannot be reached VIA stuxnet. 1. Automate every mine on Earth. 2. Build high-capacity mag-lev trains to transport resources anywhere on Earth. 3. Build geo-thermal plants on volcanoes. Use artificial dams. Use dome-shape designed solar cells on kite's in orbit. Harness wave and tidal power by targeting hurricanes, tsunamis, and typhoons. 4. Store the energy from these farms. Acquire 100,000 years of clean energy. 5. Use the graphene to de-salinize sea-water on every continent. 6. Pasturize animals to desertify every desert on Earth. 7. Use .5% of the world's surface area for vertical hydroponic and nutriculture farms. 8. Mass produce Soylent. 9. Print out 5 billion homes and 3 billion community buildings using memory concrete and memory metal. 10. Place every re-infoced building on shock panels, making them earthquake-proof (in addition to being indestructable by fire, hurricane, tornado, tsunami, flood, infestation, structural eroding) 11. Place sensors in every transport vehicle to be autonomous. 12. Connect every electronic device to wifi. Within 1 year, my 12 step program will spare the world from global warming, deforestation, unemployment, starvation, homelessness, dehydration, abortion, political war, financial war, religious war, disease, malnutrition, censorship, environmental destruction, illiteracy, peak oil, and crime. My program costs no money or manual labor and overlooks no major issue plaguing humanity.

I will tackle each of your steps in what seems an obvious troll debate, simply because it'll be fun. 0; After the NSA leak, you think anyone will let you use a virus to control their device separately? Why would anyone agree to such a notion? How can you control the accuracy of an EMP? If you think that a town has hidden technology, you can't filter out your own. You'll cost those towns hundreds if not thousands of euros of damage from the destroyed computers, phones, and electrical systems. 1; Control every mine on earth? There aren't many mines left, except in minefields. This won't do Jack Schitt unless you intentionally plant mines everywhere on Earth, which violates several laws, and threatening to blow everyone who opposes you up at the flick of a switch doesn't make them feel safe. 2; Mag-lev trains are expensive to build, and in hilly areas or near islands, they'll be downright impossible to maintain. 3; Where is the money for this coming from? Geo thermal plants are very hard to build already because of distance from the core, but building on a volcano will violate several safety regulations and no one will volunteer to work there. All of this renewable tech will be impossible to build in one year, and will bankrupt the country that tries. 4; See point 3. And how do you plan to measure 100,000 years in energy consumption without establishing a single state Earth, which will also be impossible. 5; De-salinizing sea water, for the whole sea as you described, will wipe out sea life that cannot live in fresh water. 6; I assume you mean de-desertify the deserts, they're already desertified. You'll have to solve the locals from cutting down trees as well, which once again will require a single state Earth. 7; You will leave thousands if not millions of farmers out of a job with that system unless you plane to ship every farmer to the specific farm. 8; SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!! 9; Is memory concrete even real? Keep in mind that you have EMP'd the houses, so they don't have power. 10; Costs again. The problem of where will the money and labor come from. 11; What about already present vehicles? 12; No one will agree to that. We've already had problems with Microsoft for always online regulations. You had thirteen points, but I'll assume you're a troll debater. I did this for a laugh. Bye!

Firstly a thank you for the font size reduction.It's clear you expect me to provide my own solution, which I'll gladly supply now. You see, your problem involves a lot of control and surveillance, which anyone with some healthy paranoia will see as a threat. Sensors, stuxnet viruses and automation can be seen as government control. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Caesar once said "let me have men about me that are fat", and he meant that people who are content will not be bothered to threaten a leader. Your plan may satisfy people, but it still establishes totalitarian control, which will lead to freedom based opposition, who don't want to survive, they want to live. I know I use many film references here, but you will create the Wall-E humans with your plan, lazy and overweight, surviving but accomplishing nothing.But enough about that, it's time for my alternate plan.1; Poverty, is the first problem I would tackle. http://www.visionofearth.org...Now, it's fairly easy to spend that much, and I'll cut spending in other places to compensate for the cost.2; A full scale global education scheme. You see, when people have an education, they can get a better job, and earn more money. They can live in a better house, eat better food and educate their children as well. As education rises, corruption decreases with an increase in opposition to corrupt leaders, and as quality of life rises, the need to have more children as well as birth control standards reduces world population. This solves overpopulation and corruption, since the education scheme extends to first world counties and will contain dietary and health lessons.3; When the education scheme is complete, and I'll assume I'm heading America in this, since my podium in Ireland wouldn't accomplish much, I will begin a plan of social and political reform. Troops must be evacuated from occupied countries and talks to decrease tensions with the said countries will follow. I'll also close that damn Guantanamo while I'm at it. This cut in military spending will compensate for the previous spending, and for the next step as well.4; Research into clean energy. Now we begin the clean energy development. In fact, now that America has improved its standing with the rest of the world, which may increase support for this step. Of course, this isn't all entirely guaranteed, but most of it can be accomplished. Now we begin switching to safe clean energy.5; Improving effiency of farming. Education has already given a hand to farming effiency, but donations of machinery and education on its use will mean that farming will take less effort. The point is not to remove work entirely, but improve the effiency and minimise required effort.6; If the clean energy has built up enough, it can worked into the electrical grid and sold to homes nationwide at low costs, even internationally when the efficiency increases. Importance is on the cheap and affordable, but not free yet. We can then begin improving water quality, de-salinisation and even move to develop better scientific progress, a personal quest to make stem cell research cheap and eay so that my vegetarian friends can enjoy a steak that didn't require a cow's death.A Recap; Poverty ended Overpopulation ending Corruption declining International tensions decreasing Clean and cheap energy available Food available for all Satisfaction for vegetarians Now, in six points I have dealt with that much. My next part involves current political problems.North Korea; work with China to pressure Kim Jong Un to bring in social reform, education and healthcare. Eventually, this will lead to a flourish in democracy, and while it'll be a struggle, the Jong family will lose their clutches on the nation. North Korea may become a communist state, or even join up with the South, but the quality of life there will improve at least.Syria; A tricky one since Vladmir Putin is a tough nut to crack. Compensating Russia for the loss of their favorite arms customer with a cash alternative. Then do a Libya on it and help the rebels overthrow their oppressors, then staying around until the elections are done, providing education too, and then getting everyone out, stressing to them that we're leaving, keeping with our image of a reformed USA.Pakistan and Israel; Tough one. I guess keep with the education and try to encourage a tolerance between both sides. The religious leaders will have an educated population who aren't easily swayed anymore, and will lose power, bringing more moderates who want peace to the table.USA's debt; I suppose firstly we'd appeal to have the debt removed since we've been so nice lately, or at least to have the interest rates lowered or the total debt reduced. THen we could gradually ease our way out. Then I'll just help the other countries while I'm at it. Crime in general; Crime will always be an issue, no matter the society, but the cheaper cost of living and education improvements will lower that signifigantly. And with all the retired soldiers, we can go back to the old "cop on every corner" that remained a dream for amny a yeat in the past.In conclusion, my society is similar in structure, but the living standards are better and more affordable, and while an army may be required to stick around, and I can't get rid of WMDs in other countries, peace can be aquired and people will work, but require less effort. My system built on education will ensure a system that will not be violated as I can have accomplished succesors.But a final sad note of my plan; the time required. For A lot of it could be done in the space of a seven year term, I would require a second term to finish the job, and I would likely be attacked by the Republican party for pulling out the troops and reforming the American political systems. I would most likely not earn a second term, and my plan would end there. But there it is regardless. You may have your own suggestions, which you may message me about, or if you wish, rematch me or challenge to a new debate entirely, I don't mind at all. Until then, I'll be here, awaiting our next encouter with a renewed vigor,Duncan.

ok my rival i stated that i have no prove that it the seagen turbine doesn't help the enviorment but i have stated that yes it does the seagen turbine doesn't pollute and tis safe for thee sea life also you can't get your sources from wiki becuase the informatioin isn't right also The installation of SeaGen in Strangford Lough will be carried out by A2SEA A/S of Denmark, one of Europe's leading offshore installation contractors. The SeaGen 1.2MW commercial demonstrator has been developed on the basis of results obtained from SeaFlow, the world's first full-size tidal turbine installed by Marine Current Turbines off Lynmouth Devon in 2003. It has taken the subsequent four years for Marine Current Turbines to design and build SeaGen and secure the necessary environmental and planning consents. SeaGen is a commercial demonstration project with permission to operate in Strangford Lough for a period of up to 5 years. It is intended as the prototype for commercial applications of the technology that will follow. Martin Wright, Managing Director of Marine Current Turbines said: "SeaGen's installation is a very significant milestone for both Marine Current Turbines and the emerging marine energy sector. Following from our previous experience with SeaFlow, our 300kW experimental test system installed in 2003 off the north Devon coast we are confident that SeaGen will show that tidal energy can be truly competitive with other forms of power generation. Decentralized tidal current energy is fundamentally predictable and sustainable. It is also environmentally benign." Commenting on the future prospects for tidal current energy, Martin Wright added: "We will build on the success of SeaGen to develop a commercial tidal farm, of up to 10MW in UK waters, within the next three years. With the right funding and regulatory framework, we believe we can realistically achieve up to 500MW of tidal capacity by 2015 based on this new SeaGen technology." Recognizing the special marine environment of Strangford Lough, MCT has undertaken a comprehensive environmental monitoring programme. This program is already active and is managed by Royal Haskoning, a leading environmental consultancy, working in partnership with Queen's University Belfast and the St Andrews University Sea Mammals Research Unit. The program is overseen by an independent body, chaired by David Erwin, a former Chief Executive of the Ulster Wildlife Trust. The A2SEA jack-up barge, "JUMPING JACK", is planning to mobilize from Belfast's Harland & Wolf shipyard, where SeaGen is already complete and waiting, to Strangford Lough on August 20th. It is expected that the drilling of a single pile into the seabed and the installation of the twin-turbine device will take 14 days, with commissioning and power generation to the local grid shortly afterwards. Martin Huss, Sales & Marketing Director of A2SEA said: "We are delighted to be working with MCT on this important and challenging project and hope it is the start of a long and rewarding relationship as tidal technology enters the market place in the UK." The blades are designed for bi-directional flow, so that they turn regardless of which way the tide is rushing. They'll spin 10 to 20 times per minute. The company says this is slow enough to allow fish and other sea creatures to get out of the way if they're swimming on through. But it certainly doesn't sound like anything a diver would want to approach. This Seagen installation may be just the first step. As part of another project, the company is also hoping to install a farm of underwater turbines off Wales that would be capable of powering thousands of homes. my sorces are from popsci.com and also alternative-energy-news.com

okay fine all this is agree but lemme tell u this..... in 40 yrs v are running out of petrol! in 150 years 90% of all our resources will b depleted! industries are providing us with employment, shelter, food, etc however imagine the scenario in the future when all our resources are depleted. what will we do then! then we will be in dead lock! completely fixed! what will we do then fight among our selves!

On behalf of the members of this site, I should like to welcome my opponent to debate.org and thank him for addressing this important issue. Unfortunately, my opponent was not explicit as to the nature of his objections so I have, therefore, been obliged to conclude that he either believes that alternative fuels are not associated with glamorous, high-performance cars or, otherwise, that he is an oil tycoon and consequently has a vested interest in putting profits before pollution. Now, please don't be deceived into believing that that alternatively-powered cars have too be small, slow and as dull as ditchwater. Here's what's available on the market right now: The Tesla Roadster is powered by an electric motor: http://www.teslamotors.com... The Venturi Fetish is hybrid-powered http://www.hybridcars.com... All Saabs are available with biofuel engines http://www.topgear.com... The Honda FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen http://automobiles.honda.com... And here's what's coming soon: The Audi R8 V12 Le Mans is powered by a V12 diesel engine http://www.audi.co.uk... The Saab Aero X Concept is powered by a V6 biofuel engine http://www.saabbiopower.co.uk... The RUF Porsche 911 is powered by an electric motor http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de... Glamorous enough for you? And who knows what else will be available by 2040? If my opponent agrees that green cars can be desirable, and it is rather the case that he makes a living by prospecting and drilling for oil, and stands to lose out financially if alternative fuels are mandated by the United States Government, I have little sympathy for him - the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is an urgent one and just as steam replaced the horse, and gasoline replaced steam, the switch to alternative fuels is inevitable and I advise my opponent to adjust his investment plans accordingly. Thank you.

First of all, thank you AdCiv for bringing in this interesting topic. Arguments: I would like to state that I must agree with you. In an ideal world, with amount of manpower and resources that would be quite high, nowhere near what we can muster at the moment, this economical theory would be quite useful. However, we are not in an ideal world. I will state below why: "Quote" The apparent scarcity of water, oil, food etc. can easily be overcome by applying the know-how we have to increase production or decrease consumption. To take one example, the apparent 'water crisis' can be neutralized by desalinating seawater with nanofilters. Our planet's surface ifs 69% water, so as long as we apply our know-how in utilising that water, there is no way we can run out. Similar logic applies to all essential resources. There is no reason to ration our resources any more, because they are so abundant at everyone can take their fill and there'll be plenty for everyone. "End of quote" First of all, the apparent scarcity of oil is not "apparent". Oil is used is many energy producing factories in nowadays technologies, and the direct impact is the loss of the said oil. In short term, we will come to lack oil as other energy resources are either high priced and therefore unavailable to most of in-development countries. The same problem applies to water. Even tough 69% of our planet is water, only 2 percents are drinkable. And only 0,65% are in surface and easy of access. For your alternative, we might be able to treat it so it can be non-saline and therefore potable, but it considers considerable amounts of energy, time, and money. Aspects that most in-development countries lacks. As for the food resource, I will come back on this point later on. Also, the said theory lack two major points: Long term effects and Investments. As you already probably noticed, the changes proposed by the theory requires large amounts of investments and a change of economic process, therefore cutting off the country from import/export. Also, this will require everyone to be specialist in every single matter. As for an example, you cannot treat someone that suffered an injury or serious disease "on the spot" with Internet-related knowledge only. And you can't have a medicine unit ready to treat someone in time, unless your industry is instantaneous. Which is obviously not the case. Another fact with your theory that does not compute well and work out is the raw materials management. We do indeed have large amounts of those, scattered around the globe. The main problem with it is that it's either untreated, such as iron coped with minerals, or too far buried to be of any use. The unsolved problem with the use of automatism to treat and extract those is that they will eventually need repairs and continuously use amounts of energy. For the first case, we do not yet possess the required technology for the self repairs capabilities, and even with it there would be need of a maintenance crew in case this precise piece breaks down. My last point will point out the long term effects. Even with the management you proposed, there will be a lack in resources some day, due to the simple overpopulation that will occur. With idea resources management you can indeed treat a vast numbers of human beings-- Up to 12-13 billions. But the fact is, that even with that management, we will outer pass this number some day, and it will lead to the precise situation you tried to avoid with the theory: It will lead to a "you or me" situation with people taking advantage of the situations to the detriments of others. I'm eager to wait for your answer.