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

The government's role in the transition to alternative fuels should be reconsidered. My opponent's argument is based on the following premises: 1. We require 'green' energy, 2. Governments can lead us to a greener path more quickly, and 3. Therefore, government intervention is necessary for green energy to prevail. However, these premises are fundamentally flawed.

1. We need 'green' energy: This is the cornerstone of my opponent's argument, which assumes that conventional energy sources (fossil fuels, nuclear) are 'dirty', while alternative sources (solar, wind, hydro) are efficient. Moreover, the argument assumes that pollutants will significantly harm the environment. Let's examine conventional energy sources:

- Natural Gas: This is the second cleanest conventional energy source (after Nuclear). It emits 117,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per btu of energy, compared to oil (164,000) and coal (208,000). Additionally, natural gas is more efficient than coal, with 90% of the produced energy used by the public, compared to about 30% for other conventional sources. The market is currently shifting towards natural gas, which would result in a significant reduction in pollution.

- Coal: Although coal is the dirtiest common energy source, it actually saves lives on a large scale. Energy is essential for human survival, providing warmth, cold, electricity, and other necessities. Cheaper energy leads to increased access for poor people, resulting in longer lives. The question is whether coal's pollution outweighs the health benefits. Studies have shown that eliminating coal from the energy equation would result in 150,000 deaths. Restricting coal and promoting expensive alternatives would lead to fatalities.

- Nuclear: This is the cleanest and one of the cheapest energy sources. In the United States, nuclear power was cheaper than all other common energy types, including coal. If the government should intervene in any sector, it should be nuclear. Nuclear power is always operational as long as it is run properly and could easily provide for all our energy needs.

- Solar: Solar energy is intermittent and cannot sustain us alone. When the sun isn't shining, the carbon savings will be canceled out by the emissions from backup power plants, likely natural gas or coal.

- Wind: There is no scientific proof that wind reduces CO2 emissions. CO2 savings from wind power will be minimal compared to nuclear power.

- Hydro: Hydroelectric

This is going to be a simple Pro Nuclear Energy vs Con Nuclear Energy. No specific resolution, just the broad subject of using nuclear energy. Burden of Proof - The BoP falls equally on both debaters to support and defend their arguments while refuting their opponent's. For example, Con can focus on negative effects to the environment, safety issues, or better alternatives rendering Nuclear obsolete, but Con cannot just disagree with everything Pro puts up (and vise versa). I will go ahead and present some definitions. Unless Con finds these definitions to be abusive, they are to be accepted. If Con finds them abusive, Con is free to present alternative definitions, but then it will be up to the voters to agree if my definitions are abusive or not. Nuclear energy (as it pertains to this debate) - The gathering of energy from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion to use in commercial purposes (such as electricity). Nuclear fission - A nuclear reaction in which a heavy nucleus splits spontaneously or on impact with another particle, with the release of energy. [1] Nuclear fusion - A nuclear reaction in which atomic nuclei of low atomic number fuse to form a heavier nucleus with the release of energy. [2] Con may present any additional definitions that they choose and may start debating in their R1, however, they are also free to pass it back to me to start in my R2. Additional definitions may be added as needed throughout the entire debate. [1] http://www.google.com...= [2] http://www.google.com...=

The topic is going to be "usage of Oil and Coal" where as PRO (me) is going to support the continued usage of oil and coal at currenty or higher then current levels, while CON (my opponent) is going to support lowering the usage of oil and coal. As this is a five round debate, I will keep my arguments short in the first round. Reasons that we should continue using and even expand our mining and usage of coal and oil in the USA are actually pretty overwhelming. First thing first, we should expand our current drilling of oil here in the US, rather then import oil. This will have several major benefits. A) Drilling in the US will us American workers and so provide jobs. B) This will also help keep money in the US, since we import over 9 million barrells of crude oil a day [1], and with oil flucuating around $80 a barrell [2], that is $720 million a day leaving this country (over $260 billion a year). If we could keep some of that in the US, that money would continue to circulate and stimluate throughout the economy. C) This would increase the total amount of oil and so raise Supply without effecting Demand. That means that the cost of oil would go down, meaning the cost at the pump would go down, which would help everyone in the US, individuals and businesses (costs less to ship materials around, costs less to commute to and from work, and so on). [3] Second, we should continue and expand our mining and usage of coal. While I support using alternative energies, Coal currently powers 48% of this nation's electricity. And while the alternative energies may reduce our personal needs for coal, there is still a need throughout the world in developing nations that are too poor to be able to afford solar panels or wind turbines or nuclear power plants. Coal will greatly help those nations get out of the dark and to provide electricity for them. Once the nation is lit, that country can begin to go through the industrial revolution (which is extremely hard with no electricity) and make it more prosperous. Then, maybe once the nation is wealthier and its people have a level of living that they never dreamed possible, the country can move on to more advanced power sources. However, the move up from the dark will almost certainly be on the back of coal power. [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [2] http://www.bloomberg.com... [3] http://www.investopedia.com... [4] http://www.eia.doe.gov...

you need to address my cogent arguments here are my rebuttals to your areguments (1) Nuclear weapons one word : Iran (run by nutcake Islamic idiots) biggest current threat to the world (2) Biotoxic assault this is a non sequitur there is no evidence of any biological assault ever having any real consequence (3) AIDS this is another non sequitur and is generally only caused by IMMORAL BEHAVIOR, and MOSTLY affects the homosexual male community Once again, Islam is the main threat to the world references www.prophetofdoom.com www.jihadwatch.com

Before I start my argument, I want to say that I don't deny climate change, I just disagree with some points made by people like Deeznutsisreal. Some research shows (https://climate.nasa.gov...) that our greenhouse gas emissions could be exacerbated by solar irradiance. The earth also goes through natural warming phases (https://www.theccc.org.uk...) and that could make what we are producing worse. In Round 2, I hope to see Deeznutsisreal's sources and better grammar.

My thanks to Pro for his invitation to debate this topic. In keeping with the rules stipulated in round one, I will not be addressing any of my opponent's arguments in this round; instead I will focus on why nuclear energy is not beneficial to society. There are three major problems with the production of electricity in nuclear fission reactors: it is dirty, it is dangerous, and it is expensive. Dirty According to Physicians for Social Responsibility, in the US alone "Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process, including 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste". In addition, "More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no permanent repository." They go on to point out that "The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity."[1] In addition, the pit mines typical of uranium mining are massively intrusive, involving creating cuts in the earth's surface which can be miles long and up to a mile deep. These mines leave horrible scars on the landscape. They also leave waste in the form of tailings (crushed dust from the radioactive ore), which have a half life of about 80,000 years. What this means is that if we travel as far into the future as the total time humans have inhabited the earth, around half of the radioactivity which the wind has blown across the landscape and vegetation and into our waterways will still be there. As Gordon Edwards describes it: "as the tailings are sitting there on the surface, they are continually generating radon gas. Radon is about eight times heavier than air, so it stays close to the ground. It'll travel 1,000 miles in just a few days in a light breeze. And as it drifts along, it deposits on the vegetation below the radon daughters, which are the radioactive by products that I told you about, including polonium. So that you actually get radon daughters in animals, fish and plants thousands of miles away from where the uranium mining is done. It's a mechanism for pumping radioactivity into the environment for millennia to come". [2] Dangerous Mining the raw materials used to power nuclear reactors is dangerous in itself. Firstly, to the miners. "The most serious health hazard associated with uranium mining is lung cancer due to inhaling uranium decay products.....Many Native Americans have died of lung cancers linked to their work in uranium mines. Others continue to suffer the effects of land and water contamination due to seepage and spills from tailings piles." [3] Of course, lung cancer is not the only side effect of radiation produced during the mining process. Edwards also refers to "two categories of human illness that everyone agrees can be caused by exposure to atomic radiation even at very low levels. They are (1) cancers of all kinds, and also (2) genetic mutations -- which can be caused right down to the lowest levels of radiation exposure." Finally, he adds "It has now been confirmed by the scientific community -- only in recent years, by the way -- that mental retardation is caused by radiation exposure in the womb."[2] Besides the mine workers, these symptoms most commonly appear in indigenous populations worldwide, as a great many uranium mines are located in remote areas, on native lands. When most of us think of the dangers involved in nuclear power, we think of nuclear reactors. And when things go wrong with a nuclear reactor, the consequences can be mind boggling. Consider the "fallout" of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster: "An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the radioactive fallout from the accident made 4,440 square kilometers of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometers of forests in Belarus and Ukraine unusable. It is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the health effects from Chernobyl. Government agencies in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus estimate that about 25,000 of the 600,000 involved in fire-fighting and clean up operations have died so far because of radiation exposure from the accident.(4) According to an April 2006 report commissioned by the European Greens for the European Parliament, there will be an additional 30,000 to 60,000 fatal cancer deaths worldwide from the accident." [1] Furthermore, "To this day, the sheep in Wales are unsuitable for human consumption because of contamination by one particular by-product of the Chernobyl accident called cesium-137." [2] Nuclear reactor accidents are not as rare as some may believe. "Globally, there have been at least 99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear power plant accidents from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define nuclear energy accidents that must be reported), totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages." [4] The worst of these have been Chernobyl, Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, and Fukushima in Japan. I may elaborate with details of the latter two further on in the debate. Whilst not as catastrophic as Chernobyl, there have been serious consequences from both of these incidents. Finally, there is the issue of terrorism. The following report was filed only one week ago: "Hamas terrorists launched three powerful rockets at an Israeli nuclear power plant on Wednesday " a terrifying escalation of hostilities in the increasingly violent conflict...Extremists from Hamas" fanatical Qassam Brigades boasted that they had launched the long-range, M-75 rockets from the Gaza Strip to the Israeli city of Dimona hoping to damage or destroy the reactor, about 47 miles away." [5] Two of the rockets missed their target, another was shot down; but the consequences of a rocket destroying a nuclear reactor are almost unimaginable. Expensive It is a myth that nuclear power is cheap. For a start, there is the cost when something goes wrong. "As of October 2012, approximately "9.4bn (1,335 bn yen) had been paid out in compensation as a result of the Fukushima accident and this is expected to double in the next year. At this stage the final cost can only be roughly estimated, but the utility company, Tepco, has suggested that cost for compensation and decontamination maybe in the order of "70bn" [6] The costs of the Chernobyl nuclear accident can only be calculated with a high degree of estimation.... the magnitude of the impact is clear from a variety of government estimates from the 1990s, which put the cost of the accident, over two decades, at hundreds of billions of dollars.[7] But even ignoring the costs incurred by the failure of nuclear reactors, the cost of production is higher than would appear. In the UK "A pro-nuclear energy group is pressing the government to halt plans to order new atomic power plants because costs have been inflated leaving householders and businesses facing an enormous bill."[8] Whilst in the US, "The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history." The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit" [9]. Conclusion Throughout Europe, nuclear energy is being abandoned. "Sweden (1980) was the first country to begin a phase-out (influenced by the Three Mile Island accident), followed by Italy (1987), Belgium (1999), and Germany (2000). Austria and Spain have enacted laws to cease construction on new nuclear power stations. Several other European countries have debated phase-outs."[10] Nuclear energy is not safe, not renewable, not sustainable, and not affordable. Nuclear energy is not beneficial. References: [1] http://www.psr.org... [2] http://www.ccnr.org... [3] http://ieer.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://nypost.com... [6]http://www.theguardian.com... [7] http://www.greenfacts.org... [8] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [9] http://www.ucsusa.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org...

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS . I Chernobyl is a prime example of a nuclear accident that has ruined the land and it will stay dead for a very very long time. Natural Gas cannot do that to a place, it is much safer. . II Nuclear power is cleaner, but is somewhat easy to get and can be used for atomic weapons. Massive downside and having Nuclear power means more and more of the material for nuclear energy is on the market. Making it easier for terrorists to get their hands on it. . III Millions and millions of GOVERNMENT dollars, unlike natural gas which is mostly corporate. Meaning that nuclear power in a country with a free market is simply illogical. CONCLUSION I have shown that nuclear power has many downsides. Sources: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... . http://www.nci.org... . http://www.greenworldinvestor.com...

A quick scan over my opponent's arguments can show you the contradictions in it. I will start off the final round by defending my points and attacking my opponent's section labeled "key issues". My response will go without evidence, as I am just restating what I said earlier in a response-type format (which I did back up with evidence). Key Issues Response: 1. (a) My opponent mistakenly does not seem to get the point I am trying to get across; get America on renewables, and usher in the age of electric transportation. He focuses on things like nuclear fission, calling it detrimental, underlined and italized for unneeded emphasis, when in reality, the environmental danger is not there. Contrary to the popular movies in which the protagonists turn green and fish growing a third eye, which my opponent seems to picture when he talks of nuclear energy,, nuclear power plants are federally regulated to maintain a clean, environmentally safe ecosystem and workplace. (b) Although I did not provide a 'when' (which is implied in the title of the debate as now, despite my opponent taking it upon his own courtesy to warp the time frame), I did provide a 'where'. In round 3, I specifically stated: "I noticed that my opponent seem to point out the countries with the highest coal use in the world, ignoring a large majority of European and North American countries with much lower coal production, which really is where these electric cars will target." To provide a brief explanation, I stated that my plan targeted those living in North America and Europe initially. This halts my opponent's advances about high coal productions in India and China. 2. My opponent seemed to take my statistics showing Ford Mustangs/Chevy Camaros' sales as the only type of muscle car that is increasing. Since he seemed to attack my point with an article about the average Australian (nowhere in it did I find anything about cars, and again is outside of my target market), I will present a new, loosely-based argument in the form of a question: If people do not want powerful cars, then why is a V-8 the standard, and not a perfectly functional V-4? 3. First, my opponent, stating "my opponent stated several times that the general public is not educated about electric cars". I stated it once. Not several times with underline. Once. And, like his point about his "walk in suburbia", there is not evidence for it. It is a general truth. I challenge anyone to ask a friend on how electric cars work, their advantages, or any of the sort. Nearly no one will know. 4. (Also attacking his Key Argument #1) First, my opponent lacks the understanding of purchasing a vehicle. He stated that engineers, making #68,804.00 on average, could not afford a $40,000 car. My opponent seems to think that when purchasing a car, you go with a pile of cash to cover every last penny. He seems to have forgotten about payment plans, leases, etc. which are standards in the automotive business. Second, my opponent mentioned a tax on the poor. No where in my argument did I say anything about taxes. Nowhere. If he refers to the federal tax cuts that EV owners get, then I will go over that quickly. Every state in the U.S. (it varies) gives out state tax cuts to people buying EVs. This ranges from $3,500 in a state like Iowa, to $7,500 in a state like Oregon, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, California, and more. The minimum starts at $3,500, and the max is $7,500. That is a whole lot of money off of a "$40,000" car (which includes about two electric cars, being Tesla S' and the e-Golf, a large majority of EVs being below $40,000, examples being the Chevy Bolt, Chevy Volt, and Tesla Model 3). 2. (The First Part) My opponent states "it is impossible to drive most electric cars more than 60 miles a day". This is an utter falsehood. There quite literally is not a single electric vehicle on the market that can't drive 60 miles in one run. The Tesla Model S, actually, can drive approximately 300 miles, not including its Supercharger, which can charge half the battery in under 20 minutes, adding another 150 miles on. The Chevy Volt has had drivers reported in driving nearly 1,000 miles on a single charge. Yes, you read it right, 1,000 miles. The lowest I can find and have personally experienced was the Volkswagen e-Golf, which is at a lower-end 85 mile range. (Second Part) My opponent goes over the basis that it takes 20 hours to charge an electric vehicle off a 120V outlet, which is somewhat true. I will discuss the "extra-cost 240V" in a moment. Let's pretend that we do actually use the obsolete outlet, the 120V. My opponent states that it takes 20 hours to completely charge a "High-end NIssan Leaf" (funny, that he uses a high end model in a study in which would help him, but then turns around and says that EVs are too expensive). In saying this, he assumes that one will actually charge that car every night! As I stated with range earlier, plugging in every night is a bit excessive, as most electric cars can go 4-6 days on an average commute without a charge. Let's use 4 days, my lower number, as the basis for this. 20 hours, divided across 4 nights, is 5 hours a night. So realistically, if one were to plug in every night, like my opponent emphasizes, it would only take 5 hours at a time, not 20. Concerning the 240V, my response is that is a cheap installation (in the places that oddly don't already have it). A 240V input plug installation can range from 200-400 USD across states (if you couldn't do the easy fix on your own for free). My main argument: take the 200-400 USD out of the seven and a half thousand dollars you saved on tax cuts by buying the car in the first place! That finishes my response to my opponent's main arguments. Since this was a lengthy debate, I will present my last final, big argument, and provide a bit of thought concerning my opponent's contradiction in round 3 (which I mentioned in the beginning of round 4). This argument is presented on the basis that gas-cars continued to be used, and the possible consequences. Contention #1: The economy can not afford to be dependent on foreign oil (My point) (Why is this so?) (a) Society continues to run on gas-powered cars. Since this is the current system, this requires no evidence. (b) America's gas powered cars depend on foreign oil http://science.howstuffworks.com... " Looking again at 2008, the United States imported around 9.8 million barrels of crude oil per day from other countries [source: U.S. Energy Information Administration], and that comes out to a whopping 3.5 billion barrels per year!" (c) The countries/organizations America gets its oil from are politically unstable https://www.americanprogress.org... " In 2008 the United States imported oil from 10 countries currently on the State Department"s Travel Warning List, which lists countries that have "long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable." These nations include Algeria, Chad, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria." (d) American dependence on politically unstable countries/organizations may lead to economic devastation, as it did in 1973 with the oil crisis http://www.defenddemocracy.org... " Since 1973, non-OPEC oil production has doubled, in tune with the doubling in size of the world economy over the same period. However, while OPEC has engaged in many wild, short-term production expansions and contractions to manipulate the market, overall OPEC production has barely increased over the past third of a century despite the fact that they are sitting on top of 80 percent of the world's oil reserves " including all the most accessible oil reserves. This shows that they have had a long-term policy of limiting production in order to increases prices. As economic growth in China and India increases worldwide demand, the OPEC policy of strangling production is threatening to send the U.S. economy into a depression." (e) Economic detestation leads to negative impacts. I'm hoping no one needs evidence for this. Conclusion: As long as America uses foreign oil to support its economy, it will forever remain dependent and insecure of other world powers. One last thing: I would like to now point out the contradictions my opponent made in round 3 that I have mentioned a few times. In short: My opponent states that electric cars are good for the future, but refuses to support research and development now. Why is this a contradiction? Well, mainly, because of how economic demand works. If there isn't a market for something, the R&D (research and development) doesn't get funded. If the R&D doesn't get funded, it is obvious that the technology will never become better. How does it connect? My opponent agrees that electric cars will be the superior mode to transportation in the future, but, obviously, his entire side is arguing against currently supporting a market of EVs. Do you see the contradiction? His encouragement to avoid EVs hurts the companies making EVs. If companies making EVs don't make money, they will fail. So what does that mean? This means that when the supposed, mysterious day in the future that my opponent describes arrives, the research into electric transportation would be near-to-nothing. This would ultimately cause a breakdown of how society functions as the oil fields dry up. How do we fix that? We put the money, time, effort, and market into EVs. We encourage renewables to take larger forms in society, so when that day comes in which the oil is gone, society will be able to make the shift rather easily, rather than coming to its knees. My opponent putting off research and innovation for the future seems, at least to me, quite lazy and irresponsible toward humanity

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.

Hello debate. com. Oops, I mean debate. org. I negate the resolution that the federal government should mandate that by 2040, all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the US must run on alternative fuels. I have three reasons: 1) Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. 2) Vagueness. What will this solve? Any alternative fuel is acceptable? What's the plan behind this? 3) Mandate. Why are we MANDATING something that is so far off. That's dumb. That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. We're not prophets. We don't know the future. Oh, and can mandates be undone? I suppose all businesses will be 100% ready to do that then.

"Something such as the sun getting brighter causing the planet to receive more energy and warms. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the planet warms." When there are more greenhouse gases, sunlight will be prevented from heating the Earth due to the Greenhouse effect. Thus in the long term, the Earth will experience an ice age due to the ultimate reduction in heat energy. When the fuel has been used up, the heat levels will gradually decrease. This is the cause for cyclic nature of global climate change. "It's true in the past climate change was caused by natural forces, but this doesn't mean we cannot cause climate change." Is this meant to indicate that we are not natural? I hope not. Fossil fuels form naturally. They sometimes burn naturally. Helping to burn these fuels is not unnatural, just like lions culling a sick antelope from an otherwise healthy herd. There is no evident benefit of keeping coal in the ground. A more likely explanation for the warmth of the Cretaceous period is the methane generated by the huge amounts of vegetation rotting in the huge dinosaurs digestive systems. Methane is a greenhouse gas. The dinosaurs were then wiped out by meteor impacts, sparing the other animals the cost of living with those methane factories. Or was it because dinosaurs were considered a threat for producing so much greenhouse gas and so were wiped out? I absolutely do not get the link between CO2 buildup and continental drift. Pro basically repeats me on the medieval warm period. I agree about the temperatures. Nothing to dispute there besides to note that the current temperatures are below even Miocene era levels, when volcanic activity has reduced. I have nothing to dispute in Pro"s explanation of CO2 usage. 1. Pro"s [4] is a link to a picture of a section of a paper from 4-5 years before reports on the benefits of elevated CO2 levels. Does Pro agree that later research is better than older research? The rise in CO2 is hardly sudden and the link to [5] is to an article analyzing "Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene"Eocene Thermal Maximum," not the effect of CO2 on plants. It is an analysis of the insect diet, not on how CO2 levels destroyed plants. I agree that the nutritional quality of SOME plants may decrease. 2. Simple explanation to remove the "threat." Fertilization. Nitrogen is relatively easy to synthesize [1]. Nitrogen is widely used as a fertilizer in the form of ammonium nitrate. There is also the Haber process, which I assume you are familiar with. These negate the "threat" from human activity. More vegetation means that more vegetation would be destroyed means that nitrogen would be recycled at a faster rate. I will not respond to the video. 1-5: I have debunked all of the claims that elevated CO2 levels is harmful to plants. I have shown a way around the nitrogen plateau problem. Thus, an elevation in CO2 would not be a "threat" to the Earth. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP to show why Man-made global warming is a threat. There is no indication of this. Satellite data do not record the decrease in sun-heat coming to Earth. The process is the same for both sides. Pro"s opposition to cyclic temperature has been addressed. 1. http://www.organic-chemistry.org...


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

The US Government should prioritize traditional energy sources over clean energy development. I contend that supporting traditional energy sources is more aligned with utilitarian ethics, as it maximizes overall good. Traditional energy sources are cheaper, more abundant, and reliable compared to clean energy, which benefits crop yield and social welfare.

To evaluate the government's actions, we must consider the utilitarian perspective, aiming to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. Traditional energy sources, such as fossil fuels, are more affordable, plentiful, and dependable than clean energy. Clean energy, like wind and solar, is expensive and inconsistent, while fossil fuels can sustainably support the US for thousands of years.

Solar and wind energy are costly due to the materials and processes involved. For instance, wind power requires substantial steel, and solar energy production involves rare and expensive resources like silicon, titanium dioxide, phosphorus, boron, cadmium telluride, and copper indium gallium selenide. The Institute for Energy Research confirms that solar energy is more expensive than conventional sources like coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Wind and solar energy are unreliable, with fluctuations in energy production, necessitating traditional energy sources as a backup.

Traditional energy sources, such as fossil fuels, are cheap, plentiful, and reliable. They are abundant, widely distributed, and easy to extract, evident in the cost comparison between water and gasoline. Fossil fuels will last thousands of years, with proven reserves exceeding consumption. Technological advancements in drilling and extraction will ensure a continuous supply for future generations.

Increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuels promote plant growth and enhance crop yield, leading to more food production and lower mortality rates. A carbon tax on energy companies would result in higher energy prices, deterring energy use and reducing productivity. Therefore, the proposed carbon tax would do more harm than good to social welfare.

The environmental harms associated with carbon emissions, such as ecosystem damage and species extinction, are not relevant to the debate as they do not impact human beings. Climate-related deaths have decreased over the past 30 years, and CO2 is a decelerating phenomenon, meaning its impact on the environment is minimal. The statistic that fossil fuels cause 3 million deaths worldwide is not specific to the US and does not account for the decelerating effect of CO2 on air pollution. Therefore, the use of fossil fuels will not significantly impact air pollution in either scenario.

In conclusion, the US Government should continue supporting traditional energy sources over clean energy development, as it aligns with utilitarian ethics and maximizes overall good.

I hope Pro and any readers are enjoying the debate. I think the discussion is worthwhile.What does"giving a priority" mean?I asked Pro what he meant by "giving a priority" to electric cars, how much it would cost, and what result would be achieved. So far, he has said nothing about what "giving a priority" means. Does it mean subsidies or mandates? He doesn't say. I also want to know what he claims will be accomplished in terms of lowering the warming of the earth. He hasn't said anything about that either. Electric cars only move the CO2 to power plantsElectric cars are very expensive. Pro's sources admit that. All that electric cars do is transfer the CO2 produced by automobiles to CO2 produced by power plants. For power plants to produce less CO2, they must be converted to something other than fossil fuels, and that's an extremely expensive proposition. Even if we did that, it would have almost no effect on global warming, because the US currently produces only 18% of the CO2, and that percentage is dropping rapidly as the developing world consumes more energy. To combat global warming, the priority should be put on methods of climate engineering that not only can solve the problem, but at reasonable cost.Pro claims that moving energy production from vehicles to power plants substantially reduces CO2. Pro relies on the Union of Concerned Scientists web site that asserts. "BEVs are recharged with electricity from power plants that use fossil fuels, they are up to 99 percent cleaner than conventional vehicles and can cut global warming emissions by as much as 70 percent."The site gives no references for the assertions. It has no credibility beyond that of an unsupported blog post. The Union of concerned Scientists has few scientists as members. It is composed of political activists http://www.sullivan-county.com... who get scientists to sign petitions outside of their specialties, like physicists willing to go on record with claims about engineering. The first statement is that power plants are "up to 99% cleaner" than automobiles. "Cleaner" means lower in production of sulphates and other pollutants. That's not the subject of our debate. However, 8% of electricity is from hydroelectric plants and 23% from nuclear. Neither produces any emissions, so they are 100% cleaner. The key is the "up to" part. That means that it is possible if you happen to be charging the vehicle from one of those sources. However, most of the power comes from coal and natural gas, and that's not going to change without the many trillions of dollars of expense in building new plants. Incidentally, Kilauea, the volcano in Hawaii, emits more pollution than all the cars of the world combined. The second part of the statement uses the same trick. CO2 emissions may be reduced "up to 70%." If the car is charged from a hydroelectric or nuclear source, the reduction is 100%, so they can make any claim they please "up to" 100%. How warming would be prevented by electric cars?Pro claim by numbers of $25 trillion for 0.026 degree reduction in global warming are false, but he gives no reason why. I thought my claim might prompt him to find some numbers, but not so.The temperature reduction I gave is an upper bound, assuming that somehow the US could reduce its CO2 output by 50% by converting all the cars and power plants. It would reduce U CO2 contribution for 18% to 9% of the world total. The rise in global temperature is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. http://motls.blogspot.com... So if the total CO2 produces a one degree rise in fifty years, a reduction by half the US total would reduce the temperature by 0.026 degree, That comes from the math of logarithms.There are 250 million passenger cars in the US. Going to $40K electric cars would cost $10 trillion. All the cars would ordinarily be replaced eventually, in about 20 years. Advancing that to replace them faster costs an amount proportional to the total. When the capital, backup, distribution costs are counted, wind power costs about five times as much as conventional power and solar power about seven times as much. Hence the green upgrade is the cost to replace 70% of the power plants in the country, times about six. The US needs about 900,000 megawatt. http://www.eia.gov... A new 300 megawatt coal plant is roughly $1 billion. http://www.jsonline.com... A green energy upgrade would be about $12.6 trillion. The total for just the cars and power plants is $22.6 trillion, to which we must add the new infrastructure for charging stations and new plants to accommodate the 250 million electric vehicles. The current grid will not accommodate that many electric vehicles. How much CO2 is from cars? Pro cites, "The production and use of gas and diesel in cars, trucks, and buses also account for 27 percent of U.S. global warming pollution." No one claims that heavy long haul trucks can be converted to electricity, and each long haul truck uses as much fuel as forty cars. http://online.wsj.com... There are 2 million heavy trucks, http://www.truckinfo.net... which therefore consume as much fuel as 80 million cars. That means that converting all the cars to electric can at most reduce 20% of the country's CO2 emissions. Going back to the previous calculation, if reducing US CO2 emissions by half saves 0.026 degree of warming, the 20% reduction can obtain at most 0.01 degree. Actually, it's less, because warming is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. Summary Around $25 trillion spent on electric cars and green power plants in the US will save about 0.01 degree of global warming. That's not worth any priority. Instead, we should put priority on climate engineering, where less than $1 trillion can get a degree or more of cooling.

Thank you for your excellent rebut.I will now began.Lannan’s Contention 1:While this seems reasonable on paper, there is no reason why that this would stop us. This treaty is unenforceable. It is arguably also in the way of progress, but that is irreverent. To say that a treaty would stop the “should” is just politics. If there was a Treaty to stop making/producing/spreading around nuclear material, and we discover there is a cheap cure for cancer that involves nuclear material, as absurd as it might be, would it not be odd to turn it down on the basis of a treaty?Lannan’s Contention 2:I tried googling Lannan’s first source to find out it is behind a login wall, then I tried to google the quote, and only 47 results came up, including this debate, the source and some downloadable docs. However, the point seems to be in the next source.I think I might have used this source myself, but the website cites that fusion would take 6 times the temperature of the sun. There appears to be no cited source on this or proof, so I don’t really know what to say to this. Close seems to be a smart guy, but again I want to see more.Then Lannan brings up alternatives. He suggests Boron Trifluoride, or BT3. BT3 has some use, but it is toxic and can cause irritation in one’s eye, nose skin and respiratory system. It also cause nosebleeds and skin and eye burns. In animals it causes pneumonitis and kidney damage.[2] Lannan also suggests L6, but it is still in the works and Lannan’s source for this doesn't mention it again. Lannan’s Contention 3:The Price tag is surely not small. However Lannan’s assumptions that we need to raise taxes is false. We don’t. Simply put, we take it from the Military Budget and the VA. In the Fiscal 2014 year, we spend about $560 Billion in Military and the VA[1]. We can double NASA’s budget by only taking $20 billion from them. We have no reason to be pumping this much especially how far ahead we are in terms of funding. Lannan also mentions that it costs $10k for a LEO mission, however, SpaceX can do it for only ~$700/ib. No, I didn't leave out a zero. That is less than 1/10th of the mentioned price tag.In Lannan’s technologyreview source, it is stated that the only He3 reactor “is barely in the 6 figures”. There appears to be no citation to that claim. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.cdc.gov...[3] http://www.buildtheenterprise.org...

You seem to think throwing around the word "liberal" and socialist etc is an argument. I'm more capitalist than I am liberal, by the way. And generally the free market is the optimal method. Just not here. I recognize it's not wise to work in generalizations like "no government intervention ever" But, you did pose some interesting questions. As a genberal answer, I would say there's a lot of fact specific questions out there, and it does all depend on the facts: that doesn't mean that someone isn't qualified to know what they're doing. here's some likns where i got the 1 dollar and two dollar etc stuff. the links are good as per facts of what i'm referring to. http://www.wired.com... http://blog.wired.com... http://www.wired.com... http://www.businessweek.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://media.cleantech.com... http://media.cleantech.com... http://crave.cnet.com... i wouldn't be opposed to madating a tax on gasoline, so it'd be less tax payer confiscated from people who don't drive. (but practically speaking, everyone is affected by if you step back from vague theories of people in seclusion etc) really it should just be from taxes as everyone is taxed. ***whatever your chosen energy source, the artificial subsidy will not crowd out private investment in another alternative with greater potential? Do you suggest we just subsidize ALL alternative energy sources? What about ones that don't appear to have much potential at all?*** then we subsidize them all and see who wins, perhaps. but really, i'm sure there's people who know which are best though... you act like professionals are ignorant fools. the underdog can get help from the government if they need it too. just fyi, free market fundamentalists like to say government can't work ever etc... i think the reasons i'm describing are showing that it could work, if it's done right. you have a point that practically speaking, it might not, given all the crazy sides. my main point is that in theory, if it's done right... policy driven by the government can be done right, like i'd contend on this issue. fyi, i'm not sticking to the platform of my chosen candidate... my issues are my own and i disagree with him on many things. my biggest pet peeve is people who are defined by artificial social conventions: political affiliations etc, instead of thinking for htemselves. but the good outweight the bad with my candiate.

Debate issuesCon says "Roy Latham is considered as the best debater at DDO. However this is not one of his best debates and he appears to be clearly distracted." I'll survive, but that's a personal attack and a conduct violation. When anything is proposed as a requirement it's fair to argue if whatever is proposed is really required at all to treat a problem, if the new requirement will solve the problem, and if there are better, cheaper ways to solve the problem. I agreed at the outset that the climate is warming and that we ought to be concerned over the warming. There is a possibility that warming will not be so severe as to require any government action, I granted that indeed we ought take a cautious approach and prepare for a scenario of significant warming even though the amount of warming and how much of it is natural are in dispute.Con seems to believe that the only legitimate grounds for supporting the resolution is that it is not technically feasible. Con says, "If we are debating economics of CCS, it should be obvious that we are concerned about global warming caused by CO2." No, there is no such implication. If the resolution were, "People should be required to arm themselves with silver bullets," it does not assume that everyone believes vampires exist, and it's only the feasibility of equipping people with silver bullets to kill them. One may deny a vampire problem or propose carrying garlic as a better means of protection.I grant that CSS technology is feasible in the sense that no one doubts it is possible to build such facilities. I argue it is too expensive, does little to solve the problem, and that there are better ways to spend money to secure a solution.1. CCS would provide negligible reductions in global warmingWe have a point of agreement in that the maximum achieved by CCS, assuming alarmist projections of CO2 effects, is to lower 3 degrees of warming by 13%. It's actually much less, because even the high costs are only achieved when incorporating CCS into a new plant built from scratch. That means it will be 50 years before it is even half implemented.Con argues that CCS ought to implemented because the costs, whatever they are, are assigned to the producer. I argued that power companies are not going to pay the costs, but rather the customers consuming electricity. The broad base of users therefore ought to be able to choose cheaper and better methods of fighting global warming.I put forth the idea of requiring people to exhale into balloons and asked why the requirement would be ridiculous, which I clearly stated it was. If all we are allowed to consider is narrow technical feasibility and putting the burden on the source, then it should be a good method. The simple reason that it is ridiculous is that there re better, more practical methods, never mind the idea of burdening sources.2. The Cost Makes CCS ImpracticalCon claims that CSS is "projected to be as cheap as conventional method[s]." Okay, what are conventional methods and what do they cost? Con gives no quantitative estimates. My ref [6] projected costs to the current year, and ref [7] projected costs to future plants as being a 42% premium. Con's cost reference was a Wikipedia article that gave very similar estimates, saying "Capturing and compressing CO2 may increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired CCS plant by 25%-40%. These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of the energy produced by 21-91% for purpose built plants." (Note that the percentage increase would be lower if the initial power cost is high.) Those are clearly projections to future implementation.There is nothing in the technology that's subject to dramatic technological innovation. It's pumps, chemicals, compressors, pipelines and drilling. It's not like computers that are subject to dramatic cost reductions. In fact the risks are that they will prove higher. I cited organic chemist who point our the potential difficulties with siting the foul smelling plants, and Con did not disagree.Con claims that China is involved with the technology, but his reference strongly implies that their interest is solely in selling CCS equipment to the West, not in increasing their electricity costs by 42%. They're eager to sell windmills and solar panels as well. They only are interested in local use to perfect their products. I argued that developing nations should devote resources to providing food, health care, and essential infrastructure rather than sequestering carbon. con did not explain why CCS should be a high priority for poor nations. They are better off being warmer and not starving.3. Nuclear, Adaptation, and Climate Engineering are Better AlternativesCon seemed to me to grant that the alternative of using nuclear power lowers the cost of electricity from current levels and reduces CO2 emissions to zero. I pointed out tat there is no objection to widespread use of nuclear power, so long as the plants are properly monitored. Therefore, it's an alternative superior to CCS under any assumption of the bad effects of CO2.If we take global warming seriously, we should seek a solution that works whether the cause is CO2 or natural or some combination of the two, and we should solve 100% of the problem not a fraction of 13% of the problem. The idea of spending unlimited money doing everything that can be imagined does not work because money is finite. The alternative of seriously developing climate engineering technology is the only route that is both economic and promises a full solution.Thanks to my opponent for an interesting debate. I hope readers will get a better understanding of costs and strategies from our interchange.CCS should not be required because alternative accomplish more at lower cost.The resolution is affirmed.

Many thanks for RoyLatham for initiating this debate.All of us share a single planet. While science fiction enthusiasts may disagree, this is the only planet we have got for foreseeable future. It is important for us to manage our resources wisely and to dispose wastes in a sustainable manner, so that we can pass on a beautiful planet to the next generation.To take informed decisions about our future, we need knowledge about technologies available to us. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is an important technology which is not very well known by general public. We hope that this debate will serve to enhance the awareness of our dear readers.Pro will argue that the benefits obtained from large scale deployment of CCS are not worth the costs for the foreseeable future. The Pro position does not deny further research into the technology.Con will argue that CCS technology is already good enough for us to move ahead with gradual and mandatory deployment at industries which produce large amount of CO2 (such as Thermal Power Plants). Con position does not imply that we should switch over to the new technology overnight.Waiting for opening arguments from my esteemed opponent.

I understand your argument. You are saying that drilling Alaska is the fastest way to solve our dependence on foreign oil. I am against that proposition. I suggest that it isn't "the fastest way to solve our dependence on foreign oil", because it can't "solve our dependence on foreign oil". We are still dependent on foreign oil, with or without drilling ANWR! It's a drop in the pan. We couldn't drill it fast enough to sustain our entire demand for oil, and even if we could, it's about a year worth of oil. The 385 days is an estimate (not a guess). There are people who do this as their job. They estimate how much oil can be removed from the grounds in different places. They say that there is about 7.7 billion barrels of oil. This is the actual and proper estimate as to how much oil is probably there. Dividing that by the amount we currently use, gives us that duration (without growth). We probably would use more if it were cheaper, so the estimate is probably on the high side. We probably would continue to increase in our demand, so the estimate is probably on the high side. It would be impossible to pump the oil prior to January 1st 2009. Nor is that enough time to establish the infrastructure needed. Further, your argument isn't that we should drill Alaska and then convert to hydrogen, that's not even part of a solution. You are in favor of drilling ANWR as a "solution". By the way, with a name like reagan_views you'd have the government tell a lot of people what to do. Your argument seems to have become, Let's Drill ANWR. Then convert to Ethanol. Then convert to Hydrogen. That's a bit far from the initial point, and oddly doesn't work at all. Why are you forcing car manufacturers to produce extreme flex-fuel vehicles and everybody to buy them... then to produce hydrogen vehicles and everybody to buy them too... You'd have people replace their cars twice for technology that simply doesn't work? There are a number of problems with both hydrogen and E85. Ethanol (from corn) takes more energy to produce than it delivers. Even though the energy ultimately comes from the sun to grow the corn, it just takes too much to actual manufacture that it can't break even (this might be overcome with some major advances). Further, most of our food products are corn derived, switching to corn based would make our food prices skyrocket. The math suggests we'd need the entire US covered with corn to power our cars. Hydrogen is hard to store. Hydrogen is hard to move. Hydrogen would require an entirely replaced infrastructure to run. Hydrogen is produced through the electrolysis of water and is, in effect, just a battery for the real energy source: coal. Coal powers the power grid, then powers electrolysis, then powers the car if burnt directly or using a fuel cell. You have, in a debate about "solutions" to our oil crisis provided a non-solution of Drill ANWR. Then you back this up by suggesting other things which have *some* actual potential. On the topic, you lose. On these odd secondary arguments, you lose. I'm not even quite sure what you are proposing. The topic however is clear. The objection is just as clear: You do not solve an oil crisis with more oil... especially a tiny amount of additional oil (compare the ANWR figure with the figures given in the Table of Round 1). My table is accurate regardless of your your silly objection that they sell us oil. Of course they do! They have a lot of it, and ANWR has a small amount. We don't need to sell our oil to foreign countries, because we don't have any (Texas, Alaska, and California do produce but not enough to merit much attention). We're unable to avoid importing foreign oil. We haven't been able to sustain ourselves since the 1970s. Further, even drilling ANWR, we'd still have dependence on foreign oil. Also, most of our foreign oil is Canadian. You don't understand the problem if you think that more holes = more oil (forever). It's a finite resource. The problem we are facing now is that there's less left to discover than we need to discover. The places we discover oil today are much harder to access, and much more expensive. We did find a good amount of oil in the Gulf a while back, however that oil was way out in the middle and very deep. That oil is hard to access and harder to find. It use to bubble up from the ground all over the place. Believe me, if there's oil around, the oil companies are looking for it. However, we can't get it out of the ground and usable fast enough to meet demand. There is a little less oil in the ground today than we have ever produced and or used (we're a couple years after the peak, 50% at peak). There's plenty of oil... there's just not enough. That's the core issue with the oil crisis. We use a lot of oil. We pump a lot of oil. We find a lot of oil. We just don't find and pump the oil faster than we can manage to use it. Adding ANWR to the equation doesn't solve anything! I'm sorry for your confusion. You think that drilling ANWR is a good idea for some bizarre reason. You have an extremely confused view of the problem. You have a naive view of the potential solutions. You blame "tree hugging liberals" for your confused view of the world. Stopping oil companies from destroying ANWR is actually worth it. ANWR is priceless, doesn't actually have that much oil, and isn't a solution! "If it weren't for these damned tree-hugging liberals we would be facing this oil crisis a year later than we're facing it now... and have destroyed a natural treasure." -- Damn those tree-hugging liberals! ANWR is a national treasure, it's honestly priceless and one of the last untouched bits of nature we have left. You want to sacrifice it for what boils down to about a year of no real solution? You add on to this idea, grasping for straws. Maybe E85 (which takes more energy than it produces) or Hydrogen (which doesn't produce any energy and there's no infrastructure or cars for) can save us! If you want to debate those topics, feel free to challenge me on them... I'd happily wipe the floor with you. The fastest solution to our oil crisis is not to drill Alaska. Drilling Alaska isn't a solution to anything. The solution to our dependence on oil is not more oil. "I'm trying to quit Heroin." -- "Gee, are you taking something for that?" "Yes, Heroin." I'm not confused, but apparently you are.

For my first argument I would like to point out that my opponent has completely ignored a huge portion of my arguments by calling them irrelevant, when they were in fact totally relevant. The arguments he say pertain only to nuclear energy actually pertain to the water that deuterium comes from, which is used in both fission and fusion. Since we are doing a policy debate my opponent cannot add new arguments from this point on, (no new arguments in rebuttals) therefore I have won all of those points which he ignored. My opponents evidence states that fusion COULD be achieved within the next century, by which point it will likely be pointless, we need to solve this problem and we need to solve it now, waiting for 2100 won't work, and even then we cant be sure we will get nuclear fusion. My opponent has still not shown any factual evidence that there will be no environmental effects of nuclear fusion, but has relied on biased evidence which only states that there will be no pollution from combustion, which is obvious since combustion doesn't occur during nuclear fusion in the sense they are referring to. He has also failed to ensure that the program will have no other agendas, I cannot be sure what these agendas would be, but without enforcement the program could do anything they please with the funding. Since the PRO has stated that the group will have no agendas I would like to press for evidence and remind him that you can, at any time be asked for evidence backing something you said. Onto my argument from fas. org, I doubt you looked over that whole sight but I am sorry I didn't realise I didn't link you to the exact article, here it is. . http://www.fas.org... This is in reference to the production of deuterium which you have said is so easy to come by, and the fact that you would need to boil lots of water to get the deuterium shows that you would need some form of energy to get it, just so you can make more energy. The argument about the tainted water refers to water from a plant which made deuterium proving that bad things can come of this. Again, the water refers to the production of deuterium, directly linking it to your plan. I believe I have shown that there are hidden environmental effects which would occur if we somehow achieved fusion, and that it is unlikely that we will, also that my opponent's form of research is flawed and could potentially cost the government a large amount of money since my opponent didn't put a cap on the emergency fund, also that my opponent has failed to prove any of these points to be wrong. When judging this debate the judges must ask themselves "Do the large amounts of risks outweigh the slim chance of success, and even slimmer chance that fusion will live up to what it claims to be? ". I stand firm on my arguments and again press for the same evidence as last time, I would also like to remind the judges of several things they may be unaware of about policy debate. 1- Ignoring a press for evidence is not acceptable.

Alternative energy is something that the United States desperately needs to look into but nuclear power should not be one of the areas. It is not cost effective. It is dangerous and is subject to terrorist attacks. Nuclear power was formerly known as "to cheap to meter." It now needs to be renamed "to expensive to produce." France invested in nuclear power in 2007, the main investor is now millions of dollars in debt. There are more effective alternative energies to invest in such as wind or solar. America has invested in nuclear power before and it just hasn't worked out. The fact that a repeat of the three mile island disaster is still prevalent should be a reason in itself on why we should not be investing. Like most energies, waste will be produced. To this day storage containers for this potentially deadly nuclear waste has not been developed. Many states have ended all research of nuclear power. It has turned into a "not in my backyard" argument. America wants to be a secure country. Investing in nuclear power only increases the chances of it becoming insecure. Of the 61 nuclear sites in the United States over half were deemed vulnerable of a terrorist attack. Some shocking news is that Al Qaeda's original 9/11 plan was to fly planes into nuclear power plants, as if the executed attack wasn't deadly enough. When making a decision on where the United States should invest it's time and money, I sincerely hope nuclear power is not considered.

1st water is a renuable resource and we shouldn't worry about whether or not it takes more water for a cow then wheat, because it is all going to be renewed and if we chose not to eat those cows they would consume more water to live longer. You could post the arguement to that that plants create oxygen and when we eat more and more plants that is depleting the oxygen so if everyone turns vegetarian we will start running out of oxygen. Neither of these I believe will have a big effect on humanity I believed was just stating the parralex argument that seemed to work with it. Second We don't need to worry about fossil fuels causing climate change ohh that's right they used to call it global warming but since they were wrong and it didn't exist they changed it here is why climate change is false, "Those who belive that there is no evidence for global warning often argue that extremely accurate temperature gauges that can measure temperatures to within .01-degrees Celsius have shown no evidence of global warming over the last 25 years. While some can consider this a plateau, these satellite readings correspond with land readings taken for years before this; there has been little recorded climbs in temperature. Scientific Debate While many scientists are willing to go on record to point out trends in global warming, more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying that they see no evidence of global warming at all. Less formal surveys amongst climatologists have pointed in the same direction. No Future Prediction While it is tempting to look ahead at what global warming could do if left unchecked or untreated, it is currently impossible to predict actual climate change in this manner. There are currently no computers sophisticated enough to extrapolate from current data in a reliable pattern that can indicate future climate temperatures."(1) Next I would like to say why animal rights shouldn't be a question. If you are an evolutionist you believe in survival of the fittest and that the better smarter species will weed out the lesser species, yes of course now days we try and keep a couple around but working against extinction of animals is very condridicting if your an evolutionist. If you area Christian or Catholic or Mormon or Judiest you believe in the Torah 1st five books of the bible which say man is to rule over all the animals, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."(2) So to all those religions their God says it is ethical to eat and rule over them. And you say that it matters that a cow has 80 percent human DNA so they are part human well you also sited that rice is 15 percent well that means that are also part human so if you believe one you have to believe the others or that's almost unethical to say one human cousin is more important then the other. That is if you believe that which I don't. I'm going to start a Rice rights group Rights for Intellectual Creatures that shouldn't be Eaten Rice lol Now we should attempt better conditions for these animals like maybe put them to sleep before they are slaughtered not that it matters that much what an animal is feeling. Most people fight for animal rights and no pain for animals but they believe abortion is fine they are just as alive in that stomach as some animal is but that child is going to grow into a living breathing human that could be having a debate like this in the future,so if you count feeling pain as a sign of being alive like a human you better not be an abortion supporter,"With the advent of sonograms and live-action ultrasound images, neonatologists and nurses are able to see unborn babies at 20 weeks gestation react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch. The sense of touch is so acute that even a single human hair drawn across an unborn baby's palm causes the baby to make a fist. Did you know that this 20-week-old unborn child can feel pain? Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on tiny unborn babies have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. "The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies," explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics. Medical facts of fetal pain Anatomical studies have documented that the body"s pain network"the spino-thalamic pathway"is established by 20 weeks gestation. " "At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG)." " Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto " An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation "is fully capable of experiencing pain. " Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure." " Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University Unborn babies have heightened sensitivities Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a "uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop," according to Dr. Ranalli. "Having administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the fetus, because even at these early gestational ages the fetus moves away from the pain of the stimulation," stated David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology and self-described as "pro-choice," in testimony before the U.S. Congress. Given the medical evidence that unborn babies experience pain, compassionate people are viewing abortion more and more as an inhumane and intolerable brutality against defenseless human beings. The unborn baby at 20 weeks Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation: " The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days. " Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that "thinking" is taking place in the brain. " The fetus has the appearance of a miniature baby, with complete fingers, toes and ears at 49 days. " All organs are functioning"stomach, liver, kidney, brain"and all systems are intact at 56 days. " By 20 weeks, the unborn child has hair and working vocal cords, sucks her thumb, grasps with her hands and kicks. She measures 12 inches."(3) Your last point about healthy sets doesn't have to do with ethics but I would like to see a test where they eat a doctors alloted mount of meat and healthy vegetables because the average American is a meat eater and the average American is obese so that test doesn't really work. My conclusion Eat meat there is nothing unethical about it. It is a great source of protein. And it tastes darn good and just the fact that eating a nice steak can make a good day for someone that's proof enough for me that it's a good thing. (1)http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com... (2)http://bible.cc... (3)http://www.mccl.org...

I was focusing on the USA, but things that benefit the world community ultimately can benefit the US, and so those can be considered. My opponent questions "Would our economy severely decrease if we discontinue use?" Simple answer is yes. Coal power 48% of our electricity [1], and provides about 174,000 jobs in the US [2]. Simply simply discontinuing the use of coal would put tens of thousands out of a job, and cut our electric grid almost in half. The blackouts would cripple most other businesses, since just about every business needs the lights on to work. Bringing in other energy sources (such as nuclear, solar, wind, and others) could minimize our personal use of coal, however the mining of coal for sale to other nations should still be allowed, since it will save 114,000 jobs (mining and transporting) and provide a massive amount of income for the US via exports, in upwards of $87 billion dollars [3][2]. Which is over $760,000 per worker (so the economics for it providing good paying jobs are there at market value). My opponent has brought up that coal harms our environment. I disagree with the word "harm." It doesn't "harm" the environment, it changes it. Some animals and plants are negatively impacted, some are positively impacted. The burning of coal releases CO2, which all plants need to survive, it is like their oxygen. So the burning of coal is basically giving plants "oxygen." The Ringtail cat, or Miners cat, is another animal that has benefited greatly from mines and miners. [4] Using the mines as safe spots from its predators and places to catch its prey with easy. [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [2] http://www.sourcewatch.org... [3] http://www.globalcoal.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...