The united states federal government should offer tax incentives for offshore wind turbines

Please note that my opponent has rebuted in the summary round and although this is against the rules technically I will just assume that We are both rebutting and concluding in the same round. Let's begin: Inherency A. ) Ships My opponent’s use of analytical argumentation is invalid. I have given quoted evidence that no ships are available and are tied up in the upcoming years which has not been refuted. The burden of proof relies completely on the Pro team, as he is proposing a plan. This means that he would have to show quoted and/or cited evidence proving the necessary amount of ships exist for hire to accomplish the plan. Simple as that. B. ) Onshore wind The evidence that Pro provided must be dropped because the source he provided no longer works and thus I cannot check his facts. (see: Thaler 12 . http://papers.ssrn.com......;) C. ) Economies of scale Again Pro’s citation doesn’t match his evidence. I went to his citation and did a F3: search for multiple parts of his speech yet there were zero results. Please drop this evidence and disregard these statements. Global Warming A. ) Alternative is coal/ coal ash is radioactive These points are mute. While coal may be radioactive it is not nearly as radioactive as radioactive waste from rare earth metals or regular nuclear waste. Pro has shown no evidence otherwise, and therefore we must assume that radioactive waste from rare earths is far more damaging then coal. There is a reason that we bury nuclear waste and not coal ash. Finally Pro attempts to say that we cant control what china does anyways and that increasing its demand for things that create nuclear waste will somehow convince them to change. The reason these problems exist in the first place is that China Does Not Care about its environment or its impoverished who are being ravaged by illness, as a humanitarian nation we cannot support the destruction of lives or the corruption of the Chinese corporations. B. ) Methane The opponent has not responded to my evidence with evidence to support a counter theory and thus he concedes that it is true simply because my evidence specifically indicates that it is Too late to reverse global warming because of the methane feedback loop. He responds analytically which is honestly an irrelevant type of response being that it warrants nothing. Please flow this argument to me as well. Conclusion: The Affirmative/Pro team has not been effective in the slightest in affirming the resolution, nor in demonstrating any real benefits of increasing tax credits to offshore wind. He has also, on multiple occasions, provided false evidence and left his burden of proof unfulfilled while also straight dropping arguments I made in my First Constructive speech. I on the other hand have effectively revealed the weakness of the offshore wind energy in its double smack effects on your wallet through high energy prices and the tax to pay for the subsidy as a whole. I have proven that doing the plan will create tons of nuclear waste, added onto the total the wind energy sector has Already created, (over 7 million tons) not even including all of the other poisonous gasses that are released in the process of rare earth creation. This will result in the death hundreds if not thousands of Chinese workers added onto the livestock and bodily damage that radiation stemmed diseases cause. Note that the Pro team has conceded that the US economy is fine now and that there is no need to take any risks with offshore wind and thus has conceded the entire round. All of this remains true and I haven’t even re-mentioned that the plan is impossible due to the fact that no ships exist to create the turbines themselves. I believe the resolution has been properly negated, though I thank my opponent for his valiant effort in promoting renewable energies and hope that he has enjoyed this round. Thank you -The JVN