The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives

His honest and timely responses are certainly helpful in maintaining the rhythm of this debate. Firstly, my opponent fortified his position through the subjective opinion of a judge who has never worked as an economist. I backed mine with facts and asked the readers to judge for themselves. Plenty of influential conomists pointed their fingers against Greenspan's lax monetary policies over the year. If you really need someone to tell you what to think, critics of governmental role in initiating the financial crisis include Nouriel Roubini (worked at International Monetary Fund, supervised Tim Geithner the current Treasury Secretary, and served as a senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisors during the Clinton administration), Bill Fleckenstein (of Fleckenstein Capital), and Peter Schiff (of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. and a 2010 candidate for the U. S. Senate). If my opponent really wishes to base an argument entirely on someone else's opinion, the least he could do would be finding a REAL economist who did not talk about economics simply through the context of laws. Readers, however, should briefly review the aforementioned timeline and will reach the conclusion that governmental intervention was an undeniable catalyst to the creation of the subprime crisis. Secondly, I completely agree with the potential benefits of IFR development. But while IFR can be desirable, my argument was directed toward my opponent's argument regarding IFR's NECESSITY as a solution to a nuclear volcano. When asked whether the development would be aimed for burning up existing waste or dealing with waste in future reactors, Dr Chu indicated "[IFR] could be for existing, but mostly for future waste. " Clearly, Dr Chu did not share the sense of urgency for IFR or nuclear volcano which my opponent had falsely suggested. IFR would be a good invention to have, but we do not need to for dealing with nuclear volcanoes. Thirdly, I found it amusing how my opponent kept mentioning the impending doom of nuclear volcano when the man responsible for the energy stability of this nation clearly did not share his view. Every enthusiast always introduces his sales pitch with the promise of low cost and extremely high return, but the government has clearly been a poor judge for profitability. Countless projects have been "initiated" and "incentivized" since the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 yet we are still experiencing record high unemployment rate at 9.7 percent (. http://www.bls.gov...). I believe the number speaks for itself of government ability to "create jobs. " Fourthly, I shall ask the reader to do this experiment on your own to determine whether you agree that IFR development is such an emergency. Add all your bills to get your total annual expense. Take all your income to get your total annual income. Now increase all your expense by 10% and take a 16% cut on all you incomes. Yes, that was exactly what happened between 2008 and 2009 to the federal government according to White House Office of Management and Budget. Now, are you more likely to worry about paying your mortgage, health insurance, and college tuition or are you more like to borrow more money to buy a solar power system for you roof? If you are not considering "substantial increase" to your alternative energy investment, then you have just demonstrated to fallacies in my opponent's polls. I too wish for a decrease in defense and healthcare while investing in more environmentally viable energy solution. But as the readers should clearly see now, are you going to care that about much energy when you're broke or will you just start walking to buy groceries? Fifthly, my opponent proposed striking out my argument for free market mechanism. It is the law of this land and our market participants are educated with and used to this practice. Arbitrary involvements in the market curtailing or inflating either supply or demand threaten participant confidence and create market inefficiencies both in theory and throughout history (bubbles, black market, you name it). While I agree that free market capitalism can lead to environmental destruction, will the readers rather the government passing laws to establish punishment for environmental destruction or taking over private companies to direct the future of technological development? My opponent blindly focused only on the good and completely ignored the bad of market intervention, but I demonstrated that one must consider both pros and cons of any government action before hastily force a new change onto an existing society. The focus is not whether free market capitalism is causing environmental destruction. The focus is whether the benefits of free market innovation including those in waste management justify the absence of government involvement. Therefore, this argument is core to this debate because balance ultimately determines whether the federal should shift resources and accept the consequence of trade off proposed by the topic in discussion. Sixthly, my opponent attacks my assertion regarding the core issue of Chinese development. Since most Chinese scholars who dare to point fingers at the current officers are probably dead by now, I am indeed a little short on support from commentators. But if the readers can consider the situation critical, they should be able to see the reasons behind my argument. Since China was completely regulated to begin with, wouldn't intentional de-regulation of an immature technology or enterprise be another form of government intervention? In developed nations, companies without proper waste management technology would naturally face strong opposition and litigation from its victim. Therefore, continuing prosperity of these polluters can only be justified by government protection or legal favoritism. Instead of asking the readers to blindly believe in any "expert" which debater choose to cite, I ask the readers to go through the logic and evidence of each argument on their own. Most importantly, private corporations have plenty of incentive to spend money to fix the environmental damages they create because either government or civil unrest will force them to. It is just plain ridiculous to assume there's no trade-offs. THERE ARE ALWAYS TRADE-OFFS. IFR's will be developed by the private market when it is actually economically feasible. PERIOD. Most importantly, WE WILL ALL DIE IN A HORRIBLE NUCLEAR VOLCANO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE DEVELOP IFR'S (if the situation is to occur). If Dr. Chu does not share my opponent's urgency, I urge the readers to ignore my opponent's paranoia. Yucca Mountain was chosen and built by the government as a nuclear waste site. If anyone is to blame for a nuclear volcano, THE GOVERNMENT IS. If Yucca Mountain was closed down, then the private sector must seek alternative energy solution IMMEIDATELY because they have no authority (neither will they want the responsibility) to handle radioactive materials. In the end, this is a matter of priority. Does the reader believe that the government should sacrifice other programs for the development of alternative energy RIGHT NOW? Everything about my opponent's proposal is great except its timing. His lack of financial reality renders his plan impractical and the federal government must not engage in such irresponsible act. For every dollar we borrow or print, our future generation must pay the debt especially when our current balance sheet is already an international embarrassment. Although my opponent has delivered you a fancy sales pitch and the image of a promising future, I have provided cold hard facts of the financial health of our federal government. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Buy what thou hast no Need of and ere long thou shalt sell thy Necessaries. " (Buy what you have no need of and not long you shall sell your necee