That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light truck

First I would like to post my opponents points he has placed in the second round. First point: "His argument just seems like a conspiracy theory. " I have given a reliable source. And if that's not enough for you, I would like you to read this article. . http://www.pushhamburger.com.... This article proves that we have enough oil for 200 years. 200! That has got to be plenty of time to do a decent amount of research to make sure that the production of alt. fuels is completely safe . Pro has failed to realize one thing about this debate. Con does not have to prove that the government should not mandate passenger vehicles and light trucks should run on alt. fuels. As I said, I completely agree with pro. However, con has to prove that it shouldn't be done by 2040. And with oil that can power the US for 200 years, we can definitely wait until 2075 or another year to switch, again, once people know that the production of alt. fuels is completely safe. Second point: MPG may not be high. If the MPG is not high, then how fast will we run through our alt. fuels? We will probably run through it faster then gas or oil. People would be spending more time at fuel stations then actually getting anywhere. At least, for now until we research further into production of alt. fuels, oil is efficient. Again, con agrees with pro that we should have a mandate. However, we have time. Third point: Petrol cars are the number one cause of global warming. However, pro did not give his source. From a source I have here, cars only produce 33% of CO2 emissions. And 40% of the CO2 emissions is from power plants. Again, cars is not the problem. If you would like to read other causes here is my source. . http://www.ecobridge.org.... So pro has failed in proving that cars are the number one cause of global warming. Let me reinforce my points again. First point: Productions of alt. fuels can be highly dangerous From my source, we have 200 years. We can take this time to do research into production. As I've said, con does not have to prove alt. fuels are bad. Con has to prove that we should wait until a decent amount of research is done. We have enough time. We don't have to rush, as pro wants us to. Second Point: If the government mandates an early switch, we could throw an opportunity away Pro has stated that I haven't refuted his point on the policy of the US. However, if you read through then clearly I have. I have stated over and over that if the government mandates and early switch then we can possibly be throwing a chance to find a better solution away. In fact, this point should go along with my first point, as the con side is looking at time. Pro wants the US to create a policy that will make the world happy. If the government mandates this switch, and the world is happy then everyone wins. However, think about this. If a better solution comes along, how would the other countries look at the US? They would think we are stupid and didn't take the time to allow this solution to come along. We would be in the same boat as we now, if not then worse. We can not allow that. Pro wants us to rush into a political tactic that might not work. Again, this debate is about time. Here is why you should vote con 1. My opponent claimed that cars are the number one reason why we should mandate the switch to alt. fuels. He did not give a source, and clearly, as my source points out, 40% of CO2 emissions are from power plants. Pro wants to get rid of the number one contributor of CO2 emissions. If you vote pro, then you will be getting rid of our power plants and then we would be without power. That is not beneficial to the US. Being without power is very detrimental, so why go that route. That's all con is saying 2. Either way you vote, the government should mandate a switch to alt. fuels. Because the pro side is right, we do have one planet. However, we have time to mandate a switch to alt. fuels. There's no need to rush into a decision without having a firm structure. We have time. Remember, patience is a virtue. We have the time to completely understand all the options before we make a decision. 3. If you vote pro, then you are putting a risk into other countries looking down on us even more then they do now. How? If we don't take the time to look at all options, we mandate this switch by 2040, and then by 2045 we can have an even better solution and then we would be looked at as the country that rushed into a big, horrible decision. We have the time to do a good amount of research. Again, this debate is about time. And, as my source says, we have 200 years. Vote con because we have the time to come up with better solutions. Vote con because the American people can afford the time that has been given to our political leaders to make the right decision. And most of all, vote con because pro wants to be rid of the number one polluter, and as my source says, that would be power plants. America will not benefit from being without power.