By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

Good luck. Sponge bob! !! America is ready for a real solution that works, not the resolution that will give USA's people a false sense of security. I accept the definition for the bio fuels. AT: Observation The fact that Pro has to defend "all" bio is rather misleading, the core issue at this point is that there are only seven fuels that are recognized by the US government as ready for use, (from Pro's evidence), these are the fuels that will be used after the policy is enacted, therefore, my opponent does have to defend all 7 of them. And no it not unreasonable, there are only 7 cases to be made, we both have a limit to 8K letters and therefore I won't be able to run more than one DA at a time anyway. * Biodiesel * Electricity * Ethanol * Hydrogen * Methanol * Natural Gas * Propane 1. There are few key flaws in this argument. Firstly, the main argument Pro is trying to get across is that oil costs money, however the problem with the alternative fuels is that they have to be shipped and turned into the fuels with a process that requires the production of CO2. Therefore on the net we lose energy in the whole process, thus it will cost more than the oil. Secondly, the problem with oil prices is that, many things of set it, we still don't have the oil reserves in all of the places, therefore the oil peak argument is flawed, since it counts only the installed oil reserves. Another key fact is that light vehicles and trucks only account for 60% of oil usage * . https://www.aceee.org...* Howard Geller 2. That argument is basically saying that its possible to change financially, yes, its is abut it will be an economical liability MY CASE 1. My point is that there is an increase in CO2, I've posted the same link in "comments". And there is no reduction either, therefore it's not good. Firs of all, you could have asked me in the comments for it, like you did for the Hydrogen evidence, and again I did post it therefore it should be counted. What are talking about? It works! !! This site apparently has some issues, but again you could have asked about it in the comments, you do have like 2-3 days might I remind, in a real debate you would have 2-3 minutes maximum. *. http://www.dft.gov.uk...* Cross apply what I've stated in the beginning observation. You are not predicting 2040, but the resolution is, therefore you have to justify 2040. No, because it says "by 2040" it means that the latest is 2040, if we mandate the latest to be earlier that will solve faster. The government has been in control of fuel standards and has failed us for 20 years Steve Chapman, a columnist and Editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, on April 12, 2007 "The government's fuel economy standards also haven't done much to promote conservation. On average, new vehicles get lower mileage today than they did 20 years ago, thanks to the proliferation to large trucks and SUVs. " This means that because governments' choice to not promote conservation, vehicles have lower mileage today they did 20 years ago. Because my opponent does not contest that alt fuels are economically competitive now, proves that they are not, and it does matter, because why should we pass some mandate if it will do us worse. Finally look if we're going to pass things now, it will make new changes not possible if we find a better solution. At the end of this debate one has to question the implication of the resolution. Will it help or will it only assuage our fears? Will it solve or will it not? Since the answer to both of those questions is the later or two, I urge you to consider voting Con. Thank you!