the government should not be involved in the energy market

Contention I (cont.): Division of Ground and BOP Pro accepts definitions and conditions for victory, so Con needs to only justify at least one instantiation of government “involvement” in the energy market to successfully negate the resolution. Pro’s primary argument against intervention hinges on the abstract concept that the government should not “pick winners and losers” but provides no terminal or material consequences for such an action. Remember, Pro must justify an entirely laissez-faire energy market. Contention II (cont.): A. American Consumerism and Global Warming Overview: The evidence for anthropogenic GW is vast and comprehensive, draws from multiple sciences, and includes measuring exponential rises in sea levels, depleting ice masses, and increasing ocean acidification. As to opposed outright denying the causal link between CO2 emissions and GW, my opponent seems to contend that a type of warming occurs now, just on a much slower and smaller scale than what GW climatologists have predicted. I find this surprising since this effectively concedes the necessity for government intervention in the energy market at some point in time if the fossil fuel-based free market cannot change its production and consumption habits. In any event, my task is thus to demonstrate the environmental damage from GHG’s is acute and cumulative. A common theme in my argument targets a critical error in my opponent’s data: his sets are simply too small to be scientifically significant. Positive temperature correlations reveal themselves with better data. Dampening/Amplification The dampening/amplification debate is not very relevant to the GW debate because even if cloud coverage and water vapor provide a slight dampening effect for heat, this does not contradict evidence for an overall rise in temperature and certainly does not say anything meaningful about the role of GHG’s in GW. Also, you cannot correctly induct dampening from temperature data. More importantly, do not misunderstand Pro’s dampening/amplification data: the chart depicting a dampening effect represents what skeptics project, not what the data collected actually says. Moreover, his skeptics’ site does not source the chart. Experiments conducted by NASA suggest water vapor produces an amplification effect. For details: http://www.nasa.gov.... Air/ Ocean Temperature First, GHG concentrations have exponentially risen in the last century with no known natural causes lying coincident with such a dramatic shift. The most convincing suspect remains, of course, increased emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution. As per the proceeding chart, you should note the inset panels show the increase of GHG’s (C02, methane, nitrous oxide) since 1750. (For some reason, I cannot post more than two charts. You can find the chart at: http://www.ipcc.ch....) Also note: “radiative forcing” is defined as the difference between radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back into space. A positive forcing warms the system. Second, GHG increases correspond to rising global air and sea temperatures. A causal link can be explained by the Greenhouse Effect and other climate mechanisms. I don’t have enough space to explicate the specific dynamics, but an explanation of the Greenhouse Effect can be found in any 6th grade physical science textbook. Global Air: Global Ocean: Third, my data shows temperature shifts over the last 150 years for air and the last 60 for ocean while my opponent’s shows 22 and 9 years respectively. Both of these numbers are incredibly small for determining large trends, and surely they are ill fit for assessing climatologists’ predictions. Note: multiple colored lines represent data gathered from different studies; for a more in depth look, check my sources. My first chart demonstrates an increase of 1.1 to 1.3 C. While an average rise of 1.1 C might seem insignificant, the Copenhagen Accord determined that reaching 2 C would create incredibly dangerous climate conditions, the beginning of which we might be seeing now. With the amount of GHG’s current in the atmosphere, even if we stopped producing emissions today, our planet would continue to warm. Also, given the exponential increase in GHG emissions and radiative forcing, it might only take 50-100 years to reach 2 C. Fourth, while much of climate science is exact, some is not. What is the exact threshold for catastrophe? How much longer do we have? The debate over the answers to these questions persists, but precisely because there are no definite answers yet, we must act now to prevent future weather disasters like hurricanes, super storms, droughts, and massive flooding in coastal regions. Since climatological GHG effects are hard to roll back, the sooner we act to use green energy, the better chance we have to solve the problem. B. Government Involvement Succeeds (cont.) Government does not meet consumer demands This remains precisely my point. Consumer demands are not a moral sanction, and sometimes the government must become involved in certain market segments when that market cannot act in the best interest of the people (because of convenience, price, short-sightedness, etc). Just because a citizen chooses to consume a certain product does not mean that habit is best for himself or his community. Furthermore, and more importantly, government has time and again shown that its funding can create independently viable segments of the market (microwaves, anyone?). As green technology progresses, the same may become of its market. [Stopping/Regulating] pollution…is not market involvement. First, banning a dangerous product, like leaded gasoline, is a direct market intervention and imposes a tremendous burden on businesses by legally requiring a change in product portfolios. The need for this kind of federal regulation alone demonstrates Con has met its burden, proving the necessity of government involvement in the energy market. Second, even when the government does not outright ban a product but regulates pollution, it can still be “involved” with that market, even incidentally. Take, for example, the EPA’s rule regarding mercury emissions for coal plants. When faced with these regulations, plants can either reduce total energy output (and thus supply on the market) or make expensive alterations to their equipment/ procedures (which, in turn, raises the price of the final energy product). …crowd out private lenders. Government does not crowd out lenders by giving loans to green energy firms. If private lenders were sufficient, the government would not need to intervene. Also, this seems a bit contradictory on Pro’s part since he advocates green energy is not totally and currently viable in a laissez-faire economy. Sources: http://www.ipcc.ch... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ipcc.ch... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.ipcc.ch...