The USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over (continued...)

Framework. I agree to debate on utilitarian terms but disagree with my opponent’s deviation from the framework he provided. Hayd clearly articulates that, “Every sentient being intrinsically seeks to maximize their desirable states (pleasure) and minimize undesirable states (suffering)”. He uses this logic to justify his definition: “to act in ways that bring about the most overall good”. However, he then deviates from this and adds two stipulations: (1) only humans matter and (2) only U.S. citizen matter. These stipulations are arbitrary and absurd. If only U.S. lives count as an impact any genocide is justified under Hayd’s framework in-so-far as it net conveniences U.S. citizens. Further, Hayd’s framing itself clearly articulates that “every sentient being” has a stake in moral utilitarianism which invalidates his arbitrary anthropomorphic focus. Judges should weigh this round on the inclusive definition: “to act in ways that bring about the most overall good.” Dropped Arguments. Hayd has neglected several key arguments coming out of round 2. First, he does not address the unique job growth created by investment in green energy. Second, he drops all arguments related to the impacts of free energy – I have isolated multiple millions of people that would be saved as a result. Finally, Hayd dismisses the extinction level risks of climate change. Remember these arguments, as I will be reemploying them throughout round 3. The Resolution Burden. The resolution asks whether the USFG should increase support for clean energy sources. Importantly, it does not ask whether clean energy sources in their present state outcompete traditional sources. Hayd makes multiple arguments geared towards proving that clean energy sources are non-viable in the status quo. Refuting those arguments is not my burden in this debate. My burden is to articulate that a world with increased support for clean energy is net utilitarian. My burden is to show that more support for clean energy, on balance, is better than the status quo. Hayd’s C1. Expensive. Hayd is making a critical imprecision mistake in citing the Institute for Energy Research (IER) for levelized cost of energy (LCOE) comparison. While the IER, a conservative think tank, may be presenting factual data - they are doing so in a way which validates their platform. To present PV with a LCOE greater than traditional sources they are analyzing costs associated with residential roof-top installations [1]. In fact, the news article that Hayd cites misquotes the report from IER, which states explicitly, “For example, it is estimated that the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for new SPV technology will be $74.20 per MWh in 2020 and $56.40 for new natural gas plants.” This is important because residential roof-top installations are not the critical question here; we are concerned with how utility-scale PV performs against traditional energy sources. Lazard’s version 10 report from December depicts the reality of this situation [2]: We can see it is true, residential rooftop installation is significantly more expensive than traditional energy sources. However, Crystalline and Thin Film utility PV are both already outcompeting traditional energy sources. Moreover, both the IER analysis and Lazard’s analysis indicate that wind energy is outcompeting traditional energy sources; this shows that despite the upfront steel costs associated with windmills they still outperform traditional energy sources over the course of their lifetime. Since utility PV and wind is already outcompeting on a LCOE basis, additional funds from the proposed plan will only make them increasingly more appealing; the LCOE difference can be used for energy storage systems. Unreliable. Before getting into the details here, it should be noted here that this contention is not a compelling reason to vote Con. The outcome of Hayd’s arguments is that a traditional energy infrastructure should remain in place to support clean energy sources in times of intermittency. Notice that this is compatible with my plan – I propose to increase focus on clean energy sources, not to utterly disassemble the existing infrastructure. For proof, look to round 2 where I articulated that many resolutional plans are absurd, such as, “USFG could pass law requiring that all oil rigs are disassembled with the parts scraped for use in windmill infrastructure”. That being said, Hayd’s concerns are being rapidly addressed by on-going research in two fields: (1) battery technologies and (2) hydrogen storage technologies. For battery storage technologies, the LCOE is projected to decrease rapidly even over the next 5 years [3]: Additional research funds, proposed by the plan, will only serve to expedite this trend. For hydrogen storage, recent analysis out of NREL illustrates cost-competitiveness against battery technologies [4]: Battery and hydrogen technologies are addressing Hayd’s concerns via storing excess energy for later use. For perspective, more solar energy hits the earth in a single hour than all of humanity uses in an entire year [5]. This means, that with continued increases in solar conversion efficiencies, daily energy harvesting via solar will eventually surpass 24-hour needs. And yes, solar conversion efficiencies are already steadily increasing [6]: The plan would only serve to expedite these trends. Excess energy can be stored in reserve for times of intermittency. Recap of C1 Rebuttal. Analysis indicates that traditional fuel sources are more expensive than utility solar and wind sources. Additionally, green sources have the added benefit of creating many more jobs per dollar invested. Issues of intermittency are solved by retaining an increasingly shrinking traditional energy backbone while battery and hydrogen storage technologies mature. Hayd has conceded that solar and wind energy are plentiful. Hayd’s C2. Although plants grow better with increased CO2 there are conflating factors present. The projections for extreme heat events, extended droughts, and globally elevated temperatures are all catastrophic for plant health. This is why the IPCC report classifies “threatened systems” at very high risk and specifically identifies crucial food shortages globally. For Hayd to leverage this contention, he’ll first have to dismantle my contention on the risks of climate change. I have offered multiple arguments on biodiversity loss and the potential for run-away extinction events. These arguments all preclude crop longevity which makes their additional “food” source irrelevant. Hayd’s Rebuttals. Plan. My opponent articulates that the plan will push energy prices up. However, I have demonstrated that utility solar and wind energy have a lower LCOE than all traditional sources. Additionally, increased investment in these sources creates net job growth. Environmental Harms. Hayd attempts to invalidate ecosystem extinction risks by reframing the resolution as anthropocentric. This reframing is unwarranted as discussed above. Still, viewed through an anthropocentric lens, the impacts are devastating on humanity. Loss of biodiversity is tantamount of loss of food sources, cascading extinction events are loss of food sources, irreversible run-away transitions are potentially human extinction events. Hayd also infers that natural disasters are in fact decreasing because deaths by natural disasters are down. This is false. The 2015 report from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Prevention notes that natural disasters are up 14% over the previous decade [7]. Deaths by natural disasters are down only due to increases in medical technology over the period in question. Replotting Hayd’s chart in terms of economic losses illustrates the reality of the situation [8]: Hayd cites a 1998 article on radiative forcing by way of saying that each new molecule of CO2 has a smaller impact than the last. What Hayd did not realize was that radiative forcing was a term popularized by the IPCC. In fact, their 2017 report, which I cited in round 2, incorporates radiative forcing into their models 62 times. Hayd’s conclusion, “CO2 won’t do any harm to our planet”, does not follow from the evidence. Radiative forcing is well understood by scientists and is incorporated into every current climate projection model currently available. Aside from projections already factoring in radiative forcing there are two other reasons this analysis is incorrect. First, while the impacts of CO2 may be marginally decelerating, the total amount of atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing [9]: Second, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. The run-away global warming scenario articulated in round 2 has more to do with methane being released from permafrost. This is because methane trapped beneath the permafrost is 84x more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2 [10]. The same report by the Environmental Defense Fund also notes that the largest source of methane release is via the oil and natural gas industry. This analysis indicates that climate change is unique to traditional fuel sources. Finally, Hayd uses the same radiative forcing argument to argue that air pollution impacts are non-existent. These two things are not related. Radiative forcing is a measure of the balance between solar energy entering the atmosphere vs solar energy leaving the atmosphere. Meanwhile, the air pollution impacts are cause by concentration of pollutants in the atmosphere. I therefor reiterate, switching to green sources has the potential to save millions of lives annually. Hayd argues that only American lives matter but this point holds no weight in a round based on utilitarianism. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com...