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

Anyone who has watched Nickelodeon remembers the catch-phrase of Spongebob Squarepants, "I'm ready! " Because I believe America is ready, I urge you to vote Pro on today's resolution, Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new cars and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. My one "definition" for today's debate is a list of what is considered alt fuels by the Department of Energy. Alternative fuels: Biodiesel, Electricity, Ethanol, Hydrogen, Methanol, Natural Gas, Propane, Biobutanol, Biogas, Biogas to Liquid (BTL), Coal to Liquid (CTL), Fischer-Tropsch Diesel, Gas to Liquids (GTL), Hydrogenation-Derived Renewable Diesel (HDRD), P-Series, Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (alt fuels = alternative fuels) Observation: With the many variations of alt fuels, the fairest interpretation of the resolution is that Pro has to defend the general use of alt fuels. Pro defending one fuel would be illegally running a plan, and Pro having to defend every single fuel is simply unreasonable. 1: Oil Dependency With what we have seen over the last summer with record high oil prices and the fact that OPEC show no sign of letting the low gas price we see today staying for long, we must realize that that the U. S. needs to find an energy source other than oil. Despite the current low cost of fuel, Market Watch reported on December 19, 2008 that "Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali Naimi repeated previous assertions that $75 a barrel was a ‘fair and reasonable' price for oil". This control over the price of oil creates a dangerous instability within the U. S. economy as John S. Duffield, a professor of Political Science at Georgia State University stated, "As long as the United States remains a large oil consumer and as long as the prices of oil and petroleum products are ultimately set on world markets, the U. S. economy will be hobbled by high prices and susceptible to the negative consequences of the oil supply disruptions. Thus the most effective way to reduce the economic costs of oil dependence is to reduce U. S. oil dependence. " The solution for this problem can come from the use of alt fuels, as the National Resources Defense Council stated "It is essential to be gin moving beyond oil as the primary energy source for our vehicles. " This means we should mandate a switch to alternative energy in order to protect the U. S. economy from the danger of oil dependency. 2: Economic Future The current economic recession makes investment in any stock or company uncertain. The mandate guarantees that alt fuels will be used and grow in the future. Investors will see this as a sole shelter in a raging storm. The influx of money being poured into alt fuels will help financially bridge the transition to fully using alt fuels. My opponent's case: My opponent begins by stating that, all factors considered, alt fuels do not offer a reduction in carbon dioxide. He then cites some "generic evidence". However, even if you accept this evidence, (I will get to that shortly), it does not at all prove his point, just that bio-fuels increases carbon dioxide emissions. Evidence: "Bio-fuel demand pushes crop production into environmentally fragile areas, collapsing CO2 sinks and accelerating global warming": Clicking on the link goes to a homepage, which does not offer anything that proves this. Even searching the website proves fruitless as shown here. Hence this should not be accepted into the round. Ethanol production increases air pollution and Crutzen paper: These also link to homepages that offer no such proof. Thus, these should not be accepted. My opponent then says that the mandate is bad because if we wait until 2040 to develop alt fuels, our transportation would be cut because we will only be able to sell alternative fuel powered cars in 2040, which we obviously would not have because we have waited until 2040 to start development. First off, nowhere is Pro supporting that we wait until 2040 to research alt fuels. This is simply a random statement by Con that has no backing that it will happen. Secondly, the mandate only has to be passed by 2040, meaning that the due date could be in the year 5000 for all we know. The government would certainly give the car companies enough time to fully develop the technology. Finally, the mandate only states that only "new cars and light trucks" need to be powered by alt fuels, meaning that old cars and light trucks and anything that is not classified as either may still be sold and powered by gas. Going slightly out of order my opponent tries to show that I have to defend every type of alternative fuel because the resolution says "fuels". First, one must consider writer's/framer's intent when evaluating a resolution, and despite statements by my opponent, this is NOT the intent of national committee, the writers and framers of the resolution. If the resolution was left as "by an alternative fuel", this would force Pro to run a plan, which is illegal in Public Forum. Clearly the intent of the committee is to uphold the rules of Public forum, not place Pro with an impossible burden. Secondly, this is clearly abusive. It is quite frankly impossible to justify the infinite amount of possible alt fuels, including those that are impossible. How is it not ludicrous that I would have to justify say, using U. S. citizens' bodies for fuel (biomass), or attempting to build a machine that can access other dimensions so that we can search for other plants to use as bio-fuels? Con could just come up and list a bunch of impossible to fulfill alt fuels and say I have to defend them all, while he only has to prove ONE is bad to win. Clearly, this interpretation not only kills all debate, but is abusive and cannot be held up in this round As stated in my case, the fairest interpretation is Pro defending a general use of alt fuels. This also means that all the evidence presented by Con should not be accepted because I am only advocating alt fuels in general, rather than specific ones such as bio-fuel or hydrogen. Moving up to the paragraph before, Con says, that I predict that we will have bio-fuels that work great by 2040. First, I never make this prediction. The only possible justification for this is the aforementioned interpretation that I have to defend all fuels, which I have already proven to be wrong. Also, as I have already said, the mandate only has to be passed at 2040, with the due date at any time. Evidence: Hydrogen car = Bomb: My opponent has dropped this evidence Bio-fuels hurt small scale farmer: After a bit of searching, I found the article, but the same article states, "small-scale farmers have been able to increase their access to land to seize opportunities that the biofuels boom brings", so even if you accept this evidence, it negates itself. Con then questions if we will be ready by 2040, and why we can't do it in 2030. First, whether we are ready are not is irrelevant as it is only the date the mandate is passed. Secondly, if we do it in 2030, that will still be "by 2040", hence supporting the resolution Con follows this by saying that the government has no reason to mandate, that incentives or tax breaks are better and that government regulation is bad. First, doing a mandate secures an economic future for alt fuels. Secondly, saying we should do incentives or tax breaks doesn't negate the resolution as these don't prevent the mandate from being passed. In fact, these options can be part of the mandate. Finally, I ask Con to prove his assertion that bad things happen when the government interferes and if the creation of anti-trust laws was bad. My opponent ends by claiming that alt fuels are not economically competent right now. As I have said before, the state of alt fuels right now is irrelevant and passing the mandate makes alt fuels more economically viable.