Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

COUNTERPLAN A. Status Quo harm: Gas prices are at an average of above $3.50 per gallon (common-knowledge) B. Shipping cost increase leads to increase in all prices (common-knowledge) C. Alaska contains mass amounts of oil. -From- http://www.american.edu... -"According to three government studies since 1980, anywhere from 1.69 to 14.77 billion barrels of recoverable oil may be located at the protected ANWR." Therefore, I offer the following (counter) plan, D. The U.S. will initiate drilling into Alaska. E. The U.S. will decrease the amount of oil prices as much as possible. F. The cost for a gallon of gasoline will be paid for until it is under $2.00 (before being sold to gas stations). G. Alternatives to gasoline will be discovered by path of the status quo. -I reserve the right to provide evidence for any questions negative may have. The counter plan is mutually exclusive because of the following topicality: A. Should- (dictionary.com) Used to express obligation or duty B. (explanation): The topicality is not necessarily meant to show that the affirmative is non-topical but rather to show how the government will not be able to hold up the money to offer the 7% tax break AND offer $2.00 per gallon pay offs. We SHOULD find one solution and stick to it. 9 trillion dollars in debt is too much and by supporting both plans, the debt would be unnecessarily increased. We SHOULD only do one of them. I reserve the right to fiat, clarification, and legislative intent. Paragraph by paragraph: Global Warming impact: 1) Cross-apply evidence from round 2, this proves that the uncertainty is still up in the air. It is not definite that global warming exists. 2) Further evidence: "The attempts of environmentalists to bolster the myth of human-induced global warming is downright immoral." Philip Stott, Professor of Biogeography, University of London 3) Further evidence: "Global Warming Lies was created because when you do an internet search on global warming 99% of what you find is how the Earth is doomed and we are all going to drown from global warming. This isn't the case, in fact most climatologists will tell you differently. Global Warming Lies is an attempt to break down the science into everyday language, provide facts, use logic and common sense instead of the "You're going to die" method." (from: http://www.globalwarminglies.com...) ---> This website also shows a graph that shows the 20th century as NOT the highest average temperatures. 4) I've heard scientists say that "It's the warmest it has been in a century"… but obviously the average has to change sometime. In the 70's, people were worried about global freezing. 5) Lies about global warming are various. There are 2 major entities here, Al Gore and the media. Al Gore: Made a video about global warming but in fact, that video has several lies. One of which they took a clip of a polar bear on a little piece of ice, they claimed that that polar bear was like that because of global warming but in fact, that clip was from a video about how polar bears like to be on small pieces of ice covered by water. Furthermore, Mr. Gore has a HUGE airplane that pollutes loads AND owns one of the most polluting plants in the world… Nobel Piece Prize… HAHA. The media, on the other hand, has the exact same incentive… money. The media makes stories that sell and since people like hearing about (bogus) theories that COULD end the world, they will run them. The media is the biggest reason that this has been made TOO big of a deal. If one person that is respected begins to believe in any theory that could cause a lot of harm, then the media will believe it and run the story. If you think about it, it makes loads of sense. 6) (my most important argument)… even if global warming DOES exist (which it obviously doesn't), his plan won't solve any of its problems. From the same website as above, "Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars."… You'd have to see that if you were to solve the "harm" of global warming, just stopping gasoline cars wouldn't be enough. He has NO inherency, NO harms, and NO solvency. 2--> The next argument talks about the changes of earth's temperatures. This is exactly what happens, going to the site above (same site), you will see that the data was false and that the 20th century is NOT the highest average temperature ever. You have to see that there is a "fastest" increase sometimes and just because it might be now doesn't mean that we caused it (and not by our cars). I've already proven that the problem would not be solved. Topicalities: A. I am still interested in how this "energy" could be used… for what? It has never been specified. B. There is no link as of THIS ROUND that proves that solvency will be a SUBSTANTIAL increase and he is therefore non-topical. PLAN STANDARD: He has yet to show that businesses are interested in the growing of this crop. The standard not being PROVEN means that there is no increase (let alone a substantial increase). I'm going to offer one more topicality… United States (2nd one) I'll use the common knowledge definition… There must be an increase in the UNITED STATES… PROVE that there will be an increase in the UNITED STATES… My opponent offers a lot of good things about these Funding DA A/B. Cross-Apply farmers to businesses. With the businesses making this "change", it will be an even greater funding DA C-E: Common-knowledge… less people making stuff will lead to less stuff… From here, I would like to point out that Affirmative never chose between not having a substantial increase OR having a substantial increase but then having a substantial decrease in the production of everything else. It is one or the other because there is no way to determine the perfect amount. With all of this, you have to see that Affirmative has no case and therefore vote negative (con). Thanks!