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

I argue that the US ought to continue to support traditional sources of energy rather attempt to develop clean energy. I argue this because it better upholds the value of utilitarian morality. The reasons that it better upholds utilitarian morality is because traditional energy sources are cheap, plentiful and reliable while clean energy is not; and that they improve the crop yield of agriculture. FrameworkIn order to evaluate the proposition of what the USFG ought to do, we must first establish how a just government determines what political actions to take. All autonomous entities act, or ought to act on a utilitarian basis; meaning to act in ways that bring about the most overall good. Goodness is determined by the ratio of desirability to undesirability. Every sentient being intrinsically seeks to maximize their desirable states (pleasure) and minimize undesirable states (suffering). For example, if I have a cramp that is creating a negative mental state—in this instance: pain—I naturally seek to alleviate it. Because the suffering of a sentient being is bad, all beings ought to seek to prevent it. Because morality in and of itself is a system used to determine whether an autonomous entity should or shouldn't do something, and the government is an autonomous entity, morality is a valid framework for the debate. This means that the side that wins this debate is the one that does the most good for the citizens of the United States. The strength of an arguments is determined in the extent to which is benefits US citizens. Observation: I will explain later in the debate that humans can rely on fossil fuels for the next few thousand years. Although wind and solar will be reliable forever, no reasonable entity can make a decision at one moment in preparation for thousands of years from now. Would a just government purposely harm the welfare of the people in order to solve a problem that won't become a problem until thousands of years from now? When that time comes, a reliable, clean, and renewable resource will be created that will allow us to abandon fossil fuels. But until that time comes, the US ought to continue to support fossil fuels instead forcing the development a thousand years too soon. C1) Cheap, Plentiful, and Reliable EnergyCitizens need as much access to energy as possible. Every function of energy is to make humans better (safer, more productive, healthier, happier, more intelligent, etc.) The computers that we use for pleasure, education, or work; the medical instruments that reduce suffering and save lives; the transportation that allows the most productive lifestyles possible; the agricultural technology that sustains an exponentially more populous country. All of this requires energy. Furthermore, all of this requires energy to be cheap, plentiful, and reliable. Without these characteristics, Americans couldn't sustain an ultra-productive lifestyle. I find that all known sources of clean energy aren't cheap or reliable; while traditional energy sources are. The most prevalent forms of clean energy are wind and solar. I will prove that those two forms of energy are expensive and unreliable. Then I will explain why fossil fuels are cheap, plentiful, and reliable. Therefore, the judges must negate the resolution in order to uphold the value of social welfare. Solar and WindExpensiveIn order for something to be cheap, all of the steps of the process have to be cheap. The amount of steel needed to produce one megawatt of energy from wind power is significant. [1] Solar is also expensive because of the inefficient procurement energy produced when put in the context of acquiring the rare and expensive resources to build it. Such materials can include highly purified silicon, titanium dioxide, phosphorus, boron, cadmium telluride, and copper indium gallium selenide. The Institute for Energy Research concluded, “[solar energy] remains considerably more expensive when compared to conventional electricity sources such as coal, natural gas, or nuclear…” [2] “‘the per-killowatthour cost (in real dollars) of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle’ – of electricity from a new solar photo-voltaic (SPV) plant in 2020 will be $74.20 per MWh, compared to $56.40 per MWh for power from a natural gas plant.” [6] The following image illustrates the cost gap [11] UnreliableBoth sources of energy fluctuate in the amount of energy created. For example, solar only produces energy during the day, and when there are little cloud cover. Wind can only produce energy when it is windy out. When Germany implemented widescale development of clean energy the average amount of energy produced by solar and wind fluctuated wildly [7]. These fluctuations aren't reliable. They require a backbone to make up for when the energy is lacking, namely traditional sources. Clean energy only works supplementally. Alex Epstein writes, “In practice they often have so much excess that they have to pay other countries to take their electricity—which requires the other countries to inefficiently decelerate their reliable power plants to accommodate the influx.” [3] Because of the nature of current wind and solar technologies, traditional energy sources cannot be discontinued. PlentifulIt is a truism that wind and solar are plentiful because they come from unlimited renewable resources. But, this point is irrelevant because fossil fuels will last us thousands of years into the future. Traditional Energy SourcesCheapTraditional Energy sources are extremely cheap because they are abundant, widely distributed, and easy to extract. Their low cost is evident; a gallon of drinking water costs $1.22 [4] while a gallon of gas costs $2 [5]. The previous graph under heading “Expensive” illustrates the point as well. PlentifulWhile the gas and oil consumption has increased rapidly in the billions, the amount of resources left still numbers in the trillions [7]. The first graph is oil and the second is natural gas This is a resource that can be produced continuously for thousands of years. In 1977 scientists predicted that there was 32 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. But between 1977 and 2010, the U.S. extracted 84 billion barrels of oil [9]. And these are only the proven oil reserves. With rapidly growing technology we are able to drill deeper, horizontally, as well as extract resources from shale. With the potential fossil fuel resources growing and growing as our technology advances, the human race will have many generations before running out will become a problem. C2) Improvement in Crop YieldFossil fuels are remains of long dead plant and animal matter. All of the energy that they consumed from the sun is trapped in highly condensed forms: natural gas (gas), oil (liquid), and coal (solid.) Because life matter is composed mostly of carbon, CO2 is released when they are burned for energy. Because plants breathe in CO2, plants thrive [8] Increased vegetation means increased crop yield, leading to more food production. Increased food production means a decreased mortality rate. By increasing CO2 emissions the government is saving lives. RebuttalsPro’s PlanPro’s plan is adequate to affirm the resolution. I find a problem with the first premise of the plan which is to implement a $40 per ton carbon tax. This creates a large burden for energy companies, which results in prices for energy goes up. This deters the use of energy, which makes society less productive. The harms that Pro has brought up from carbon emissions have no impact (as I will explain in the next heading.) Thus this provision in the plan does no good while doing massive amounts of harm to social welfare. Thus this plan cannot be accepted. Environment HarmsPro’s argues that “various species and ecosystems face extinction…[and that] arctic sea ice and coral reef ecosystems [face harm to due ocean acidification.]” These are nonimpacts. The only value relevant in the debate is impact to human beings. Ecosystem damage and species going extinct don’t have any impact. Thus these can be dismissed. The other argument Pro makes is that carbon emissions are causing natural diseasters such as “heat waves, coastal flooding, and typhoons.” He argues this is due to a 1.2 C increase in temperature. Yet, data shows that climate related deaths have been on a decrease over the last 30 years. Down 99.6% from 1939 [10]. This path of logic only works if fossil fuel combustion will cause dramatic global warming, (2) Dramatic global warming will cause a harmful change in the climate system, *and* those changes will overwhelm man's capacity for adaptation. We have increased the CO2 amount from 0.3 to 0.4. CO2 is a decelerating phenomena, meaning that every particle of CO2 added to the atmosphere is less potent than the last [12]. CO2 won't be doing any harm to our planet. Because CO2 has, and will have, so little of an impact on our environment any claims about large scale extinction via loss of keystone species is negated; this would happen in both worlds regardless of CO2. The statistic that Pro brings up that fossil fuels cause the deaths of 3 million people worldwide. First of all, the judges cannot discern specific impact from this because it is worldwide, not in the US. But we can accept that a fraction of these deaths happen in the US. The problem with this is for the reason in the previous paragraph: CO2 isn't a problem because it is a decelerating phenomena. Continual use of fossil fuels won't have an impact on air pollution. This would exist in both worlds. (continued next round)Sources [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... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com...