The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives

In this final debate, I will analyze the two competing sides in terms of the claims made in this debate, hopefully distilling why the judges should cast a Pro ballot. First, there is the issue of government regulation. I say that government regulation is sometimes beneficial, and that funding for IFR's is one of those times. My opponent says that government intervention in the free market is bad. He cites the housing bubble and its accompanying financial crisis as the example. The following evidence has been introduced: Pro: Richard Posner, the main proponent of the law and economics movement and the most cited legal scholar in America has provided analysis that the housing collapse was due to self-interested businesspeople, coupled with the de-regulation of the housing market, which caused a catastrophic economic collapse. Con: A Wikipedia page containing a timeline of events that various people feel were involved in creating the economic crisis, some of them government-related, others not. Second, my opponent cites Steven Chu and makes a new argument about IFR's not being needed. However, the link he provides states "[We're] looking at reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived actinide waste… These are fast neutron reactors." Thus, IFR's are considered a potential by the federal government. Third, there is the issue of spending and trade-offs. I say that we can spend money on IFR's and other programs. He says that I have to show that IFR's are the best possible use of our money. The following evidence has been introduced: Pro: IFR's only cost $200-$300 million to complete. IFR's will create jobs and generate tax revenue for the government. IFR's create cheaper energy, meaning the government can save money by cutting other subsidies. Education funding is being increased to $71.5 billion next year, and won't be cut. 80% of education spending is done at the state and local level. Even if education is important, it will be worthless if we are dead from a nuclear volcano. IFR's will generate thousands of jobs and save the economy from the recession. Con: Education and defense spending is important, and there's no reason why IFR's are more important. Next, my opponent says we shouldn't use IFR's to generate revenue. I'm not saying that's the purpose – it just answers your claim that it's too expensive. It will pay for itself, through greater tax revenue. Next, my opponent says that the polls I cited do not make the case for prioritizing IFR's over health care or defense. The following evidence has been introduced: Pro: 55% of Americans want lower or status quo defense spending. 40% of Americans think the health care bill was a bad idea. 70% of Americans want new nuclear traditional nuclear plants. 79% of Americans want IFR-style nuclear plants. Con: The surveys don't show a clear priority of IFR nuclear plants over defense and health care spending. This is ridiculous. 79% > 55% or 40%. If the question is: what do people want more: more defense spending or more spending on nuclear plants, simple math dictates the answer is nuclear plants. Next, my opponent says I should go over ECON 101 and find the reasons why government interference in the market is bad. THIS IS A DEBATE! THAT'S HIS JOB! If you want to claim that government interference is bad, give me some evidence or at least a logical argument. I need something more than a Wikipedia page and instructions to look up your arguments myself. Next, my opponent says that we can't blame the free market for environmental destruction, and that every development has pros and cons, including developments by the government and free markets. BUT HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY REFUTE MY CLAIMS THAT FREE MARKET CAPITALISM IS CAUSING ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION. He says it's narrow minded, and that private investment has invested resources to help the environment. But I'm still waiting for a refutation of Dr. Richard Robbins four specific arguments why capitalism is destroying the environment. Until he does that, this is an independent reason to ignore his free market claims. His next argument is that all development creates environmental problems, and that China's problem is internal corruption. The following evidence has been introduced: Pro: Wang Yi, an expert in Chinese development and a published author, has demonstrated that the transition to a market economy has created a huge environmental crisis in China, and that government regulation is needed to curb these problems. Con: Claims that China's problems are corruption and that all economic development harms the environment (no evidence presented) My argument is simple: private corporations do not have an incentive to spend money to fix the environmental damage they create unless the government forces them to. If they did, they would be bad capitalists. IFR's are an example of how the government can encourage responsible waste treatment. Next, my opponent says I haven't provided claims why we should prioritize energy over other policies. Even though I've made all kinds of arguments about no trade-offs, revenue and job creation, and pre-existing spending, I'll make the conclusion very simple, in two points: IFR's are not going to be developed by the private market. PERIOD (see below). IF WE DON'T DEVELOP IFR'S, WE WILL ALL DIE IN A HORRIBLE NUCLEAR VOLCANO. My opponent's last argument is that the free market will solve all our problems. My analysis has been simple: If I am a businessperson, I care about me ("invisible hand"). I will live no longer than 100 more years. Any nuclear volcano will happen after I die. My customers will live no longer than 100 more years. Any nuclear volcano will happen after they die. Thus, they do not demand an alternative to nuclear volcanoes. I will thus not supply an alternative to nuclear volcanoes (IFR's). Because the market and consumers are short-sighted, they do not appear to care about terrible things which will happen in the distant future. Because of this, there is no market for IFR's, and no IFR will be created without government assistance. It is not due to government interference – it is due to the fundamental failures of capitalism. My opponent asked for a simple explanation why energy should be a priority over other important social needs. The importance of IFR's can be summed up by Dr. David Camarow: "When you are talking about these kind of risks, risks that can endanger entire segments of our population, let alone the entire earth, then the risk analysis must go into higher gear. It is not enough to merely calculate the risks as ‘extremely low' – because there is no ‘low enough' when the consequences are so cataclysmic. We accept certain risks, which are relatively high – 50,000 traffic deaths per year, for example. But, as terrible as those deaths and injuries are, they do not imperil our culture, our nation, or the survival of the human race… As a people, as caretakers for future people, we cannot create unnecessary catastrophic risks like biosphericide, the agonizing death of billions." Regardless of any of the arguments, we have a choice: a Pro vote to get IFR's and prevent Dr. Camarow's nightmare scenario, or a Con vote and risk the potential failures of the market. I feel the answer is clear, and I ask for a Pro vote. Thank you!