That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light truck

I need practice for this exact resolved. I would like the first round to just put my points out. The next round will be for me to refute pro. There are Three main points I would like to bring to your attention and for what I would like run. First point: Methods for production of alt. fuels can be highly dangerous. What I mean by this is, sure, the alt. fuel is safe, but the production of the fuel itself can be highly dangerous. Of course, this whole debate is going to be based on what ifs, since we are talking about the year 2040. What con is going to try and prove is that we should go into a period of research and development and make sure that the production of alt. fuels is safe. And R&D takes a good amount of time before scientists, political leaders, and other such groups will declare a project safe. Chris Stefan, a J. D candidate who attended the American University Washington College of Law, stated that "policymakers must provide additional funding for study of the environmental impacts of alt. fuels in their current stages of development, especially accounting for the wide range of variability of the impacts based on the method of production. In short, policymakers must continue to promote the development of alt. fuel sources,but remain mindful of the dangers involved. " I agree with the pro side, but as the resolved states, by 2040, so what con is proposing is wait until after this time to make sure that the production of alt. fuels is safe. Second point: If the government mandates, we are forced to follow that policy, even if a better solution comes along When it comes to policies made by government, yes they can change, however, for this point, it'll take far to long for the policy to change even in a better solution comes around. For evidence for this point I would like refer to David L. Greene, who is from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Andreas Schafer, who is from Mass. Institute of Technology, has found that "Within each policy category, there will be more than one policy measure that can be effective. " So if pro team gets their way, then you can be possibly jumping into a situation without looking at each option that is available. Like I said earlier, I do agree with the pro side, however, con suggests that we just take the time to look at our options before we go changing policies and not knowing what could have been. Third point: Government has damaged the fuel economy in the first place Should we really give the choice to the people who have damaged the fuel economy in the first place? I think not. I mean, look at it this way, if your boss makes a rule for the office then production ceases, should that boss be allowed to put another rule that can possibly damage the company any further? No, the workers would want someone who can create success for the company. Think of the American people as the workers of the company, the U. S. A as the company, and the government as the boss who has damaged the fuel economy in the first place. For my evidence for this point I would like to use Steve Chapman, a columnist and Editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, on April 12, 2007, has stated that "The government's fuel economy standards also haven't done much to promote conservation. On average, new vehicles get lower mileage today than they did 20 years ago, thanks to the proliferation to large trucks and SUVs. " Yes, I know the resolved states passengers and light trucks, however, let me say this. Because of the governments' choice to not promote conservation, vehicles have lower mileage today they did 20 years ago. Again, let me ask this, Why should we put the mandate into the hands of the people who damaged the fuel economy in the first place? Based on this evidence, the country can not take another blow like this. Again, I would like to think my opponent for proposing this challenge. And let me say, this is going to be a challenge, as this is the first debate I have done on Debate. org. Thank-you. And thus, Con has presented it's case