the government should intervene more in transition to alternative fuels

I concede the government may make change happen faster than the free market. So what? If it is simply change we want, can we look to Lenin, Stalin, Moa or Pol Pot to set examples? Of course not. It is a positive change over all that we want. The 19th century french economist Frederic Bastiat wrote of the "Seen and the Unseen" in regards to economics: "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen" The burden of proof for my opponent is to show that there is a policy that can be undertaken that will result in a net benefit to those governed by that policy. My opponent makes the following assumptions: #1) biofuels can be made that are more efficient than petroleum fuels No proof has been provided to show this to be true and the lack of activity in the industry indicates the opportunity is limited. My opponent has failed to explain why such a huge profit opportunity is largely being ignored. In fact, if the opportunity is there, why does it need government assistance? Are capitalists and entrepreneurs generally good at what they do, but for some unknown reason, ignoring this opportunity? My own experience is that the presence of a government subsidy is proof that an industry cannot survive on it's own. My opponent could have chosen to taken the position that there is more to consider than profit, perhaps some other social benefit, but has not. My conclusion from this is that biofuels would be a net financial drain on us all. #2) the private sector is too slow in undertaking the task of tapping into this market. The government can speed this up, with the result being a net benefit to us all The first problem with this statement is in determining what "too slow" even means. In fact, there actually IS a biofuel industry now. Developing such an industry takes time. How do we know it's developing too slowly? But more importantly, my opponent seems to make a blind assumption that governments impact will be positive. We are simply to assume that it will speed things along in some positive way. But how and why would this be true? If the intent is to take resources via taxation and apply that toward biofuels, consider that government cannot CREATE any resources of it's own. It can only DIVERT existing resources. If an opportunity exists for profits larger than existing opportunities (where those resources are currently being employed) why would those re-allocations not occur naturally? The economy is not static. I have personally seen this in my home state of Pennsylvania where those I worked with, friends and neighbors diverted their talents toward natural gas exploration in the state in the last ten years. Funds and machinery were also obviously diverted. As Bastiat says, we have to consider the unseen. What about the opportunity cost of this diversion? How do we know that manpower, funds and machinery could not have been used elsewhere to improve our lives even more? The answer comes from two important considerations: one, the diversion occurred because of a higher profit opportunity, and as I've shown, profit represents an efficient use of resources and the satisfaction of consumers desires. Let's contrast that with an industry where government subsidies have played a significant part: electric cars. Not only have car companies been subsidized with billions of dollars, but our tax dollars also help fund the purchase of each car for those who buy them. Because of this, we do not have a true test of profit. We also cannot tell whether consumers wants are truly met since the consumer is not paying for the full, true cost of an electric car. Electric car sales have lagged despite being subsidized up to $7500 per car. If electric cars are really a net benefit to us, why are consumers unwilling to pay the full price for them? If car manufacturers need subsidies, isn't this lack of profit proof that resources are not being used efficiently? In the case of Pennsylvania natural gas exploration, the profit opportunity presented itself and the industry developed very quickly. We know this diversion was a net benefit because voluntary actions of those involved resulted in net profits and satisfied consumers of natural gas. My opponent states that government has shown many times that it can "help the free market along". The problem is that there is simply no way to know this. It cannot simply be assumed that the diversion of resources will be a net benefit. Politicians will make choices based on popular opinions, not economics or science. Their intent is obvious: to improve their own political power. I would suggest that we deny politicians yet another opportunity to use such opportunities to gain power in this way while at the same time reducing our standard of living. Vote no to biofuel subsidies.