Resolved: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

Thanks to my opponent for responding! My opponent's points: 1. The oil spill was greatly exaggerated. To support this claim, my opponent cites the blog of a libertarian political commentator and activist named Lew Rockwell. This blog is a collection of articles and posts by Rockwell and other libertarians. I was unable to find the specific article from which my opponent drew his quote – however, I would like to point out that Rockwell's work is politically slanted. Among Rockwell's articles we find predictions about the imminent end of the United States, arguments against our participation in World War Two, and other strongly opinionated writings. Whether or not one agrees with Rockwell is beside the point, because my intent is to demonstrate that Rockwell is neither a scientist nor a neutral journalist. In my post I cite direct quotes from scientists who have done hands-on research, while my opponent cites what is essentially an Op-Ed. I therefore maintain that my assertion about the dangers of the oil spill overshadows Rockwell's claim to the contrary. Next, my opponent agrees that the data he cited in his first post is inadequate as the data from the Exxon spill quantifies a decade while the Deepwater spill happened less than a year ago. However, he then transitions abruptly into an argument that does not apply to the environmental side of the issue, which is what we were discussing there. From his post: "We do need to keep in mind about the spill times however we need to think of how The United States stands to benefit economically from offshore drilling if our judges vote for the con side of the debate then they killing many job opportunities." This argument does nothing to disprove my point. Additionally, the claim about killing job opportunities was addressed in my first post and will be elaborated on in detail later in this post, when I illustrate the job-creation potential of switching to renewable energy sources. The next statement by my opponent is an amalgam of different ideas compiled into one incoherent paragraph. The first piece says: "We feel very bad for those families that lost loved ones due to the BP blow out but we need to think are we going to let them die in vain? Are we going to let the money that were making be blown away? No if we eliminate these jobs were are cripiling our economy! When workers take these jobs THEY decide that having this job is better then having no jobs." This is a bizarre appeal to emotion. He claims that stopping offshore drilling means the 11 lives lost because of the rig explosion would be in vain. This is a ridiculous idea. If anything, those 11 deaths provided further proof that offshore drilling is extremely unsafe, and their deaths would actually mean more if offshore drilling ceased. He then returns to his point about jobs, which again, has been addressed and will be elaborated on shortly. My opponent's next paragraph explains that he believes that new politicians need to be brought in to ensure that oil spills are not mishandled in the future. While I agree with him, that has nothing to do with the debate at hand. We are discussing the costs and benefits of offshore drilling, not the effectiveness of the leadership in our country and what can be done to improve it. My opponent's final point is not a point at all, as he apparently misread my post. He states that "my opponent says in his case that workers are aware of dangers. Now im going to ask ALL of you out there to tell me what 2+2 equals". I actually stated that workers were UNAWARE of the full range of dangers their jobs entail. And while I trust that everyone can add two and two, I'm unsure what the sum is supposed to tell us… My opponent ends his post with a duel challenge. First, he wants me to cite examples of alternative energy sources and explain how much they will cost the government and the length of time they will take to fully establish. In addition to answering this challenge, I will list specific the economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy. Renewable energy essentially means deriving energy from sources which are naturally replenished. Essentially, renewable energy research is engaged in converting this natural energy into useable electricity. I will use as examples the two most prominent and practical forms of renewable energy. 1.Windpower The practice of using wind to spin turbines and generate power by use of windmills. This means of energy production has 0% output of greenhouse gasses, meaning it has effectively no impact on the environment once the construction of the windmill is complete. Wind power has the potential to produce 40 TIMES the global demand for power, meaning we would have forty times the power we actually need. While there is a land cost associated with windmills, setting up mills offshore would be an effective solution, as ocean winds are of much higher speeds and therefore produce more energy. (http://www.stanford.edu...) 2.Solar Power Generating power from the radiation of the sun through the use of solar panels. Again, no greenhouse gasses are emitted through the use of solar power. This energy source can be used to power everything from home appliances to vehicles. In fact, photovoltaic power (solar energy) is 85 times more efficient than ethanol gas or gasoline from oil, and cars powered by battery would produce no harmful emissions. A common misconception is that solar power is only available during daylight or in sunny areas. However, solar power can be stored in battery form and distributed worldwide. On a domestic scale, the deserts of the Southwestern United States could produce enough energy to meet the needs of the entire nation. (http://www.awarenessintoaction.com...) As demonstrated, utilizing a combination of solar and wind power would create vastly more energy than we need and produce zero emissions. There is seemingly no environmental reason not to convert to these sources, as there is a striking lack of danger involved in these sources when compared to the dangers offshore drilling poses to its employees. My opponent asked that I note how long it would take and how much it would cost to fully implement these sources of energy. First, renewable energy sources are already being invested in heavily. Renewable energy usage and development has grown by a larger and larger percentage each year since 2004, with some technologies gaining a 60% rise in a single year. Essentially, if the United States began to phase out oil now and invested money that would be used to establish offshore platforms to instead build windmills and solar powers, we would be able to mainstream renewable energy within five years. (http://www.ren21.net...). Another economic benefit: once the solar cells and windmills are built, they provide FREE ENERGY FOREVER. Additionally, while fossil fuel technologies get more and more expensive as time moves forward, windmills and solar cells get cheaper and cheaper, and as the demand for them rises, the price falls even further. (Our Choice, Bloomsbury 2009). This means that the more we invest in renewable energy, the less expensive it becomes, and the greater the returns become as a result. As far as the job creation potential is concerned, utilizing wind and solar power along with other types of renewable energy (such as hydropower, biomass, and ethanol), the Cleantech Jobs Trend Report for 2009 predicts that 16 million jobs will be created through renewable energy in the next twenty years. It notes that this will be the greatest job source since computers and the Internet entered the scene. Meanwhile, my opponent remarks on the benefit of creating a pithy 650,000 jobs through offshore drilling. I am going to dismiss my opponent's question about taxi drivers wearing biosuits as hyperbolic. Please avoid that in the future and good luck to you in