the government should interevene in the transition to alternative fuels

My opponent even agrees that ethanol is a bad idea! She however claims sources from sugar and grass, for example, are sufficient to fix the problem. To this, I disagree. Vast amounts of land are needed to create biofuels due to its low energy density, about 0.3 watts per square meter. To switch to full corn crops to fuel our cars, it would take up 37% of the continental United States, if we uses Soy it would take up 1 billion more acres of land then the US even has! We would have to fill up all of the US and more in order to fuel our cars [1]. This problem would remain with all energy sources my opponent lists. We would have to have a lot of grass, we cant just take is from the ecosystem--I mean, that's kinda against this whole green thing. We cannot merely take the algae, there is probably not enough to take from nature and means of retrieval are probably expensive. We would need a lot of water in order to create algae farms, and even then, it will cost a lot, take up space, and be wholly inefficient. The fact is, biofuels should not be subsidized for a simple reason: they are ineffcient and impractical. My opponent claims that she supports these conventional fuel sources (again, if this is true, why should government favor alternatives), and that government will increase efficiency...False. Green energy takes up 3 times more subsidies than conventional fossil fuel energies, but is also about 3 times, sometimes more, expensive [2]. If something is truly efficient, it need not be subsidized. Investors and businessmen would create firms which distribute this energy. The free market provides a profit incentive, which is good at encouraging firms to use the best technology. If a technology is lacking, it loses. Why should the government fund lacking technology? Why back the losers? The free market would naturally move to gas most likely, reducing emissions and energy costs for everyone. My opponent is claiming that the government needs to bring alternative energy to the top, but as I argued, that would be a bad thing. But do subsidies really work? Green energy is inefficient and failing with government intervention. Governments have interfered with other fuel sources, which has promoted inefficient fuels, fuels which harm the enviroment, increase prices, obfuscate the market, and simply make the industry... worse [3]. That, to me, does not sound like efficiency. Let's assume that the government can make someting efficient--which it doesnt. Even if we assume this is true, do I lose? No, not really. Let's say we have two windows. One is cracked, the other is a nice replacement window. You argue lets put plastic over it, it will be stronger. I say, yes, it is stronger. However, this conventional replacement will be stronger than a weak cracked window with some thin cover. Which option sounds superior? My opponent, even if she is wholly correct, needs some foundation as to why increased alternative energy efficiency is the best route to take. If conventional methods are cheap, work, are robust, and save lives, why go to an inefficient source of energy--even if it is slightly more efficient with subsidies? It really doesn't make sense, even if her whole argument is correct, which it isnt. Wait... current energies strain the economy? So ethanol costing more, reducing mileage, and killing people is helping it? Cheap energy which works across the clock, keeps our homes warm (or cold) in different times of the year, creates jobs, is bad? Why give resources to other failing industries. If anything, that will create more of a strain to society, not less. If society uses one efficient energy source, it will benefit everyone. If we use 5, 2 are good 3 are bad, for example, thats better? It is a waste, if you ask me. You are giving resources to industries which fail to produce, and having to give to them is a drain of resources. To give to the sucessful industries, which deliver back energy and efficiency leads to a net gain, not a net loss. Supporting many industries sounds like a good idea, but in fact, it is a drain--not a gift. No demand for something? Wanna know why? Because it sucks. No one will pay extra--ok, almost no one--for heating on their home to be green. There is no demand because it is a failure, it is not a failure because there is no demand. You are confusing cause and effect. Vote CON, because I pretty much knocked out all of Pro's points. 1. http://www.ncpa.org...2. http://online.wsj.com...3. http://www.aei.org...