Should the United States promote electric vehicles

Thanks flamebreath. Burden of Proof My opponent tries to throw a burden back on me. However, since he is instigator and pro, the rules of debate state that he must prove the resolution true. I only need to show that he fails to meet this burden. He says I must prove the government cannot afford subsidies. This isn’t too hard, so I’ll go ahead. The recently approved December tax cut deal will add $700 billion to the federal deficit in the next two years. [1] This will put us over the mandatory government debt limit of $14.2 trillion. [2] The government is, by law, not allowed to spend anymore. House Speaker, John Boehner, has stated that all new spending measures must be proposed individually and must be budget neutral, specifying which programs to cut in order to make up for the new spending; this is a significant new development in House budgetary policy. [3] So if my opponent proposes a spending increase, we should assume that other programs - like education, infrastructure spending, and health care - will be cut. Definitions/Observations Not contested – so my opponent, by the rules of debate, agrees to these for the rest of the debate. Contention 1: Subsidies crowd out other alternatives Subsidies create market distortions and crowd out investment in other alternatives, like ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells. Essentially, if the government subsidizes electric vehicles, it is choosing the winner itself, rather than letting the market decide which type of power source is best and most cost effective. Take the following future hypothetical example. Electric cars cost $80,000. Hydrogen fuel cell cars cost $80,000. Flex fuel cars (that run on ethanol) cost $70,000. If the government provides a $20,000 tax credit for buying an electric car, everyone will buy electric because it’s cheaper (only $60,000 with the subsidy), even though it is not naturally so. Making alternatives less cost competitive is problematic because hydrogen fuel cells and (non-corn) ethanol are showing great promise. Flex fuel cars that can run on blends of up to 100% ethanol only cost an additional $100 to manufacture. [4] In Brazil, sugar ethanol powers 45% of their cars. [5] While sugar doesn’t grow well in the U.S., a study by the National Commission on Energy Policy found that the U.S. could replace two-thirds of its oil needs by 2050 using cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass. [6] The free market should decide which alternative to gasoline is most cost effective, efficient, and best for the environment. The government should not intervene in the market and decide which of these 3 alternatives should win the competition - through government fiat and subsidy. Contention 2: Public transportation In A New Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard explains how federal subsidies for highways and cars has led to such an over-reliance on passenger vehicles in the United States that so-called “public transportation” systems (trains, light rail, buses) have had no chance at competing. Newsweek’s profile of Obama’s high-speed rail proposal chronicled how the passenger rail systems in the U.S. have fallen into disuse and ill-repair over the last 40 years, due to federal subsidies for driving. The U.S. uses far more energy per capita than any other nation. If we truly care about the cost and the environment, the goal should be to decrease our per capita energy consumption. One key way of doing this is to decrease the number of cars on the road and to increase the amount of public transportation, which uses less energy per capita since it’s like a giant carpool. Any new subsidies for cars will further crowd out “public transportation” alternatives. Note: the bus fleet in the U.S. is increasingly able to run on ethanol. [7] The investment in alternatives to cars and roads is even more necessary, considering the recent American Society of Civil Engineer’s report, which gave our nation’s roads a failing grade and outlined $1.6 trillion of drastically needed repairs. [8] Contention 3: Electric cars suck A study by the National Cancer Institute found that the large magnetic fields found in electric cars can cause cancer. [9] In addition, 80% of our electric grid comes from dirty sources of power (coal and natural gas). Although electric cars seem cleaner, the pollution is just emitted somewhere else, far away - at the location of the power plant. The typical electric car can only go 100 miles on one charge, which makes the car completely useless for longer trips, making vacationing and visiting family difficult. In addition, because of battery replacement costs, electric cars are quite expensive to maintain. Batteries must be replaced every 20,000 miles for a cost of $2000. [10] Lastly, electric cars just swap one non-renewable resource for another. Lithium, the key component in car batteries, is a very limited resource. According to Meridian International Research, “Analysis shows that a world dependent on Lithium for its vehicles could soon face even tighter resource constraints than we face today with oil.” [11] We will simply be dependent on lithium imports from Chile, instead of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. Josie Gartwaithe points out the ridiculousness of trying to “wean vehicles off of one limited resource — petroleum — and get them hooked on another: lithium.” [12] Contention 4: Grid overload If the government were to heavily subsidize electric cars, so many people would transfer to this type of vehicle that it would completely overload local power grids. Scientific American explains that local transformers can only handle the electricity load from 10 average size houses; however, a plug-in vehicle is equal to one third of the power consumption of a house. Scientific American furthers that an increase in electric car usage will cause massive blackouts across the United States. [13] Upgrading the grid and replacing every single transformer in the United States would be very costly. We should only allow this to happen if the free market deems electric vehicles to be the most cost effective, simplest and best solution to the alternative energy problem. In addition, an increase in electric cars would drastically drive up the demand for electricity in the United States. Since no new nuclear plants can currently be built in the U.S., and wind and solar provide only minimal amounts of energy (less than 0.5% of our current grid) and cannot store energy, any new power plants that would be built to meet rising demand would be coal or natural gas. Burning coal is worse for the environment than burning gasoline in the cars themselves, so this is a terrible replacement, and increasing natural gas would result in an increase in the dubious and environmentally dangerous form of natural gas collection called “fracking.” Contention 5: Other vehicles My opponent fails the BOP unless he proves electric airplanes, boats, and motorcycles are viable. More arguments/rebuttal to come in Round 3, as per the rules. Citations [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com...