Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs

My opponent did not present direct responses to my points. His first argument seem to be that: 1) It does not facilitate public policy debate, and that it avoids real issues. I answer with a simple, so what? This may sound harsh but the risks of extinction which have gone un-responded too outweigh the need for honesty, which is where I will deal with my opponent's should analysis. He claims should implies a moral issue and thus we debate fairness or "deontological" issues. However I see no reason why utilitarian values are not just as moral. Utilitarianism, the ends based system of measuring morality, is far superior then this general, "people should ACT according to some abstract moral standard", because: 1) there are no 'universal moral truths.' Such truths are difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. On the other hand, the benefits and disadvantages of actions are much more easily calculated. Thus, rather than relying on amorphous, vague moral truths to guide action we should look to more concrete ways of determining the ethics of a particular act to allow us to actually weigh actions and understand what impacts could be in the first place. 2) What do we do when absolute moral principles in deontology conflict? For example if we say retributive justice is an absolute moral principle, then we cannot do a plea bargain as then the one receiving the bargain would not be getting their full due of punishment. However what if that plea bargain could result in 10 more criminals getting their due of punishment? So we must look to and ends based system of morality and in this system I have showed in my counter plan that we risk extinction without global warming. Colder temperatures support war and in a nuclear world we cannot risk this. And as I showed with bearden any nuclear war is by necessity unlimited in scope. Extinction or even the probability thereof outweighs all else as it ends all life forever, it takes away all the future lives also. No matter the probability it outweighs all else as a fraction of infinity is still infinity. My opponents second point was that alternative energy sources are sought to reduce dependence on foreign oil and that it is inevitable that fossil fuels will run out. I would say this is simply not true, lets be honest here, the main support or at least one of the main supports for alternatives is global warming. Causing people to be afraid of alternatives will make us use fossil fuels here especially at 3545467.5 times at much. And on the point that fossil fuels will run out eventually anyway I would say that 1)If we can use enough, and if we use enough that it's actually gone, we would of put enough out to warm the planet more. This means you should compare which planet will be warmer and since mine would be because of the outpouring of fossil fuels there is: A) Reduced chance of nuclear war and extinction B) Reduced chance of famine, we need more c02 in the air not to have a famine in grains. A famine would cause massive harms to human life and also decimate our chances of stopping poverty a leading killer in the world. My opponent last point-like thing about how, If there were no global warming and no foreign dependence on oil, we would still be concerned with obtaining energy at the lowest cost and with minimizing pollution, is irrelevant. At the very least making alternatives appear more expensive will cause MORE fossil fuel output then there is on his side and thus maximizing global warming. Resolution, consider yourself negated.