Horses Should be Used Widely in the US

Currently, electricity in the United States is mainly generated by coal and natural gas. First, I should mention that coal is not oil, but even leaving this out of the equation, nuclear power and renewable energy sources add up to 32% of energy sources, only a little behind coal. http://www.eia.gov... www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electricity.pdf As this percentage is only getting larger, and coal will not run out at the same time as oil, the chance of America losing power is slim. Although my opponent was correct in stating that a drought that covers the entire country to kill all horses would be unlikely, this does not mean that a large number of horses won't be killed in a smaller drought, and the cost of transporting horses from unaffected areas makes that also unlikely. My opponent mentioned that humans could share water with horses to keep them from dying, however if there was only enough water to sustain one life, most humans would not choose the horse. Finally, my opponent mentioned that the chance of a major drought is unlikely thanks to underwater sources of water, but if this were the case, the extreme water shortages in California like the one mentioned in the article would not occur. http://www.latimes.com... While an EMP such as a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere would be crippling to some of the United States, the chance of one being successfully used is unlikely. The most likely type of EMP would come from a nuclear bomb of missile, something that could be detected early, and shot down by the National Missile Defense program. http://news.discovery.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Large geomagnetic storms are very unlikely, and the only one that would post a severe problem to modern civilization occurred in 1859. In response to my point about allergies to horses, my opponent said "I didn't say that everyone should ride horses. I'm saying that they should be used as a backup, for a small percentage of the population until disaster hits," however using horses as a backup does not go along with horses being widely used. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of widely is, "to a great extent : a lot," or, "by a large number of people." http://www.merriam-webster.com... It would not be possible to suddenly "produce more horses" after cars are rendered inoperative, and having that many horses just as a backup is not feasible. Although some people are allergic to leather and plastic, there are plenty of options for the small percentage of people that are allergic to these materials when purchasing a car, unlike horses. http://www.nbcnews.com... My opponent was obviously correct in stating that getting wet while riding a horse will not cause health problems, but it would not be comfortable, and in such a developed country, most people will not want to ride a horse if they will get wet. In response to my opponent's points about animal cruelty, paths will not always be in the woods, as there are not woods everywhere, horses routinely walk on concrete, but this does not mean it's good for them, horses might be bred for carrying heavy loads but the provided evidence does not support that claim, and mules do not fall under the definition pro provided at the beginning of this debate. Finally, while horses are clearly environmentally friendly, so are electric cars. http://content.sierraclub.org...