The USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over (continued...)

Job Growth in SolarThis large contention can be rebutted very simply. The statistic on the amount of jobs that solar supports is inflated by private installment numbers. Thousands of families in suburbs that want solar energy on their rooftop call up guys to install it. If the US were to develop solar energy this would mean the development of solar power plants, not private installation—private installation is not enough to power our grid. In order for this argument to have any impact Pro would have to compare the job capacity of solar power plants vs. traditional ones. Pro does not do this because his numbers are inflated by private installation. Thus this argument thus has no impact. A world with free energy changes everythingAll impacts of free energy stopping world poverty and hunger are irrelevant because the US does not have to take the welfare of the world into account when making decisions. The second impact that Pro brings up is that traditional energy causes wars over acquiring the resources. This is irrelevant for the US though because we have the world’s largest supply of coal [3]. These wars are not a necessary result of traditional energy and thus have no impact. Framework IssuesPro argues that my moral theory stipulates that governments are still obligated to all sentient creatures—including animals and foreign citizens, and thus that any negative effect of traditional energy on them has impact in this debate. I will respond to each of the two claimed inclusive categories separately. Only human beings are morally relevant because animals are not morally capable—meaning that they cannot return moral promises. They are thus not able to be members of a moral community. Because rights exist through a moral community animals do not have rights. A moral right is a promise for someone to *have* something, or to prevent encroachment on something. For example, I have a right to legal defense (a lawyer) when accused of a crime or a I also have a right to not be unnecessarily tortured (not have my mental state encroached upon.) These rights can only exist—can only be validated—if there is a community of moral agents able to enforce them. For example, people that are able to give valid legal advice must exist in order for me to have a right to a lawyer, and there must be people able to defend me against villains in order for me to have a right to homeostasis. Animals can only receive moral consideration if they have moral rights, and a being can only receive moral rights if they are a part of a moral community. Animals/plants cannot be a part of a moral community because they have no ability to protect the rights of other members of the community. It is unfair for a being to receive right protection without putting forth the ability to protect other beings’ rights. For example, members of a state (as in nation) have their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness protected by law enforcement in exchange for their tax payment that goes to perpetuate the law enforcement to protect the rights of other members of the community. A civilian that is unable to pay the taxes and only leeches off the ability of other members of the moral community should not be allowed into the state. The state has a right to refuse them on the principle of fairness. In this way nonhumans are rightfully not a part of the moral community and thus do not receive moral obligation. The second premise that Pro argues is that the US has an obligation to the citizens of other nations; explaining that the US ought to stop a genocide even if it didn’t directly benefit us. This premise is weak in multiple ways. Firstly, Pro does not substantiate this claim at all; it is unwarranted. Why is it wrong to think of genocide in terms of US social interests? Pro leaves this open ended and thus this can be dismissed. Secondly, my argument from the first premise regarding moral communities applies here as well. Citizens of other nations can only receive moral consideration if they are a part of the moral community. Citizens from other nations do not pay the taxes to maintain the law enforcement that protects US rights, and thus the US has no obligation to protect the moral rights of the other nation. This logic is unnecessary though because stopping a genocide is in the interests of the US because purposely ignoring it would bring harm from the international community and endanger the rights of the citizens (via war), and thus the US should still stop the genocide. My moral theory still wins out against any counterpoint Pro has offered. Resolution BurdenPro argues that he does not have to affirm clean energy in its current form, but rather a future form of this. If Pro is advocating for a future form of clean energy, this would mean that the US would continue to support traditional sources of energy until this new technology arises. This does not advance his burden. Pro has to immediately discontinue support for traditional energy in favor of clean energy to advance his burden. This entails a reduction and gradual replacement of traditional with current clean energy. Pro cannot continue to support traditional energy for indefinite amount of time and still uphold the burden. Defense of C1Pro argues that the high cost of solar is the result of personal rooftop installations rather than a power plant cost, and that wind power is already lower than the traditional sources. The graph that Pro uses is misleading though because it is cherry-picked. Just going to the “Cost of electricity by source” Wikipedia page and scrolling through the cited studies shows scientific consensus; in general Solar PV is more expensive [1]. Literally every study given shows traditional energy being cheaper. What makes Pro’s study more valid than the studies that I have cited? Because the graph that Pro cites does not account for the carbon tax already put onto traditional energy production. When this added cost of production is removed, the low price of traditional energy is revealed. Note the cost of CCGT (natural gas) and OCGT (oil) plants in comparison to Solar PV. Pro then attempts to counter the intermittency problem by arguing for hydrogen storage. But this raises more problems than it solves, namely in the extremely high price of acquiring a hydrogen storage technology [2].Defense of C2)Pro responds to this by arguing that the results of climate change will counteract the positive effect of CO2 on vegetation. Pro argues that heat waves and extended droughts will harm vegetation, and thus that the contention is negated. This argument does not work because only a handful of specific areas would be affected while every other part of the world will experience greater vegetation. Environmental HarmsPro argues that loss of plant/animal life is harmful to humans for the following reasons: loss of food sources and potential human extinction events. The latter is unwarranted, and the former does not work because climate disasters or droughts would not wipe out domestic crops—only wild ecosystems (not a food source.) Pro then argues that natural disasters are up 14% from the previous decade and that deaths are only lower now because of increases in medicine. Neither of these statements helps Pro. The 14% trend does not show anything because as all of the graphs cited thus far show, the trend isn’t constant. A 14% increase does not mean that more natural disasters are going to happen in the future. Even if we did accept that, the trend over the last hundred years would be a better indicator since a macroevent is better shown on a macroscale. My graph over the last hundred years predicts a decrease of climate disasters in the future. Medicine can only help the few who survive and get to a hospital, this change in a few lives saved does not change the conclusions drawn from the trend. Pro then argues that CO2 does warm the Earth regardless of its decelerating effect because his evidence incorporated “radiative forcing” in their prediction. Radiative forcing *is not* decelerating CO2, it is the difference of the energy reflected back into space and absorbed by the Earth. Mentioning that his evidence took into account the greenhouse effect does not negate what I said. What I said is that humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere and that it has warmed the Earth, but because the more CO2 you add the less of an effect it has on greenhouse, and thus will barely affect the Earth in the future. Pro’s graph that CO2 is increasing has no impact, as the only negative effect of CO2 that Pro has brought up is the greenhouse effect. I have proven that CO2 will not increase the greenhouse effect in the future because it is a decelerating phenomena. Pro has failed to disprove the decelerating phenomena, thus I win this point. Pro next brings up that drilling for traditional resources releases methane into the environment which accelerates the greenhouse affect. This is not a problem due to bacteria that absorb the gases. More methane is removed from atmoshphere than is added. This argument has no impact. "[T]hanks to methane-hungry bacteria, the majority of Arctic soil might actually be able to absorb methane from the atmosphere rather than release it. Furthermore, that ability seems to become greater as temperatures rise.The researchers found that Arctic soils containing low carbon content — which make up 87 percent of the soil in permafrost regions globally — not only remove methane from the atmosphere, but also become more efficient as temperatures increase...Axel Heiberg Island in Canada’s Arctic region consistently took up more methane as the ground temperature rose from 0 to 18 degrees Celsius (32 to 64.4 degrees Fahrenheit).” [4] [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...