The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives

Although the affirmative may have typed 13 bullet points, he has yet provided any significant argument or evidence to demonstrate why the federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives. I will first summarize my opponent's arguments and show that governmental intervention in the free economy of energy development is undesirable. According to the affirmative, both nuclear energy and IFR are potential solutions to our inevitable energy crisis in the near future. I agree with that. He further details the superiority and benefits of IFR over nuclear energy. I agree with that as well. In fact, I will even accept the notion that the development and maintenance of nuclear plants can provide both economic growth and employment opportunities. With that said, he has stated little justification why the federal government must substantially increase alternative energy incentives outside of the free market mechanism in the midst of economic recession. Firstly, little evidences have ever supported the claim that government could artificially create or eliminate the supply and demand of any particular product or service. The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 provides much tax credits to various renewable energy ventures. Once a promising frontier of both technological advancement and economic development, many renewable projects are now halted as the RENIXX Renewable Energy Industrial Index falls to its five years low to €576.25 once the immediate concern of energy prices retreats from the public spotlight. No single market participant, not even the government, can force the prosperity of any particular sector without the support of the broader economic cycle. Therefore, any governmental incentives are likely to prove futile over the long run. Secondly, the affirmative fails to explain why the alternative energy industry should receive substantial incentives over other equally important social initiatives. Governmental funding to healthcare, defense, education and welfare programs has been reduced substantially in recent years. While welfare and healthcare needs may be more immediate, education holds the key to long-term prosperity. Without comparison and basis of showing the importance of energy over other economic concerns, no citizen or government can blindly support the affirmative's baseless claim in the midst of a recession. Most importantly, the affirmative has failed to demonstrate the necessity of bypassing the free market mechanism when plenty of private sector support will be available at the right moment. Energy is an important aspect of life to the citizens as individuals and as a nation. Our nation has well-developed market of private companies supplying the majority of energy in this country while maintaining stability and balance of the energy market within the context of the invisible hands. In conclusion, the affirmative has failed to demonstrate why the federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives while creating more financial strain on the federal balance sheet and focusing less on other equally important issues. Although energy stability is important, the affirmative has failed to provide any evidence demonstrating the necessity of breaching of the free market mechanism. Therefore, I strongly disagree with my opponent and urge you to vote against his claim.