The United States should fund alternative energy research

"We all agree on the need for alternative energy. You claim private sector is better. You state: 1. Competing companies will yield better results 2. Govt. can can funding if company is bad 3. Large Gap in Technology 3. We both agree that we lack technology. We agree that we need technology. The private sector would need a lot of development. This means more funding, and less initiative. --The private sector needs funds because they are already on track for development. The infrastructure is there, but the technology hasn't been perfected. 3. ALTERNATIVE Let me add that as my opponent stated, we need technology. Who better to ask than NASA? Try to prove that NASA has a loss in technology. NASA has more satellites, more orbital objects, more scientists, and more time focused on technology. NASA can divert a larger amount of funding to solar power. NASA is the answer to technology. And since technology is needed, NASA is needed. --NASA, unlike the private sector, has no existing projects as advanced as some companies do. Funding NASA would require enough money to develop infrastructure that is already present in the private sector, and extend on that by perfecting the technology needed to implement the transition. 4. Production limited by funds You basically claim that the companies would find alternative energy with enough money. Sorry, but no duh! I could solve the energy crisis with an unlimited supply of funds. What we must look at is who could do more, in less time, with a higher chance of success, and less finding. As I have stated above, NASA can do everything better than private companies. --The funds need not be unlimited, but substantial enough to give a company flexibility and the capability to reach a solution. 1) If they need funding only, and already have projects, then why not NASA? NASA would take less funding and 0% risk. Thank you sir, you just proved my point. --NASA would take more funding and equal risk. Just because NASA is under the government doesn't mean there is zero risk. If anything, there is more risk because NASA is much farther away from proliferation of solar power. The private sector has projects, but NASA specifically doesn't. The government need not be obligated under the Pro to give money to an unreliable project. 2) Less economic benefits? Like what. Sorry, three words and argument do not make. What benefits, why? No argument made. NASA works for less and is only one outlet for funding, only multiple private sector. --To boost GDP, spending from the government into the private sector provides a greater increase than spending from the government into a government project. 3) Less options for success. Well, you claim all they need is funding. So why is there any question of success? --NASA is one opportunity. A group of 5 competing companies provides 5 equal options that may be evaluated and judged by the government to allocate funding. NASA may be under the direct watch of the government but it does not make it the best project. By allowing competition, each company must present an offer to the body offering government funding. The body may choose the best proposal to take up the task. NASA is an inefficient choice because: 1)They are behind the private sector because they have yet to have an existing project. 2)Restricting the options for companies to just NASA defeats allocative and technical efficiency. Giving the project to the private sector would allow for greater economic growth given the rise in GDP, employment expansion, and because of the elevated involvement in the market that a qualified company may hold. Allowing NASA to compete with the private sector is a more ideal choice, however the Pro side wins the debate if this is the most viable option.