government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels

First I will address my opponents three points. 1) "Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. " That is a mere thirty years away, the resolution is allowing the automakers time to prepare for the switch to alternative fuels. 2) "Vagueness. What will this solve? Any alternative fuel is acceptable? What's the plan behind this? " This mandate will solve global warming, will help jump start the automotive industry, and keep us competing on an international level. Yes any alternative fuel is acceptable so long as it is within the bounds of the law. As for the plan itself there are already many sources of alternative fuels currently available to automakers. Things like hybrid gas electric, ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, and propane. Alternative fuels are defined by the Michigan State Document Center as anything other that Coal, Petroleum, Natural Gas or Peak Oil. 3) "Mandate. Why are we MANDATING something that is so far off. That's dumb. That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. We're not prophets. We don't know the future. Oh, and can mandates be undone? I suppose all businesses will be 100% ready to do that then. " It is becoming clearer by the day that it is time for the government to step in and point the automotive industry in a new direction. This can only be done with firm decisions and a strong governmental role. As for my opponents analogy "That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. " This couldn't be more untrue. It would be true if all the cellular phone suppliers in the U. S. were bankrupt or going under, if they cell phone grid where destroying the environment, if foreign cell phone suppliers were all moving forward and taking business from the United States and if instead of Solar Power you told them to use a whole new form of power and they could decide what it was. If that were the analogy then it would fit pretty well. And I think you will agree that if that were the case a change would need to be made on the part of the cell phone business. There is also the issue my opponent has brought up with timing. First my opponent says "2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. " My opponent then compares the resolution to switch to alternative fuels with some others related to cell phones, "The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. " Imagine if the rest of the world took this approach. What if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we would run out of oil in thirty years and the word from the white house was, hey don't worry, by 2040 everybody will just be teleporting instead of using cars. If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect. As for government mandates, they can be repealed if it is necessary. A mandate is merely a direct rule or order. If changes are necessary the government can form a new mandated that make the new adjustments.