A Resolution to Increase Natural Gas Production

Pro has made a rather ridiculous claim that I'll address briefly before entering into the body of my case. Natural gas does not "take up less space" than crude oil. Solids and liquids are much more dense than gases. 1. Pro claims that we are rapidly approaching Peak Oil. While this is widely believed by environmentalists everywhere, it is absolutely false. Over the past 33 years, we have consumed three times the world's proven oil reserves known in 1976. In addition to the new fields discovered on a regular basis, new technology allows us to tap into reserves that were previously inaccessible (or accessible, but only at a prohibitively high cost). Additionally, as demand rises, leading to a concurrent rise in price, more oil becomes technically recoverable (ie. companies can turn a profit by drilling in certain areas where in the past they would operate at a loss). http://oilprice.com... Recent developments in the refinement of shale oil and tar sand have also tremendously increased the amount of technically recoverable crude. b. The risk of war with Russia is virtually non-existent. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has successfully kept the peace for decades. There is no reason to believe it will suddenly fail. Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, oil reserves are not nearly as scarce as my opponent would have you believe. c. Whatever dubious effects the release of carbon dioxide may or may not have on the environment are irrelevant to this debate. While it's true that burning oil creates CO2, Pro's plan does nothing to solve this. The burning of *all* hydrocarbons, natural gas included, releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Replacing oil with natural gas is no more beneficial than an alcoholic switching from Bourbon to Whisky. If anything, it will only allow us to continue burning fossil fuels longer than we would otherwise be able to, forestalling the transition to renewable sources. d. The effects of the Gulf oil spill are greatly exaggerated. most of the heavy components have dispersed into the ocean sediment where it will be digested by bacteria. http://www.lewrockwell.com... The harmful benzene has mostly evaporated into the upper atmosphere where it will have no noticeable effect. Moreover, any harms created by the risks of offshore drilling are at least counterbalanced if not outweighed by the problems associated with fracking. http://www.slate.com... The chemical solvents involved in the fracking process can seep into the aquifer and contaminate the groundwater. 2. Subsidizing research into fracking is unnecessary and uneconomical. As I pointed out earlier, we are nowhere near the point of exhausting our crude oil resources. Even if, as Pro claims, oil is on the verge of a massive price surge, this will be moderated by the corresponding increase in technically recoverable reserves. Even ignoring these (not insignificant) points, Pro's case is still economically unsound. In a free market, self-interested individuals will attempt to employ their resources as efficiently as possible so as to maximize their own benefit. Oil companies have geologists employed to gather and interpret data about various energy reserves, economists to analyze market conditions, and a whole host of other professionals as well. While no person or group of persons can lay claim to omniscience, private companies generally understand the nature their respective industries at least as well, if not better than any central economic planner. Moreover, private companies are solely occupied with maximizing their profits while central planners invariably are affected by political interests. Finally, every dollar the government spends must be taken from the private sector. At best, reinvesting tax money into research on fracking would be to return to the taxpayers a portion of the money that was stolen from them in the first place! This is tantamount to taking money from your left pocket, placing it in your right pocket, and calling it a loan! 3. "Corporate welfare" of the kind proposed is both unethical and unconstitutional. People are beings of intrinsic value. It follows that they are to be treated as no mere means, but ends in and of themselves. This is absolutely necessary, lest we run the risk of negating value entirely. What one receives without earning, another must earn without receiving. To subject a person to serve as means in this manner is to make him, in essence a slave. This is unethical even if the outcome of government theft is to increase the wellbeing of the people from whom the money is stolen. b. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for corporate handouts. It does not fall within the enumerated powers for Congress to subsidize the natural gas industry, or enter into joint ventures with automobile companies, or guarantee loans to favored business owners. http://www.cato.org... == Conclusion == At the core of my opponent's case are two arguments. First, the world's oil reserves are rapidly approaching depletion. Second, our continued use of crude oil is damaging the environment. I have fully addressed both of these claims, as well as the ancillary arguments regarding war, job creation, etc. subsumed within them. In addition, I have shown how my the proposal is unconstitutional as well as unethical. The resolution is negated.