The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives

I thank the opposition for his reply, and will proceed to answer his arguments and further support my own. 1. His first argument is that the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 has already provided funding for alternative energy, and yet alternative energy projects have been halted because energy prices are no longer in the headlines. However, this is irrelevant because the Energy Improvement and Extension Act increased funding for traditional nuclear reactors. Without the shift to IFR technology, those traditional reactors will continue to generate waste which will be stored in Yucca Mountain. As stated in Round 1, we must shift to IFR's regardless of other alternative energy projects because failure to do so risks a nuclear volcano, destroying the biosphere. 2. His second argument is that funding for IFR's trades off with healthcare, defense, education, and welfare. I have several responses: a. First, some generic points: i. Spending is already out of control. According to the Colorado Daily News on June 30, 2010, the federal budget deficit is projected to hit $13.6 trillion next year. This means he is in a double bind: Either new spending crowds out education, and it should have already happened with our record deficits, or the deficits prove we can always borrow more money to pay for our programs. There is no reason why we can't spend money on healthcare, defense, education, welfare AND IFR's. Either way, the trade-off won't happen. ii. We only need $200-300 million dollars to develop the IFR. According to Tom Randall, Director of the McGovern Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, IFR's can be developed within 2-3 years for $200-$300 million – with an "m" – dollars. This means that the cost of IFR's isn't sufficient to trigger his trade-off. iii. IFR's will bring in more tax revenue than they cost. According to the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, a new wave of nuclear construction would create billions of dollars in federal tax revenue and create hundreds of thousands of jobs through the entire life cycle of development. This means that we would have MORE money to fund education and the other programs he fears will be cut. iv. IFR's are more cost efficient than the forms of alternative energy the government is currently subsidizing. According to Dr. Charles Till, the price of IFR generated energy would be competitive with coal and natural gas, and cheaper than other forms of alternative energy. This means that by using IFR's, the government can end subsidies for the other more expensive AE technologies. b. Second, on healthcare: Funding for healthcare has just seen a massive increase. According to CBS News on March 23, 2010, the health care reform bill will create subsidies for individuals and families up to 400% of the federal poverty line. This money has already been appropriated, and will not be affected by my proposal. c. Third, on defense: Cuts to defense spending are inevitable. According to the Christian Science Monitor on June 28, 2010, the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the persistent deficits means that the defense budget will be slashed no matter what. Thus, if cutting the defense budget is as bad as he says it will be, the impacts are inevitable. There is no reason why spending $200 million on an IFR will destroy the $861 billion defense budget. d. Fourth, on education: i. Funding for education is increasing now. According to The Politico on February 2, 2010, President Obama's budget increases spending on education from $32.4 billion to $71.5 billion in 2011. This means that education is a budget priority, and is unlikely to be cut if we spend $200 million on an IFR. ii. Although some federal money is spent on education, most education funding is done at the state or local level. According to Minnesota Public Radio on January 28, 2010, one typical school district receives more than 80% of its funds from the state government. Thus, even if the federal government reduced its education spending, it would not create a major impact on education. e. Fifth, on welfare: Welfare spending is unsustainable in the status quo. According to the Heritage Institute, welfare spending is projected to cost $10.3 billion over the next ten years. This will cause the country to go bankrupt, harming everyone, including welfare recipients. Thus, some reduction in the amount of welfare spending is inevitable, and won't be caused by switching to IFR's. f. Sixth is impact analysis: i. Regardless of the cost in terms of trade-off, one thing is certain: status quo nuclear technology will continue unless something is done to change its course. This will result in many more thousands of tons of radioactive waste being stuffed into Yucca Mountain. ii. Even if the risk is low, there is a chance of a nuclear volcano. If this were to happen, it would be biosphericide – the end of all life on earth. As stated by Dr. David Camarow, "there is no ‘low enough' when the consequences are so cataclysmic… as a people, as caretakers for future people, we cannot create unnecessary catastrophic risks like biosphereicide, the agonizing death of billions." Thus, even if all of his impacts are true, we cannot risk the chance of not developing IFR's. iii. He says that we cannot support "baseless" claims about IFR's because of a recession. However, remember points 12 and 13 from Round 1. Nuclear power can generate billions of dollars of revenue and create thousands of jobs in the U.S. Thus, spending money to develop IFR's will help end the recession, or at the very least be an improvement on the status quo. 3. His third and final argument is that the free market solves better. I have several responses: a. First, there is no reason why the free market and government incentives are mutually exclusive. There is no free market in the world which is entirely free from some form of government influence. Considering there is government involving with nuclear power now, he articulates zero risk that one more government subsidy will create. According to Scott Sklar of the Mother Earth News on January 12, 2005, coal and oil subsidies top billions of dollars per year, making fossil fuels artificially cheap. Thus, free markets and federal funding for IFR's can co-exist. b. The free market cannot solve the energy crisis. According to Jeff Vail, reporter for the Energy Bulletin on March 5, 2007, the free market ignores solutions which do not generate an immediate or near term profit. Relying on the free market will never develop a mass scale non-carbon energy because it would violate a fundamental market principle. At the moment, fossil fuels are (comparatively) cheap, so there is no market incentive to develop any alternative energy. c. In the status quo, the market will continue to use status quo nuclear power. This will lead to the risk of a nuclear volcano. Regardless of whether the free market is good (or better than federal incentives), we MUST switch to IFR's to avoid a volcanic Yucca Mountain. Thus, any advantage to using the free market is outweighed by the risk that the free market won't switch to IFR's. d. Finally, I do not need to prove that using federal subsidies is the BEST method of reaching alternative energy, but rather that we SHOULD increase federal alternative energy incentives. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "should" means "must, or ought to (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency). Thus, I must show that it is our duty, or that it is proper or expedient to increase funding for IFR's. Based on the dangers of waste storage in Yucca Mountain, I have proven that funding IFR's is our duty, is proper, and is expedient. Regardless of whether or not it is the BEST method, it is better than the status quo, has no disadvantages, and we SHOULD do it.