Full 50-State Green Retrofit Initiative

I am now going to respond to my opponent's original arguments and proceed to defend my own arguments next round. R1. Saves MoneyTo create the savings Pro is alluding to you would have to go through what is known as a "deep-energy retrofit" meaning you retrofit every aspect of your home to be greener. A deep energy retrofit for the standard home would cost $100,000. [1] The average annual electric bill for a US consumer is roughly $1100. [2] If you save 30% a year with this retrofit (about $350 yearly savings) it would take you 285 years to repay the $100,000 initial investment with your energy "savings". Then it would take even longer to begin to acquire actual savings. Most buildings will not last 300+ years to even see the savings. [Math]$350 yearly savings$100,000/350 = 285 years Green retrofitting does not save money.R2. Expanding Economic Prosperity"These huge savings cannot be overstated."My opponent clearly thinks that energy retrofitting is free. If it were free, his arguments would hold weight. However, this process is not free. It costs money. To retrofit companies and homeowners would have to take out thousands of dollars in loans from banks for the project and then sit and wait for the savings to roll in. I have shown these savings will take decades before they're even in sight. Immediately after a retrofit the parties involved are in debt. Until this debt is paid off there is no savings and therefore no new economic prosperity. By making "energy savings" the companies and people will be using them to pay off their bank loans. Also, the money in savings is now money not being paid to the energy companies. No new economic capital is being generated here, in fact only debt is being amassed, instead money is only being moved around. Moving money does not create wealth. R3. Expands Market"The risk is very low."On the contrary, in order to even begin such a project a company would have to be able to take on thousands of dollars in new debt. If the company goes ahead with the project but then suffers some kind of economic hitch (common in today's economic world) then these loans are immediately in jeopardy. "If the savings don't cover the costs..."The savings will not cover the costs of the initial start up price for over 50 years in most cases. By then the contractors you mentioned are long gone and the project long forgotten. There are no savings in the short term or even the midterm but only in the extreme long term. "To pay off the retrofit, which has higher upfront costs, utility rates would slightly go up and consumers continue to pay the slightly elevated rate for a period of time," Next my opponent proposes we raise utility rates to help ease the cost of the massive start up bill. How does raising the cost of anything ever expand the market? Not only that, but you'd be raising costs for "savings" likely to never be seen by those paying the higher bill. My opponent is naive in the fact that he underestimates the cost of these energy projects, overestimates the ease of loan taking and paying while not understanding the true nature of savings. If I borrow $50 today to save $0.50 a day I don't start actually saving anything until day 101. Next, I want to talk about the consequences of a different market contracting. If energy bills go down and demand decreases it will cause a contraction in the energy market. If a gas truck is now required 30% less of the time then that truck driver now has 30% less work. There are consequences in everything and green retrofitting is not a perfect solution to anything.Not only will this not expand the market, it could cause a contraction in the traditional energy market while burdening consumers with higher bills. This is not the outline of a prosperous economic plan. R4. Clean Environment First of all my opponent begins with an outrageous number. Even with an easier time acquiring bank loans for such projects many people don't want to take on extra debt right now much less "tens of millions". Secondly, my opponent forgets that the "green" energy business is actually quite dirty. Things such as solar panels are made from dozens of toxins that are potent and dangerous during manufacturing and during eventual decay. [3] While it might save energy and pollution when in use, increased demand for products such as these will increase the number of plants utilizing toxic chemicals and infusing the environment with "green" equipment that will break down over time releasing these toxins. [3] The environmental benefit is not as cut and dry as it seems.R5. Job CreationThese retrofit projects might cause some job creation but again as I pointed out it could cause job contraction in other fields. Also, these jobs would be created on bank loans which will not see real investment return for a very long time. Jobs like that are not creating wealth but rather generating a product that will eventually pay the banks back. There is no real money to be had here.Finally- Green retrofitting does not actually save money in many cases- Green retrofitting is extremely expensive and requires huge up front bank loans to start- Savings don't come in for many many many years - There are consequences in everything, energy markets, company risk etcThese programs are not worth the effort or the capital. My opponent has generated a large amount of hopeful thinking and naivete while discussing the topic at hand.The resolution is negated. [1] http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com...[2] http://www.motherearthnews.com...[3] http://grist.org...