the government should interevene in the transition to alternative fuels

Fuel -- it is combustible matter (like oil, for example) but is also "an energy source for engines, power plants, or reactors"http://dictionary.reference.com...;http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;The resolution, therefore, allows for my discussion of the conventional fuels (Nuclear, Gas, and Coal), which my opponent drops and therefore concedes my argument that they are, on balance, safe and cheap forms of energy which save lives. One of the alternative definitions--an energy source for engines, power plants, or reactors--also encompases my arguments on alternative energy sources, and another drop by my opponent. My opponent also mentions alternative fuels in the more 'obvious' sense, such as ethanol in cars for example. Well, the fatal flaw with ethanol is that it kills starving poverty stricken human beings in third world countries. Using ethanol is simply immoral. These alternative biofuels come from food, such as corn. An increase in the price of food--as supply shrinks for fuel consumption--will mean a few things. (1) a family buys less food, (2) a family buys the same amount of food, but less of other items. The fact is, a poor family who spends its entire income on food and essential equipment will have to buy fewer of one of these essential components to life. Either way, people will die in our attempt to go green. Corn used to be about $3.00 a bushel, now its around $8.00 [1]. The African income is around $315, a year [2]. This means if all an africans income was spent on corn, they would only be able to buy 39 bushels of corn, if each was $8. If it was $3, they could buy 105 bushels of corn. But one has to remember, they spend their income on other things: fuel (such as coal) to heat their homes. To subsidize alternative biofuels is simply immoral and will kill Africans. Further, to regulate and favor forms other than coal in America will also increase the price of coal, which means more people will die of the cold in, say, Lesotho where they are in an arid but in high altitude enviroment. But lets put the price of coal into more perspective: the United States. I live in New Mexico, I am at about 6,000 feet above sea level. There are poor people here, who dont have homes, or live in inadequate homes. In the winter, it gets extremely cold. In the summer, it gets very warm. If you increase the price of energy in this region, people become more succeptible to heat waves of the summer and cold times of the winter. People cant fuel their homes--this is in direct relation to the resolution, as it is a conventional fuel. Further, gas is pretty expensive. Last time I filled my car it was about 3.30 or something. New Mexico is a poor state. To increase gasoline prices with ethanol, you not only make them spend more on their food, their energy, but also at the pump. This means they consume less of other items, lowering their quality of life or in extreme cases, endangering it. The simple fact is, to support these 'clean' alternative forms of energy kills people, and lowers peoples' quality of life.What is the reason to have these biofuels, these alternative energy sources? To stop climate change, which will kill a lot of people supposedly, and reduce pollution which is so bad right now... or nah. Climate change has already stopped. There has been no warming for 17 years and nine months, with a slight cooling trend around 2002 [3]. Further, with the warming we have seen in the 20th century, there is a much closer correlation to the sun than with CO2. CO2 doesnt correlate after 1997, during the cooling mid century, and doesnt correlate with minor flucuations from 1980-1997. The sun correlates with temperature along all of these intervals, and is a much better explanation for the warming of the 20th century [4]. Yep, we switch to ethanol all we want, to be a bit informal and feel a bit like Penn and Teller, it wont do jack sh!t about global warming. Pollution is bad in the US though, right? Nope, wrong. I will get more in depth into this than I did in the following round. Particulate matter in the US has fallen over 50%, toxins from industrial plants has fallen over 70%, and new cars using those old conventional fuels are 90% cleaner than they once were. Average pollutants dropped 20-96%, depending on the pollutant. Aggregate air emissions has fallen 25% 1970, while populatin has increases 39%. Smog has fallen by 1/3 even though the amount of cars has doubled and the distance they travel on average has increased by 143% [5]. Yes, the air is getting cleaner without all of these interventions my opponent espouses. My opponent must prove that:(1) We need these alternatve fuels--even assuming that governments are more efficient and making them be produced, it begs the question whether or not we need them to decrease the climate threat(2) Demonstrate that these alternative fuels--which include ethanol and other sources--will save more lives through a cleaner world than what is lost through increased food prices(3) And three, demonstrade why the current fuels are 'bad', I demonstrated the excellence of coal, gas, nuclear, etc. My opponent has not attempted to refute this, dropping the argument. If the conventional fuels aren't bad, why should we switch to another energy?(4) And 4, prove subsidies are the correct method. The market will choose the most efficient form of energy based on prices. If ethanol was truly efficient, it would not need government intervention. As the Mises instutute argues, "As with ethanol and recycling and a host of other issues, you must ask yourself again, if these things are so efficient, why do they need to be subsidized? Answer: they're not so efficient."[6](5) That these alternative fuels are actually economically efficient. Although ethanol at a glance is cheaper, it leads to less efficiency, increased food prices, and decreased mileage. This means that, in the long run, subsidies are favoring a more expensive energy source which will increase pollution--more gas usage--and also costs, as you have to go to the pump more often [7]. I have provided many convincing arguments throughout the debate as to why conventional energy methods are acceptable, and in many ways superior, than 'alternative' energy sources. My opponent has not provided one logical argument or empirical proof to her opinion. It is like an op-ed... without any facts to prove it. I have cited my assertions with proof and the sources are easily accessible for those who want to make sure what I am saying is true.* *My sources this round are not posting correctly (they keep saying page not found), so I will post a second copy in the comments in hopes that they will work there, for those who wish to read them1. http://www.forbes.com...2. http://www.forbes.com...3. http://wattsupwiththat.com...;4. http://people.duke.edu...;5. http://www.manhattan-institute.org...;6. http://mises.org...;7. http://www.usnews.com...;