That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light truck

With our pending energy crisis, the American people are asking for the best possible solution. The people have come to see the government as the very institution that will save them from this impending doom. We must look past this myth and realize how ineffective the government is in creating mandates dealing with alternative fuels. My partner and I believe the government is ineffectual, which is why we negate the following resolution: Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. Contention 1 First, Mandates harm the environment. In 2008 congress issued a mandate to create more ethanol by 2022. However, higher food prices caused in large part by food-to-fuel mandates create incentives for global deforestation, including in the Amazon basin. As Time magazine reported this month, huge swaths of forest are being cleared for agricultural development. Basically, we have to produce more corn to keep up with the mandate. The only problem is that Brazil has to keep with our production because we are both in a world market. Since Brazil has no room to farm, they are forced to cut down the rainforest's. As a recent World Bank report put it, "Farmers are destroying a $10,000 asset to create one worth $200." Contention 2 Second, Mandates will distort the market. The auto industry does not see the government as a reliable intervention. On April 11, 2007, the Bush Administration announced a new mandate that require motorists to use at least 4.7 billion gallons of alternative fuel-such as corn-derived ethanol-ramping up to mandate the use of 7.5 billion gallons annually by 2012. The auto industry, however, has filed three suits to block them. If car companies needed mandates for motivation than they would not have filed suits. mandates are wasting time and money. According to Autonews.com, a website that publishes daily articles on automotive news, a mandate on alternative fuels for passenger vehicles and light trucks would not only discourage the research and development of other promising technologies, it would also apply scarce resources on technology that won't be used if fuel isn't widely available and potentially conflict with other regulations that have already been put in place by some states. The truth is, mandates distort markets and result in stifled competition and innovation. Contention 3 The free-market is the best way to solve for this resolution. The free market is an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation. Most alternative fuel vehicles are the product of the free market. State competition can offer significant immediate benefits, most importantly providing cash and cache to green business and alternative energy projects. Those with the resources to understand the different programs can aggregate benefits by moving to the most financially advantageous location. For example, auto manufacturers agreed to tightened Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards because of free-market advances that are naturally leading to higher miles-per-gallon vehicles. In 2009 Detroit held an auto show. 5 out of 8 had flex-fuel models that would come out in the next year. We as Americans must overcome the false fear of the free market and come to see that government mandates are truly limiting forces when it come to inspiring the innovation, research, and development we need. Thank you