The USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over (continued...)

Resolutional Burden: I agree with Hayd, “Pro … entails a reduction and gradual replacement of traditional with current clean energy.” Thus, keep in mind that arguments about the status quo do not necessarily apply to a world with increased support for clean energy. Framework: Animal/plant argument dropped for space. Hayd mischaracterizes my second point as, “the US has an obligation to the citizens of other nations”. My point is only that general human lives matter as an impact in this debate. Under Hayd’s framework countless atrocities are justified if they are net beneficial to the U.S. populous. For instance, if the U.S. committing a genocide would procure sufficient resources, which would save sufficient U.S. lives in the long term, then it would be justified to commit the genocide. Example2: it would be justified to do covert ops extractions on Somali villages to get healthy citizens and use their bodies to solve the U.S. organ shortage crisis. These examples illustrate the absurdity in a framework which only weighs U.S. citizens and indicates that the general framework is preferable: “to act in ways that bring about the most overall good.” Hayd states, “Citizens of other nations can only receive moral consideration if they are a part of the moral community.” He warrants, “It is unfair for a being to receive right protection without putting forth the ability to protect other beings’ rights.” This assertion contradicts Hayd’s own premise by excluding various U.S. citizens, including: babies, sufficiently young children, some of the disabled, and even people in comas. The assertion also doesn’t hold weight for non-citizens. While the U.S. has no obligation to protect the global community it still shouldn’t willfully act to harm non-citizens. Indeed, Hayd’s original argument regarding every sentient being, is a preferable paradigm. Regardless, arguments about how the U.S. approaches decision making are irrelevant to weighing debate impacts. Millions of lives saved globally are still net utilitarian, irrespective of citizenship. A World with Free Energy: Hayd drops that free energy results in “disease cures, new antibiotics, securing off-world colonies, lifespan longevity breakthroughs, and general advances in science that contribute to the quality of life for humanity.” Since disease cures and antibiotics alone have the potential to save millions of lives, even just in the United States, the plan is net utilitarian. As I made this argument in rounds 2 & 3, Hayd should not be permitted new responses to it in his rebuttal. Hayd also says that resource wars don’t affect the U.S., citing excess coal. However, reread my warrant from round 2: “As of this writing, the wiki article on ‘oil wars’ documents 11 distinct wars and many more campaigns: http://tinyurl.com...;. Five of the listed wars include U.S. fatalities. Hayd’s C1: Expensive. My opponent says that Lazard’s study is “cherry picked” and cites a 2012 AETA model as proof. Counter Arguments: 1) The AETA (Australian Energy Technology Assessments) study is only considering the NSW (New South Wales) district of Australia. It has zero relevance to U.S. economics. 2) The 2012 AETA model does not predict 2017 performance. Meanwhile, Lazard’s unsubsidized LCOE by year (December 2016) does [1]: Intuitively, the 2012 point in Lazard’s study is near AETA’s 2012 point for single axis PV. 3) The Lazard study was not cherry picked, in fact it is the unsubsidized (without taxes) LCOE (the study clearly articulates this): Lazard also analyzed the LCOE with tax subsidies and found that utility PV absolutely demolishes traditional sources – demonstrating that the plan will be net utilitarian: 4) 2017 is the first full year where the unsubsidized solar LCOE outcompetes traditional fuels [2]. This indicates that analysis from past years, is not a viable counterpoint. The World Economic Forum (WEF) notes, “the unsubsidized LCOE for utility scale solar photovoltaic, which was highly uncompetitive only five years ago, has declined at a 20% compounded annual rate, making it not only viable but also more attractive than coal in a wide range of countries.” [3] Unreliable. Hayd has dropped the argument that batteries are on track to solve intermittency. He should not be permitted new arguments on this front. Hayd uses an early 2013 DOE grant proposal to paint hydrogen storage as expensive. Counter arguments: 1) Hayd’s DOE proposal does not analyze the LCOE of hydrogen storage nor does it say “expensive” anywhere in the proposal. 2) The NREL evidence I cited (18 months more current) does explicit LCOE analysis for hydrogen and concludes that it is competitive with battery technology. Hayd has dropped my points on solar efficiency steadily increasing, indicating increased energy availability. Hayd has also dropped the argument that a progressively shrinking conventional energy backbone solves short-term intermittency issues. Hayd’s C2: Con asserts that only a handful of areas are affected by heat waves, extended droughts, and sustained food shortages (no warrants). However, the IPCC analysis specifically notes that extended heat-waves are a key risk for the North American region. This is particularly bad for the United States because heat-waves destroy/preclude crop growth [4]. Jobs: Hayd asserts that solar job creation is inflated by private installation numbers. Counter Arguments: 1) This is an argument that supports Pro. Since the plan will lead to general increases in solar technology we can expect that the price of private installations continues to fall at an expedited rate. While energy security will come via utility/commercial installations, the plan also has the benefit of boosting job growth via increased private installations. 2) Recall from round 2 that $1 million invested in solar creates 13.7 jobs compared to 5.2 in traditional resources. The DOE study does the breakdown by sector: Using the ratios provided, we find that $1 million invested in solar creates 7.5 residential PV jobs and 6.2 Utility/Commercial PV jobs. These numbers still both out-compete the 5.2 jobs via traditional sources. Environmental Harms: Hayd argues that biodiversity loss wouldn’t affect domestic crops. However, biodiversity losses can disrupt fisheries & wild game (both food sources), increasing dependence on domestic crops (heat wave sensitive). Hayd states that extinction events are unwarranted; I’ll re-note the potential for irreversible and run-away system shifts in the IPCC report. Natural Disasters. Hayd asserts that non-constant natural disaster data cannot be analyzed. This is false; the average trend is what is important in a physical system – outliers do not invalidate statistics. My source indicates that natural disasters increased 14% in the last decade. The normalized economic losses (from Hayd’s source) indicates that every year after 1986 was more devastating than every year prior (excluding 1976 and 1980). The IPCC also predicts natural disaster increases. Hayd says that medicine only helps people who get to a hospital. I note (a) hospital spatial coverage has vastly increased this century and (b) my source indicates that flooding is the most common disaster, indicating that people often have the capacity to reach hospitals. Climate Change. Con misunderstands radiative forcing. The evidence that Con posted indicates that GW is a decelerating phenomena because of radiative forcing [5]. Radiative forcing, via CO2, causes some solar radiation to be “reflected” back into space. Con says, “because the more CO2 you add the less of an effect it has on greenhouse, and thus will barely affect the Earth in the future.” Yes, it’s true that each additional molecule of CO2 has a lessened affect compared to the last molecule. But no, this doesn’t mean that each additional molecule has zero effect. The IPCC projections conclude that even with radiative forcing (the decelerating phenomena) climate change continues severely. With the current rate, adding roughly 2.4 million pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere per second, global warming worsens remarkably. Methane. While it’s true that Arctic bacteria acts as a sink, this does not imply consumption of all methane. The study that Hayd’s article is citing does not suggest this, nor does the study imply that even much methane will be consumed by the bacteria. Instead, the study suggests that the bacteria may be “partially” responsible for a minor dip in atmospheric methane during summer months (~50 ppb) [6]. Pollution. Hayd has fully dropped my contention on air pollution and the associated 3 million deaths annually. I’ll reiterate, the decelerating phenomena associated with carbon dioxide does nothing to limit the effects of air pollution. Thus, this becomes an independent and compelling reason to vote Pro. Conclusion: For perspective, I will weigh this round based on the worst-case scenario. If Hayd wins every argument, he wins that (a) only U.S. citizens are impacts, (b) clean energy is more expensive (c) climate change has no impact, and (d) plants grow better. Hayd has attached an impact only to point d, asserting that increased food production decreases the mortality rate. Though, he never specifically warrants this for the U.S. nor quantifies how many people it would affect. These can be weighed against the contentions that Hayd dropped: (a) Pollution alone kills hundreds of millions annually, (b) free-energy leads to disease cures and new antibiotics, (c) free-energy prevents death via respiratory illness (indoor pollution), and (d) the plan keeps the U.S. out of future resource wars. Even in this worst-case scenario there is no contest between the magnitude of impacts, a vote for Pro saves millions of lives while a vote for Con grows more plants. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...