The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives

I hate long speeches and like to keep my arguments concise. But since my opponent enjoys long speeches and bullet points, I shall entertain him here. Be warned: this post will be long and boring... 1. b. For every person blaming the market for the economic collapse, there is another blaming the government for initiating the problem. From a judge's point of view, of course it is better to be considered "negligent" than being recognized as the problem. Reviewing the history of the financial crisis, it is clear that Congressional intervention played a large part in the rise and fall of the subprime mortgage system (http://en.wikipedia.org...) "1938: The Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, is established (as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal) to purchase and securitize mortgages to ensure that funds are consistently available to the institutions that lend money to home buyers. 1968: Fannie Mae is converted from a federal government entity to a stand-alone government sponsored enterprise (GSE) which purchases and securitizes mortgages to facilitate liquidity in the primary mortgage market. The move takes the debt of Fannie Mae off of the books of the government. 1970: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) is created by an act of Congress, as a government sponsored enterprise, to buy mortgages on the secondary market, pool them, and sell them as mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market; 1971 it issues its first Mortgage Participation Certificate security." Still want to say that the government incentives have nothing to do with starting the crisis itself? 1. c. According to an interview with DOE Secretary Dr Steven Chu (http://www.technologyreview.com...), IFR is only an option to deal with future waste. It will not eliminate existing waste at Yucca Mountain. If we don't need nuclear power as a fuel, IFR will not consume existing waste and "avoid" what's already been done. There are already many reprocessing technologies in developments besides IFR. Many potential energy sources are also in development (http://en.wikipedia.org...). 2. a. My opponent has taken a very narrow interpretation of the resolution. Basically, he's saying that provision of basis for increase incentiv to any ONE alternative energy incentive shall win his this debate. I contend that he shall make a strong case against all other projects that also deserve increase in incentives. Maybe incentives in education for better technology of the future? Incentives for using more efficient appliances? We cannot increase EVERYTHING. Even if we manage to cut spending from somewhere else, it does not automatically justify transferring the money to alternative energy initiatives. Until my opponent can provide a sounding argument to why alternative energy incentives should be agreed as the best solution or the most important issue around, the reader cannot reasonably conclude that alternative energy incentives should not be DECREASE to support other more important and effective projects. 2. b. My point is that, regardless whether IFR is good, IFR should not be developed by the government especially if the intent is to MAKE MONEY. How is it not a nationalized entreprise if the government gives exclusive rights to someone to develop a profitable technology? The Fed made huge money buying distressed assets in the financial crisis but remained in deep red with its investment in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. Still trying to show that government actually know how to make money? 2. c. the federal government has many priorities and legal obligations, but it is all about prioritizing. The polls you cited only indicate people's general view that funding toward national defense and healthcare reform can better spent. They do not prioritize the importance of energy reform over those in defense or healthcare. I completely agree that there are market interferences now and that's exactly why it SUCKS. Go over ECON 101 and you can find all the reasons why interference has been and will be bad. They NEVER WORK. 3. a. It is completely ridiculous to solely blame free market for environment destruction. Government invented nuclear bomb. Government invented internet leading to both benefits and harms (kiddy porn, cyber bullying?). Every invention has its pros and goes. Demonization of free market is narrow-minded and completely ridiculous. The private sector has invested plenty of resources toward environmental solutions and it's simply ignorant to disregard them. Just because my opponent has no business sense to create a valid proposal for his enviromental concern does not mean he should be allowed to force his ill-planned strategy onto the rest of . 3. b. First of all, building of any factory, private or public, will lea to population of the air and water, and depletion of natural resources. Engineering and technological developmett ALWAYS presents trade-off with ecological soundness. The very reason why pollution is widespread in China is due to implicit political backings among these local commodities-based companies who receives special treatment from the local government. Corruption and briberies are abundant across China. Arguably, a private company like BP is more ecologically responsible since it does not receive government protection for its wrongdoing. 3. c. All report has only indicate that "we don't like our current defense policy; we don't like our healthcare reform; we think energy is important." I agree completely! I'm not going to NOT support something that inherently sounds like a beneficial goal. (no duh?) However, the main debate is the balance of priorities and my opponent still refuse to produce reason or evidence why energy concerns shall be valued above all else and receive priority treatment. 3. d. If you believe that oil and coal prices are artificially low due to government incentives, take them away! (another example of failed government incentive). That will present an immediate need for energy alternative, no? By limiting its influence in incentives and maximum nuclear waste allowance, the energy companies will seek their own solutions (IFR or otherwise) to compete in the free market. Many electrical cars are now in production and oil companies are expanding their alternative energy profile. I pity my opponent's complete ignorance and disregard of private effort to innovate for the future. If any private company is intentionally ignoring the energy need of the future, it is only due to governent incentives hindering the evolutionary elimination of out-dated technology. Since the next round will be my opponent's last round, please provide a simple explanation to why this energy concern should be valued above all other important social needs that demand "substantial increase in incentives?"