Cap-and-Trade Will Bring Upon the Ruin of the USA

I thank youngpolitic for this debate. First, I'd like to make a few things clear about the resolution. Cap-and-trade is not a bill that has made it through the House of Representatives. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is the bill that passed in the House of Representatives. Cap-and-trade is "an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants." [1] Pro's first contention is ridiculous. While there tends to be more disagreement outside the scientific community regarding man's role in global warming or climate change, there is no evidence to back up the claim that global warming doesn't exist. The earth's temperatures are warming. [2][3][4] Pro is likely referring to the theory that man causes or partially causes climate change, but he incorrectly calls it "global warming". As for this theory, there has been plenty of proof. The greenhouse effect is "warming that results when solar radiation is trapped by the atmosphere". [5] Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, absorb this radiation. By doing this, the greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 concentrations have increased by about 40%. [6] This increase in concentration, largely due to increased pollution and deforestation, has naturally trapped more heat. This is why it causes "global warming" or "climate change". In a 2007 report, the IPCC, along with over 45 scientific societies and academies of science, have endorsed the theory that human activity has helped cause climate change. While a few bodies hold no position, no major scientific body rejected the theory. There's no use in addressing the second contention since the resolution doesn't address the bill. The resolution just addresses the cap-and-trade system. I would ask that my opponent cite sources for his statistics. I also ask how it will shrink production by 3% each year. Pro clearly didn't back up his resolution in his conclusion. He failed to provide evidence that Americans be forced to spend so much on utilities that they won't be able to spend money on anything else. I will make a couple contentions: 1. Cap-and-trade is used in 25 of the 27 member countries of the European Union. It is also used in Australia. I fail to see any empirical evidence in these countries that shows that they will be ruined because of cap-and-trade. None of these countries have been ruined because of the policy, which makes it very hard for Pro to prove the resolution. 2. A MIT study in 2007 estimates that a cap-and-trade system in 2015 would generate $366 Billion in revenue. [7] This revenue could be used in several ways. It could be used to make current factories more energy-efficient, creating jobs and helping the environment. It can also be used to develop renewable sources of energy. If a certain amount of our energy is required to be renewable, all production certainly won't move to China. Now, the companies can do whatever they want with the money, but acting as if the policy will hurt American business is a joke when it can generate such a large amount of revenue for energy companies. Pro's arguments simply assume too much. They assume that cap-and-trade is just like the system provided by H.R. 2454. It is faulty to base a view of cap-and-trade on that one bill. The CO2 emissions cap will usually vary from system to system. An additional requirement for a certain percentage of renewable energy to make up the energy production in the United States could be added. These factors simply make it impossible to address a general cap-and-trade policy with specific statistics. Pro's first point was refuted. His last two points were irrelevant, since they regarded just H.R. 2454. The cap-and-trade system helps our environment while providing incentives for businesses to lower their emissions. This will generate much revenue, and it will help our environment for years to come. The resolution has been negated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... [3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [4] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... [5] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [6] http://www.financialexpress.com... [7] http://web.mit.edu...