Full 50-State Green Retrofit Initiative

These are my rebuttals.R1: Saves MoneyTo point out that an argument may be flawed is to compare it to actual evidence. However, like in other areas in this debate, Con has compared apples and oranges again! His study is referring to a deep-energy retrofit, which goes far beyond the more basic green energy retrofits we are discussing. Compare it to cars. We are talking about getting a hybrid, which has large returns on average. And it has an upfront cost, but the savings have usually been bigger. In this analogy, Con is talking about fully electric cars, which have much higher upfront costs, and also larger returns. Be we are talking about hybrids, not full electric cars. So, we must debate over the topic and not exaggerating the definitions.Factual evidence shows that the average costs range from $10,000-$13,000 for a green energy retrofit. [1]As I said earlier, the rate would be elevated to accelerate the rate of paying off the retrofit. So, assume the rate goes from $110 a month to $130 a month. It only takes about 7-10 years for the average homeowner to pay off a retrofit loan, then they enjoy the windfall of savings.R2: Expanding Economic ProsperityLong term investment and growth are worthy goals to reach for a stronger economic future. It takes a somewhat large upfront cost for the retrofit, as we have discussed, but after a slightly elevated rate is adjusted, it only takes about a decade or less for the savings to fall to the consumer's pockets. Around 7-10 years later, banks will end up with their money returned with interest, the contractor will have had new service to grow, and the consumer will enjoy the bounty of energy savings. Furthermore, the utility will have greater supply of energy so prices will equally decrease, causing a drop in non-renewable energy prices which will then be more likely to become conserved for future needs.Ultimately, energy retrofits are economically strong. Over a million jobs would be created, and these jobs are in domestic, higher skill and low skill fields alike. It would increase our domestic manufacturing capabilities, and end up as a profit for banks and local contractors. And the consumer would save large amounts. These long term investments end up as good economic ideas. And the effect on job creation is immediate.R3: Expands MarketNow, risk is real, but remember, by a gov't loan fund set up, banks would have much less risk and have the confidence to expand their lending to consumers for retrofits. These are not subprime mortgages. Those who agreed to a retrofit would be informed of the new prices, and default would thus be rare.The risk is overall low and reduced by a green retrofit initiative. It would make Americans more responsible with their energy spending, by having more efficient homes, and it would help make green energy have a more level playing field with the fossil fuel industry, who have assured billions in corporate welfare and subsidies annually. [2]Either a contractor or utility would guarantee the savings for the consumer. And, naturally businesses have the responsibility to act rationally. They would only offer to perform a retrofit if they knew it would be profitable. Furthermore, the term of the retrofit is a mere 8 years or similar. So, if a customer was likely to have assured savings because of the retrofit naturally, all parties would benefit in the long run. To conclude here, the savings would be realized after the loan is fully payed off with interest.The overall rate of energy costs would increase by a modest degree, until the retrofit costs are recovered. The consumer would know this before. This is what former President Bill Clinton offered when he proposed a similar plan. [3]The loan guarantee fund would give greater but pragmatic confidence to banks to expand lending for green energy retrofits, by increasing their consumer pool and thus minimizing risk. Energy companies would get the additional capacity to sell energy at lower costs to remain more competitive.This initiative would cause a boom in local contracting to perform retrofits, expand American manufacturing capability, help banks, and all of this would counteract the modest hikes in consumer energy bills, then later the consumers get large cuts in energy prices.R4: Clean EnvironmentGoing back to the facts, U.S. emissions would be cut by almost 10%. This would counteract the forces of global warming, and improve public health and make our air and water cleaner.Con brings up a good point also on the manufacturing of solar panels. But as his article said, solar companies are acting vigourously to improve these aspects of solar panels, and they are responsibily acting to recycle ones that are finished.Ultimately an initiative as we have discussed would clean the environment. This is unrefuted.R5: Job CreationThe modest hikes in energy rates would only have minimal harm on job creation, and certainly be outweighed by the millions of jobs [2] created by the spur in hiring within local contractors and domestic manufacturing industries. By keeping workers busy for several years, it would help the U.S. recover from the recession.Concluding; - Green energy would spur domestic job growth, creating over 1 million jobs- Green energy and traditional energy prices would decrease- Emissions would be cut by 10%- The Environment would be cleaner, the public health improved- The U.S. would become more energy independent and on the platform of a 21st century energy policy- Risk would be managed and very limited- Consumers would eventually save 30% on their energy bills- Savings are realized after a few years, job creation is immediateWe need to clean up our energy. Eternal energy is the future. Thus, to have large long term benefits for America; the resolution is affirmed.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] Clinton, Bill. Back To Work. New York City: 2011. 147. Print.