The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.

1) First we debated about the finite supply of fossil fuels. You argued that there were recent discoveries of new oil fields. One example being the Gulf of Mexico which contains from 4-6 bil. barrels of oil and natural gas. You continue to argue that due to such discoveries the estimation of world oil supplies need to be revised leading to the inability to make statistical hypothesis of when we expect the world to "run out of oil". I did not argue that the world would run out of oil at the year 2057. I argued that there would be an oil depletion at the year 2057 based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory. Imagine a bell curved graph of year (x-axis) vs production (y-axis), to the right side of the peak there will be an exponential decline in production. It is true that we have no true idea of how much crude oil the world holds, but it is very important to at least attempt a statistical estimation of known oil reserves to compare with daily consumption. I can use this statistic with daily production specifically for one reserve vs its estimated oil supply to calculate how longevity of oil site, which could reflect on the company's decisions for on funding for the discovery of new oil sites. One of your sources mentioned that "since the early 1980s, discoveries have failed to keep up with the global rate of oil consumption, which last year [2008] reached 31 billion barrels of oil. Instead, companies have managed to expand production by finding new ways of getting more oil out of existing fields, or producing oil through unconventional sources" Recently we have made a large number of discoveries but we will at one point reach our production peak (Hubbert) in which we will no longer be able to produce as much as demanded. 2) The second reasoning stated that we are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the end. I used the example of the 1973 oil crisis. You noted that "we [currently] have the oil to necessary to meet our own demands" and that we just choose not to use it. With enough oil reserves to meet our demands, we would still be dependent on other nations through the refining process. The US does not refine enough crude oil to meet our daily needs and therefore we send it mainly to Canada to be refined and imported back to us. It is cheaper to send to Canada then to ship it 1500 miles to the next US refinery. As for the claim that we have enough oil reserves to meet our own demands, we do we not currently use them? Are we talking about emergency reserves and reserves found on land that we currently are not allowed to drill? If we are once again cut off from a source of fuel like we were in the 1973 oil crisis, the preparation and drilling of these reserves would take a lot of time and money. Assuming the reserves were not set up for the commercial pumping of oil. As time goes by, the demand would increase and would witness the affects of a lower oil supply on the economy. 3) Within this third reasoning, I stated that the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. The opponent states that alternative method does more damage to the environment. One example was the solar panels and that "we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus". There is a problem with this statement because silicon is not mined, but manufactured from silica, wood, charcoal, and coal. Silica on the other hand one of the most abundant mineral found on the Earth's crust. It is commonly found as sand or quartz. Coal on the other hand is mined, but is a fossil fuel. We earlier defined; "Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels". Coal which is an ingredient of silicone used to make solar panels is a conventional fossil fuel and therefore this example does not apply. Solar panels contribute to the mining of coal. Your second example was hydrothermal dams. The source you received this information on was mainly talking about China and how they are irrationally, planned poorly and in need of more safeguards for affected people. Their goal for building so many dams is not to combat climate change or the fostering of development, but as a bargaining tool to have access to natural resources such as metals, fossil fuels, and farmland in exchange (Scudder). "Building of the dams is the single greatest contributor of methane to the atmosphere, which traps heat 25x more effectively than CO2". The direct quote from your source is "Dam building creates other significant impacts as well. Drowned trees and vegetation burp methane — which traps heat at 25-times the rate of CO2 — out of the reservoirs, particularly in tropical regions like Brazil. In fact, scientists at Brazil's National Institute for Space Research calculate that the world's large dams are responsible for producing 104 million metric tons of methane a year — making dams the single largest source of human-caused methane." Failing to mention that the methane was due to drowned trees and vegetation. Though it is impossible to remove all vegetation within the dam's path, this methane by product can be decreased by better planning of the water flow path and clearing of flood areas. Also this describes "particularly in topical regions like Brazil". This debate specifically argues for the United States which is a different type of region. Before a hydroelectric dam can be constructed a study of the area is required to be studied and have federal and state licenses. These studies include site studies, hydrological studies and environmental impact assessment with required hydrological data of up to at least 50 years. Though there are some disadvantages there are also some advantages of hydroelectricity such as that it produces no waste, has a considerably lower output level of CO2 and eliminates the cost of fuel. The cost of operation is almost unaffected by the increase cost of fossil fuels, require no imports and usually have a low labor cost. Hydroelectric plants also have longer life spans than fuel-fired generation, currently have some built 100 years ago and still in service. 4) Last of all was cost. "The average cost of alternative energies is much higher when compared with fossil fuels", this is a fallacy of division. What is true of the whole is not true of its parts. For example, bio diesel is a cheap alternative fuel and we have efficient technology to use it. Diesel powered cars tend to have a better fuel economy by 20-40% and produce less greenhouse gases. Bio diesel-powered diesel engines offer substantially improved emission reductions compared to petro-diesel or gasoline. Bio diesel average $0.28 per gallon with the assumption that the used oil was free. This figure was calculated using today's chemical prices and a bio diesel experiment provided by NC State University. Conclusion my opponent states that I offer evidence that is forcing an artificial movement towards alternative energy sources. United States was defined as "both moral and government policy grounds" with no further opposition. I argued for both grounds, meaning that there should be a behavioral change from the public and government policy change. Would it still be considered forcing if the public wants it? The presumption states "that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels". This does not mean that we should create sides and drastically change from the fossil fuel side to the alternative side. The key word "toward" could also mean a shift in a particular direction over time. If I was to find definitions they would be with a view to obtaining or having, In the area or vicinity of. Yes, we do have a form of time limit due to our finite supply of fossil fuels, but we do have the ability to use our time now to make efficient ways to use alternative fuels so that when we do need to change we can do so without disaster.