2040 the federal government should mandate that all new passengers vechcles and light trucks sold in

This debate was over biofuels, not making all trucks light. Next time, I ask that my opponent put the full resolution as the resolution. First, nuclear energy will never power cars. Neither will solar or wind. Currently, solar cars can only go 50 mph and still have to charge when not driving. Further, these cars are already covered in efficient panels and are expensive. Geothermal energy cannot power a car (imagine that...). To store these energies in fuel cells and have a car run electrically would also be impractical, as no electric car has yet to be produced. This is because the batteries needed to store this power are so very heavy. So, by alternative fuels, my opponent means biofuels. Instead of mandating biofuels, which are currently more expensive than oil, the government should stay out of the markets. The markets will adapt as necessary to a new market. As gas prices go up, there will be a demand for a replacement and it will become a natural part of the market. Therefore, the government should not mandate it, for it would happen at a more natural and necessary time if not mandated. In response to my opponent's first contention: If some people don't like gas, they don't have to use it. Such is the way of a free market. If some people don't like biofuels because they produce more CO2 than conventional gasoline per mile, then they don't have to use it either. However, a government mandate would limit one's ability to make a moral choice in their lifestyle. In response to my opponent's second contention: CO2 is not a pollutant. pollutant- Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water. pollute- To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter. (Source: The Free Online Dictionary) CO2 is not harmful to living things, as it aids photosynthesis. http://biology.clc.uc.edu... Further, polar bears are not becoming extinct. The earth has been hotter than it is now and they did not die off. In fact, eleven of the thirteen polar bear populations are booming. The two that aren't booming live in the colder parts of Alaska. Even if you find my opponent's claims true, then you cannot support biofuels because they produce more CO2 than conventional gasoline per mile. http://www.nature.org... Writes Joe Fargione: "Previous conclusions that biofuels reduce greenhouse gases were based on incomplete analyses." (same source) Some biofuels even produce as much as 420 times more CO2 than they offset. (same source) My opponent is just misinformed. In response to contention 3: If biofuels produce more CO2 than gasoline, then we will not get a better global standpoint as my opponent claims. Should the US force biofuels into American cars, we wouldn't be leading the war against a supposed climate problem, we'd be creating more of the problem. So, my opponent's argument is based entirely on the assumption that renewable energy is cleaner than exhaustable energy. So, here's my argument against a government biofuels mandate: It is not the natural way of the market. A government mandate hurts the system. We have limited technology now, so we shouldn't decide what the future must use (because something better may come along). There is not enough farm land in the US to produce enough biofuels to power all of our cars. We'd become dependent on foreign biofuels just as we are now of foreign oil. I urge the voters to not vote in ignorance. My opponent's blatant value was the environment, yet I source evidence that shows that a mandate of biofuels would not help the environment. Finally, mandates violate liberty, and the spirit of decision. Whether you prioritize the environment over liberty or liberty over the environment, you should clearly vote CON. Thank you for your time.