The USFG ought to prioritize the development of clean energy over (continued...)

This is my last response of the debate. I would like to thank Yraelz for doing this debate with me—I enjoyed writing up all of my argument rounds and learned a lot about this issue. My post this round will be in response to everything that Pro said in R4. FrameworkPro attacks my moral theory by giving two examples of situations that would be justified under my theory. My answer is yes, they are justified under my theory. What reasoning has Pro given that these examples are not justified? He has given none. I have given solid argumentation for my moral theory, while Pro’s only response to this are bare assertions. Pro needs to explain why these examples are morally wrong, rather than just assuming that the judges will accept his view at face value. The judges have to accept my moral theory here because Pro has brought no reasoning against it.Pro then argues that many beings cannot secure the rights of other people, such as the disabled, or babies, or people in comas and thus by my reasoning they have no rights. This is not true for every given circumstance. Babies have rights because at some point in the future they will be able to secure the rights of others. This is the same for the disabled and people in comas because at some point in their lives they were not disabled and not in a coma and thus were able to secure the rights of others. But even regardless of their physical capabilities, every US citizen pays taxes. This perpetuates the existence of a government whose sole purpose is to protect the rights of the citizens. Thus, every US citizen contributes to the securement of rights in the moral community, regardless of their own physical ability to secure rights. Non US citizens contribute nothing to secure the rights of US citizens, thus the US has no obligation to secure their rights. Thus I win this point—only the wellbeing of US citizens has any impact in this debate. A World with Free EnergyPro continues to argue that use of fossil fuels will cause wars abroad with the need to acquire resources. The reason I cited the US having the largest supply of coal was to show that the US doesn’t *need* to use any oil or natural gas. The US can survive purely off of coal for centuries. Because the US has the world’s largest supply of coal, we don’t have to get fossil fuels from any other part of the world, meaning that no wars have to occur. Pro’s argument is that use of fossil fuels necessitates acquiring fuel from foreign nations which can cause wars (as evidenced by his source.) But I have shown that it is not necessary to acquire fuel from foreign nations, thus this argument is negated. Hayd’s C1) ExpenseI argued that fossil fuels are cheaper than clean energy because the data showing fossil fuels as more expensive include a carbon tax, which is not representative of the technology. Pro attacks my evidence showing the cost without carbon tax by arguing that:1) It only considers Australian data and thus has zero relevance to U.S. economics. There is no reason to believe that the costs would be different because they are using the same technologies. Because they are using the same technologies as in the US, the cost of them without a carbon tax would be the same as in the US, as well.2) Pro further cites recent evidence that solar and wind will have prices as low as $100/MWh in 2017. This evidence does not help Pro’s case though because my graph from last round showed coal as having a price range of $75-100/MWh. Because coal is cheaper than clean energy, my premise that traditional energy is cheap still stands. 3) Pro then argues that the Lazard study shows the unsubsidized cost of clean energy. But this does not help Pro’s case because I cited the levelized cost without a carbon tax. If we compare the naked cost of traditional (without carbon tax) and the naked cost of clean energy (without subsidy), coal is the cheaper source. Thus I still win this point. 4) Pro argues that 2017 is the first year when solar has outcompeted traditional. This does not make sense because all of Pro’s data shows wind being cheaper. If we compare wind to coal, coal wins out. Thus I still win this argument. UnreliabilityPro argues that I drop the argument that batteries are “on track to solving intermittency problems.” If batteries are not ready yet to solve intermittency problems, this means that the US would have to continue to support traditional energy until this is invented. Pro does not fulfill his burden this way. 1) Pro argues that my evidence of hydrogen being does not warrant my claim. My evidence shows different kinds of hydrogen tanks having a total system cost of $30-40/kWh. This is expensive. Regardless, hydrogen is not competitive at the moment (as Pro admits), and thus cannot be used for Pro, as explained earlier. Hayd’s C2)Pro argues that droughts and heat waves will affect the entire North American region , thus hurting crop growth. First of all, if this were true then we would see a decrease in vegetation across the world. This is not true, as my evidence shows an increase in vegetation across the world. Even though droughts and heat waves hurt some crops, this does not change the fact that on average crops have been improving. I have shown that they have been improving because of CO2, and Pro has not contended this. This proves that CO2 is on balance more beneficial to crops than it is harmful, regardless of the presence of droughts and heat waves. Jobs1) Pro argues that the amount of workers employed by solar installations is a good thing. This ignores my point. If the US were to develop clean energy, this would mean Solar power *plants*, because only those would be able to power the energy grid. If only the development of solar power plants is what we are discussing in this debate, then only the employment of those sites are relevant. Bringing up the employment of private installations is non topical. 2) True, for every million dollars invested it creates one more job. Environmental HarmsPro argues that biodiversity loss would affect fisheries and wild game. This is not true because most fish put into the fish market are domesticated. For example wild salmon make up 0.05% of the salmon market [1]. Domesticated markets are not affected by biodiversity loss because they are not in an ecosystem. Natural DisastersEverything I need to say about this contention was said last round. Thus I refer the judge to that. Climate ChangeI concede what Pro said. But note that the only impact that Pro has from global warming is the harm to biodiversity, heat waves, droughts, and natural disasters. I have proven that the first is a nonimpact because of moral theory, that heat waves and droughts are outweighed by the increase of vegetation caused by CO2, and that the last has been on a decline over the last 60 years and thus cannot be linked to global warming. Although I concede Pro’s premise, all impacts he has drawn from it are negated. MethanePro argues that the presence of bacteria does not help the global problem. Yes, but the bacteria has the potential to eliminate all of the methane in the atmosphere if developed correctly. PollutionThe judges cannot accept Pro’s source on 3 million deaths because this is worldwide. Only deaths in the US is relevant, which Pro has failed to provide. Even if we accept that an unknown fraction of these deaths occur in the US, because CO2 impact has decreased to such a point that any massive addition would have fractional impact. For example, see my graph that I cited in R2, although the world has multiplied its carbon output many times over, the increase in the potency is fractional. Any discontinual use of traditional fuels will not make much of a difference. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...