By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

I believe Americans are smart, I believe that they will not fall for their fears of the status quo and submit to a Sponge Bob tune, he is a cartoon for crying out loud. That is incorrect, the facts are that currently the alternative fuels produce more CO2 then they reduce, therefore they won't be a solution to the environment, this takes out most of his advantages. The evidence for that is below 1. Corn ethanol will double CO2 emissions, Sebastian Mallaby International Economics, February 25, 2008: If you grow crops to turn into biofuel, you are using land; somewhere in the world, forest or grassland will probably be plowed to make up for the acreage taken out of food production. If you account for the greenhouse gases released by that plowing, fueling cars with corn-based ethanol almost doubles greenhouse gas emissions for every mile drive 2. Shinnar, Professor of Chemical Engineering Richard and Jonathan, & Reconstructing Climate Policy A Hydrogen economy will cause rapid global warming because of methane increases which outweigh CO2 Decreases 3. Growing more corn for biofuels in the U. S. means soy is grown in Brazil, increasing Amazon deforestation Business and the Environment, March 2008, p. 14 "Biofuels Raise Carbon Emissions Much More than Oil" With that evidence, I would like to point out that deforestation is a major increase in CO2, and when we increase the use of biofuels, we will increase CO2 in that way. Look, to all of the audience out there, do you really want ot mandate inefficiency? Nobody in their right mind agrees that alternates are good at present, sure they MIGHT get better, but who are we to predict when that happens? Again I have not dropped any evidence besides, the hydrogen cars used as bombs, and I only did that to avoid giving anyone that awesome evidence. The evidence is in the speeches and in the comments since it Was Not working in the speech for whatever reason. For Crutzen paper, yes I have offered evidence stop lying, and his argument is plain to any mind, biofuels need land, that land will be irrigated, planted, harvested, and the fuels will have to be processed which all trades away with CO2 reductions the fuels might bring. This is plainly evident, why do you think the industries don't want to change? Do you really think if they can earn higher profits they wouldn't change? Of course they would, the matter is that the alternative fuels aren't the solution. Look, the resolution opens the floor for any fuel to be used, therefore by proving that some of them are bad, which in reality is more like all of them, I win, which would in real life lead to a different interpretation of the plan. Again I am not being abusive, the plan is being abusive. Pro has to prove that alt. fuels will be good, they aren't now, the problem is that he can't which makes us question, why should we try and predict. " My opponent's next statement is "No, because it says "by 2040" it means that the latest is 2040, if we mandate the latest to be earlier that will solve faster. " To me, this really does not make sense. I ask my opponent to perhaps rephrase it a different way and explain how it is relevant to this debate. Note: this DOES NOT count as dropping it. I am simply confused. " By the quote I am asserting that the plan makes the latest date for conversion to alt. fuels to be 2040. Therefore if we would mandate the date to be 2030, the change would come faster guaranteed. Therefore you would get the bad plan achieve faster. MANDATES Look, the government has not improved our emission standards. What choice did consumer have? Either you buy a car or you lose your job. .. At the end of the day, the big companies were reaping the profit all because of the government's choices. .. Do we really want to put our future into the hands of someone who has failed us? .. . Look, when you create mandate you will give the companies who make alternative fuel powered cars a monopoly, they won't have to compete or anything, because you either buy their car or you essentially lose a job, and settle down like people used to in the dark ages, do we really want to go to those ages? Sure a mandate is "supposed to help" however it usually does not, now my intention could be to help someone by mandating them not to exercise in hopes to lessen their pain of exerting energy, yet will that "supposed to help" feeling help? No it will not. OIL DEPENDENCY (Katherine A. Siggerud, Vehicle Fuel Economy: Reforming Fuel Economy Standards Could Help Reduce Oil Consumption by Cars and Light Trucks, and Other Options Could Complement These Standards August 2, 2007 Statement of, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues; GAO Report GAO-07-92ln) "Efforts to reduce oil consumption will need to include the transportation sector because transpor-tation in the United States currently accounts for 68 percent of the nation`s oil consumption, and cars and light trucks consume 60 percent of the oil consumed in the transportation sector" So if you do your math we can only solve for 40.8% of our dependency on oil. Look if the alternative fuels are so good, then why do we have to mandate them? As my opponent pointed out, the consumer have a choice therefore we don't need a mandate. At the end of this debate, the greatest issues are that Pro help increase CO2, does not solve for oil dependence, and most importantly, why mandate? Why not tax break and incentives? Why not let the principles of a free market, a democratic market, champion the day?