the government should not be involved in the energy market

Hi Zak, I accept your challenge!Contention I: Division of Ground and BOPResolution reads, "The government should NOT be involved in the energy market." "Involvement" has not been defined, but syntax indicates that we are dealing with a broad economic category, which includes but may not be limited to subsidies, loans, bailouts, and anti-trust laws. I also submit that "Not" dictates an absolute meaning: if Con can win at least some government involvement should occur (or one instance thereof), he has sufficiently negated the resolution. Likewise, Pro needs to justify why the energy market should be entirely laissez-faire.Contention II:A. American Consumerism and Global WarmingIt should be no great revelation that a market predicated on consumption can reward convenience, myopia, and simplicity, and while profit motives largely drive technological innovation, they can just as easily retard it. For the last century or so, America has built an economy based upon the consumption of fossil fuels " in our factories, automobiles, and power plants. The American economy has accompanied a larger, global shift toward industrialization, which in some cases, like China, has occurred so rapidly that it poses immediate danger to environmental and human health.The cost has been cumulative and severe: anthropogenic GHG"s (Green House Gases) have played a primary role in climate change. Global warming poses a significant threat not only on a national but also, a global level as its ill effects include flooding, super storms, drought, and loss of viable farming land.As we edge closer to the point of no return, it must be imperative that we take steps to avoid further degradation. This can include government loans to green energy firms, tax credits to create cleaner fuels, or even imposing stricter regulations on GHG emissions (like a carbon cap and trade). My point is that the government should be involved in the energy market on a substantial level because many corporations will not take the appropriate steps to curtail their role in the damage. And, who can blame them? The infrastructure and market already exist for fossil fuels while technology for green energy is barely getting started. Outfitting a plant to capture C02 emissions from coal, for example, remains prohibitively expensive, and the mechanism for such a process is still being developed.Product differentiation does not drive competition and innovation in the energy sector as other types of products and services. When Pro says that the market remains the best determinant for our energy portfolio, this does not take into account greater challenges and problems the market may not be capable of solving.I am not advocating that the government can solve climate change, only that government involvement in the energy market, even on an incremental level, remains vitally necessary to a larger solution to the problem. I reserve time in my future rounds to provide evidence for anthropogenic global warming if my opponent challenges me on this point. B. Government Involvement SucceedsFrom rural electrification to micro antennas, the US government possesses a long, sophisticated list of successful interventions into private markets that have either helped supplement infrastructure or created materials used in consumer products. Calling to memory failures like Solyndra or political plays like funding corn farmers in Iowa cannot sufficiently rebuff so many present successes in other areas.Compared to funding in other R&D sectors, current government investments in energy are a paltry sum, but even with meager efforts, the government has helped save clean energy jobs and provided necessary funds to keep research progressing. While there has been enormous political scrutiny of the government"s loan portfolio in recent years, the default rate on these green energy loans has been small, just under 4% at the end of 2011, which still falls under the rate Congress budgeted. Lastly, I think it is important to mention that "success" from a governmental perspective should not just fall under conventional categories like market viability or profit potential. Governments must invest in defenses, protect public health, and preserve the environment for future generations and citizens. While global warming surely presents a very real and present threat, other environmental considerations should be taken into account when deciding whether the government should intervene in the energy market. The government has and should continue to penalize companies who excessively pollute and even more importantly, ban products that threaten public health (like leaded gasoline). Regulations of these types constitute "involvement" because in one way or another, they affect market prices, supply, and a host of other economic factors.Contention III:I think I have answered all of my opponent"s arguments from the first round in one form or another. But, since I have taken this time to lay out my initial arguments, I will spend more time extensively addressing my opponent"s arguments in future rounds.Sources:http://www.washingtonpost.com...http://bipartisanpolicy.org...