The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives

1. My opponent says that I have the burden to show the necessity for shifting resources to IFR's, and that the current recession shows the impacts of excessive deficit spending, and that taking away coal and oil incentives will cause the free market to seek alternative energy. I'll take his points in turn: a. On our respective burdens: I have the burden to prove the resolution true. But if my opponent makes an argument against my position, he has the burden to prove HIS argument is true. Until his housing/recession argument, he had failed to do so. Now that he has, I'll answer it. Otherwise, he has yet to give EVIDENCE, WARRANTS, or PROOF for any of his arguments. b. On the housing collapse/recession: He makes a fatal mistake here. He concedes that the housing market caused the economy to collapse. But it wasn't government intervention that caused the housing collapse – it was the belief in the "free market". According to conservative federal judge and law and economics expert Richard Posner, "Rational maximization by businessmen and consumers, all pursuing their self-interest more or less intelligently within a framework of property and contract rights, can set the stage for an economic collapse… A profound failure of the market was abetted by governmental inaction. .. The movement to deregulate the financial industry went too far by exaggerating the resilience -- the self-healing powers -- of laissez-faire capitalism. " Thus, his argument actually flows AGAINST him – his only example of the failure of excessive deficit spending actually proves that the free market and LACK of government intervention caused the housing crisis and the ensuing recession. c. On eliminating subsidies and free markets finding alternative energy He does not understand my point. My point in the status quo, we are developing traditional nuclear power. This will create nuclear waste. This waste WILL be stored in Yucca Mountain. There are no other alternatives, according to the New York Times. Even if we don't need nuclear power as a fuel, we need IFR's to avoid a nuclear volcano. 2. My opponent says that I need to talk about all forms of alternative energy, that I need to focus on whether the federal government is a beneficial actor, and that the federal government acting would be unconstitutional, immoral, and anti-social. I'll take his points in turn: a. Scope of the resolution My opponent says that I need to talk about all forms of alternative energy. I argue that proving one example proves the resolution. This is simple to resolve: when he restates the resolution, he puts the word "all" in brackets – THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE TOPIC. I don't have to prove "all" incentives. He completely ignores my analysis on Point 2 in Round 3, where I argue that in-depth education is preferable to broad education. My interpretation of the topic is therefore superior to his. b. Government Action/Trade-Off: My opponent argues that there are many beneficial things we can do with our tax revenue. But look back at his posts: he never answers my argument that investing in IFR's will actually INCREASE revenue. I cited the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, which says that billions of dollars of tax revenue can be generated with new nuclear plants. Thus, even if there is a general trade-off between government priorities, and even if our deficit spending is limited (which it is not, see above), there will be no trade-off because IFR's are revenue generating for the federal government. And yet he has still failed to PROVE that a trade-off WILL happen. c. Propriety of Government Action: My opponent says that I have to demonstrate why it is the responsibility of the federal government to fund IFR's and interfere in the market. On the issue of responsibility, it is the legal obligation of the federal government, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to create a long term national plan for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste. Because IFR's satisfy that burden as an alternative to the otherwise inevitable Yucca Mountain, that proves that it is a federal responsibility. Additionally, the federal government can do things, even if it doesn't have an OBLIGATION to do them. That's my "necessary and proper" argument from Round 3. On the issue of market interference, I have made several points so far he has yet to answer: i. There is market interference now, yet we have yet to see a harmful impact. HE HAS PROVIDED NO IMPACTS TO INTERFERING WITH THE FREE MARKET. Because this is his argument against me, he has the burden to show that interfering with the market is bad. ii. We can still use the free market, just not a "pure" free market. Free markets and government incentives are not mutually exclusive. iii. The free market is a terrible mechanism. See below. 3. My opponent argues that the free market is the best way to achieve our desired outcomes. I have several points: a. First, he ignores my four specific warrants as to why the free market will lead to global environmental destruction. These are all reasons why the free market is bad and will eventually lead to terrible catastrophe: i. The tech revolution had put massive strain on the environment ii. The consumption movement has depleted our planet's natural resources iii. American consumption of beef is ravaging our ecosystem iv. Free markets fail to properly value our environment, and thus prevent the formation of an effective ecological movement b. Next, he argues that China's transition to a market economy proves that capitalism has given them prosperity. Yet, this example just proves that capitalism will lead to ecological destruction (see above). According to Wang Yi, a Chinese scholar writing in Social Research, Vol. 73, No. 1 in Spring of 2006, China's transition to a market economy has created a huge ecological crisis, with pollution of the air and water, and depletion of natural resources. The only way for China to avert a major catastrophe is to revert to some government pollution controls. This just proves that the "pure" free market can't solve, and some government will always be necessary. Giving incentives to IFR's is one such instance. c. My opponent argues that my examples of government intervention in creating the internet and the NIH were issues of popular concern, and that this is more important than alternative energy. However, according to a poll conducted in March of 2010 by independent agency Bisconti Research, 70% of Americans support building new nuclear power plants, and 87% feel that nuclear energy will play an important role in our energy future. In comparison, a June 2009 Pew Opinion poll found that 55% of Americans want to reduce or maintain current defense spending, and a March 2010 Gallup/USA Today poll found 40% of Americans thought the health care reform bill was a "bad idea". But the most damning for my opponent (from the March 2010 Bisconti survey): "THE SURVEY SHOWED STRONG SUPPORT (79 PERCENT) FOR RECYCLING USED FUEL FROM NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL ELECTRICITY AND ULTIMATELY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WASTE THAT MUST BE PERMANENTLY DISPOSED. " Game over… d. Finally, he argues that if IFR's were so great, then the private sector would have funded them. I would point out that he has ignored my point that IFR's are not "immediately" profitable, and that the free market will ignore any technology that doesn't produce a foreseeable profit. According to Dr. Charles Till, because other fuels like oil and coal are so much cheaper, IFR's don't make current sense to capitalists, even if they'll be beneficial in the long term.