That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light truck

I would like to start my second round by refuting my opponent's points. First: Oil production will peak by 2040. My opponent says that if I can provide evidence saying that oil will not peak by 2040, then I win that argument. Well, here is my evidence. The USGS(The U. S Geological Survey), which provide scientific understanding about natural resource conditions, have calculated that there are 3,021 billion barrels left, on top of those oil reserves that countries have not reported. Which, if you think about it, then if we really are going into an oil peak, then wouldn't countries hide their oil reserves so they can power their own country? It makes perfect sense. So therefore, my opponents oil peak argument has been refuted. Second, my opponent sated that I sated alt. fuels are dangerous. That is not what I said at all. What I said was, that the production, the making of alt. fuels, can be dangerous. I have never said that the alt. fuels themselves were dangerous. So my refute for this point is, we should spend from now until we are absolutely know for sure that the production of alt. fuels is safe. For now, we should stick to oil. And finally, my opponent has stated that we can't help what the auto industry does. And I have to agree with my opponent. However, though we don't have the power to mandate the auto industry, the federal government does, and from what we have seen, is that when it comes to this issue, the government have failed. Again, 20 years ago, vehicles have had better mpg then they do now. And besides, the government then did not do much to promote conservation. So, should we allow the people who did not do anything then do something now? No, we, the American people, can not allow that. Con has thus refuted pros points. Now, I would like to reinforce my three main points. First: The production of alt. fuels can be dangerous We should take time to research and make sure that the production, again, the production, not the alt. fuels themselves, are safe. It is irrefutable that alt. fuels are safe, but the production of them can be dangerous. We must make sure that the production is safe. That's all con is saying. Second: If the government mandates a switch early, then we can be tossing away an opportunity to try and find a better solution. What con is saying here is, we should take time to make decisions. Now, to a lot of people, 2040 looks far off and is surely enough time. However, look how fast 2008 flew by. It seemed like only yesterday that it was January, 2008. So we have to look at the long term, not the short term. And the government mandating a switch in 2040 is going with the short term. Again, the American people can't afford the government looking at the short term. The con rests with this point. Third: The government has already damaged the fuel economy As I have stated in my refute to one of pros points, we can't control the auto industry, the federal government can. And they have failed us. 20 years ago the mpg of vehicles were better then they are today and the federal government has not done nothing to promote conservation. The con rests.