Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

I would first like to make note that the PRO is not allowed to alter his plan in any way after his first argument, although he may expand on everything else, I will first go over inherency, solvency, then significance and harms, covering all stock issues excluding topicality. I would like to remind the judges that it is the PRO's responsibility to cover all stock issues, and if even one is conceded (excluding inherency, that's up to the judge)that the PRO wins the round, since we are doing a policy debate. INHERENCY I believe that the PRO does not give a viable inherent barrier, without an inherent barrier the PRO and the judges both are often left misinformed on why the case isn't already being done, the PRO should show what the problem is in his inherency, then solve for that problem. SOLVENCY The PRO's plan says nothing about negotiating a contract to state how the money they pass out must be used, unless the PRO can prove that the organization they plan to give money to has absolutely no other agendas except obtaining electricity from fusion they cannot be sure that the money they put out will be used in the proper way, in which case their plan will fail. The PRO's plan says nothing about making fusion derived electricity available if it is somehow possible to get it, therefore the best they can do with this plan is research, and cannot guarantee that widespread use will come after development. The PRO has yet to show evidence that deuterium can be harvested legally. To expand on this I make note of the countless examples of endangered species living in the waters of our planet, unless the PRO can prove that harvesting deuterium out of our water will have absolutely no environmental repercussions we cannot be sure that the international community will allow the harvest of deuterium. Possibly the most important question the judge must ask is "Is this even possible?" the PRO states that fusion energy has been researched for fifty years, to no avail, and has not proved that we are any closer now than we were fifty years ago, it could be centuries before we achieve fusion power. SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS http://finance.yahoo.com...- Water pollution is already the single largest cause of sickness and death worldwide It is obvious that water pollution is a serious issue, but yet the PRO would like to harvest a mineral from our water, risking killing off species and furthering water pollution. The PRO states that "Since no fossil fuels are used, there will be no release of chemical COMBUSTION products because they will not be produced." The PRO fails to mention that there could be by products not produced by combustion, but simply states that combustion won't cause by products, other things could cause by products worse than burning oil. I would like to make a press for evidence that 1- Harvesting deuterium from water will have no environmental effects 2- There will not be by products at all, rather than just from combustion, or if there are, evidence that they won't be worse than the status quo 3- The programs he wishes to give money to have no other agendas 4- A statistic on the chance of having fusion power in the near future I believe that all of these facts are neccessary for the PRO to prove his point.