The Instigator
CHS
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
mystearica007
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 6649
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

CHS

Pro

I will let my oppenent have the first virtual speech
mystearica007

Con

I am against the resolution, which states: That by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the U.S. should be powered by alternative fuels for the following three points: the auto industry bankruptcy will destroy the economy, alternative fuels are developing without governmental mandate, and the auto industry will circumvent mandates.

Alternativefuels.about.com states the definition of alternative fuels, which is the choice of any fuel other than the traditional selections, gasoline and diesel, such as Ethanol, Methane, and Hydrogen.

I believe that the auto industry bankruptcy will destroy the economy, my first point, because, from Ron Gettelfinger, President of International Union, United Automobiles, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America states that
"Hundreds of thousands of workers would directly lose their jobs at GM, Ford and Chrysler, and a total of three million workers would see their jobs eliminated at suppliers, dealerships and the thousands of other businesses that depend on the auto industry" .
He also says, "One million retirees could lose part of their pension benefits, and would also face the complete elimination of their health insurance coverage, an especially harsh blow to the 40 percent who are younger than 65 and not yet eligible for Medicare.",
"The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation could be saddled with enormous pension liabilities, jeopardizing its ability to protect the pensions of millions of other workers and retirees. To prevent this from happening, the federal government could be forced to pay for a costly bailout of the PBGC. The federal government would also be liable for a 65% health care tax credit for pre-65 retirees from the auto companies, at a cost of as much as $2 billion per year.",
"Revenues to the federal, state and local governments would drop sharply, forcing cuts in vital social services at a time when they are urgently needed." And finally, he states,
"The ripple effects from the collapse of the Detroit-based auto companies would deal a serious blow to the entire economy, making the current recession much deeper and longer." Also, 31 years is not enough time to come up with such technologies, because the government cannot predict viable technology for 2040, as stated by James B Meigs in Popular Mechanics, February 2008. "In fact, governments generally have a bad track record when it comes to picking technologies. In the midst of an earlier oil crunc, President Jimmy Carter seized on "synfuels" -- refined from oil shale deposits-- as a panacea. Bad mistake. Synfuels turned out to be woefully uneconomic, evironmentally disasterous and feasible only with massive government subsidies. It took years to kill the programme off, --and the last of the multibillion-dollar tax credits just expired in 2007."

Alternative fuels are developing without governmental mandate, my second point, states that for example, E-85, a popular alterative to gasoline is available at most gas stations. Also, from alternativefuels.about.com, other forms of gasoline that are available or are under study are Methanol, Propane, Hydrogen, Electricity, Biodiesel, Biomass, and the P-series. From MOTOR AGE, September 2008, p. 72; Gale Cengage Learning: The results of a recent study predict the future of automotives: all vehicles will run on hybrid power by 2020. Conducted by IBM Globa Business Services, the study interviewed 125 global industry executives who report all vehicles will have some type of hybrid power system within 12 years. Options could include micro-hybrids that power down when a vehicle is stopped, regenerative braking that builds power when a vehicle is stopped, mild hybrids that provide extra power, but cannot run independently, or ful hybrids that can run on elecrtic motors. James Eaves, Professor of Finance and Insurance, Lavel University, along with Stephen Eaves states that "If the objective of promoting ethanol is to rely more on domestic enegry sources, then perhaps it would be more effcient to use natural gas and liquefied coal to power cars. Vehicles compatible with those energy sources have been operating on US roadways for years, and reliance on those fuels would not disrupt their food supply." [from Regulation, Fall 2007], and clearly states that Vehicles are already running on natural gas and liquefied coal. Why would we need a mandate for something that is already in place?

My final point, the auto industry will circumvent mandates. In other words, the auto industries will find loopholes in the governmental mandates, so they can still earn top money without completely following the rules of the contract. The auto industry has circumvented past mandates, as stated by Henry Stoffer, in Automotive News, February 11, 2008: One example of unintended consequence: The law's milder standards for "work trucks" open a loophole through which automakers can drive an array of big, luxurious pickups, says environmental activist John DeCicco. Also, from the same source, "The first federal fuel economy law, enacted in 1975 had much tougher standards for cars than for trucks. The different treatment spawned new classes of vehicles: minivans, SUVs, and crossovers."
The auto industry will pay penalties for violating these mandates. Henry Stoffer states in Automotive News, 11 February 2008, "Cohen, the chief Washington lobbyist for Honda North America Inc., also suspects that more companies may choose to pay fines for the CAFE violations than in the past, because of the cost of the compliance with the new, tougher standards will be higher. Traditionally, only makers of premium vehicles notably Mercedes-Benze, BMW, and Porsche-- have paid such fines."
"The nation's new fuel economy law could have unintended effects on vehicle design and safety, industry analysts say. And some industry executives suggest that more automakers may choose to pay penalties for breaking the law rather than build vehicles the companies fear companies may reject."

For these reasons, I thank you, and I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
CHS

Pro

Intro- Earth…Our planet…such a wonderful place to live and enjoy everything that is has to give. Have you ever walked outside took a deep breath and said " What a nice day" well if you haven't then you better do it quickly because with increase in global warming we may not have many nice days left…in fact we may not have many dies left at all.
Contention 1: Global Warming
Alternative fuels such as Ethanol are a perfect way to lower the impacts of global warming at a cheap price. According to a price chart of fuels made in October of 2008. Ethanol prices per gallon were at $2.82 while regular gasoline prices were $3.04 we have seen a significant drop in gas prices yet the ethanol prices have dropped as well still a great deal lower then the gasoline prices. Ethanol does not put out as much CO2 as gasoline does and is cheaper so there is no reason why we should not let it fuel our cars. That is not the only fuel that is available fuels such as Hydrogen, Methanol, and natural gas are all available to us so why aren't we using them.

The frequency of downpours and heat waves, as well as the power of hurricanes, has increased so dramatically that "100-year storms" are striking some areas once every 15 years, and other once rare events keeps returning. As a result, some climatologists now say global warming is to blame. Rising temperatures boost the probability of extreme weather, says Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center. Think of it this way: if once we experienced one Noachian downpour every 20 years, and now we suffer five, four are likely man-made. According to news.mongabay.com "In one model simulation which assumed that greenhouse gases continue to build up in the atmosphere at the current rate, September ice coverage shrinks from 2.3 million to 770,000 square miles in a 10-year period, and nearly disappears by 2040. The model also shows that winter ice thins from 12 feet think to less than 3 feet" Although this is only a model it shows the impacts of what can and will happen to our world if we do not take action in lowering the Co2 emmision being put into out O-zone. The fuel that is constantly being burned up and released into our atmosphere from cars can ultimately lead to over 1 million square miles of ice disappearing by the the year 2040.

Contention 2: Production of Alt. Fuels
•Alternative fuels are being studied and tested every day. Some such as ethanol and electricity have been proven to work and at a cheaper price then regular gasoline. There are over 6 alternative fuels that are currently being tested and 2 of which (biodesiel and electricity) have already been put to use in the United States of America. 1 by 1 states are making the switch to " Go green" we are eventually going to become a country who uses only alternative fuels so why not start now. The later we wait the worse this problem is going to be Some Alt. Fuels are cheaper then the cost of oil right now. Biodiesel Fueling station are on the rise. 51 to 100 in the state of Texas alone. States such as Washington and Minnesota have already committed to using some biodiesel fuels in their fueling stations. Obviously if states are already using these alternative fuels there is something good enough about them that can help our country save money and our environment stay healthy.

Contention 3: Cost Efficiency
•In July fuels such as Ethanol(3.27/gallon) and Natural Gas(2.34/Gallon) were more than a dollar cheaper then gas(3.91/gallon0. Comparetevely adventagoues to find alt. fuels over continuing to persure gas. There is not many more places to get oil from for our gasoline. Only other way to get oil is ANWR and it will not make a difference by 2040

Contention 4: Impacts
•Global Warming has no positive affects but it causes many horrible impacts such as Droughts, Floods, and even another ice age. According to national geographic South America alone can experience Species extinction and severe floods due to the rivers and oceans around it rising because of the melting of ice caps. All around the world we are going to witness loss of forest, rising waters, droughts and other severe conditions if we do not act now. Instead of making our country's situation worse by using Gasoline we should make it better and use alternative fuels.

And finally just to address any argument saying we will not have the money for this. The US Department of energy has awarded 26 billion dollars to the research and production of alternative fuels. So there is more then enough money

thank you
mystearica007

Con

mystearica007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
CHS

Pro

Since My opponent has not answered any of my contentions I would just like to add that Governmental sources have proved that peak oil will come in 2040 so we need to act now. I would also like to let it be known that if my opponent attacks my contentions and any other point in this debate it is abusive because I have no other oppurtunities to debate him

Thank You
mystearica007

Con

mystearica007 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CHS 7 years ago
CHS
oh well either way he or she forfeited
Posted by jimjamesalex 7 years ago
jimjamesalex
that would be a she.
Posted by CHS 7 years ago
CHS
haha you know it
Posted by mystearica007 7 years ago
mystearica007
Sweet. ;)
Looks like I've got some serious competition then. Haha.
Posted by CHS 7 years ago
CHS
oh I was just wondering. Im a debater also
Posted by jimjamesalex 7 years ago
jimjamesalex
yes it is a horible thing how could you do such a thing.JK and no this is not mean i know her.
Posted by mystearica007 7 years ago
mystearica007
Yeah, I am. Is that a bad thing? o.o
Posted by CHS 7 years ago
CHS
just so I know are you an actual debater. Like one that goes to real life tournaments and all?
Posted by mystearica007 7 years ago
mystearica007
You're quite welcome.
I'm looking forward to your response. :)
Posted by CHS 7 years ago
CHS
Thanks for accepting this debate. It should be a good one
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by CHS 6 years ago
CHS
CHSmystearica007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 7 years ago
dragonfire1414
CHSmystearica007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Bboo 7 years ago
Bboo
CHSmystearica007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jimjamesalex 7 years ago
jimjamesalex
CHSmystearica007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52