The Instigator
mystearica007
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
nick5627
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

By 2040, the fed gvmt should mandate that all new cars sold in the US should be powered by alt. fuel

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
mystearica007
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 754 times Debate No: 6651
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

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.
nick5627

Pro

hello! if the world dosent keep going dow the track were going then the world will be ruined by global warming. cars are the number 1 producer of global warming. so wat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
mystearica007

Con

I thank my opponent for taking the time to challenge me.

First off, I would like to point out that global warming and the world is NOT the argument at hand. I would like my opponent to post any evidence that the cars are the leading cause of global warming.

Secondly, my opponent has refused to atack any of my points, which are clearly good rasons NOT to take up this mandate. And my opponent has only brought up one point. I believe to truly state your reasoning, you need three points to get your points across.

Please, vote con, and thank you.
nick5627

Pro

nick5627 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mystearica007

Con

mystearica007 forfeited this round.
nick5627

Pro

nick5627 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jimjamesalex 8 years ago
jimjamesalex
Nick you lost she has you pinned down and the only way you get away is if you come up with some real points and mystearica good job on saying what the resolotion is. You are right this is not about the gas or fuels it is about the mandate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Bboo 8 years ago
Bboo
mystearica007nick5627Tied
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 jimjamesalex 8 years ago
jimjamesalex
mystearica007nick5627Tied
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