The Instigator
youngpolitic
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
tribefan011
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

Cap-and-Trade Will Bring Upon the Ruin of the USA

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  
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: 7/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,318 times Debate No: 8900
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (10)

 

youngpolitic

Pro

Cap-and-Trade is a Bill that has sadly made it through the House of Representatives. It is a bill that has been created to "combat global warming" and to "lower the dangerous levels of CO2 in the air". To do this Cap-and-Trade will set up a hugely bureaucratic system that would assign tax credits to a certain amount of CO2 emmisions. Say a factory is producing 50 tons of CO2 a day (this is just a made up scenario based on no actual figures) Cap-and-Trade would say that this company has to pay 25 million dollars for every 10 tons of CO2 released, so theoretically this company would have to pay 125 million dollars that day. They would literally be taxing emmisions. Also though companies can earn "Green Points" for doing "green" things. I do not know what this entails but it is in the bill. I'm assuming that means if a company does something like install solar panels they get a "Green Point" but I do not know what these green points do. Also companies can trade or buy "green points" from other companies. This is my understanding of this bill.

I would like to make a few points:

A- Global Warming doesn't exist. I think this bill is especially stupid because it is based on a theory that doesn't exist. Even if global warming does exist (which I don't believe) it has not been sufficiently proven and supported with evidence.

B- It has been studied and said that this bill will raise American energy prices by almost 90%. Gas will raise by 55%, natural gas by 56%. This bill is going to raise the price of energy so that it almost doubles. This will crush what is left of our measly economy and force hundreds of small businesses and factories to close. The American consumer and average American family would have to put a lot more money forward to pay for gas and utilities grinding spending to a halt. This is going to sink the economy.

C- It will shrink production by 3% each year. 3% is a huge number of factories and businesses across the country.

Why I think this bill will ruin America?

With the economy already in shambles this bill will destroy it. Americans wont have money to spend on anything but utilities which will use the money to pay for the new taxes. With production and jobs down who is going to pick up the pieces? China of course. If American production sinks it will only boost Chinese production.
China is not going to be abiding by these new environmental rules so they will be producing just as much if not more Co2 as they always have rendering this bill useless.
This will lock up all US money and give it all to the already too big government grinding everything to a complete halt. This will knock the US off the top seed in the world as other countries will pick up our slack.

The ruin of America.
tribefan011

Con

I thank youngpolitic for this debate.

First, I'd like to make a few things clear about the resolution. Cap-and-trade is not a bill that has made it through the House of Representatives. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is the bill that passed in the House of Representatives. Cap-and-trade is "an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants." [1]

Pro's first contention is ridiculous. While there tends to be more disagreement outside the scientific community regarding man's role in global warming or climate change, there is no evidence to back up the claim that global warming doesn't exist. The earth's temperatures are warming. [2][3][4]
Pro is likely referring to the theory that man causes or partially causes climate change, but he incorrectly calls it "global warming". As for this theory, there has been plenty of proof. The greenhouse effect is "warming that results when solar radiation is trapped by the atmosphere". [5] Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, absorb this radiation. By doing this, the greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 concentrations have increased by about 40%. [6] This increase in concentration, largely due to increased pollution and deforestation, has naturally trapped more heat. This is why it causes "global warming" or "climate change". In a 2007 report, the IPCC, along with over 45 scientific societies and academies of science, have endorsed the theory that human activity has helped cause climate change. While a few bodies hold no position, no major scientific body rejected the theory.

There's no use in addressing the second contention since the resolution doesn't address the bill. The resolution just addresses the cap-and-trade system.

I would ask that my opponent cite sources for his statistics. I also ask how it will shrink production by 3% each year.

Pro clearly didn't back up his resolution in his conclusion. He failed to provide evidence that Americans be forced to spend so much on utilities that they won't be able to spend money on anything else.

I will make a couple contentions:

1. Cap-and-trade is used in 25 of the 27 member countries of the European Union. It is also used in Australia. I fail to see any empirical evidence in these countries that shows that they will be ruined because of cap-and-trade. None of these countries have been ruined because of the policy, which makes it very hard for Pro to prove the resolution.

2. A MIT study in 2007 estimates that a cap-and-trade system in 2015 would generate $366 Billion in revenue. [7] This revenue could be used in several ways. It could be used to make current factories more energy-efficient, creating jobs and helping the environment. It can also be used to develop renewable sources of energy. If a certain amount of our energy is required to be renewable, all production certainly won't move to China. Now, the companies can do whatever they want with the money, but acting as if the policy will hurt American business is a joke when it can generate such a large amount of revenue for energy companies.

Pro's arguments simply assume too much. They assume that cap-and-trade is just like the system provided by H.R. 2454. It is faulty to base a view of cap-and-trade on that one bill. The CO2 emissions cap will usually vary from system to system. An additional requirement for a certain percentage of renewable energy to make up the energy production in the United States could be added. These factors simply make it impossible to address a general cap-and-trade policy with specific statistics. Pro's first point was refuted. His last two points were irrelevant, since they regarded just H.R. 2454. The cap-and-trade system helps our environment while providing incentives for businesses to lower their emissions. This will generate much revenue, and it will help our environment for years to come.

The resolution has been negated.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
[3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[4] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
[5] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[6] http://www.financialexpress.com...
[7] http://web.mit.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
youngpolitic

Pro

youngpolitic forfeited this round.
tribefan011

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited Round 2. I hope he can post an argument for the next round. Extend all my previous arguments.

Despite its irrelevance, I would like to challenge my opponent's point B. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan organization, estimated that a cap-and-trade program such as the one in H.R. 2454 in 2020 would cost the average household in America $175 annually. [1] This is not an increase of almost 90%. The report also stated, "Households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020." This means that energy costs for Americans in the lowest income quintile would actually drop. The analysis didn't take subsidies into account, which encourage energy efficiency and developing new technologies. The Center for American Progress estimates that a clean energy standard will save Americans $95 billion in energy costs in 2025. [2]

There are more benefits to a cap-and-trade system. The Center for American Progress estimated that spending on clean-energy investments could generate 1.7 million U.S. jobs. [3] They estimate that 16.7 jobs are created for every $1 million spent in clean-energy investments. They contend that fossil fuels only generate 5.3 jobs for every $1 million in investment.

I have shown numerous advantages of having a cap-and-trade system. A cap-and-trade system will ultimately help our environment by lowering pollution. It will help us become more energy-efficient as we move toward renewable energies. It will generate many jobs and much revenue. What I have not seen is that it will bring upon the ruin of the USA. There's no evidence to back this claim, and my opponent has failed to affirm the resolution.

The resolution has been negated.

[1] http://energycommerce.house.gov...
[2] http://www.americanprogress.org...
[3] http://www.americanprogress.org...
Debate Round No. 2
youngpolitic

Pro

youngpolitic forfeited this round.
tribefan011

Con

Extend all my arguments. My opponent's arguments for the resolution were weak. I showed numerous benefits of a cap-and-trade system. The resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Defaulted CON due to multiple forfeits.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Con wins by forfeiture. Cap and trade would likely have very bad effects, but Pro didn't argue the case.
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
God, tribefan011 is a monster. The beastliest beast that ever beasted in the entire history of beasts.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Points for trying?
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 7 years ago
youngpolitic
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
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 Steven123 8 years ago
Steven123
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Agnostic 8 years ago
Agnostic
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
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 Youngblood 8 years ago
Youngblood
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
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 rimshot515 8 years ago
rimshot515
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
youngpolitictribefan011Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06