by 2040 fg should mandate all new passenger vehicles sold in us be powered by altern fuels
Debate Rounds (3)
1.Oil is a resource the puts us at the mercy of a dwindling supply
2.The significant environmental harms of oil outweigh its benefits
3.Making the mandate would be extremely economically beneficial
We would like to offer the following definition for clarification
Passenger Vehicle- as defined by the Us Department of Transportation is A vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less which includes passenger cars, light pickup trucks, light vans, and utility vehicles
Our first contention is that our continual reliance on oil puts us at the mercy of the dwindling supply. Oil powers the absolute majority of our vehicles, but the supply of it is something we can no longer count on. According to a December, 2008 article from the Guardian, Fatih Birol, chief economist to the International Energy Agency, told the Guardian that conventional crude output could plateau in 2020, a development that was "not good news" for a world still heavily dependent on petroleum. These findings are echoed by many others as well. An October 2008 article from The Guardian, cites Chris Skrebowski, consulting editor of Petroleum Review, as stating a peak in 2012, and the oil company shell as predicting a peak in 2015. And according to Lester Brown, President of Earth Policy Institute," Each year since 1984, world oil production has exceeded new oil discoveries, and by a widening gap. In 2006, the 31 billion barrels of oil extracted far exceeded the discovery of 9 billion barrels." All of these point to oil supply peaking in the near future. Once it hits this peak whether it be in 3 year or in 11 years, both the supply and price of oil are likely to become wildly unreliable. The risks from this are far too great to ignore, a January 2008 article from the The Financial Times, cites Economic forecasting firm Global Insight examining the effects of a $10 increase per barrel in the price of oil . They found it "cuts growth in consumer spending by a third of a percentage point, reduces employment by 100,000 and adds one-half percentage point to consumer price inflation". By mandating the change in vehicles, we effectively protect ourselves from the harms of fluctuating prices, and a supply that could run dry.
Our second contention is that current cars are outputting hazardous waste and endangering humans thus its costs outweigh its benefits. According to Eftichios S. Sartzetakis and Panagiotis Tsigaris of the Journal of Regulatory Economics, passenger vehicles pollute the air with carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO) volatile organic compounds (VOSCs) and particulate matter (PM). Many studies have tied pollution to death such as the World Health Organization led study that attributes air pollution to 4.6 million deaths per year. One 2004 study led by Dr. Reinhard Kaiser of the Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, and Dr. Michal Krzyzanowski of the World Health Organization, concluded that in the US, PM pollution can be attributed to 16% of infant deaths from sudden infant death syndrome. Even more frightening is the Harvard School of Public health study that associated particulate matter with a 26% increased mortality rate. The study was later updated in 2006 with the same conclusion. A February 2008 articles from the times online cites a study that finds that fumes from petrol and diesel engines can activate biochemical pathways that are known to cause heart attacks. And according to the international center for technology assessment "vehicles are a major source of both coarse and fine PM pollution". So by mandating the new alternative energy vehicles we remove major sources of air pollution, therefore saving and enriching lives.
Our third contention, is that not only does mandating a change protect us against many economic risks, it also provides a huge economic stimulus. It would do so by creating a new industry and thus new jobs. For instance, in july of 2008, the Department of Energy released a study entitled, Effects of a Transition to a Hydrogen Economy on Employment in the United States. The study evaluated a scenario in which 89% of new vehicle sales are fuel cell vehicles and 5% of US power is fuel cell generated by 2035. The study evaluated other jobs losses, likely adoption rates, and other factors in its study. They concluded that there would likely be a net gain of 670,000 thousand jobs by 2035, and in a more aggressive scenario, the number could triple. According to a January 2009 article from the free press, GM is expecting to create somewhere in the market of 50,000 jobs because of its efforts to develop its electric car line for just one new car model, the volt. No matter how you look at it, alternative energy will give our economy jobs, and inherently a stimulus of its own. Jackie Roberts, director of sustainable technologies at Environmental Defense Fund, says it best, "The green economy offers work opportunities at all levels -- white collar and blue collar, new industries and old…. Clean energy jobs can revitalize the U.S. economy".
godebate101 forfeited this round.
then move on to my second contention to see what is possible the biggest issue of the round, the fact that the resource we are using is killing people. At the point of time where the resource we are using is destorying actual human life and we have access to a resource that would not emit of this pollution the solution becomes clear
then move on to our third contention where we show you the fringe benefits given. The department of energy asessed a likely net gain of jobs as being at about 670,000 jobs.
when one sees that affirming the resolution gives us a economically safer resource while at the same time saving human life and actually helping our economy one can clearly see an affirmative ballot for the round
godebate101 forfeited this round.
dominasian forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dominasian 8 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.