I will primarily be countering my opponent’s argument and then will give numerous logical reasons why governments should heavily subsidize renewable sources of energy.
My opponent mentioned that solar energy causes premature deaths. But researches suggest otherwise. A research conducted by the Berkley National Laboratory show that using wind energy and solar energy helped PREVENT 12,700 premature deaths in the U.S.A. between 2012-2015. My opponent also mentioned nuclear energy has a possible alternative but nuclear energy, though effective, is very bad environmentally and economically. Firstly, nuclear powerplants are expensive to build. The estimated cost is about $9 billion. If this much money is spent on subsidies the result attained will be more desirable, economically, and environmentally safer. Secondly, we come to accidents. Readers and judges, my opponent has tried to misguide you by saying that there have only been 3 nuclear accidents. In reality, there have been over 25 accidents involving nuclear energy. Numerous other nuclear reactor accidents have occurred such as NRX, BORAX-I, EBR-I, WINDSCALE, etc. The results have been horrifying leading to tremendous amounts of loss to life and property. Next, we move onto environmental disadvantages. The mining and enrichment of uranium
are not environmentally friendly processes. Open-pit mining for uranium is safe for miners but leaves behind radioactive particles, causes erosion, and even pollutes nearby sources of water. Underground mining isn’t much better and exposes miners to high amounts of radiation while producing radioactive waste rock during extraction and processing. One of the most important consideration is that nuclear power isn’t renewable. It is dependent on uranium and thorium to produce energy, and unless we find a way to make nuclear fission possible, we will be unable to create energy with the nuclear power plants we’ve built for the future. Ultimately, nuclear power is only a temporary solution with a very high price tag.
My opponent has not even begun to consider the environmental advantages of subsidies for renewable sources of energy. Firstly, countries which have heavily subsidized renewable sources of energy have loweramounts of carbon emissions. Secondly, subsidies improve the air quality index, indirectly, but effectively. U.S.A. spends $145 billion on subsidies. The air quality index of New York City is 23, which is healthy. On the contrary, India subsidizes mostly fossil fuels and the impact can be seen directly on their air quality index. The air quality index of Ahmedabad, a city in India where powerplants are located, is 766, which is highly hazardous!
Moreover, subsidizing renewable sources isn’t a permanent measure that has been put in place,instead subsidies should be time-bound and removed once the relevant obstacles and market failures have been overcome.
I have shown countless reasons and advantages of subsidizing renewable sources and manygovernments across the world have implemented this resolution and have gotten positive impacts on their economies and their environment. The CON hasn’t been entirely candid while considering this resolution. The CON has no other alternative left except renewable sources now. There are absolutely no reasons to not implement this resolution.
JUDGE/S VOTE FOR THE PRO SIDE
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-02 13:59:45 | Speak RoundBugsy460 (CON)
I will go through the same points as my first speech in roughly the same order.
My Opponent's Case
1. My opponent completely ignored my point about where the funds for these subsidies would come from. Impoverished children complete two less years of schooling on average, three times likely to be in poor health, and twice as likely to be arrested.1 By ignoring this plight, he completely ignored the plight of the impoverished. Helping the impoverished by using less government funds on programs that don't directly help the plight of lower income families should always be a priority, and with my opponent not even justifying his cause as more important than lower income families, this point is simple enough to get a vote for con, but I will still go through the rest of the points.
2. My opponent ignored that, by his own definition, he supports ethanol in gasoline. I've already proven that ethanol is worse than just burning straight fossil fuels, but we need to couple this with the agricultural aspect. Farming for ethanol raises food prices. 2 Couple this with my point about taxation harming those below the Poverty line, and these subsidies go from not helping lower income families to actively harming impoverished families. My opponent takes money to fund energy, then raises food prices so they can't even eat. I know outlined the issues with solar panels here, but I'm going to talk about those issues in relation to nuclear energy in my nuclear energy point.
1. My opponent completely ignored my point that we could simply end fossil fuel subsidies. Ending fossil fuel subsidies solves all the problems my opponent outlines without allowing for corporate lobbying or impoverished families taxes to be spent on issues that don't help them. We could give $1 trillion back to families globally and solve all the problems my opponent talked about. The fact there is an alternative that solves all the problems Pro outlines without triggering any of the issues Con outlines means Con should win.
2. A little note about my nuclear energy point, this is just a proposed alternative. What I mean by this is Pro spent over half of their entire Round 2 attacking nuclear energy, which is fine, but that shouldn't end the debate for me. If I lose the nuclear energy point, I shouldn't lose the debate if I still prove his plan is inherently bad or that it's a better idea to end fossil fuel subsidies. Now let's get on to the actual point. The first thing we have to look at is costs. It is true that nuclear power plants have large start-up costs, but we need to look in the long run. A report my the European Commission says that nuclear energy will be the cheapest source by 2030 at slightly under 60 euros per MWh. To put this in perspective, they say it would cost 65, 75, and 85 euros for hydro, wind, and solar respectively. 3 Next he wants to claim that the mining for nuclear materials is dangerous, but this is where he has decided to ignore his own sources of energy. 11,000 tons of lead and 800 tons of cadmium are in our environment thanks to solar panels. 4 These chemicals lead to adverse health effects in humans and negatively affect the environment. This doesn't even include the carbon emissions from furnaces needed to create the solar panels or the hydrochloric acid released into the soil and air from the process. 5 All of this chemical pollution and danger to workers comes only from a manufacturing standpoint. We can delve deeper into quartz mining. See, quartz is necessary to produce effective solar panels. 6 Quartz mining, however, is very dangerous both from a health and environmental standpoint. Quartz mining causes lung cancer and kidney disease which leads to death. 7 Mining quartz has the dangers of all other mining, leading to soil pollution, air pollution, and destruction of ecosystems. 8 My opponent tries to claim that nuclear energy is terrible for the environment, but between ethanol and solar panels, he doesn't advocate for anything cleaner. The last comparison we have to make is safety. I unintentionally put up a misleading source. There has been other accidents with nuclear energy, but how dangerous were these accidents? See, the mortality rate for nuclear energy is the lowest per thousand terawatt hour. Rooftop solar is almost five times the mortality rate, and that doesn't even include more industrial solar power methods. 9 When we look at the comparison between renewable and nuclear, nuclear clearly wins. It's safer and cheaper, and even if it isn't better for the environment from a holistic perspective, it definitely is no worse.
3. My opponent completely ignored my point that renewable energy cannot lead to economic growth. We've already shown how these subsidies are an attack on the poor, but his just further proves it. From a focus on transport and industry, the economy cannot grow with renewable energy.
4. Lastly is my point that subsidies create room for corruption. My opponent answered it simply by saying we would get rid of them after the market for renewable energy becomes more cost effective. This isn't going to happen for two reasons.
A. Using the same source I used when talking about corporate lobbying in round 1 (source 9), we can see one reason the market will never get cheaper. Very simply, there isn't any incentive to. If a corporation is getting government funds to cover some of their costs, why would they ever spend money on research and development to lower costs? They wouldn't. Without the free market and competitiveness giving incentive for businesses to be cost effective and high quality, there is no reason a corporation would worry about trying to hit that point. Corporations would never lower costs.
B. Even if they did lower the prices, the subsidies would never go anywhere. This is directly tied to my original corporate lobbying point. See, if a politician creates a subsidy to get political support, they wouldn't ever advocate for its removal. Politicians of the same ideology would also work to keep the subsidies in place to keep banking on political support. This is why our first fiated action must be to remove ingrained subsidies for fossil fuels, not try and add more to the other side.
I have two alternatives from my opponents plan, remove subsidies for fossil fuels and advocate for nuclear energy. These solve all of the environmental effects my opponent talks about while also avoiding or resolving all of the issues I warn come with renewable subsidies. You must vote Con for a strong world, strong economically, environmentally, and politically.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-06-02 20:17:40 | Speak Round