NEGATION

Judge Ready? Opponent Ready? Then I shall begin.

I wholeheartedly reject the resolution, resolved: The United States ought to eliminate subsidies
for fossil fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with my opponent’s definitions…

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, based on the wording of the resolution, I would also like to apply the observation that
the affirmation has a sole duty to establish that the United States would be capable of persevering
everyday life

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This leads to my value for this round being quality of life, which is the degree of the middle line
standard for necessities. This includes economic security and necessities.

My value criterion is utilitarianism, which states that the aim of action should be the largest
possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

CONTENTION ONE: Social Progress

To stipulate, this contention will be divided into two subpoints.

SUBPOINT ONE: Risk of Economic Collapse.

Lewis Page is a journalist and author, covering many beats including aerospace, defense, enterprise and consumer
IT, science, energy, transport, and business, (November 2014)

Two Stanford engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy

technology have stated bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2

emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered

civilization: such a thing is impossible. We now know that to be a false hope... even so, they reported that

renewable energy technologies simply won’t work because we need a fundamentally different

approach. One should note that RE<C didn't restrict itself to conventional renewable ideas like solar PV, wind farms, tidal,
hydro, etc. It also looked extensively into more radical notions such as solar-thermal, geothermal, "self-assembling" wind towers

and so on and so forth. There's no get-out clause for renewables believers here. Koenigstein and Fork aren't alone. Whenever

somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into…

Because Judge in the affirmation world it prescribes a fully renewable-powered civilized future

for the human race with a reasonably open mind, and it simply isn't feasible. Because merely

generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of

electricity is already an extremely difficult task especially for renewables by generating huge

amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely

plausible. Even if one were to electrify all of the transport, industry, heating and so on, where

much renewable generation and balancing equipment would be needed to power an extensive

amount of items. it that astronomical new requirement for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fiber, neodymium, shipping

and haulage, etc will appear. requiring immense amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy

savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would end up needing
far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms - and even more materials

and energy to make and maintain them and so on.

The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race. In reality,

well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive - which means that

everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in

the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably). This, in turn, means that everyone would become

miserably poor and economic growth would cease (the more honest hardline greens admit this openly). That,
however, means that such expensive luxuries as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic),

reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programs (watch out for

the meteor!), etc would all have to go - and not a single renewable energy source is sustainable without

economic growth. This simply wouldn’t be feasible.

SUBPOINT TWO: Energy Inequality.

Beth Sutton, Vice President of Global Communications at Peabody Energy, 2014

In the words of Peabody Energy CEO, Gregory Boyece, "Energy inequality is the blight of

energy poverty, limiting access to basic needs like food, water, and medicine; stunting education

and cutting lives short," as "Every one of the United Nations Millennium Development goals

depends on adequate energy, yet today one out of every two citizens lacks adequate energy and

over 4 million lives are lost yearly due to the impacts of this scourge,” from fossil fuels to

renewable energy Boyce commented on what he calls the world's number one human and environmental crisis during a
wide-ranging interview with Wall Street Journal Assistant Managing Editor and Executive Business Editor John Bussey.

Judge, we must consider these statistics: Globally 3.5 billion people lack proper energy access,

and 1.2 billion are children. About half the children in the developing world attend schools

without electricity. Some 1 billion people receive inferior healthcare because of a lack of
electricity. The global population is expanding by more than 200,000 people each day, and by

2050, the world's population is forecast to exceed 9.6 billion, with over two-thirds living in

cities.

Energy inequality is an issue for both developing and developed nations. "More energy is needed

to create energy access for billions, to sustain growth for a new global middle class and improve

access to low-cost electricity. Too many families in developed nations face the tough choice of

paying for food or energy," And with "the greatest environmental crisis we confront today is not a crisis predicted

by computer models but a human crisis fully within our power to solve," The policies and actions that increase access to reliable,

low-cost power using today's advanced coal technologies that extends lives, builds economies and improves natural and indoor

environments. Coal has the scale to meet these needs, and today's high-efficiency supercritical coal plants have state-of-the-art

controls and ultra-low emission rates. Every large, advanced coal plant brings the equivalent carbon benefit of removing 1

million cars from the road. "Policies that force the use of more expensive, less reliable energy push costs throughout the economy

and place the heaviest burden on the world's poor and low-income citizens. We need all forms of energy to address

global needs, and we must recognize the strengths and limitations of each choice. Advanced coal is
the sustainable fuel at a scale that can meet these needs," Coal has been the fastest-growing major fuel in the past decade and is

set to surpass oil as the world's largest fuel in the coming years. Coal's market share for United States electricity generation has

increased by one-third in the past two years, and now has twice the market share of natural gas. And fossil fuels have

been statistically stronger and better to use when it comes to our society.

CONTENTION TWO: Renewable Energy would create environmental issues.

The affirmation included how fossil fuels are disastrous towards the environment but the truth of
the matter is, renewable energy would create environmental issues.
Joel Magnuson, an Economics Professor, Social Science Department Chair, at Portland College, (October 2007)

One such systems condition is the growth imperative endemic to any capitalist system. Driven by

its internal imperative for continuous growth in production and consumption, the capitalist

institutions of the United States economy are creating unprecedented levels of environmental

destruction, and are rapidly depleting both renewable and nonrenewable resources on a global

scale.

As the U.S. economy continues to accelerate, it also overuses renewable resources such as

topsoil and vegetation, fresh water and forests. The economic imperative to grow, sustain higher

profits and expand market share have also driven American farmers into agricultural practices

that are not sustainable. The imperative to grow overrides attempts to conserve the integrity or

fertility of soil, as industrial agriculture strives to use whatever combination of land, water and

chemicals to yield maximum output on a short-term basis.

And when the extensive use of petrochemical fertilisers and pesticides began decades ago, this

was the “green revolution” where the destruction caused by this technology remains largely

hidden. Topsoil is being hardened from the compaction caused by the heavy machinery.

Hardening decreases the rate of water absorption, causes problems of water runoff and

inadequate drainage, and increases the occurrence of erosion. Erosion has remained high above

normal levels at approximately 2 billion tons annually. (For statistics on soil erosion, see U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/meta/m5848.html/.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to reiterate my attacks on my opponent’s values.

Starting with Justice

- My opponent defines this as what’s deserved and judge what’s deserved is allowing the
 American people to not suffer from economic issues.

Next my opponent’s Value Criterion: Raul’s principle of justice

- Defined as the equal right of basic liberties considering how each human being should be

able to survive without disadvantages.

Now allow me to reiterate my attacks on the affirmation.:

1) Fossil fuel subsidies place others in harms way which I did attack saying that

- we must take this into consideration but the issue is how it’ll affect all people,

mainly whether or not it’ll independently attack those in the United States instead

of a global scale and where securities would take place that can be solved without

affirming.

2) Effects of fossil fuels aren’t just.

- My opponent argues climate change but the truth of the matter is like I’ve stated

before, renewable energy also creates environmental issues.

3) Fossil fuels cause environmental decreation

- We could consider that but like i”ve stated before, renewable energy creates

environmental issues.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge, we’re able to argue the environment, again, and again, and again. But the truth of the matter is that when
we transition from one to another, there would still be increases in costs and money that wouldn’t
just hurt individuals, it would harm lower-income areas that would be forced to help pay for these
rapidly increasing payments.
We must focus on how this would affect the people, how this would affect our future, but most
of all, the long-term effects that this would have on the economy with prices increasing with
more people suffering to make it through. Negate.