[LM1332]

Fossil fuels are in trouble. According to the USGC, only one barrel of oil is being replaced for every nine we use.

Because of this emergency situation, we resolve that the United States Federal Government should establish an energy policy requiring a substantial reduction in the total non-government consumption of fossil fuels.
Observation I. The US uses 7billion barrels of oil per year or just little over 19 million per day.

A. This amount of oil consumption damages fossil fuel resources. According to
USGC By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056. So it will happen in our lifetime.
B. Non government use of oil is at 17million per day and 4 billion per year
for this I have just heard some other ppl talk about but never found any relevant information to back it up with.

Contention I. U.S. passenger and trucks cars are responsible for emissions of over 1,500 million tons of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gases linked to global climate change. (UCS)

Observation II. US automobile consumption of oil is a major contribution to the problem because while fuel mileage in passenger cars continues to improve, the fuel efficiency of the overall U.S. auto fleet has actually declined since the mid-1990s. The reason: SUVs. Light trucks--pickups and minivans as well as SUVs--now account for just under half of all vehicle sales in the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Contention II. CAFE standards placed upon car manufacturers fail to solve the problem of oil consumption in cars and light trucks. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have been in place since 1975. These standards are based on complex formulas for assessing average fuel economy, not on the fuel efficiency of the cars that are actually being driven. Thus they have had minimal or no impact for the past decade, as the rage for SUVs has grown. In 1999, manufacturers paid a paltry $16 million in civil fines for failing to comply with the fuel-economy standards, according to the National Transportation Safety Administration.

A. Current CAFE standards require automakers to produce a fleet of passenger cars that, on average, get 27.5 mpg. The average fuel economy for new vehicles on the road is the lowest it has been in two decades, about 24 mpg.

1.Some Congressmen consider classifying SUVs as light trucks a "loophole" in CAFE standards that should be closed, currently; the standard for light trucks is only 20.7 mpg. These standards are averaged for all vehicles in a specific class, and many SUV's average a mere 12 or 13 mpg according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

2. NHTSA proposed changes to CAFE standards that would close the loophole exempting trucks 8500-10,000lbs. from CAFE standards.

Contention III. CAFE standards should be raised the government can encourage the adoption of technologies to improve fuel economy

A. Technologies such as variable valve timing and lift control, displacement on demand, reduced aerodynamic drag, continuously variable transmissions which in turn will provide approximately 40mpg according to Engineering Science and Technology Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory

B. Three of five hybrid models on the market right now are rated at 45 mpg or more, and the others lead their classes in fuel economy.(hybdridcenter.org UCS sponsored site) Also owners of the hybrids can write off $2,000 of the purchase price for these vehicles according to US Tax Law

To solve the problem, I propose the following 4 plank plan:

Plank I - Mandates

A. The US Government will require car manufacturers to increase CAFE standards for all vehicles to 40mpg by 2007.

B. All manufacturers will be required to produce a fleet of 50% Hybrid vehicle by 2007, increasing to 80% by 2010

Plank II. Enforcement - EPA and NHTSA will provide enforcement

Plank III. Funding - Funding could be provided in form of Tax cuts to Car Manufacturers.

Plank IV. Affirmative speech will serve as legislative intent.

This plan will offer the following advantages.

Adv. I. Fossil fuel consumption will decrease.

Adv. II. Dependence upon importation of oil from other countries will lesson.

Adv. III. Cheaper gas prices.

Alright guys this is my affirmative case that i have wrote and made research on. And this is also going to be my speech for a debate...What do you think and put your opinions in as well.

[LM1332]

"All electrical devices - including solar panels and windmills - make use of silver, copper, and/or platinum, all of which are discovered, extracted, transported, and fashioned using oil-powered machinery. " This is so little in comparison to what cars. and "HUMMERS" consume today

This is what i have to compare my research to this is as useless as saying we are gonna run out of oil. Where is the evidence? He keeps on talking without citing and/or providing information proof. Its like reading the Da Vinci Code good story no proof.

[Frank]

Sorry, I didn't understand your last post.

Your thesis is pretty good except it's physically impossible for car manufacturers to change things so quickly - I wish they could. Your observations about CAFE are accurate. It had significant impact when first introduced (fleet avg. fuel economy in early '70's was ~12.5 mpg if I remember correctly) but hasn't done anything for the last 20 years. Actually, the NHTSA has bumped-up standards in the light-truck/SUV category from 20.7 to 22.2 (2007). Too little - too late.

I would try to look at historical gas prices in current dollars then try to get info on how the marketplace responded. I think you'll find that there was a significant shift away from domestically produced "tanks" in early-mid '70's and that it corresponded to the rise in fuel prices. Gas at the time was (I think) about $4/gal in current dollars. I think this is the most effective way to reduce consumption i.e. higher prices.

You might also want to look into the idea of Feebates - purchasers of higher consuming vehicles pay a fee which turns into a rebate for those making a more efficient choice. The fee/rebate can revolve around any chosen mileage target and IMO might replace CAFE if implemented.

If you do get a chance to do the actual research please post your findings here.

good luck

[LM1332]

Interesting ill definatly will look into it. Do you have any corrections to my topic? Any info you will provide ill probably will use it as well.

[Ludi]

I have nothing of value to add to this thread, except a lot of laughter!

The government should save us!

Ha ha ha!

[LM1332]

Yea...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') have nothing of value to add to this thread, except a lot of laughter!

The government should save us!

Ha ha ha!

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') have nothing of value to add to this thread, except a lot of laughter!

The government should save us!

Ha ha ha!