Should the US federal government substantially increase alternative energy incentives?
The USA is the second-largest polluter in the world, passed in CO2 emissions last year by China. Washington has also declined to sign on to multiple international climate change agreements, most famously the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush's absence at the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development is also notable. However, America is also at the cutting edge of many environmental technologies, including those related to alternative energy. So, should the government increase incentives for alternative energy?
Yes
Side Score: 15
|
 |
No
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
Not only do alternative energy sources stop the consumption of fossil fuels, but: 1. They are cheaper. Providing energy from a source that can be collected easily, not by drilling miles into the Earth and then having to refine and further process the energy source, is much less expensive for everyone involved. It could really provide a boost during times like this. 2. You can do it at home. You don't need to be dependent upon a major monopoly energy company. If you want to produce your own energy and be off the grid, so be it. 3. It's safer. Wind, the sun's energy, and the other alternatives don't explode, aren't flammable, and don't pollute. It also makes us safer by not funding our enemies. That point right there should be enough to entice the government into providing incentives. 4. We don't look so stupid. We, as a country, have lost a lot of credibility over the last decade. This would surely help us out in that area. So, with all of these things considered, why wouldn't the government provide incentives? If they could do anything, I would hope that they would make an attempt to further support the ideas I mentioned above. This would provide a stimulus to American families that need the money the most; not big business, not state and local governments, but Americans. Making an initial investment, and subsequently saving hundreds of dollars per month on bills, would be a substantial boost to anyone. Side: yes
|
Absolutely not, the U.S. fed. Gov. should not even have a role in promoting alternative energy sources, let alone having incentives for such outcomes. And here is why it should not be so. The government has no money; it possesses only the ability to tax. An increase in incentives necessitates additional taxes on our current energy uses which in turn are given to the energy companies which in turn shall increase both their profits and monopoly of energy. The individual will be better off if he/she buys supplemental energy sources for their consumption, in the stead of the gov. promising an alternative. Yea, the alternative is that we are poorer and someone else is richer and enjoying an even greater monopoly. Trust me on this one, if the government is going to tax the working class of the U.S. to build alternative energy structure the private energy companies will own both the structure and the profits. Is that not what the lobbyists of the E.C. are for? So in essence, the question ought rather to be, “Should the U.S. fed. Gov. take money from the taxpayers to pay for the machines of profit and monopoly for the privately owned energy companies? I think every taxpayer ought to realize by now the con-game. The Con: let me take your money and in so doing you will be better off because I promise you will be better off. Side: No
3
points
I agree. The government should not increase the tax load on the people. But, wouldn't this help America much more than many of the programs in place now? I don't condone the government raising taxes any more than you; but I do feel as though the government could be spending our money more wisely. This would directly benefit the people of the country, and in doing so, alleviate some of the most pressing issues in our society. Side: yes
3
points
|
