SATURDAY , JULY 20 , 2019
    Call/text: (617) 682-9697 | e: [email protected] | f: 617-391-3067 Total Files: Over 5000 | Total Users: 7715 |

    Resolved: The United States ought to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel (Argument list, bib, files)



    Advantages –

    Climate change

    High deficits bad

    Renewables good

    Nuclear power good



    Ice Age DA
    CO2 Agriculture DA
    So2 Screw

    Reverse spending Big budget savings will be diverted to the military, high military spending bad.

    Competitiveness – Eliminating subsidies puts US producers at a disadvantage vis-à-vis foreign producers

    Energy price spikes – Eliminating subsidies causes energy price spikes

    Renewables Bad – More renewables means greater demand for rare earth minerals. Impacts are environmental destruction and dependence on China.

    Nuclear power bad – More nuclear power is bad (accidents, radiation, proliferation, etc)

    Politics – Political Capital & Elections


    Subsidize alternative energy at higher rates than FF subsidies. Net-Benefits: Reverse spending. Politics links to cutting FF subsidies.

    Negotiate globally negotiated reductions, using the plan as leverage. Net-Benficts; Global solvency.

    Tax carbon. Net-Benefits: Politics

    Any alternative way to solve climate change

    Fossil Fuel Subsidies Overview (2019)


    Chatham House Fossil Fuels (2019)


    America spends over $20 billion a year on fossil fuel subsidies. Abolish them (2019)

    Fossil fuel subsidies cost more than the defense budget (2019)

    US spends more money on dirty fossil fuels than defense
    Breaking down subsidies for fossil fuels. How much are we really spending? (2019)

    Fossil fuels are underpriced by a whopping $5.2 trillion (2019)

    Global Fossil fuel subsidies remain large (2019). . his paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries. Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017. The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion). About three quarters of global subsidies are due to domestic factors—energy pricing reform thus remains largely in countries’ own national interest—while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.

    The Hidden Subside of Fossil Fuels (2019).   A new report says that the world subsidized fossil fuels by $5.2 trillion in just one year. But that calculation is less tidy than it seems.

    Can ending fossil fuel subsidies pay for Beto O’Rourke’s climate change plan            (2019)

    Fossil fuel subsidies for a green economy (2019)

    Fossil fuel subsidies are wrecking the world (2019)

    Proposal 5: Eliminating FF Subsidies (2019)

    Affirmative – Climate

    Fossil fuel subsidies are a rising threat to climate change efforts (2019)

    Time for the US to end fossil fuel subsidies (2019) . A new study, the G7 Fossil Fuel Subsidy Scorecard, measured the US against other G7 countries on each country’s progress in eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. The US ranked the worst out of the G7 countries, spending over $26 billion a year propping up fossil fuels. (The G7 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and the US.)

    How the United States could benefit from removing ineffective fossil fuel subsidies (2019)

    Negative —

    Politics of fossil fuel subsidies (2019)

    Five ways to address fossil fuel subsidies through the WTO and negotiated agreements (2019)

    The madness of fossil fuel subsidies

    Removing FF subsidies will not reduce CO2 as much as hoped (2019)