Because solar and wind are expected to be cheaper than...
The US needs to do much more to combat climate change
Since my opponent gave a short blurb to define the debate, I will too in order to maintain parity. Basically, the fundamental issue is this: "Is drastic government intervention on behalf of the environment worth the cost?" Because solar and wind are expected to be cheaper than fossil fuels by at most 2030 (likely a lot sooner) http://www.businessinsider.com... The question becomes "Is it worth the tremendous cost to slightly reduce greenhouse gas emissions for five to ten years?"