Instigator / Pro
26
1616
rating
40
debates
67.5%
won
Topic

Resolved: The Green New Deal is neither green, nor new, nor a deal

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
12
0
Sources points
8
6
Spelling and grammar points
4
3
Conduct points
2
3

With 4 votes and 14 points ahead, the winner is ...

fauxlaw
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender / Con
12
1443
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description
~ 342 / 5,000

Introduced in 2018 as an imperative to be enacted with 12 years [coincidentally [?] to coordinate with the successful conclusion of the Paris Accord], the Green New Deal, as proposed by its sponsors, Representative Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY-24], and Senator Markey [D-MA], is neither green, nor new, nor a deal. It is an unachievable wish balloon.

Round 1
Pro
Thank you, Crocodile, for accepting this debate. I believe this is our first debate together. I look forward to a lively exchange. I will tell you up front that my position is Pro is exactly the position I have, heart of hearts; I am completely opposed to the Green New Deal, so there will be no deception of my position. That said, to the debate!
 
I Argument: Renewable, but [unfortunately] dependent energy: flies in soup
 
I.a The Green New Deal, officially, is a resolution introduced in Congress as H.Res 109 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 02/07/2019,[1] and unofficially as a white paper presented under the banner of the Green Party US.[2] The aim of the Green New Deal [hereafter, GND] has the overarching goal to “[transition] our country to 100% clean energy by 2030. Clean energy does not include natural gas, biomass, nuclear power or the oxymoron ‘clean coal.’”[3]  Oxymoron, is it? Let's just recall that, currently, coal is the energy product use of greatest percentage in the world. That may be oxymoronic to some, but for many, it is their sole source of energy, because no one, not even greenies, want windmills in their backyards. [4] Also note that the above quote does not include other fossil fuel, into which coal is sometimes absorbed, but is definitively petroleum products. For that, one must read on… “The implementation of the [GND] will revive the economy, turn the tide on climate change, and make wars for oil obsolete. This latter result, in turn, enables a 50% cut in the military budget, since maintaining bases all over the world to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and routes of transportation could o longer be justified.”[5]
 
I.a.1 The last quote in I.a will be noted for its lack of sourcing for any of the claims made in the quote relative to the benefits of the GND, and we’ll address that fly in another round. For now, the benefits listed are unfounded bloviating, and remain such until cited. I will not bother to do so for the Green Party; let it speak for itself.
 
I.a.2 However, in the meantime, let’s identify another fly in the soup: The “clean energy” sources of the GND, and its respective current contribution of total energy worldwide consists of wind [5%], solar [2%], hydro [16%], and geothermal [1%], or a current grand total of clean contributed energy of 24% [whereas, coal is 38%, oil is 3%, natural gas is 23%, nuclear is 10%, and biomass is 3%, for a grand total of 77% -- I note a mismatch in total numbers since 24 + 77 is 101%, so the data is off by one, but it is what the source says].[6]
 
I.a.2.A Therefore, less than one quarter of the world’s current energy production is “clean energy,” which is supposed to increase to 100% within ten years. It is, frankly, an aggressive goal considering the speed at which “clean energy,” or “renewable energy,” as it is also known, has grown to date. According to a history track of renewable energy, waterwheels were developed 200 B.C.E. Windmills, 1590. Solar energy, 1860. Windmills, 2nd edition, 1887. Commercial wind turbines, 1927. Hoover Dam [hydro], 1935.[7] A trend is evident. We’ve been developing renewable energy sources for the past 2,000 years, and we have achieved 24% of our energy production in this group of renewable sources, and it is seriously proposed that we will conclude the remaining 76% within ten years? Pardon my skepticism.
 
I.b Another fly in the soup: All those clean energy turbines of wind, hydro, geothermal around the world, spinning their little heads into oblivion, and all the solar panel arrays, depend on… what, to lubricate those moving parts, and all those plastic fabricated parts?  Count all those turbines and panels [not to mention electric cars, while we’re at it]. Go ahead. Count them. I know you won’t. They all are fabricated and lubricated using… AlGoreGooeyJuice? Nope. He’s not invented that stuff, yet, and likely will not by 2030. So, what is used? Petroleum, my dear readers. Black crude. Black gold. By whatever moniker you want to call it, no clean energy turbine will spin, no solar panel will collect, and no electric car will leave the driveway without good, old crude as one of the ingredients of your renewable energy, or by whatever moniker you want to hang on that. And, guess what? Petroleum has two other essential properties: it is organic, and it is, therefore, renewable for as long as organic material continues to be produced and reproduced on the planet.
 
I.c With all the foregoing, can the GND really be called “Green?” I submit that it cannot be so called. Call it something else if it all uses black crude to generate watt number one. Without it, all that energy comes, literally, to a grinding halt. And there, so do I for round 1.
 
 

Con
RESOLUTION: THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS NEITHER GREEN, NOR NEW, NOR A DEAL.

I would like to thank fauxlaw for instigating this debate and I hope this will be an amazing friendly discussion. That said, I will start by providing definitions and context to this debate.
-------------------------------------------------------------

PRELUDE:

Definitions:
I accept the defintion of Green New Deal listed in the description.

Green: tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting)



New: having recently come into existence



Deal: an act of dealing

BoP:
The Burden of Proof is on my opponent. He must prove that the Green New Deal is neither green, nor new, nor a deal. If he fails to prove, or I disprove one of these statements, he fails to fulfill his side of the BoP. For example, if I successfully prove that the GND is green, then I win. It does not matter if my opponent proves the two other contentions, I still win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, to the debate!

 REBUTTAL- "The Flies Don't Matter."
I.a The Green New Deal, officially, is a resolution introduced in Congress as H.Res 109 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 02/07/2019,[1] and unofficially as a white paper presented under the banner of the Green Party US.[2] The aim of the Green New Deal [hereafter, GND] has the overarching goal to “[transition] our country to 100% clean energy by 2030. Clean energy does not include natural gas, biomass, nuclear power or the oxymoron ‘clean coal.’”[3]  Oxymoron, is it? Let's just recall that, currently, coal is the energy product use of greatest percentage in the world. That may be oxymoronic to some, but for many, it is their sole source of energy, because no one, not even greenies, want windmills in their backyards. [4] Also note that the above quote does not include other fossil fuel, into which coal is sometimes absorbed, but is definitively petroleum products. For that, one must read on… “The implementation of the [GND] will revive the economy, turn the tide on climate change, and make wars for oil obsolete. This latter result, in turn, enables a 50% cut in the military budget, since maintaining bases all over the world to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and routes of transportation could o longer be justified.”[5]

I.a.1 The last quote in I.a will be noted for its lack of sourcing for any of the claims made in the quote relative to the benefits of the GND, and we’ll address that fly in another round. For now, the benefits listed are unfounded bloviating, and remain such until cited. I will not bother to do so for the Green Party; let it speak for itself.

These statements does not relate to the resolution. It does not prove that the Green Deal is not green, or new, nor a deal. Yes, many people rely on coal. But, does that not make the GND, green or new or a deal? No.

I.a.2 However, in the meantime, let’s identify another fly in the soup: The “clean energy” sources of the GND, and its respective current contribution of total energy worldwide consists of wind [5%], solar [2%], hydro [16%], and geothermal [1%], or a current grand total of clean contributed energy of 24% [whereas, coal is 38%, oil is 3%, natural gas is 23%, nuclear is 10%, and biomass is 3%, for a grand total of 77% -- I note a mismatch in total numbers since 24 + 77 is 101%, so the data is off by one, but it is what the source says].
My opponent states that more people use fossil fuels, or non-renewable energy sources. But, how does that matter in the context of this debate? Again, my opponent is trying to prove that the green deal is not green, nor is it new, nor is it a deal. So far, he has failed to do so.

I.a.2.A Therefore, less than one quarter of the world’s current energy production is “clean energy,” which is supposed to increase to 100% within ten years. It is, frankly, an aggressive goal considering the speed at which “clean energy,” or “renewable energy,” as it is also known, has grown to date. According to a history track of renewable energy, waterwheels were developed 200 B.C.E. Windmills, 1590. Solar energy, 1860. Windmills, 2nd edition, 1887. Commercial wind turbines, 1927. Hoover Dam [hydro], 1935.[7] A trend is evident. We’ve been developing renewable energy sources for the past 2,000 years, and we have achieved 24% of our energy production in this group of renewable sources, and it is seriously proposed that we will conclude the remaining 76% within ten years? Pardon my skepticism.
Again, the amount of people that use it does not matter in the context of this debate. My opponent has yet to prove that the GND is not green or new or a deal.
I.b Another fly in the soup: All those clean energy turbines of wind, hydro, geothermal around the world, spinning their little heads into oblivion, and all the solar panel arrays, depend on… what, to lubricate those moving parts, and all those plastic fabricated parts?  Count all those turbines and panels [not to mention electric cars, while we’re at it]. Go ahead. Count them. I know you won’t. They all are fabricated and lubricated using… AlGoreGooeyJuice? Nope. He’s not invented that stuff, yet, and likely will not by 2030. So, what is used? Petroleum, my dear readers. Black crude. Black gold. By whatever moniker you want to call it, no clean energy turbine will spin, no solar panel will collect, and no electric car will leave the driveway without good, old crude as one of the ingredients of your renewable energy, or by whatever moniker you want to hang on that. And, guess what? Petroleum has two other essential properties: it is organic, and it is, therefore, renewable for as long as organic material continues to be produced and reproduced on the planet.
Yes, but even if Petroleum is used in the maintenance and development of these turbines, the overall benefit to the climate far overwhelms the cost. Also, where are your sources for this claim? If you cannot provide one, this claim is baseless and it does not contribute to your side of the BoP.

I.c With all the foregoing, can the GND really be called “Green?” I submit that it cannot be so called. Call it something else if it all uses black crude to generate watt number one. Without it, all that energy comes, literally, to a grinding halt. And there, so do I for round 1.
 
My opponent fails to realize that even if petroleum is used to power wind turbines, this does not make it worse than current options. Wind turbines provide
  • No carbon dioxide emissions
  • They're cheaper
  • They're sustainable
  • They're far more environmentally friendly that fossil fuels.

Conclusion:
My opponent has failed to fulfill his side of the BoP. He has not proved that the GND was not Green, or New, or a Deal. Therefore, I urge voters to take this into note.

Round 2
Pro
I Rebuttal: Definitions of Green, New, Deal, respectively
 
I.a My opponent began by defining these three terms, which I did not think required defining, as all three are simple words. More to the point, the three words are really a single concept, not three separate words. The Green New Deal [hereafter GND] is not a construct of “tending to preserve environmental quality as being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting”[from Con round 1 “Definitions”], but rather: “will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. It seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.”[1]   I will trust the authors of the GND far more than my opponent, who chose his definition of the single words; specifically, “green” as definition 8c of Merriam-Webster.  Unfortunately, the authors of the GND consider “green” as inseparable from a “sustainable economy that is environmentally sound [as Con alleges], but also is “economically viable and socially responsible.”[2]
 
I.b I reject Con’s truncated definition and insist upon the authors of the GND to bear the burden, and Con’s BoP, of their full definition. 
 
I.c Further, the resolution, H-Res 109, states as much.
 
II Rebuttal: BoP
 
II.a Con declared, The Burden of Proof is on my opponent. He must prove that the Green New Deal is neither green, nor new, nor a deal. If he fails to prove, or I disprove one of these statements, he fails to fulfill his side of the BoP. For example, if I successfully prove that the GND is green, then I win. It does not matter if my opponent proves the two other contentions, I still win.”
 
 To wit,that he is not responsible for BoP of the authors’ secondary and tertiary words, “new,” and “deal,” since these added words are to be considered in light of “green” as a cohesive, multiple-word idea, and because I made them the root of the debate proposal. I bear the responsibility of BoP to demonstrate the whole string, “Green New Deal” as being “neither Green, nor New, nor a Deal.” As it is the proposal in full, it is not to Con’s discretion to ignore two-thirds of the proposal as if it was not there. By all means, he may do so, but I suggest it is at the peril of losing the debate. 
 
III Rebuttal: “The flies don’t matter”

III.a Con's declaration that the recent Green Party US publication[3] does not relate to H-Res 109[4] is in total denial of both documents. I quote from the Green Party publication: “It  [GND] seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.”[5]  Quote from H-Res 109: Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States—(1) by impacting the economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world;”  

III.a.1 The fly in the soup is speaking the same “language” in every language in the world:  There is a crisis of environment in biblical proportions, and the eradication of fossil fuel use is the only path available to [sustain an]economy that is environmentally sound, but also is “economically viable and socially responsible.”[6] So claim the proponents of GND.

III.a.2 This happens to be English, and the language of both sources relate to one another, contrary to Con’s claim that “these statements do not relate to the resolution,”but it is all relatable in any tongue in the world with ease.

III.b Another fly my opponent rejects is that my argument that 77% of the world's energy is by sources that are not “green,” and asks, “How does that matter in the context of the debate?” It matters because a non-binding resolution [H-Res 109] is not going to motivate energy producers to eliminate that 77% of production to align with a group of energy sources that have required 2,000 of “progress” to achieve 24% of the world’s energy production and augment it by anther three-quarters in ten years.

III.b.1 What will that cost? The answer depends on to whom one listens, because [I conclude] no one knows for sure. A Republican think tank estimated $93 trillion. [7] That is probably excessive. However, the President of the American Action Forum [AAF] estimates $50 to $90 trillion.[8] Bernie Sanders, a former presidential candidate [twice] and supporter of the GND, estimated $16 trillion,[9] with a significant change that is slightly more reasonable in scope: to eliminate fossils fuels by 2050, and by “reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030.”[10]   So, how much energy is consumed for those two purposes? The answer, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is 65.3%. That’s an improvement on the demand of the GND, itself, which would require augmenting current “clean energy” production by another 77% in ten years. But, Sanders is in the ballpark at 65% in the same ten years. That’s not a great condition on which to sway the opinion from “The Green New Deal is neither green, nor new, nor a deal.” Relative to deals, the Progressives of the Democrat Party would be hard pressed to call a Republican proposal to, for example, do nothing on current healthcare, in the face of Democrat proposals to realize Medicare for all, which would cost an estimated $53 trillion over ten years,[11] the near low-ball of AAF’s $50 trillion for GND. So, where’s the “Deal” of a proposal that is, on average, more than twice the current national debt that has taken 185 years [1835 – the last time the U.S. public debt was zero][12] to spend?
 
IV Rebuttal: “Wind turbines provide…”
 
IV.a With three rounds yet to go [although this is my second round], my opponent declares I have “failed to fulfill [my]side of the BoP.”  Well, thank you very much for forfeiting my side of the debate; I guess I’m done. May I suggest Con forfeit the rest of his rounds; he appears to be done, as well. O, that victory was so easily won. Sorry, the exo-reality is what is done. As my cherished band of the 60s never said, I do not “fire all of [my] guns at once and explode into space.” I don’t know why I must keep repeating this refrain to my opponents. One round does not a debate make unless I make it so when I initiate. I never have. Voters will judge on all four rounds, thank you. My BoP is allowed to extend that far, thank you. Let’s not be about premature efactulation.
 
IV.b As to wind turbines, my opponent declares they have “no carbon dioxide emissions.” Wrong. Even lubricating oils emit CO2[13]. However, since at least 1991, oil re-refining has been a reality.[14] Even so, as this is recycled lubricating oil, it still emits CO2. These are not sealed systems. As a result, wind turbines are not wholly green energy sources, and will continue to lack that full moniker as long as no one invents AlGoreGooeyJuice.
 
IV.b.1 Con declares windmills are cheaper. Cheaper than current options. If that were truly so, and considering the GND deal of achieving “net-zero emissions” by the eradication of fossil fuel use by 2030, what are we waiting for? The fact is, fabricating, and operating a wind turbine farm is cheaper than an equivalent fossil fuel central power facility.[16] And yet, for a technology we’ve embraced since 1860 [my round 1, I.a.2.A], it represents only 5% of our total worldwide energy production.[17] More production capacity would surely be cheaper still, so, what is the occasionally Democrat-controlled Congress waiting for to initiate their GND? They last had an opportunity while the GND had been proposed[18] in the U.S. in 2010 to 2012. What is it we are not being told? What other costs, or other hidden agendas are there that prevent a wholesale conversion to this available, but somehow avoided energy resource?
 
IV.b.2 Con declares wind turbines are sustainable. Yes, they are, all the way to the point, in now less than nine years [to 2030] when fossil fuels are shut-off and, lacking AlGoreGooeyJuice, they all come grinding to a halt. Literally. That is, unless the Deal of the GND is violated by extension. Isn’t violating a deal a big deal? I assert by the obvious resistance to really sustain clean energy solutions by a concerted effort to replace petroleum-sourced lubricants and cheap fabricated parts currently based on petroleum with some legitimate AlGoreGooeyJuice that such technology is just not available at any cost, let alone a cheaper cost than petroleum product. These clean energy sources, sought for the last 2,000 years, do not appear to be on the horizon of ten years out to satisfy 100% of the world's energy demand. They are sustained only by the use of petroleum. That is not green, it certainly is not new [2,000 years?], and it apparently is not any deal anyone is making technically feasible.
 
IV.b.3 Con declares clean energy sources “are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.” Then my consistent argument stands: what are we waiting for to move the needle from a 24% use of these friendlier sources? If the science is “in,” if the cost investment would yield a respectable return, if the technology is really ready with full replacement of fossil material use as fuel, lubricant, and fabrication of component parts, what is the combination of factors preventing our conversion to this green new deal of clean energy? The will to do it? I honestly do not know the answer. All I know is that after 2,000 years of development, we are providing just 24% of the world’s energy needs by this green new deal. Even if only one of the factors is responsible for the delay, for which Con is desirous of limiting the debate, then let him demonstrate what these limiting factors are. That would be Burden of Proof met. Unfortunately, he is bound by the parameters, all three of them, as defined in this debate.
 
IV.b.4 In the meantime, I declare that the GND, by obvious lack of use at less than one quarter of the demand, worldwide, is not green, is not new, and is not a deal that anyone can demonstrate as effectively meeting 100% of our energy demand, thus realizing the goal of net zero. The proof Con must demonstrate is that in ten years, this paradigm will shift, as promised.
 
V. Argument: The original renewable energy
 
V.a I have noted that hydropower was the first “clean energy” power source in 200 B.C.E. [Round 1, I.a.2.A], but it is not the first renewable energy resource. That privilege belongs to the development of fire, which occurred so long ago, we struggle to establish a date, but it occurred thousand of years before hydropower was harnessed. Prometheus did not steal fire from the gods. More than likely, lightning was responsible for setting a forest on fire, and man observed the properties of fire, and the advantages if offered if only it could be controlled. 
 
Wood and grasses, both organic materials, along with every other living thing on earth, when decomposed, and put under pressure, yield petroleum. Any organic material is renewable, because organics will continue to be produced on earth until the sun’s expansion in a few billion years obliterates earth, and we will no longer be concerned with energy sources, or cost, or technology, or...
 
V.b M. King Hubbert, a geologist at Shell Oil, predicted a condition he called “Peak Oil” in 1956.[19] He said in his whitepaper, Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels, that the natural production of oil and gas would duplicate the common bell curve, that such production would ramp up, reach a peak, and decline, because petroleum was a finite source which we were depleting at a rate so rapid, the peak would occur in ten years [seems folks are fixated on decade-disasters]; actually, in 1965. 1965 came and went without an apparent peak. However, in the meantime, Hubbert altered his peak to 1970, and was heralded as a prophet because we did, indeed, see a worldwide decline in oil production in that year.[20] However, 7 years later, oil production began distribution through the new Alaska pipeline, and oil production, and, more importantly, known oil reserves, are higher than ever with no peak in sight. Since it is a renewable product, what peak would be expected but by our gradual lowering dependence on black gold? In ten years? Sounds like King Hubbert from his grave.
 
V.c Our technical growth will ultimately replace dependence on fossil fuels, but the GND presses a timeline, 2030, that has naught to do with any reality in that expected technology will conclude with a launch of net-zero by 2030. Not at the rate of advance in the technology that is currently evident. The only common factor to which we can compare the net-zero timeline is not based on science, but on a declared schedule by the Paris Accord, which cannot demonstrate any better predictive assurance than by King Hubbert, whose prediction appears to have been sphincter-sourced in some nether region of his anatomy we’d be prudent to avoid. The GND is not now green, not now new, and not now a deal. All three must have met the goal by 2030, or it will still not be green, new, or a deal.
 
My second round is complete; my BoP is not, and space is expanding. To round 3.
 
 
 


[2]ibid

[3]ibid



[6]ibid


[8]ibid


[10]ibid




[14]Morton, Peter (November 26, 1991). 





[20]ibid




Con
Thanks fauxlaw for the ever so speedy response! I hope this continues to be as good as it is.

DEFINITIONS OF GREEN, NEW, DEAL, RESPECITIVELY
.a My opponent began by defining these three terms, which I did not think required defining, as all three are simple words. More to the point, the three words are really a single concept, not three separate words. The Green New Deal [hereafter GND] is not a construct of “tending to preserve environmental quality as being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting”[from Con round 1 “Definitions”], but rather: “will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. It seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.”[1]   I will trust the authors of the GND far more than my opponent, who chose his definition of the single words; specifically, “green” as definition 8c of Merriam-Webster.  Unfortunately, the authors of the GND consider “green” as inseparable from a “sustainable economy that is environmentally sound [as Con alleges], but also is “economically viable and socially responsible.”[2]
 
I.b I reject Con’s truncated definition and insist upon the authors of the GND to bear the burden, and Con’s BoP, of their full definition. 
 
I.c Further, the resolution, H-Res 109, states as much.
OBJECTION
Green clearly means helpful for the environment, it is synonymous with Environmentally Friendly. I did not define all three words "as a pack", I defined the single word GREEN. Of course the Green New Deal's goal is to change this economy into a sustainable one, although that is not the definition of the single word "green".

BoP-DEFENSE
 
II.a Con declared, The Burden of Proof is on my opponent. He must prove that the Green New Deal is neither green, nor new, nor a deal. If he fails to prove, or I disprove one of these statements, he fails to fulfill his side of the BoP. For example, if I successfully prove that the GND is green, then I win. It does not matter if my opponent proves the two other contentions, I still win.”
 
 To wit,that he is not responsible for BoP of the authors’ secondary and tertiary words, “new,” and “deal,” since these added words are to be considered in light of “green” as a cohesive, multiple-word idea, and because I made them the root of the debate proposal. I bear the responsibility of BoP to demonstrate the whole string, “Green New Deal” as being “neither Green, nor New, nor a Deal.” As it is the proposal in full, it is not to Con’s discretion to ignore two-thirds of the proposal as if it was not there. By all means, he may do so, but I suggest it is at the peril of losing the debate. 
OBJECTION:
The BoP is still on my opponent. If I prove that The GND is not green, or new, or a deal, I win. I will not ignore 2/3 of the resolution, but the BoP is clearly on my opponent (and he has not objected to that statement yet).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REBUTTAL.
III.a Con's declaration that the recent Green Party US publication[3] does not relate to H-Res 109[4] is in total denial of both documents. I quote from the Green Party publication: “It  [GND] seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.”[5]  Quote from H-Res 109: Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States—(1) by impacting the economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world;”  
My opponent states that I said that GND does not relate to H-Res 109. I never stated that. I stated that his statements did not relate to the debate resolution. Therefore, this argument is pretty much invalid.
III.b Another fly my opponent rejects is that my argument that 77% of the world's energy is by sources that are not “green,” and asks, “How does that matter in the context of the debate?” It matters because a non-binding resolution [H-Res 109] is not going to motivate energy producers to eliminate that 77% of production to align with a group of energy sources that have required 2,000 of “progress” to achieve 24% of the world’s energy production and augment it by anther three-quarters in ten years.

III.b.1 What will that cost? The answer depends on to whom one listens, because [I conclude] no one knows for sure. A Republican think tank estimated $93 trillion. [7] That is probably excessive. However, the President of the American Action Forum [AAF] estimates $50 to $90 trillion.[8] Bernie Sanders, a former presidential candidate [twice] and supporter of the GND, estimated $16 trillion,[9] with a significant change that is slightly more reasonable in scope: to eliminate fossils fuels by 2050, and by “reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030.”[10]   So, how much energy is consumed for those two purposes? The answer, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is 65.3%. That’s an improvement on the demand of the GND, itself, which would require augmenting current “clean energy” production by another 77% in ten years. But, Sanders is in the ballpark at 65% in the same ten years. That’s not a great condition on which to sway the opinion from “The Green New Deal is neither green, nor new, nor a deal.” Relative to deals, the Progressives of the Democrat Party would be hard pressed to call a Republican proposal to, for example, do nothing on current healthcare, in the face of Democrat proposals to realize Medicare for all, which would cost an estimated $53 trillion over ten years,[11] the near low-ball of AAF’s $50 trillion for GND. So, where’s the “Deal” of a proposal that is, on average, more than twice the current national debt that has taken 185 years [1835 – the last time the U.S. public debt was zero][12] to spend?
 
The cost still does not matter in the context of this debate. Has my opponent proved the GND is not new? No. Has my opponent proved the GND is not green? No. Has my opponent proved that the GND is not a deal? No.
 It matters because a non-binding resolution [H-Res 109] is not going to motivate energy producers to eliminate that 77% of production to align with a group of energy sources that have required 2,000 of “progress” to achieve 24% of the world’s energy production and augment it by anther three-quarters in ten years.
But, again, this still does not support the resolution. How does this prove that the GND is not a deal, or new, or green? Economic reform was not stated in the resolution of this debate.
IV.a With three rounds yet to go [although this is my second round], my opponent declares I have “failed to fulfill [my]side of the BoP.”  Well, thank you very much for forfeiting my side of the debate; I guess I’m done. May I suggest Con forfeit the rest of his rounds; he appears to be done, as well. O, that victory was so easily won. Sorry, the exo-reality is what is done. As my cherished band of the 60s never said, I do not “fire all of [my] guns at once and explode into space.” I don’t know why I must keep repeating this refrain to my opponents. One round does not a debate make unless I make it so when I initiate. I never have. Voters will judge on all four rounds, thank you. My BoP is allowed to extend that far, thank you. Let’s not be about premature efactulation.
I'm sorry. Let me take back my statement. I meant that you haven't fulfilled your BoP yet. Sincerest apologies.

IV.b As to wind turbines, my opponent declares they have “no carbon dioxide emissions.” Wrong. Even lubricating oils emit CO2[13]. However, since at least 1991, oil re-refining has been a reality.[14] Even so, as this is recycled lubricating oil, it still emits CO2. These are not sealed systems. As a result, wind turbines are not wholly green energy sources, and will continue to lack that full moniker as long as no one invents AlGoreGooeyJuice.
 
IV.b.1 Con declares windmills are cheaper. Cheaper than current options. If that were truly so, and considering the GND deal of achieving “net-zero emissions” by the eradication of fossil fuel use by 2030, what are we waiting for? The fact is, fabricating, and operating a wind turbine farm is cheaper than an equivalent fossil fuel central power facility.[16] And yet, for a technology we’ve embraced since 1860 [my round 1, I.a.2.A], it represents only 5% of our total worldwide energy production.[17] More production capacity would surely be cheaper still, so, what is the occasionally Democrat-controlled Congress waiting for to initiate their GND? They last had an opportunity while the GND had been proposed[18] in the U.S. in 2010 to 2012. What is it we are not being told? What other costs, or other hidden agendas are there that prevent a wholesale conversion to this available, but somehow avoided energy resource?
 
IV.b.2 Con declares wind turbines are sustainable. Yes, they are, all the way to the point, in now less than nine years [to 2030] when fossil fuels are shut-off and, lacking AlGoreGooeyJuice, they all come grinding to a halt. Literally. That is, unless the Deal of the GND is violated by extension. Isn’t violating a deal a big deal? I assert by the obvious resistance to really sustain clean energy solutions by a concerted effort to replace petroleum-sourced lubricants and cheap fabricated parts currently based on petroleum with some legitimate AlGoreGooeyJuice that such technology is just not available at any cost, let alone a cheaper cost than petroleum product. These clean energy sources, sought for the last 2,000 years, do not appear to be on the horizon of ten years out to satisfy 100% of the world's energy demand. They are sustained only by the use of petroleum. That is not green, it certainly is not new [2,000 years?], and it apparently is not any deal anyone is making technically feasible.
 
IV.b.3 Con declares clean energy sources “are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.” Then my consistent argument stands: what are we waiting for to move the needle from a 24% use of these friendlier sources? If the science is “in,” if the cost investment would yield a respectable return, if the technology is really ready with full replacement of fossil material use as fuel, lubricant, and fabrication of component parts, what is the combination of factors preventing our conversion to this green new deal of clean energy? The will to do it? I honestly do not know the answer. All I know is that after 2,000 years of development, we are providing just 24% of the world’s energy needs by this green new deal. Even if only one of the factors is responsible for the delay, for which Con is desirous of limiting the debate, then let him demonstrate what these limiting factors are. That would be Burden of Proof met. Unfortunately, he is bound by the parameters, all three of them, as defined in this debate.
 
IV.b.4 In the meantime, I declare that the GND, by obvious lack of use at less than one quarter of the demand, worldwide, is not green, is not new, and is not a deal that anyone can demonstrate as effectively meeting 100% of our energy demand, thus realizing the goal of net zero. The proof Con must demonstrate is that in ten years, this paradigm will shift, as promised.
 
Yes, it emits Co2. I admit that. But, even if wind turbines emit Co2, it recoups and repays in carbon footprint within six months [1].  And then it provides decades upon decades of zero emission energy. 

My opponent concedes that wind turbines are sustainable and cheaper., yet he still has not provided a source for his claim that "petroleum is used to lubricate wind turbines."

My opponent stresses that if the GND is so good, why did the Democrats wait? And he also stresses that after 2,000 years of development, we're providing just 24% of the world's energy. But, my friend, we are not arguing about if the GND is realistic or not, we're arguing about if it's green, new, or a deal. So far, my opponent has still failed to prove all 3. He has even admitted that wind turbines and other clean energy solutions presented in the GND are green and environmentally friendly.



My Rebuttal to "The Original Renewable Energy"
Since my opponent has yet to give a source that petroleum lubricates wind turbines, geothermal power, hydropower, and even solar panels, this argument is invalid. He has only stated cons to Wind Turbines and has not proved that all the other options stated were not green.


Additional Arguments

Green means environmentally friendly. All the options stated, e.g. solar panels, hydropower, are environmentally friendly. New means recent. The deal was made in 2019. That's pretty recent. Deal means the act of dealing. Since there are conditions listed and there are deadlines and such, it meets all the requirements of a deal.

Your floor. Thanks.





Round 3
Pro
I Rebuttal: Small victories
 
I.a Con agued in round 2, “I will not ignore 2/3 of the resolution…” Yet, in round 1, Con said, “…if I successfully prove that the GND is green, then I win.”  I interpret this to mean he can ignore the other 2/3 of the debate proposal by proving only that the GND is green, whereas, the proposal is clearly a statement of the necessity of Con demonstrating [by BoP] that the GND is green, is new, and is a deal; meaning that the GND is environmentally aligned, the GND is a new concept, and that it is a deal being monetarily beneficial to all. The GND proposal of H-Res 109 stipulates the “deal” as economic benefit along with being environmentally sound, and a new concept of saving the planet: “(§1)(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;”[1]
 
I.b Con argued in his first round 2 objection that “I did not define all three words as a pack.”No, he did not. He defined each word separately, and then picked “green” as his only BoP. Unfortunately, as I argued in round 2,the GND is not a construct of ‘tending to preserve environmental quality as being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting’ [from Con round 1 “Definitions”], but rather, it ‘will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. It seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.’”[2] Thus is revealed why Con must also address the “new” and the “deal” of the GND, not just “green.”
 
II Rebuttal: “This argument is pretty much invalid”
 
II.a What my opponent has tossed as invalid is my argument, as stated in round 2, I.a and I.a.1 that H-Res 109 makes a non-sourced claim that implementation of the GND will revive the economy, turn the tide on climate change, and make wars for oil obsolete. This latter result, in turn, enables a 50% cut in the military budget, since maintaining bases all over the world to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and routes of transportation could no longer be justified.”
 
II.a.1 What does “revive the economy” mean? By what measure? From what threshold? To what threshold? There is no citation in this claim by which to measure achievement, or its consequences.
 
II.a.2 What does “turn the tide on climate change” mean? By what measure? From what climate? To what climate? There is no citation in this claim by which to measure achievement, or its consequences.
 
II.a.3 What does “make wars for oil obsolete” mean? By what measure? From what battle? To what conclusion? There is no citation in this claim by which to measure achievement, or its consequences.

II.a.4 What does “enable a 50% cut in the military budget” mean? By what measure? From which year’s budget? To what benefit to a new climate? There is no citation in this claim by which to measure achievement, or its consequences.
 
II.a.5 What does “maintaining bases all over the world to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and routes of transportation could no longer be justified” mean? By what measure? Do military bases around the world exist only to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and transportation routes? What, then, would justify the remaining 50% of military bases? There is no citation in this claim by which to measure achievement, or its consequences.
 
II.b There is absolutely no descriptive citation in H-Res 109 to justify this agenda, or how to measure these achievements and consequences. Therefore, not only are these questions relevant, and valid, contrary to my opponent’s claim, they are essential to understand before we embark on a ten year-plan to attempt to make it happen. There is a wise idiom to apply here: “Look before you leap.” At a price tag of $16 trillion to $90 trillion, or more, or even less, not that price, alone is the only mitigating factor, it is prudent to know if the bill pays for any reasonable, flyless soup.
 
III. Rebuttal: “[Pro] has yet to prove that the GND is not green or new or a deal.”

III.a I will say it once more: is the GND really green? If the equivalent of green is (1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers”[3]  The achievement of net zero must include the complete interruption of use of petroleum product for whatever purpose, even lubrication and fabrication of plastic components of all kinds, both of which are currently essential in the manufacture, commission and operation of every green energy turbine, every solar panel, every electric car, and any other device currently using petroleum as a source for that device. Until 100% eradication of use of petroleum products is achieved, net zero is not achieve, and the GND is not green.
III.b Is the GND new? If the definition of new is “having recently come into existence,”as Con proposed in his round 1, this must imply that the use of solar to generate power, which began in 1860, according to my cited argument in round 1, I.a.2.A,[4]  must have been yesterday’s, or, at most, last year’s patent.  No. The U.S. Patent Office began in 1790.[5] The world’s first use of solar power began 70 years later. We are 160 years downstream from that event. Wind? 1887.[6]  Hydro? 1935.[7] Bottom line, this green energy stuff is not new.  Every one of these technologies pre-date the concept of “green energy,” which, according to the OED, was first coined in 1980: Guardian 3 Apr. 8/7   “The most striking innovation will be the financing of ‘green’ energy—tidal, solar, and geothermic power.”[8]*  I submit this proves that ‘new’ within the GND is not new.
 
III.c Is the GND a deal? In round 2, I introduced the cost estimates for the GND as ranging from $16 trillion to $97 trillion, to be spent over 10 years to achieve the “deal.” I challenge anyone, not just my opponent, to demonstrate by any factor that would conclude that this expenditure is a “deal,” even in consideration of my opponent’s definition of the word from his round 1, “an act of dealing.”  As this definition fails the primary litmus test of definitions by using a variation on the root, “deal,” this definition does no favors in understanding the word “deal.” Let’s consult OED: “An act of buying and selling, a business transaction, bargain.”By this definition, it is implied that at least two, but often more individuals, or institutions are involved in dealing, and the result is best achieved when all players in the deal benefit by the deal. Is the GND a deal? Considering that the cost, even truncated to Bernie Sanders’ estimate of $16 trillion, the low-ball offer, is still in excess of the typical annual budget [averaged over the last 10 years] of $4.2 trillion[9] by a factor of nearly 4x, and, in the worst case, $97 trillion, by a factor of 23x. Is either cost estimate a deal beneficial to all? No.
 
III.d I submit, again, that evidence suggests, as noted, and cited, in the above three points, the GND is not green, is not new, and is not a deal, not to mention that the achievement of the GND is highly suspect to be achieved in 10 years, by the clock started by the introduction of H-Res 109 [non-binding, mind you] on 02/07/2019 in the 116th Congress. We are now 16 months beyond that introduction, and the “deal” is not yet approved even as a non-binding resolution. The clock is ticking, having already ticked down to 8 years, 8 months remaining to seal the deal, let alone achieve it. Until it is signed as a bill, not just a resolution, it is not a deal, period, and therefore, neither is it green, or new. In fact, “new” is getting old damn fast, and every summer, the green grass burns to golden brown, looking more like the sheen of black gold.

IV Argument: Participatory processes of budgeting

IV.a H-Res 109 states, as one of its goals: (F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level”[10]  Compare this with a similar construct contained in the Green Party’s original document:Create a Commission for Economic Democracy to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory. We will strengthen democracy via participatory budgetingand institutions that encourage local initiative and democratic decision-making.”[11]

IV.a.1 Take note of the bolded phrase, and let’s dissect it to understand just what it means. Democracy [the United States is a hybrid democratic republic – must I define what that is?] will be, by the GND, or so the document alleges, enhanced by participatory budgeting.Who creates budgets in industry? An industry’s leaders. So who would “participate in that process? Why, it’s the Commission for Economic Democracy, a government agency that does not currently exist, but it would via the GND. The suggestion that a government agency is necessary to “strengthen democracy via participatory budgeting…” flies directly in the face of America’s founding documents that individual achievement using a private, free-market economy, void of such government control [note they want to share-budget “free enterprise” by this Commission], is the right and privilege of every American citizen as his/her ambition, planning, and execution dictate. 

IV.b The government taking control of private enterprise [and how is that not possible if the government is involved in enterprise budgeting?] is hardly a new concept, and it is no deal for private enterprise. This may be why there is no socialist experiment by any nation in existence, past or present that has endured for 100 years, compared to the American free-market system enduring 230 years, and counting.

I yield to Con for his 3rdround
 
 
 
 
* I exclusively use the OED in all definitions used in my debates, being the ultimate dictionary of the English language. One must either own a hard copy edition [I do, in twenty volumes], or an online subscription [I have]. It is, otherwise, unavailable for consultation. One must take it by my assertion that I am faithfully representing proper definition.
 
 
 

Con
Thanks fauxlaw.

I Rebuttal: Small victories
 
I.a Con agued in round 2, “I will not ignore 2/3 of the resolution…” Yet, in round 1, Con said, “…if I successfully prove that the GND is green, then I win.”  I interpret this to mean he can ignore the other 2/3 of the debate proposal by proving only that the GND is green, whereas, the proposal is clearly a statement of the necessity of Con demonstrating [by BoP] that the GND is green, is new, and is a deal; meaning that the GND is environmentally aligned, the GND is a new concept, and that it is a deal being monetarily beneficial to all. The GND proposal of H-Res 109 stipulates the “deal” as economic benefit along with being environmentally sound, and a new concept of saving the planet: “(§1)(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;”[1]
 
I.b Con argued in his first round 2 objection that “I did not define all three words as a pack.”No, he did not. He defined each word separately, and then picked “green” as his only BoP. Unfortunately, as I argued in round 2,the GND is not a construct of ‘tending to preserve environmental quality as being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting’ [from Con round 1 “Definitions”], but rather, it ‘will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. It seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.’”[2] Thus is revealed why Con must also address the “new” and the “deal” of the GND, not just “green.”
I will not, but I can. It would fulfill my side of the BoP. Also, I have addressed the new and deal side of the resolution as stated in Additional Arguments, which remains unrefuted. Therefore, this contention by my opponent does not contribute to this debate.

"This argument is pretty much invalid"- Defense.

His argument is still invalid. He states that H-Res 109 is not a good deal because of its vagueness. But, this does not relate to the resolution. A bad deal is still a deal. I will state it again, I will not argue that H-Res 109 is good, I'm arguing if its a deal, green, or new. And, just because the Green New Deal is unrealistic and bad, does not mean that it does not exist as a deal. A bad deal is still a deal.


“[Pro] has yet to prove that the GND is not green or new or a deal.- Defense


I. My opponent has still not provided any sourcing for his petroleum claim. The GND is still green with or without petroleum, the provided alternative energy methods listed in the deal wipe out their original carbon footprint within six months. My opponent still has not rebutted this point.

II. My opponent mentions that the listed power options in the GND are not new. But does this make the GND itself old? No. The GND was created in February 2019, that was it's literal birthdate. And, that makes it new. Just because the green energy stuff is not new, does not make the actual deal not new.

III. See, "This argument is pretty much invalid"- Defense.


Participatory processes of budgeting- Rebuttal

This argument still does not prove that the GND is not new, green, or a deal. Yes, it proves that the GND is bad, but does it really argue in your favor of the resolution?

Conclusion
My opponent has not fulfilled his BoP yet, due to the ignorance of the resolution is his arguments. I have proved it is new, green, and a deal by proving that
  • The listed options in the GND are all green
  • The GND itself is new
  • And that just because the GND is a bad deal, does not mean that it isn't a deal.

Round 4
Pro
I Rebuttal: Smaller victories
 
I.a Con, it appears, switched sides, saying, “If I prove that The GND is not green, or new, or a deal, I win.”I’m reasonably certain, since I am Instigator, taking the Pro side, that this is my BoP, not Con’s. If Con would prefer my side of the debate, I invite his input. 
 
I.a.1 Moreover, Con argued in his round 1:  “These statements does not relate to the resolution. It does not prove that the Green Deal is not green, or new, nor a deal. Yes, many people rely on coal. But, does that not make the GND, green or new or a deal? No.”  My opponent first argued in this quote that my statements against the resolution did not prove the GND was not green, or new, or a deal. Then by clarification, he reversed his argument. I’ll take my opponent’s admission to my side of the argument, again, to wit, that the resolution does not make the GND green, or new, or a deal.
 
I.a.2 Further, Con argues that his round 2 closing point settles the debate in his favor, but he argues the GND has environmentally friendly sources, and, therefore green, therefore new, and a deal, whether one of good or bad report. Yes, the deal is bad. Thank you thrice.
 
I.b Is the GND green? I will agree that the various green energies discussed over the past three rounds, as identified in my round 1, argument I.a.2, wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal, may identify as “green,” but do they exhibit properties of being “green,” i.e., environmentally friendly? Con argued in round 3, “My opponent has still not provided any sourcing for his petroleum claim. The GND is still green with or without petroleum, the provided alternative energy methods listed in the deal wipe out their original carbon footprint within six months. My opponent still has not rebutted this point.” 
 
I.b.1 Con issued three points:
            1. Sourcing for my petroleum claim [which claim?]
            2. GND is green with or without petroleum.
            3. Green energy modes wipe out their original carbon footprint in 6 months.

I will address all three:
I.b.1.A Does Con refer to the claim that green energy turbines and all green energy modes employ the ongoing use of petroleum as lubricant of moving parts, and fabrication of plastic parts? Does this really require citation? Fine: “The proper selection and use of lubricants, as well as the care and operation of lubricating systems, is an essential part of any powerplant maintenance program. Choosing an appropriate lubricant for a particular application and maintaining the effectiveness of lubricants requires a basic understanding of lubrication theory and the characteristics of lubricants. This document discusses lubrication fundamentals, lubricant characteristics, additives, maintenance of lubrication systems, and the selection of lubricants for common powerplant equipment.”[1] Caution: this paper does not specify green energy powerplants; it is universally applied for turbines of all powerplants, regardless of type.Additionally,“Plastics are made from oil.”[2] Caution: this source does not specify plastics exclusively for green energy component use; it is universally applied to all plastic components for any use.

I.b.1.B Con claims that green energy is green whether or not it utilizes petroleum. It is a bold claim, lacking sourcing to support it. Moreover, the GND as introduced in Congress as H-Res 109, refutes Con’s claim of “with or without:” “(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal - (A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers”[3] The achievement of net-zero can only be achieved by the 100% elimination of use of petroleum, including its use to lubricate moving turbine parts and to fabricate all devices’ plastic components. As long as devices make use of petroleum at all, for any purpose, the goal of net-zero is not achieved. No exceptions. Period. “With or without” simply is a wish balloon argument. Invalid. As I argued at the conclusion of my round 1: “I.c With all the foregoing, can the GND really be called “Green?” I submit that it cannot be so called. Call it something else if it all uses black crude to generate watt number one. Without oil, all that energy comes, literally, to a grinding halt.”

I.b.1.C Given the realities of the previous two points, the carbon footprint of green energy devices of any type do not “wipe out their original carbon footprint”at all, let alone in 6 months. Given the sourcing offered in the first two points immediately above, no further sourcing is necessary. All three arguments by Con fail completely. They are, as stated in the debate description, a “wish balloon.”

I.c Con argued in round 2 that “cost… does not matter in the context of this debate.”  And he concluded by that argument that my rebuttal of the “deal,” had not achieved relevance. Please refer to my round 3, argument III.c regarding the relevance of cost of the GND, as a literal deal-breaker.

I.d Considering the above rebuttal, my opponent has gained no victory, small or otherwise, in the argument that, from his perspective, the GND is green, new, and a deal.

II Rebuttal: Vagueness of my argument being “pretty much invalid:” the “deal”

II.a Con argued in round 3, “[Pro] states that H-Res 109 is not a good deal because of its vagueness.”  I challenge my opponent to indicate where in my argument, round 3, II.a through II.a.5, I stipulated “not a good deal because of its vagueness.”  It must be vague because Con does not understand it; I am perfectly clear about its language, as broken down by my round 3 arguments [questions] of II.a.1 through II.a.5. For brevity now, I refer the reader to these questions directly, and challenge Con to answer them, or drop the point of “vagueness,” but also, as a result, the debate, because the debate turns on the matter of these questions’ answers justifying the GND as green, new, and a deal.
 
II.b Con argues in his round 3 that “A bad deal is still a deal. I will state it again, I will not argue that H-Res 109 is good, I’m arguing if it’s a deal, green, or new.” Back to separating the elements, again, as I contended Con’s argument of separation in my round 2, which has never been successfully rebutted. I contend that all three must be proven together for Con to win the debate, not just one or another, separately. But, to Con’s specific argument in his round 3, as quoted above, as he is drilling down on the “deal:” I refer the reader to the definition of “deal” as defined by Con [the act of dealing] and the definition offered by H-Res 109, the hard base and justification of the Green New Deal, whether Con wishes to accept it as a deal, or not. It is what it is, which is to  “convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. It seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.”[4]
 
II.c It appears I must offer a valid definition of “deal” according to the OED, which, in and of itself renders a qualification of good/bad: “An act of buying and selling; a business transaction, bargain; arrangement in commerce or politics entered into by parties for their mutual benefit.” By definition, a deal must be mutually beneficial to all parties. Therefore, a bad deal is no deal at all, as it is not beneficial to all parties. To the parties desiring the result of net-zero GHG emissions, to allow the continued use of petroleum as a source for lubrication and fabrication of plastic components, the GND is not a deal, by definition. Neither is it a deal if it has not economic viability.
 
II.d My opponent has failed in the attempt to prove the GND is a deal, given his admission that the deal is a bad deal. Bad deals do not benefit everyone. The GND is not a deal by definition in OED.
 
III. Rebuttal: Power options of the GND are not new
 
III.a No, they are not; Con is correct in his agreement. But the newness of their mention in the GND is consequential, and is not a strong argument for my opponent. Yes, these energy sources have been around for a long, long time. As a result, their mention in the GND is virtually anachronistic under the consideration that, given their age, as I argued in round 1, argument I.a.2, as one of the “flies in the soup;” this “new” concept as of 2019, although ancient in development, offers but 24% of our current energy production. That inferior amount, given the age of these green ideas, is expected to provide 100% of our energy production by 2030 according to the GND as first proposed in 2019.
 
III.b A few years to move the needle to 100% green energy production is a wish balloon, particularly given the reality of the current lack of any green proposal to replace petroleum as a vital need to lubricate and fabricate. AlGoreGooeyJuice is still on the drawing board, if even that far into development. I challenge my opponent to document that such will be achieved by 2030 with credibility. That would be a new accomplishment, because nothing else about this deal is new. “New” implies that the “product” is not just designed, but produced and available for purchase. This is his BoP. But, the question remains, and must be justified, will we have a “product,” the GND, by 2030?
 
III.c My opponent has failed to demonstrate the newness of the GND. It’s products must be new. It’s effect and objectives are not new if not achieved. 
 
IV Rebuttal: Participatory budgeting: “Yes, it proves the GND is bad”
 
IV.a Wow! Thank you, Con. The entire concept of participatory budgeting by Government intrusion into private industry is, indeed, “bad.” Bad for Government, bad for private industry, bad as an added deal of the GND. I need no further argument on this point given Con’s admission that it is bad.
 
IV.b By my opponent’s admission, the GND is bad. He has therefore failed to prove the GND, period. And thus, because I argue that the GND is bad [not green, not new, nor is it a deal], and, as this round 4 will conclude, I have, contrary to Con’s claim in his round 2 “BoP Defense - Objection,” not only objected to Con’s claim that he has no BoP, but I have proven that he has failed to achieve negating my BoP. 
 
V Conclusion: The GND is not green, not new, and not a deal.
 
V.a The original scope of the GND defined in my round 1, argument I.a “had the overarching goal to ‘[transition] our country to 100% clean energy by 2030. Clean energy does not include natural gas, biomass, nuclear power or the oxymoron ‘clean coal.’”My succeeding arguments of rounds 1 – 3 have not deviated from consideration of this one proposed achievement.
 
V.b Given the above considerations of green, new, and deal as separated arguments and rebuttals, as contained in the scope of my arguments through three rounds, I have proven the point that the GND is neither green, nor new, nor a deal as separate considerations, as per my opponent, nor as a cohesive proposal, as per the argument of H-Res 109, which my opponent has argued as “bad;” an aspect of the “deal” that can only be justified by a proper definition of a deal. As it is not a good deal, as my opponent admits [see IV, above] seals the deal against the GND, all on its own, but only as we would consider the elements of the GND [green, new, deal] as separate entities. As presented by my opponent, the deal alleges as new; therefore, the GND is new. It follows then, by definition of a deal, the GND is not a deal if it does not benefit all. How is it beneficial to all if it adds $4T, minimum to the annual budget for 10 years? [See my r-3, III.c] Therefore, it cannot be new, by Con definition.
 
As a whole concept, as presented by H-Res 109, which is, after all the document that justifies the GND as a whole, the GND is not what it claims at all because there is absolutely zero evidence that net-zero will be achieved by 2030. If it is not achieved on that schedule, what is it? It is nothing. 
 
V.c Consider that by 2030, the following must be already achieved:
 
1 The GND must be passed as a resolution, since it is the official recommendation of a following bill.
            2 The GND must be passed as a sponsored bill before Congress. It has not yet been proposed.
            3. The bill must be signed by the President. To date, no bill is on the President’s desk.
            4. All energy turbines in existence, or to be constructed in the future, are to be 100% green energy producers.
            5. AlGoreGooeyJuice [seriously, a green alternative material to lubricate and fabricate] must be available, and in use in all energy turbines, vehicles, and all other products currently using plastic in existence.
            6. The entire worldwide energy grid must consist of 100% net-zero GHG emissions, and:
            7. All current uses of petroleum in energy, industry, transportation, and personal uses, must be converted to net-zero emission components and finished products.
 
The mountain of necessities of the GND is not scalable. If these points are not achieved in total by 2030, the GND is nothing. Nothing is nothing; it is not green, it is not new, it is not a deal.
 
I now turn the final round over to my opponent, and request the careful consideration by readers/voters in your deliberations. I have proven the debate proposition in its entirety, against the arguments of my opponent. I ask for your vote for Pro.
  
 
 



Con
I concede, as I do not have enough time to write another argument. Thanks for the debate Fauxlaw, I really enjoyed it while it lasted. Vote for him!