Republicans the Clear Winner in Energy Debate

During a debate about energy policy on Monday, College Republicans and College Democrats agreed on numerous concepts including the need to decrease dependence on foreign oil, to find efficient energy sources at the lowest possible price, to stimulate the economy, and to create more jobs. But even with all of those commonalities, they found plenty on which to disagree.

The event was sponsored by the Enosinian Society and moderated by the organization’s president, Eshawn Rawlley, while College Democrats and College Republicans co-hosted. The debaters were all men; for the College Democrats, Brad Dlatt ‘12 and Matt McDermott ’12. Debating for the College Republicans were Moses Weisberg ’11 and Sam Dewitt ’12.

The two sides repeatedly clashed on the issue of nuclear energy plants. The Democrats had struggled to pin down a reason to oppose nuclear power plants saying the party was “cautiously optimistic,” about them. The Democrats counterpoints sounded hollow, as they cited limits on space to dispose of nuclear waste, while throughout the rest of the debate they touted the benefits of wind and solar power that both require large amounts of real estate to be a viable option.  The Dems’ accusations of high cost were also inconsistent with the argument for wind and solar, which cost a lot but will not produce as much electricity as nuclear plants would.

The College Republican points were strong in comparison, citing the 20 percent of energy that nuclear power plants currently supply. The Republicans said that doubling nuclear power plant production will match our current levels of oil consumption, whereas the Democrats will have to expand the wind sector by 16 times before it reaches the percentage of America’s oil consumption.

The Republicans also addressed safety concerns, saying twice that “nuclear power is safe, do not listen to Democratic propaganda.” The College Republicans said the workers in nuclear plants are the most trained of any energy sector job. “They aren’t a bunch of Homer Simpsons,” said a Republican debater.

College Democrats had the edge on the issue of off-shore drilling, but narrowly. They cited data that shows that drilling in the gulf will be “economically inefficient” because oil will have to be priced at $90/barrel for oil companies to turn a profit. College Republicans acknowledged that fossil fuels cannot be a long term solution but cited its importance in an “all of the above” strategy. That argument was undermined by College Democrats that said that they are taking a “step backward.”

College Democrats called climate change the “defining issue of our generation like the civil rights movement and slavery,” which garnered a number of snickers from the room. They then spoke on the supposed effectiveness of cap and trade.

The issue of the current cap and trade bill was difficult for College Democrats because the College Republicans made solid points about both the limited positive environmental impact and the economics that point to high costs to the tax payers.

“The EPA and Greenpeace don’t like it…there are caveats to make the bill useless,” College Republicans said. “People in future generations will say, ‘Wow, the Democrats advocated a policy that doesn’t do much.’”

Arguing the economic side, the Republicans said that according to the Congressional Budget Office, 1.9 million jobs will be cut in 2012 alone if the cap and trade bill is passed.

The College Democrats said that the jobs lost would be transferred to the energy sector, the so-called “green-collar jobs.” The Republicans retorted with the example of Spain, where new jobs created by a renewable energy sector were “not permanent and the economy overall was hurt.”

“If you could bottle the democratic hot air tonight, you could solve the energy crisis,” College Republican Chairman Brandon Hines said. “We clearly won.”

Peter Weiss, chair of College Democrats, had a different perspective.

“Our debaters easily dispatched the CRs and made painstakingly clear that the Democratic Party has the right policies for America’s energy future,” he said after the debate.  “I was not surprised to find that the College Republicans were just as misinformed as their Congressional counterparts.”

College Republicans had a clear advantage over the College Democrats helped by experienced debater,  Weisberg, whose contribution was largely felt. The College Republicans helped their case by not falling back on denouncing the reality of climate change.   Instead, they pointed out the economic inaccuracies of policies touted by the College Democrats. The points that the Democrats used often sounded hypocritical and dismissive of economic realities while hyperbolizing negative effects of the proposed Republican alternatives.

Moderator Eshawn Rawlley said he gave the debate win to the Republicans, “for the Simpson’s reference alone.”