Write a debate in 120 – 150 words either for or against the motion: ‘Government should
invest in alternate energy resources’. You are Pradeep/Poonam of DTP National School, New
Delhi
Answers
Answer:
FOR:-
The energy security argument asserts that the ticket to achieving greater security and affordability is to invest in renewable energy that can be produced at home and doesn’t rely on the whims of fossil fuel markets abroad. But in general for energy production in the US, domestic fossil fuels win out over renewables in terms of cost-effectiveness [3]. Domestic coal is abundant and cheap, and the availability of natural gas has skyrocketed in recent years, driving down prices that are likely to render this option affordable in the medium term [4]. It’s true that renewable technologies have increased in cost effectiveness over time, but parallel improvements in fossil fuel technologies make it harder for the economics of renewables to stack up by themselves.
AGAINST:-
On the other hand, those that advocate a diminished role of the government in renewable energy finance argue that current prices actually closely reflect social costs, and that the market will take care of the development of renewable energy as it becomes cost-effective. As the costs of PV technology, wind turbines, energy storage, and other clean energy technology have decreased over time, they have become competitive in their own right and it would have been inefficient for the government to invest in uneconomic technologies at an early stage. Advocates of a market-based approach believe that the government has no place in ‘picking winners’ for investment and knows no better than private investors what to invest in for the long term.
Answer:
I hope answer is helpful to us
