PTX Links

Michigan 7 Wk Jrs CHPS
Politics – Politics Links
POLITICS LINKS
*** You should also check the camp negs for specific politics links when debating
Links
Alternative Energy = Concession to Dems..............................................................................................................3
Alternative Energy = Popular with Republicans.....................................................................................................4
Alternative Energy = Unpopular with Republicans.................................................................................................5
Alternative Energy = Unpopular..............................................................................................................................6
Alternative Energy = Unpopular With Big Oil........................................................................................................7
Alternative Energy = Unpopular (AT: Turns)..........................................................................................................8
Renewables = Bipart................................................................................................................................................9
Renewables – Pelosi Supports...............................................................................................................................10
Renewables = Unpopular with public....................................................................................................................11
Low carbon policies = Popular with Republicans.................................................................................................12
Oil Shales = Popular..............................................................................................................................................13
Climate Change Laws = Popular...........................................................................................................................14
Incentives = Bipart.................................................................................................................................................15
Tax Incentives = Popular.......................................................................................................................................16
Tax Incentives = Popular.......................................................................................................................................17
Tax Incentives = Pelosi Supports...........................................................................................................................18
Tax Incentives = Unpopular With Republicans.....................................................................................................19
Net Metering = Unpopular.....................................................................................................................................20
Loan Guarantees – Bush Supports.........................................................................................................................21
RPS = Bipart..........................................................................................................................................................22
RPS = Bipart..........................................................................................................................................................23
RPS = Popular with Environmental Lobbies.........................................................................................................24
RPS Unpopular - Congress....................................................................................................................................25
RPS Unpopular - Democrats..................................................................................................................................26
RPS = Unpopular - Boucher..................................................................................................................................27
RPS Unpopular - Domenici...................................................................................................................................28
RPS Unpopular - Bush...........................................................................................................................................29
RPS = Unpopular with Industry Lobbies...............................................................................................................30
Cap and Trade – Bipartisan....................................................................................................................................31
Cap and Trade – Popular with Public....................................................................................................................32
Cap and Trade – Republicans Oppose...................................................................................................................33
Permits – Concession to Democrats......................................................................................................................34
Permits = Unpopular..............................................................................................................................................35
Biodiesel = Bipart..................................................................................................................................................36
Biodiesel = Concession to Dems...........................................................................................................................37
Biodiesel = Unpopular...........................................................................................................................................38
Ethanol = Concession to Democrats......................................................................................................................39
Ethanol = Bipart.....................................................................................................................................................40
Ethanol = Unpopular..............................................................................................................................................41
Ethanol = Partisan..................................................................................................................................................42
Cellulosic Ethanol = Bipart....................................................................................................................................43
Cellulosic Ethanol = Popular.................................................................................................................................44
Cellulosic Ethanol = Bush supports.......................................................................................................................45
1
Removing Brazilian Tariff = Bipart.......................................................................................................................46

Removing Brazilian Tariff = Partisan....................................................................................................................47
Ocean Power Popular.............................................................................................................................................48
Ocean Power = Unpopular.....................................................................................................................................49
Ocean Power = Unpopular.....................................................................................................................................50
Nuclear Power = Bipartisan...................................................................................................................................51
Nuclear Power = Unpopular..................................................................................................................................52
Hydropower = Popular...........................................................................................................................................53
Hydropower = Bipart.............................................................................................................................................54
Hydropower = Unpopular......................................................................................................................................55
Hydrogen = Bipart.................................................................................................................................................56
Hydrogen – Bush supports.....................................................................................................................................57
Wind Power = Unpopular......................................................................................................................................58
Solar = Bipart.........................................................................................................................................................59
Solar = Popular......................................................................................................................................................60
Solar = Popular......................................................................................................................................................61
Solar = Popular......................................................................................................................................................62
Solar = Concession to Dems..................................................................................................................................63
Solar – Bush Supports............................................................................................................................................64
Solar = Unpopular..................................................................................................................................................65
Geothermal = Bipart..............................................................................................................................................66
Geothermal = Popular............................................................................................................................................67
Geothermal = Concession to Dems.......................................................................................................................68
Geothermal = Unpopular.......................................................................................................................................69
Geothermal = Unpopular.......................................................................................................................................70
Hybrid Cars = Bipart..............................................................................................................................................71
Hybrid Cars – Popular With Environmental Lobbies............................................................................................72
Gas Rationing = Unpopular...................................................................................................................................73
Hybrid Cars = Concession to Dems.......................................................................................................................74
CAFE = Bipart.......................................................................................................................................................75
CAFE = Unpopular................................................................................................................................................76
Military = Unpopular.............................................................................................................................................77
Military = Unpopular.............................................................................................................................................78
Military – Bush supports........................................................................................................................................79
Air Force = Popular...............................................................................................................................................80
Air Force = Unpopular...........................................................................................................................................81
2
Alternative Energy = Concession to Dems

Democrats strongly support renewable energy, reduced pollution, and cleaner mass transportation
Hammond, 4 -- Founder of Carlist.Com, Guest Reporter on MSNBC for alternative energies and technologies, host of Motortrend rado, writer for Wired magazine,
writer for Auto Aficionado, writer for Green Car Journal (Lou Ann, “The Greenest Democratic Convention Ever”
http://www.cerc04.org/press/inthenews_sa_071204.html) // DCM
<"Democrats have regularly promoted renewable energy, recycling mass transportation, and reducing pollution that leads to global
warming," said Bruce Hamilton, National Conservation Director of the Sierra Club. The DFC300A is the hardware that takes natural gas and internally creates
hydrogen, which in turn creates electricity without combustion Convention organizers are powering the convention with renewable energy, supplied by Constellation
New Energy (a subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group, a Baltimore-based Fortune 500 national energy company). The media centers at the Convention will use
renewable sources including wind, hydroelectric power, biomass and solar energy. Each of these renewable energies emit lower levels of greenhouse gases and displace
energy derived from power plants that depend on fuel from overseas. The Convention will also utilize a 250-kilowatt fuel cell power plant, supplied by Connecticut
based FuelCell Energy Inc to power the Democratic National Convention to be held at the Fleet Center in Boston July 26-29, 2004.. Fuel Cell Energy's DFC300A
power plant has enough power to provide the base load electricity requirements of a 300-room hotel. The power plant will directly convert natural gas, supplied by
Keyspan Energy, into the hydrogen needed to electrochemically produce electricity. Fuel Cell Energy's DFC power plants generate power without combustion and, due
to their favorable emissions profile, are an ultra-clean product since they meet the most stringent air quality standards in the nation. The DFC300A fuel cell, combined
with FuelCell Energy's 30 other customer installations throughout the world have generated more than 41 million kilowatt hours of electricity. "Being the first fuel-cell
powered Convention is just one of the ways this event will make history," said Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino. "We are very pleased that Boston and the Democratic
National Convention will be a showcase for how an environmentally sound energy policy is good for Boston and for America." "The DFC power plant clearly shows
the flexibility of stationary fuel cells for commercial and industrial applications," said Herbert T. Nock, Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales of FuelCell
Energy. "We delivered, set up and started the power plant in less than two weeks. The unit is so clean it can operate in downtown Boston with no impact on air quality.
And it uses half the fuel because it is twice as efficient as comparably sized power plants."
With temperatures looming in the 80s and humidity running around 30-70 percent Boston will be feeling the heat and added congestion during the Convention. What
they won't have to be as concerned with is clean air. The DFC300A power plant produces 99.9 percent less harmful air pollution and 59 percent less carbon dioxide than
traditional combustion-based fossil fuel power plants. General Motors will be providing hybrid pickup trucks and buses to the Democratic National Convention Center.
Hybrids, which get the best mileage under 25 MPG, generally known as city use, will provide 60 percent greater fuel economy and 90 percent fewer emissions than
regular transit buses. Accusations by Kerry/Edwards against the Bush government "In President George Bush's government, where polluters actually write
environmental laws and oil company profits matter more than hard science and cold facts, protecting the government doesn't matter at all."
"Even though 133 million Americans already live with unhealthy air, the Bush administration bowed to energy industry lobbying and rewrote rules to allow 20,000
facilities to spew more smog, soot and mercury in the air." "Even though overwhelming scientific evidence shows that global climate change is a scientific fact, this
administration has rewritten government reports to hide that fact." "We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment."
Democratic Platform stance on OPEC, EPA, CAFE, energy incentives and vehicle manufacturing So, what is Kerry/Edwards proposing for the United States if they are
elected to govern us in November? According to the 41 page Democrat platform, the Democrats want; Energy-efficient vehicles "We support creating
more energy-efficient vehicles, from today's hybrids to tomorrow's hydrogen cars. We support the American people's freedom to choose whatever
cars, SUVs, minivans and trucks they choose, but we also believe American ingenuity is equal to the task of improving efficiency. We support improving fuel
standards, and because of the challenges this poses, we will offer needed incentives for consumers to buy efficient vehicles, and for
manufacturers to build them." Hydrogen "We are committed to developing hydrogen as a clean, reliable domestic source of energy. Our
economy cannot convert to hydrogen overnight, so we will fund research to overcome the obstacles to hydrogen fuel and continue our other efforts to
achieve energy independence." Renewable Energy "Our plan begins with commonsense investments to harness the natural world around us - the
sun, wind, water, geothermal and biomass sources and a rich array of crops to create a new generation of affordable energy for the 21st
century. By mobilizing the amazing productivity of America's farmers, we can grow our own cleaner-burning fuel. We support tax credits for
private sector investment in clean air, renewable sources of energy, and we will make ethanol work better for farmers. And we will ensure that billions of
gallons of renewable fuel are part of America's energy supply while striving for strong, national renewable energy goals." To move
beyond OPEC "We can improve our energy security in other ways. We will seek more diverse sources of oil around the world and here at home. We support balanced
development of domestic oil supplies in areas already open for exploration, like the western and central Gulf of Mexico. We support the expansion of new infrastructure
to develop supplies from non-OPEC nations like Russia, Canada and nations in Africa. We will increase efficiency of natural gas use, develop Alaska natural gas
pipeline, and enhance our nation's infrastructure to help supply natural gas more effectively. Coal "We will work to create new technology (scrubbing) for
producing electricity in a better, more efficient manner. Coal accounts for more than one-half of America's electric power generation capacity today. We
believe coal must continue its important role in a new energy economy, while achieving high environmental standardss. We will invest billions to develop and
implement new, cleaner coal technology and to produce electric and hydrogen power." Electricity "The Federal Government is the largest single
consumer of energy in the world. We will cut the federal government's energy use and challenge local governments, corporations,
universities, small businesses and hospitals to do the same." Cleaner Air "We will strengthen the Clean Air Act, by controlling all of the
top pollutants and offering new flexibility to industries that commit to cleaning up within that framework. We will reduce mercury emissions,
smog and acid rain, and will address the challenge of climate change with the seriousness of purpose this great challenge demands. Rather than looking at American
industries only as polluters, we will work with the private sector to create partnerships that make a profit and a cleaner world for us all. At the same time, we will plug
Republican-created legal loopholes and renew public enforcement of the law." What does all this mean? In speaking to Kerry's staff, Kerry still wants to increase
CAFE, to 37 mpg for each car manufacturer. Currently, car manufacturers have to meet 27.5 mpg for cars and 20 mpg for light trucks.>
3
Alternative Energy = Popular with Republicans

Republicans support alternative energy
Putnam – Chairman of the House Republican Conference - 8 (Adam, 5-21-2008, “House Republicans Unveil Energy Plan,
Real Solutions for American Families”
http://www.gop.gov/c/journal_articles/view_article_content?groupId=1&articleId=1647&version=1.0
At a news conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol today, House Republicans unveiled our plan to deliver real energy solutions and lower gas prices
for Americans facing pain at the pump. Congressman Adam Putnam (R-FL), Chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued the following statement:
“Washington is broken, and it is no more apparent than on soaring energy and gas prices under the Democrat Congress.
“More than two years ago, Speaker Pelosi promised a ‘commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.’ Since Democrats took control of Congress, gas
prices have risen more than 60 percent and Americans are paying a hefty Pelosi Premium at the pump. This is not the change Democrats promised Americans, and it is
the not the change Americans deserve.
“The American people are hurting from a slowing economy, the housing crunch and rising costs of living. They are tired of waiting for the long-promised
‘commonsense plan’ to lower gas prices. They are impatient with a Democrat energy policy that is chock full of job-killing tax hikes, burdensome regulation and no
new American energy.
“Today, House Republicans unveiled an energy plan that offers meaningful solutions for American families. Through this agenda, we will increase production of
American-made energy – including next-generation oil, natural gas, clean-coal, renewable and alternative energies – while protecting our nation’s
natural resources. We will cut red tape and increase energy supplies by spurring the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, as many European nations
are doing. And we will make America more energy efficient by offering significant conservation tax breaks to Americans who invest in green technologies for their
home, car or business.
“The American people have had it with skyrocketing gas prices and a Democrat Congress that offers no meaningful solutions. Our House Republican plan
provides real solutions to produce American-made energy, help lower gas prices and make us more energy independent. That is the
change America deserves.”
4
Alternative Energy = Unpopular with Republicans
Democrats will try to pay for the plan by cutting oil and gas subsidies – the GOP will block it
Cohen, 08 (Stephanie, Market Watch, 2/19, “Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks”, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economy-
enery-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7B6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E33-2035F30E3050%7D)
Who's to blame
Solar and wind seem to have become the ugly stepchild to biofuels and ethanol, which have been the recipient of sizeable, long-term
federal subsidies over the past two years that are meant to ensure a market and profits for the industry for the next two decades.
Democrast repeatedly tried to extend these tax breaks last year as Republicans did in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These provisions
were subsequently extended through December 2008 in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.
Democrats insist these provisions must be paid for by an alternative source of revenue or what is known as "pay-as-you-go" budget
rules. The obvious pair up for Democrats: oil industry profits and the elimination of tax credits for the oil and natural gas industries.
Democratic leaders have targeted a manufacturing deduction granted to the oil and gas industry in 2005 at a time when the oil industry
is reporting record quarterly earnings and generates little sympathy among voters.
"The American taxpayer should not be subsidizing oil and gas companies during times of record profits and record prices at the
pump," said House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
But this is also the most contentious path to passage of alternative energy incentives. Republicans have repeatedly warned Democrats
that tying the fate of alternative energy tax breaks to the repeal of energy tax breaks for oil and natural gas developers ensures a
deadlock. Democrats are engaging in a take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor approach, a strategy that harms the renewable energy
sector the most, according to Christine Tezak, energy analyst and senior vice president of Stanford Group.
"The House Leadership's Robin Hood approach may have political dividends but it is 'expensive' in terms of negative investor
sentiment," Tezak said in a recent research note.
The GOP supports alternative energy only if it’s untied from the oil and gas manufacturing deductions
Cohen, 08 (Stephanie, Market Watch, 2/19, “Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks”, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economy-
enery-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7B6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E33-2035F30E3050%7D)
Republicans, many who say they support bolstering incentives for wind and solar, have nonetheless rejected recent Democratic
proposals and backed the White House's position against curtailing tax breaks. They say they support extending the tax credits if they
are disentangled from the manufacturing deduction. In August, the White House issued a statement saying the president will not sign
legislation that "would lead to less domestic oil and gas production, higher energy costs, and higher taxes."
"Repealing the manufacturing deduction for only the oil and gas industry is a targeted tax increase that puts U.S. industries at a
disadvantage to their foreign competitors," the White House said in a policy statement released last summer when Democrats tried to
advance the measures.
The manufacturing tax deduction was passed in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, and can be used by a number of
industries including major oil and gas producers. Democrats argue that freezing this deduction won't affect production or gasoline
prices in the immediate future.
Republicans won’t support alternative energy policies that don’t increase oil drilling
CQ 08 (Congressional Quarterly, “Stalled for Now, Climate Change Bill May Find Broader Support in Future”, June 6,
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002890955)
Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure, this doesn’t mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy
policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables may be, even an advocate such as
Alexander says the starting point has to be “exploring for more oil and gas. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project, you need to start
with more oil drilling.” And Cornyn, who hails from the nation’s chief oil state, backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and
wind power, but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. There’s a large consensus of people who think we
need to be good stewards of the environment. We all realize we can’t live on a petroleum-based economy indefinitely,” Cornyn said. “But the problem with
our friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution.” Still, Democrats see
promise in the new Republican renewables movement. “There’s greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy,” Bingaman
said. “We are hoping to be able to move ahead in that area. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been.” In the House, Adam H.
Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the “game-changers.” “The lines that
were drawn clearly about what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill — those are changing. Those old battle
lines aren’t necessarily true anymore,” he said.
5
Alternative Energy = Unpopular

Energy policy is controversial
Mayer, 7 – Money-in-politics reporter for Center for Responsive Politics (Lindsay Renick, PBS, “Big Oil Big Influence” 11-23-2007
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html )
<"I think [the new leadership] generally puts the issue on the agenda for legislative action. It puts it higher on the agenda. But it's
not clear Congress will
actually be able to do very much in terms of getting the votes for legislation, because energy policy in reality is very controversial and
often very expensive," Victor said. "That's something that both parties have a difficult time dealing with.">
* Victor is a law professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow on the Council for Foreign Relations.
6
Alternative Energy = Unpopular With Big Oil

Big Oil is strongly lobbying against alternative energy – the possibility of electric cars threatens profits
Independent News, 7 (Johann Hari “Big Oil’s Vendetta Against the Electric Car” 04-07-07 http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/07/377/) // DCM
General Motors (GM) had developed a prototype of an electric car with swelling consumer potential. It was a sleek, silver car that could drive at the same
speed as a fossil-fueled hunk of metal - only with no exhaust fumes and no carbon emissions. You simply plugged it in at night, like a mobile phone, and drove off in
the morning. The electricity costs the equivalent of 30p for a gallon’s worth of travel, as opposed to the £4 Brits pay at the petrol pump. But GM seemed
reluctant to push this extraordinary product onto the consumer market. So the California State Senate decided to give them a nudge. They passed
a law that said if you want to sell cars for California’s roads, a proportion of them have to be electric cars: 2 percent in 1998, 5 percent in
2001, and 10 percent in 2003. The state senators envisaged a day when electric cars would turn the old fossil fuel beasts into relics. They argued that since it took a law
to get seatbelts, airbags and catalytic converters into cars, we also need a law to get toxic fumes and surplus global warming gases out of the atmosphere.
The car companies were immediately and irreparably enraged. They began a two-pronged strategy: the most grudging and stuttering possible
compliance with the law, while lobbying fiercely alongside Big Oil to have the law scrapped. The first electric cars appeared on California’s
roads nonetheless, and a slew of celebrities like Tom Hanks, Ted Danson and Mel Gibson snapped them up and plugged them at every opportunity. But the people
working on selling the electric cars noted something odd: GM was deliberately underselling them. Chelsea Sexton, one of the company’s electric car
specialists, explains that the team had to fill in vast questionnaires for every customer, only for most to be inexplicably rejected: “I had to fill in a resume for Mel
Gibson listing his accomplishments and achievements, because they said he didn’t warrant a car.” Instead of marketing them with sexy women draped over the cars,
GM’s ads had odd opaque graphics and the voice of an elderly woman. Big Oil speedily joined this anti-advertising campaign. Exxon-Mobil followed its standard
operating practice of setting up fake consumer groups to spread disinformation about the products, saying they were bad for the environment. This corporate
coalition finally succeeded in repealing the law - and GM immediately called in all their electric cars and sent them to the scrap heap.
The drivers offered over $1.9m to keep the last remaining models - but the company preferred to destroy them. A bemused Sexton says, “There’s no precedent for a car
company rounding up every particular kind of car and crushing them, as if they’re afraid one will get away.” Their campaign almost complete, Chevron-Texaco came
in with a final blow. The biggest drawback to the electric car had been its limited range: one charge lasted around 60 miles, then the car stopped. So the distinguished
engineer Stan Ovshinsky created a battery that could run up to 300 miles at 70mph on a single charge - enough to get from London to Scotland, and make the car
extremely popular. The oil companies bought the technology. It has not been seen since. Why? Why would a string of corporations turn down cash and scrap a
potentially extremely profitable technology? Isn’t that contrary to everything we are taught about how market economies work? The oil companies had an
obvious interest in stopping an alternative to fossil fuels. There is $100 trillion of oil left in the earth, and they plan to mine it - even if
doing so will make the planet uninhabitable. Anything that could divert that cash away from them is a threat to be crushed.
7
Alternative Energy = Unpopular (AT: Turns)

No turns – contentious issues overwhelm general Congressional support, and it outweighs the effect of lobbies
Cohen, 08 (Stephanie, Market Watch, 2/19, “Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks”,
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economy-enery-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7B6E4B70B7-
B947-40A5-9E33-2035F30E3050%7D)
For years, lobbying groups have pleaded with Washington for long-term extensions of investment and
production tax credits that benefit solar, fuel cells, wind, geothermal and biomass energy sources only to see the
measures locked in a political drama that they say leaves alternative energy investors in a lurch. Groups like the
Solar Energy Industries Association and American Wind Energy Association say U.S. jobs are at stake.
Despite claims of support from both parties for increased funding for cleaner energy alternatives, Congress has
repeatedly squeaked out one-year extensions for the incentives only when they are about to expire. The efforts
to extend what most Americans seem to support -- increased incentives for alternative energy production -- has
proven to be divisive despite a general consensus on the policy.
8
Renewables = Bipart
There is bipartisan support for a shift to renewables
Whitman, 6 – President of the Whitman Strategy Group, a management consulting/strategic planning partnership servicing both government and business clients,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Bush, 50th Governor of the State of New Jersey (Christine, Hall Institue of Public Policy, “Open
Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government” 6-27-06 http://www.hallnj.org/cm/document_handler.jsp?dId=1000156) // DCM
With gasoline prices at record highs, Americans have a renewed interest in the development of more fuel-efficient cars. Majorities of
voters in both parties would like to see auto manufacturers create cars that use less fuel and produce less pollution. As such, the tax
credits for hybrid cars, recently signed into law by President Bush, received strong bipartisan support in the Congress. The policy was so forward-
looking and logical that it even received the enthusiastic support of the environmental lobby and the auto industry.
Similarly, representatives of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and
biomass fuels. Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment, but also promotes rural economic development and may lessen
the international trade gap. American innovation, in this case to improve the environment and stimulate economic growth, can always count on bipartisan support.
9
Renewables – Pelosi Supports

Pelosi supports increasing renewable use and efficiency
Pelosi 7, (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “Greening the Capitol”, 03-01-07, http://speaker.gov/issues?id=0023)
“Today we say that the Capitol will be not just a shining symbol of our democracy, but a symbol of our commitment to the future. Not
only by the power of our ideas on energy independence, but by the power of our example, we hope to send
a message to the world and to the country.”
- Speaker Pelosi, June 21, 2007Addressing global warming and protecting the environment are vital to protecting the health of all
Americans, particularly our children. For the sake of our future generations, America must provide strong leadership to reduce
emissions that are responsible for global warming. Increasing use of renewable energy sources, including biofuels, and energy
efficiency will help reduce emissions, protecting future generations from this global threat.
In less than a year, Green the Capitol efforts have made significant progress. The U.S. House of Representatives will be one of the
world's first "carbon neutral" legislative bodies. We are purchasing wind power, using natural gas at the Capitol Power Plant, and as
we phase in more carbon efficiencies, purchasing carbon offsets. We are re-lighting the Capitol dome with energy efficient lighting,
and our cafeterias have taken steps to green their processes and equipment, including composting all food waste. A new food pulper
reduces the weight of cafeteria waste by as much as 70 percent by extracting water from it. The House now sells only 100 percent
post-consumer recycled paper, and has installed compact flourescent lights. We are also encouraging green transportation with a bike
sharing program and a car sharing program for House employees.
Oil conservation on top of Nancy Pelosi’s agenda - she wants a shift to renewables
Gregory 7, (Mick Gregory, “Nancy Pelosi Punishes U.S. Oil Companies and Rewards OPEC — Including (Chavez) Citgo Oil.”, 01-
18-07,http://sadbastards.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/nancy-pelosi-punishes-us-oil-companies-and-rewards-hugo-chavezs-citgo-oil)
The Democrat-controlled House surged ahead without debate to roll back U.S. oil industry research incentives last Thursday in what
left-wing supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. Economists said the tax scheme would
reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports such as Citgo, the Venezuelan owned oil company.
The energy legislation was the last of six “high-priority” issues that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, from San Francisco had pledged to
push through during the first 100 hours of Democratic control. The bill passed by the new Democrat majority.
“This bill says foreign oil and foreign jobs are good,
American oil and American jobs are bad, and that is crazy,” said Rep. Kevin Brady, Republican representing The Woodlands, Texas.
10
Renewables = Unpopular with public

Renewable energy legislation is extremely unpopular with the public – citizens believe that their interests and economic needs
are not being accounted for
Nothstine, 8 -- Associate Editor at the Acton Institute, and Managing Editor of Religion & Liberty, B.A. in Political Science from The University of Mississippi in
Oxford, free-lance writer for Institute on Religion and Democracy, staff member for U.S. Congressman Gene Taylor (Ray, Action Institute, “Washington’s Unpopular
War on Energy” 06-18-2008 http://www.acton.org/commentary/459_washington_unpopular_war_on_energy.php) // DCM
Most Americans have little faith in the federal government to represent their interests. Who can blame them, when their fears are constantly
affirmed by Washington’s shenanigans? According to polls, presidential and congressional approval ratings are hovering around an all time low. Just 17 percent of
American voters believe the federal government represents the will of the people.
That this skepticism is well placed is bad news for citizens who are looking to Washington to solve the problem of rising fuel and energy prices. It’s even more dire
news for Americans on fixed and limited incomes.
With energy prices already skyrocketing, federal lawmakers wreaked more havoc by trying to pass heavy-handed regulatory
legislation known simply as “cap and trade.” The legislation would impose stringent emission limits on energy and manufacturing industries. At the same
time, many environmentalists admit that the legislation would have little to no impact on climate change. However, the bill would greatly increase hidden
taxes and costs on consumers. The poor and middle class would be hardest hit.
The religious left and even some evangelicals are supportive of the legislation, rallying around a supposed “green” policy at the expense of the economically
marginalized. With their support come odd statements like this one from the Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Climate Initiative, “We agree that a cap-and-trade policy
will spur innovation and will create new markets.” But even many expert economists who support cap and trade admit that it will have a negative effect on the
economy.
11
Low carbon policies = Popular with Republicans

Low carbon policies popular with republicans – they recognize need for environmental policies
Last week the Senate took up a sweeping climate change bill in what many hoped would be a historic debate. But it ended up fizzling quickly, and now any
efforts at comprehensive global warming legislation will likely be shelved until next year. Progress on the legislation (S 3036) was thwarted by partisan sniping
and procedural maneuvers. Still, there was evidence of widening bipartisan consensus on key points of energy proposals that are
likely to resurface in the new administration. The debate over the climate change bill demonstrated that most Republicans aren’t yet ready to vote
for a bill that would fundamentally transform the economy by putting a price on fossil fuel emissions. But last week’s debate saw even diehard oil-
and coal-state Republicans publicly acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need to transition to a low-carbon
economy. It also highlighted a shift that is already taking place in Congress, as more Republicans support major incentives for
low-carbon and renewable-energy technologies. “It wasn’t that long ago that if you were a Republican, you were looked at strangely if you talked
about conservation, about these energy alternatives,” said Ryan Loskarn, communications director for the Senate Republican Conference. “In the past,
Republicans have been vocal mainly on more drilling. But there’s been a perceptible shift in the mood of the party.” In speech
after speech, GOP lawmakers called for more funding and research into solar, wind and geothermal power; plug-in hybrid cars;
and carbon sequestration. While some Republicans have in the past voted for renewable-power incentives that could help their home-state industries,
now party leaders are getting out in front of the issue and seeking to define it as their own. New World Order As the climate change debate kicked off last
week, the heads of the Senate Republican Conference, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas, hosted a forum on the need for what
Alexander likes to tout as a “new Manhattan Project”: a policy centered on research and development of a raft of low-carbon energy initiatives, from plug-in
cars to green buildings. “We need a crash program for carbon recapture and solar. We stand ready for an agenda for more clean
energy, and we have the moment to marshal bipartisan support on this,” Alexander said. He said he’d like to see the heads of the Senate
Energy Committee, Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., and Pete V. Domenici , R-N.M., work with the National Academy of Sciences to determine the top alternative
energy priorities, “and then say, ‘What should we do in Congress to put that on the fastest track possible?’ ” Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure, this doesn’t
mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. As passionate as the newfound GOP
support for renewables may be, even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be “exploring for more oil and gas. When you talk about a
new Manhattan Project, you need to start with more oil drilling.” And Cornyn, who hails from the nation’s chief oil state, backs initiatives that would seek to
boost solar and wind power, but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. There’s a large consensus of people who think we need
to be good stewards of the environment. We all realize we can’t live on a petroleum-based economy indefinitely,” Cornyn said. “But the problem with our
friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution.” Still, Democrats see promise in the new Republican
renewables movement. “There’s greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy,” Bingaman said. “We are hoping to be able to
move ahead in that area. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been.” In the House, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the
House Republican Conference, said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the “game-changers.” “The lines that were drawn clearly about
what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill — those are changing. Those old
battle lines aren’t necessarily true anymore,” he said.
12
Oil Shales = Popular

Republicans support tapping into oil shale resources to help make the U.S. energy independent.
http://www.gop.gov/c/journal_articles/view_article_content?groupId=1&articleId=1647&version=1.0) // THK
How Republican Solutions Will Fix It:

Meeting Our Energy Needs with American Made Energy.
The comprehensive House Republican plan will fund research and development of technologies and innovations which advance the use of
renewable and domestically available energy sources, increase energy efficiency, and ease the environmental impacts of energy use.1) Increasing the
Production of American-Made Energy in an Environmentally-Safe Way
a. Support actions that reduce America’s dependence on energy from unstable foreign governments and dictatorships by increasing environmentally-safe production of
oil and natural gas in areas such as the arctic coastal plain and in deep ocean energy resources; and
b. Promote unconventional fuels such as coal-to-liquids technology and recovering our vast oil shale reserves by: Increasing access for
environmentally responsible development of conventional and unconventional domestic oil and natural gas production; Providing
coal-to-liquids financing and tax incentives; Advancing the commercialization of the nation’s two trillion barrel shale oil resource, 80
percent of which occurs on government-owned land in the West. This is enough to supply all of America’s needs for over two
centuries.
13
Climate Change Laws = Popular

Big businesses advocate climate change laws: it allows them to capitalize on a new industry.
WSJ, 08 (Keith Johnson, “Pay Me: CEOs Tell G-8 Diplomats to Get Green Subsidies Flowing,” 6-20-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/20/pay-
me-ceos-tell-g-8-diplomats-to-get-green-subsidies-flowing) // THK
<If politicians can’t come up with a global climate-change strategy, world business leaders are ready to goose them into action—
because they stand to gain from it. CEOs from 99 of the world’s biggest companies—representing about 10% of global market
capitalization—urged G-8 countries to take ambitious action to fight climate change, including curbing global greenhouse-gas emissions by
50% mid 2050. That’s the first time that many high-profile international business leaders have called for concrete action on climate change. In the U.S., about 30
big corporations in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership have been clamoring for the government to fight global warming. That’s partly
so they’ll have a hand in designing regulations many already see as inevitable, and partly to juice their own businesses, like clean-
technology. >
14
Incentives = Bipart
Bipartisan support for incentives exist
The Democratic Congress has made clean energy legislation a priority because of rising gas prices and concerns about the nation's dependence on
foreign oil sources, in addition to a scientific consensus that human activity is the root cause of today's global warming. Many Republicans, too, are on board
and looking for solutions. "The single most important thing that's happened in the last five years is the price of oil has shot up,"
Stanford's David Victor says. "That run-up has changed the politics and incentives for people to take an interest in conservation, and that's
completely bipartisan. There are people in the left wing and the right wing that say we need to do something about this problem."
* Victor is a law professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow on the Council for Foreign Relations.
15
Tax Incentives = Popular

Republicans support conservation tax incentives.
http://www.gop.gov/c/journal_articles/view_article_content?groupId=1&articleId=1647&version=1.0) // THK
How Republican Solutions Will Fix It: Meeting Our Energy Needs with American Made Energy. The comprehensive House Republican
plan will fund research and development of technologies and innovations which advance the use of renewable and domestically available energy sources, increase
energy efficiency, and ease the environmental impacts of energy use.1) Increasing the Production of American-Made Energy in an
Environmentally-Safe Way a. Support actions that reduce America’s dependence on energy from unstable foreign governments and dictatorships by increasing
environmentally-safe production of oil and natural gas in areas such as the arctic coastal plain and in deep ocean energy resources; and b. Promote unconventional fuels
such as coal-to-liquids technology and recovering our vast oil shale reserves by: Increasing access for environmentally responsible development of conventional and
unconventional domestic oil and natural gas production; Providing coal-to-liquids financing and tax incentives; Advancing the commercialization of the nation’s two
trillion barrel shale oil resource, 80 percent of which occurs on government-owned land in the West. This is enough to supply all of America’s needs for over two
centuries. 2) Promoting New, Clean, and Reliable Sources of Energy
a. Encourage more production of environmentally-safe energy to increase the use of our vast domestic supply, reduce emissions, and keep coal-dependent communities
strong; and b. Expand emissions-free nuclear power, including long term nuclear waste storage solutions and recycling spent fuel by: Providing production and
investment tax credits for all new base-load electricity projects such as advanced nuclear power and clean coal; and Allowing immediate expensing for new renewable
or zero emission power. 3) Cutting Red Tape and Increasing the Supply of American-Made Fuel and Energy a. Expedite permitting for
enhanced oil recovery projects, including CO2 delivery and injection, as well as permitting for new refining capacity;
b. Improve environmental review and permitting to encourage the deployment of technologies which increase the efficiency of existing power plants; and
c. End ill-advised policies that have led to the proliferation of unique gasoline and diesel fuel formulations known as “boutique fuels,” which have fragmented our
motor fuels distribution system, choked off supply, and exacerbated the already-painful Pelosi Premium. 4) Encouraging Greater Energy Efficiency by
Offering Conservation Tax Incentives a. Support technologies to help increase energy efficiency in all sectors of the American economy, including
removing bureaucratic regulatory barriers that prevent businesses from upgrading their facilities with newer, more efficient energy technologies, by: Making home
energy efficiency upgrades tax deductable; Providing incentives for home builders and homeowners to make their homes more energy
efficient; Offering investment expensing for industrial and commercial building efficiency upgrades; Extending the residential and
business solar and fuel cell investment tax credits, with enhancements to the residential solar credit ($2,000 per ∏ kw installed); Extending
the fiber-optic distributed sunlight investment tax credit; and Increasing the energy efficiency of government-owned buildings.
16
Tax Incentives = Popular

Tax incentives for renewable energy will appease the AWEA
NAW,8 (National American Wind Power, “AWEA encourages Congress To Take Further Action,” 6-11-08,
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.2395)// SV
Following the failure of the U.S. Senate on June 10 to surmount a filibuster on the House tax extender package that included a one-
year extension of the production tax credit (PTC), the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the national trade association for the American wind
industry, urged congressional leaders to find another way to extend tax incentives for renewable energy.
"With 116,000 jobs and nearly $19 billion in investment at risk in the renewable energy industries, the U.S. Senate today again failed to secure the votes
needed to extend tax credits for the wind and solar industries, frustrating the desire of millions of Americans across the political
spectrum,” says Gregory Wetstone, senior director of governmental and public affairs for AWEA.
"Renewable energy like wind power can lower home energy bills, strengthen our energy security, create new manufacturing jobs and,
perhaps most importantly, reduce global warming pollution even as we meet growing electricity demand."
17
Tax Incentives = Pelosi Supports

Pelosi pushes for tax breaks
Geoff 7, (Geoff Hand, “House Dems Push for RPS and Renewable Energy Tax Package; Energy Bill Showdown Expected in Senate;
Veto Looms, 12-05-07,http://renewableenergylaw.blogspot.com/2007/12/house-dems-push-for-rps-and-renewable.html)
House Dems Push for RPS and Renewable Energy Tax Package; Energy Bill Showdown Expected in Senate; Veto Looms
It's time to install wind turbines in the halls of Congress; you could power several thousand homes with the hot air blowing out of
Washington this week on the federal energy bill, and things are only starting to heat-up.
Just when it looked like the House had abandoned plans for a federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and an important renewable
energy tax package, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that both measures will be included in the final bill. According to the AP:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to push ahead with a $21 billion tax package, including repeal of tax breaks for major oil
companies, as part of an energy bill, aides to the speaker said Tuesday. Democratic leaders circulated a summary of the legislation that
includes the new taxes as well as a requirement for a 40 percent
increase in automobile fuel efficiency, a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel, and a mandate for utilities to use
renewable fuels.
Nancy Pelosi pushes for a tax package

CSACAE 7, (Josef Herbert, “Pelosi targets oil firms in energy push”, 12-07,http://agriconenergy.blogspot.com/2007/12/pelosis-plan-
to-tank-us-economy.html)
WASHINGTON - Defying a threat of a presidential veto, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to push ahead with a $21 billion tax
package, including repeal of tax breaks for major oil companies, as part of an energy bill, aides to the speaker said Tuesday.
Democratic leaders circulated a summary of the legislation that includes the new taxes as well as a requirement for a 40 percent
increase in automobile fuel efficiency, a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel, and a mandate for utilities to use
renewable fuels.
Republicans earlier this year blocked Senate attempts to pass new energy taxes, contending they would hinder domestic oil and gas
production. Democratic supporters of the taxes said.
18
Tax Incentives = Unpopular With Republicans

Republicans are opposed to tax incentives for renewables
Grist News 08 (“No renewal for renewables”, June 10, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/10/11530/1857)
The second bill, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, was the Senate partner to the tax-extenders legislation that passed in the House last
month. The $54 billion package would have extended tax breaks for renewable energy that are set to expire at the end of this year. It includes a six-year
extension of the investment tax credit for solar energy; a three-year extension of the production tax credit for biomass,
geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas, and solid waste; and a one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind energy.
The bill also has incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and cellulosic biofuels, incentives for
companies that produce energy-efficient products, and incentives to improve efficiency in commercial and residential
buildings. Funding for the tax credits would come from closing loopholes for hedge-fund managers and multinational corporations. Republicans Smith,
Snowe, and Bob Corker (Tenn.) voted in favor of cloture on the bill, as did all of the Democrats present for the vote. The tax-
break extensions have stalled in the Senate several times before, and folks in the renewables industry are starting to get nervous
as we near the expiration of those credits at the end of this year. “More than ever, with record energy prices, record unemployment, and grave
concerns about global warming, Congress needs to work out differences so we can stabilize energy costs for consumers and businesses, improve our nation’s
energy security, and create tens of thousands of quality, green-collar jobs,” said Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch following the vote.
Green groups rushed to chastise GOP leaders for the obstruction. “By once again blocking efforts to extend these crucial clean
energy tax incentives that are in danger of expiring, this minority is responsible for kicking the economy while it’s down,” said
Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope in a written statement. “Jobs are already being lost in the renewable-energy industry and at least 100,000 more could
disappear unless Congress acts to immediately renew these tax incentives.”
Democrats support renewable tax breaks – the GOP opposes

Cohen, 08 (Stephanie, Market Watch, 2/19, “Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks”,
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economy-enery-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7B6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E33-
2035F30E3050%7D)
Democratic leaders in Congress think so and have been trying to move a block of renewable energy tax breaks through Congress for a
year. Democratic leaders attempted earlier this month attach $5.5 billion in tax breaks for renewable energy to a $168 billion economic
stimulus package.
Democrats pushed Republicans to accept the extension of energy tax breaks or deny tax rebates for millions of Americans. But
Republicans blocked this effort and the stimulus package was signed by President Bush without the energy provisions.
Now the House is considering an $18 billion package of energy tax incentives, the latest effort by Democrats to boost the renewable
energy sector.
19
Net Metering = Unpopular

Large industries oppose net metering: it’s a threat to revenue.
UPI, 6 (United Press International, 11-17-2008, EcoEarth.Info News Archive, Kristyn Ecochard, “Will federal law help net-
metering goals?,”
http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=63863&keybold=renewable%20energy%20microgeneration
Some utility companies don't like the idea of private production of energy and see net-metering as a threat to revenue. Dworkin said
he believes utilities also have a sense of responsibility that they are hesitant to let go of. The cost is also a concern. The NNEC and its supporters
suggest that with or without net-metering there will be a cost, either to upgrade overloaded grids or develop individual power generation, that everyone will have to pay
for at some point. "Energy is going to cost something no matter what," emphasized Rep. James Covey, D-Okla. Another issue is the lack of consistency
among programs. States have ultimately taken the responsibility on themselves. If the federal government set standards, then there could be a "level
playing field," he said. Given the recent shift in congressional power and, for the first time, some consensus between parties that the United States is nearing an
energy crisis, some of the stalled legislation may be passed.
20
Loan Guarantees – Bush Supports

Bush is already pushing for loan guarantees
CQ 07 (Congressional Quarterly, “Concerns Grow Over Funding Energy Projects”, April 16, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002490558)
The last time the Energy Department put up taxpayer dollars to commercialize a major energy venture in the name of national security, it wound up owning a
coal-gasification plant in North Dakota.
Billed as a way to promote energy independence after the 1970s oil crisis, the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, near Beulah, is a lesson in what happens when
federal loan guarantees go wrong. The government assumed ownership after energy prices crashed in 1985. It sold the facility three years later and remains
$330 million in the red today — despite an ongoing revenue-sharing agreement with the current owner. Two decades later, buffeted by renewed
concern over oil imports and the threat of global warming, the government again is aiming to nudge the energy industry in a
new direction with billions of dollars in loan guarantees for advanced technologies. In the next fiscal year, the Bush
administration wants Congress to more than double the amount of money authorized for such guarantees.
Sensing opportunity, lenders and business executives are angling not only for bigger and better loan guarantees but also for
subsidies, tax incentives and, in some cases, outright price supports. Concerns are growing, however, that Congress and the Bush
administration might inadvertently endorse technologies that are bound to fail 10 years down the line.
Some experts fear that expensive new technologies won’t be able to compete with conventional energy, creating a long-term drain on the Treasury as
lawmakers prop them up with subsidies and incentives. Fossil fuels are cheaper, partially because their prices do not include associated environmental or
security costs.
“The dream is that green power will turn out to be so cheap that it will actually beat out fossil fuels, but that is not realistic over the next decade,” said Severin
Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute. If the fundamental economics don’t change, he said, government assistance for
alternative-energy production is “headed towards failure.”
The loan-guarantee program authorized in the 2005 energy law (PL 109-58) has attracted huge interest, with 143 applicants
requesting more than $27 billion in guarantees, according to the Energy Department. The law did not specify a funding level for the loan
program, but Congress authorized the department to guarantee up to $4 billion in loans in fiscal 2007 (PL 110-5).
The administration has requested authority for $9 billion in fiscal 2008, and some lawmakers are pushing for more.
21
RPS = Bipart
Widespread support for RPS – environmental lobbies and bipartisan
CQ 07 (“Senate Democrats See Opening for Renewable Standard”, May 25, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747)
Key Senate Democrats, believing the politics have shifted in their favor, are renewing their effort to require electric utilities to
produce more power from renewable sources such as wind and solar. Such measures have passed the Senate three times in years past but died in a
GOP-controlled House. Now that the Democrats are running the House, and fears about dependence on foreign oil and global warming are foremost in many
minds, Senate leaders like Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., think the timing might finally be right. Supporters say a national “renewable
portfolio standard” requiring 10 percent to 20 percent of electricity to be produced from renewables could go far toward
lessening U.S. fossil fuel dependence. Less than 5 percent of the nation’s electricity now comes from renewable sources other than hydroelectricity.
Twenty-two states have enacted renewable standards. On Thursday, a diverse group of 186 signatories — including some of the biggest
names in industry, manufacturing and electric utilities, along with environmental groups — sent a letter to congressional
leaders urging passage of a national renewable portfolio standard. “It’s the broadest ever, it’s the biggest ever” range of support
seen for pushing the renewable standard, said Bingaman spokesman Bill Wicker of the spectrum of signatories, which includes General Electric, BP
America, Google and the Edison Electric Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities. Wicker called the effort “a very powerful
endorsement” that could go far toward persuading lawmakers to support a renewable electricity standard. The Boucher Argument
But there will be at least one big hurdle: While many House Democrats, including Energy Committee Chairman John D. Dingell of Michigan, are on record
supporting a renewable standard, one key player strongly opposes it. Democrat Rick Boucher , who hails from coal-rich southwest Virginia, has consistently
opposed a renewable electricity standard. Boucher also heads the House Energy subcommittee charged with crafting energy and climate change legislation, and
he says that right now he has no intention of including a renewable portfolio standard in an energy bill his panel is preparing for the floor by early July.
Boucher traditionally has fought any measure that could threaten his district’s coal industry or raise electricity prices. This fall, Boucher plans to introduce
legislation aimed at curbing global warming with a mandate to cut carbon emissions — a tough pill to swallow for any industry. That bill will take top priority,
and adding the pressure of renewable energy sourcing on top of it could be too much for the utilities and ratepayers to take, Boucher says. “The counter-
argument is that, at a time when we’re planning to have a mandatory control program for greenhouse gases, there is little reason to also have a requirement that
a certain percentage of fuels for electricity generation come from renewable sources,” Boucher said. He acknowledged that a colleague could very well
propose a renewable standard provision during the crafting of the upcoming energy and climate change bills, and anticipates “a spirited argument” if it does
come up. Boucher added that his new role as subcommittee chairman requires him to consider policy advantages beyond the reaches of his district — so he
shied away from an absolute “no” to the proposal. “Historically I have opposed the RPS provision. I think the arguments against it are strong. But I am for the
moment going to withhold judgment,” Boucher said. And of course, if such a provision is not part of the energy package his committee assembles, it could be
added later as an amendment during debate on the House floor. Then control of the issue would be in the hands of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., who
“believes that we need to increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewables in the United States above where we are today,” according to a Pelosi
aide. In an e-mail, the aide wrote that Pelosi “supports incorporating more renewables into our nation’s energy mix, whether it is through use in fuels for our
cars or electricity for our homes and businesses.” Bingaman’s Approach Bingaman wants his renewables proposal to be passed as an amendment to a major
Senate energy package (S 1419). When debate begins on that measure in early June, Bingaman will have at the ready an amendment to require
major utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Bingaman’s staff say they anticipate
bipartisan passage of the proposal. Fifty senators, including Democratic leaders and four Republicans, have signed a letter
calling for a strong renewable portfolio standard. Wicker said Bingaman’s staff feels “optimistic” about the proposal’s chances on the House floor
if it passes the Senate, despite the potential opposition from Boucher. “As it’s never had a full airing on the House side, we’re confident as
more members learn about the benefits, support will continue to build, and they’ll vote for passage,” Wicker said
22
RPS = Bipart
There is bipartisan support for renewable energy standards
Platts Coal Outlet, 7 (“House supports mandatory 25% renewable energy standard” October 22, 2007, pg. 12, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
The House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution last week stating that 25% of US energy should come from
renewable sources by 2025. Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, Collin Peterson, Democrat-Minnesota, and its
senior Republican, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, led the floor debate for the bipartisan measure. Peterson said that renewable
energy is "the new face of energy security" and that all forms of renewable energy, most notably in transportation fuels and power
generation, can benefit "from the expertise farmers and ranchers have in land management." "We have a tremendous opportunity in rural
America and agriculture," he said. "This resolution is a very important first step in achieving energy independence." "We should now focus on policy that will
focus on commercial cellulosic ethanol," Goodlatte said, adding that power production from waste biomass is very promising. Committee staff said that the
resolution was a "stand-alone measure" and will not be included in either the House energy bill or the House farm bill. The House and Senate are working
toward an energy bill conference while the Senate Agriculture Committee will begin mark-ups on its bill this week.
RPS has bipartisan support

LCV 07 (League Of Conservation Voters, “A Bipartisan Call for Clean Energy In Congressional Energy Bill”, July 25, http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-
releases/page.jsp?itemID=35046292)
WASHINGTON, DC – A bipartisan group of congressional environmental champions joined conservation groups today to call for
clean energy provisions as part of the Congressional energy package that will be sent to the President. Reps. Wayne Gilchrest
(R-MD), Paul Hodes (D-NH), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), Todd Platts (R-PA), Mark Udall (D-CO) and Tom Udall
(D-NM) said they will work to ensure that a strong 35 mile per gallon fuel economy standard and renewable electricity standard are
included in the final bill. The Renewable Electricity Standard (H.R. 969) is sponsored by Reps. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Todd Platts (R-PA), and the Fuel
Economy Reform Act (H.R. 1506) is sponsored by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Todd Platts (R-PA). “Not since I first came to Congress over 30
years ago has America seen such high gas prices and the political will to move forward on fuel economy standards,” said Rep. Edward
Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “We need to ensure a strong 35 mile per gallon standard
joins a renewable electricity standard in the final bill that heads to the President.” Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) said, “Energy is an economic, environmental, and
national security issue. Higher fuel efficiency standards for cars, a renewable energy standard for electricity, and similar initiatives are important to saving
consumers money, conserving our resources and protecting the environment, and lessening our dependence on foreign oil.” The House
energy bill includes important clean energy and energy efficiency measures, and the Senate has passed legislation that calls for an increase
in fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon. The final congressional energy package could be further strengthened by adding provisions to increase renewable
electricity and preserve a strong 35 mpg fuel efficiency standard. Twenty three states and the District have already passed a Renewable
Electricity Standard (RES), also called a renewable portfolio standard or RPS, which would require utilities to gradually increase the
amount of renewable energy they use to generate electricity each year. It creates a market-based mechanism of tradable renewable energy credits – similar to
the Clean Air Act trading system – allowing utilities to meet the requirements at the lowest cost.
23
RPS = Popular with Environmental Lobbies

RPS has environmental lobbies support
That’s also where supporters of the measure think lobbying from interest groups will come in. The director of the Blue Green Alliance, an
initiative of the United Steel Workers and the Sierra Club, said its members view the renewable portfolio standard as a way to
boost jobs and help the environment. “Up and down the line we can see that embracing the clean energy economy is going to be the growth engine of
jobs of the future, particularly in the Midwestern industrial economy,” said alliance director David Foster. Advocates working the House for support
say they feel optimistic because so many states already have passed similar standards. “Often these things start with the states
and build up and come to a head. My expectations are very high that this will be the year Congress passes RPS, with the
confluence of so many groups and states supporting it,” Foster said. Anna Aurelio of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group added, “More
than 219 House members come from states with RPS standards, so we think we could get some real excitement from the
House.”
24
RPS Unpopular - Congress

RPS is unpopular in congress
Star Telegram 7-1

(Jim Duncan, "Texas' bias against solar", 7-1-08 http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/733173.html)
The council did its best to downplay the substantial role renewable energy must play. The council’s repudiation of the potential for solar electric power growth was, no
doubt, enhanced by the spectacular success of the wind energy industry in Texas.
The Legislature’s repeated refusal to increase the Renewable Portfolio Standard for mandatory utility purchases of renewable power is
paralleled by the Congress’ refusal to renew national incentives promoting the growth of renewables.
Coal and natural gas lobbyists, and the legislators they influence at all levels of governance, cannot help but acknowledge the potential
for explosive growth of renewable energy and are working desperately to stop it.
With residential and commercial electric bills reflecting carbon-based kilowatt-hour rates as high or higher than renewables, the " too expensive" excuse is no longer a
valid argument against solar.
Senate opposes RPS – raises energy prices

E & E News 07 (Environment and Energy News, “House Approves Energy Bill with modified RPS”, August 7, http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/06/house-
approves-energy-bill-with-modified-rps/)
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) — a lead Senate supporter of the electricity mandate — indicated after
the House vote that he will attempt to make that legislation a part of the Senate energy product. “I am pleased that the House adopted the Udall-Platts
amendment, making renewable electricity conferanceable,” Bingaman said in a statement. “I look forward to working with the House when we get together on
our bills this fall.” Yet Senate Energy Committee ranking member Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) attacked the House legislation and in
particular pointed to the electricity mandate and the tax package as potential stumbling blocks. “This RPS scheme continues to
have significant opposition in the Senate and would be a major obstacle to final passage of this bill,” Domenici said. “The Senate
has passed much more reasonable legislation, while rejecting similar tax measures that would have resulted in higher prices.”
Other difficult issues are also on tap. The House scuttled a vote on boosting corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandate, but Democratic leaders there
said they would like to come out of conference with essentially the Senate language, which would boost CAFE to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Such a strategy
is likely to run into opposition not only from House Republicans but also key Democrats such as House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John
Dingell (D-Mich.). Moreover, the Senate energy bill dramatically expands the federal mandate for renewable fuels and creates a new mandate for the use of
cellulosic ethanol. No such language is in the House version, and Dingell has insisted these issues should wait until his committee develops an energy/climate
change bill in the fall. Further complicating the picture is a White House that had remained relatively quiet during much of debate but now appears to be
digging in against the legislation. Shortly after the House approved the two bills, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman again reiterated a veto threat. “The bills
will actually lead to less domestic oil and gas production and increased dependence on imported oil,” Bodman said. “Because [the bills] fail to deliver
American consumers or businesses more energy security, but rather would lead to higher energy costs and higher taxes, the president’s senior advisors would
recommend that he veto these bills.”
RPS faces is opposed by congress and Bush – expensive and state action is better
ENS 05 (Environment News Service, “Senate Approves National Renewable Energy Standard”, June 17, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-17-
10.asp)
WASHINGTON, DC, June 17, 2005 (ENS) - The U.S. Senate on Thursday narrowly approved a five-fold increase in renewable energy production and moved
closer to finalizing its version of a comprehensive energy plan. But the inclusion of a renewable portfolio standard in the Senate energy bill
is at odds with the positions of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Bush administration, and could prove another
stumbling block for lawmakers eager to finally pass a national energy plan. Wind turbines at Buffalo Ridge near Lake Benton, Minnesota
(Photo by Jerry Miller courtesy Northern States Power) The measure, which passed 52-48, mandates 10 percent of U.S. electricity be
generated from renewable energy sources by 2020. It allows electric utilities to trade renewable energy credits in order to help the entire sector
meet the goal. Proponents say it would result in enough renewable energy by 2025 to power 56 million homes and note that currently only two percent of the
nation’s electricity is produced by renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. "That is a paltry sum," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a
Nevada Democrat. Eight Republicans supported the measure, but not John McCain of Arizona, who is the co-author of a climate stewardship bill pending
before the Senate. Only two Democrats voted in opposition. Critics of the provision said it is unrealistic and expensive. The standard could
cost utilities – and consumers – some $18 billion, said Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss. "It imposes a one-size fits all
mandate on the whole country without regard for whether the requirement is technologically or economically feasible,"
Chambliss said. But the amendment’s coauthor, New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman, said the $18 billion in estimated costs for the electric utility industry
would be more than offset by lower spending on natural gas. The measure will have a "negligible cost to consumers," Bingaman said.
25
RPS Unpopular - Democrats

Influential Democrats oppose renewable energy standards
<So far Congresshas been slow to push through comprehensive energy legislation, in part because issues related to renewable energy
standards and fuel efficiency standards differ by region, rather than political party, which means not all democrats are on board, says Frank
O'Donnell, president of the environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch. "Some of the southern-based coal burning power
companies have killed or delayed efforts to set a renewable energy requirement for electric companies. Michigan Reps. and others
influenced by the car industry have also managed to put off any kind of tougher requirements for fuel economy." O'Donnell says. "John
Dingell is a democrat but doesn't see eye to eye with [Speaker of the House] Nancy Pelosi in some of these issues and so far you've seen somewhat of a
stalemate."
Dingell has consistently defended the auto industry, which is fighting against stricter fuel economy standards. These standards have not been
changed since the 1980s. The auto industry is a major player in Dingell's home state of Michigan, which relies heavily on the industry for jobs and is the corporate
home of General Motors, Ford and the domestic division of DaimlerChrysler. Among all members of Congress, Dingell has received the second most in contributions
from the auto industry at $869,200, just behind Republican Spencer Abraham, a former Michigan senator. The industry has been one of Dingell's largest contributors
during his career—second only to electric utilities.>
26
RPS = Unpopular - Boucher

RPS unpop with Boucher – key democrat
But there will be at least one big hurdle: While many House Democrats, including Energy Committee Chairman John D. Dingell of Michigan, are on
record supporting a renewable standard, one key player strongly opposes it. Democrat Rick Boucher , who hails from coal-rich southwest
Virginia, has consistently opposed a renewable electricity standard. Boucher also heads the House Energy subcommittee charged
with crafting energy and climate change legislation, and he says that right now he has no intention of including a renewable
portfolio standard in an energy bill his panel is preparing for the floor by early July. Boucher traditionally has fought any measure that
could threaten his district’s coal industry or raise electricity prices. This fall, Boucher plans to introduce legislation aimed at
curbing global warming with a mandate to cut carbon emissions — a tough pill to swallow for any industry. That bill will take top
priority, and adding the pressure of renewable energy sourcing on top of it could be too much for the utilities and ratepayers to
take, Boucher says. “The counter-argument is that, at a time when we’re planning to have a mandatory control program for greenhouse gases, there is little
reason to also have a requirement that a certain percentage of fuels for electricity generation come from renewable sources,” Boucher said. He acknowledged
that a colleague could very well propose a renewable standard provision during the crafting of the upcoming energy and climate change bills, and anticipates “a
spirited argument” if it does come up. Boucher added that his new role as subcommittee chairman requires him to consider policy advantages beyond the
reaches of his district — so he shied away from an absolute “no” to the proposal. “Historically I have opposed the RPS provision. I think the
arguments against it are strong. But I am for the moment going to withhold judgment,” Boucher said. And of course, if such a provision is not part of
the energy package his committee assembles, it could be added later as an amendment during debate on the House floor. Then control of the issue would be in
the hands of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., who “believes that we need to increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewables in the United
States above where we are today,” according to a Pelosi aide. In an e-mail, the aide wrote that Pelosi “supports incorporating more renewables into our nation’s
energy mix, whether it is through use in fuels for our cars or electricity for our homes and businesses.”
27
RPS Unpopular - Domenici

Domenici opposes RPS because it penalizes resource-less states
U.S.News, 7 (Bret Schulte, 11-15-2007, “More on the Energy Bill,”

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070806/6energy.htm?) // THK
Sen. PeteDomenici, who leads the Republican delegation, is a staunch opponent of the renewable electricity standard, arguing that it
unfairly penalizes states without adequate renewable energy resources, like wind. Indeed, public utility commissions from nine
southeastern states have written letters to Senate leaders, arguing that the mandate, which fines utilities for failure to meet the renewable standard,
would only serve to increase energy prices for consumers.
RPS is unpopular with Domenici – increase in energy prices

CQ 07 (Congressional Quarterly, “Recess Deal Sets Up Energy Bill Vote”, December 1, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002634671)
The electricity provision would require power companies to generate 15 percent from renewables such as solar and wind by
2020, according to a statement by Edward J. Markey , D-Mass. The same mandate was proposed in a House energy bill (HR 3221) passed in August. The
move drew a sharp rebuke from New Mexico’s Pete V. Domenici , the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. “The inclusion of a costly, ineffective Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) will make this bill untenable
for many in the Senate,” he said in a statement Saturday. “RPS places an unfair burden on states that lack the natural resources to meet
a new renewable electricity standard. Consumers that live in such states — many in the South — will undoubtedly be forced to pay
substantially higher electricity rates, with no additional renewable electricity to show for it.” Domenici said it appeared Pelosi
“has gone back on her word and chosen to go her own path on the energy bill.”
28
RPS Unpopular - Bush

White house opposes RPS – think state action is better
White House Opposition But even if those groups secure House passage, a final battle looms with the White House, which historically has
opposed a national renewable electricity standard — though it has never gone so far as to threaten a veto, Wicker said. The White House
contends that no national standard is needed, and that states can create their own renewable regulations. On Wednesday, an Energy
Department spokeswoman, Julie Ruggiero, wrote in an e-mail, “Traditionally, we have opposed a national renewable portfolio standard due
to the fact that each state has very different renewable resources and can utilize renewable energy in different ways. A one-size-
fits-all approach will not allow us to best maximize each state’s resources.” But Senate Democrats and their allies are betting that a national
standard might even make it past President Bush, especially if it ultimately comes couched in a major piece of energy legislation with bipartisan blessing. “He
might not risk killing a whole energy package over just one provision,” Wicker said.
29
RPS = Unpopular with Industry Lobbies

Multiple industries are lobbying against RPS
Parker 07 (Sara, staff writer for Renewable Energy World, “National RPS to Include Coal & Nuclear?”, June 13,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48921)
But while Bingaman's RPS amendment is considered to be the most far-reaching energy bill likely to make it through congress
this session, it won't pass without opposition. "Undoubtedly, we will debate amendments that will bring out strong opinions, and we will have
some heated—yet honest—debates," said Senator Bingaman addressing Congress on Monday. "But I am confident that as long as we keep in mind our
shared goal—to work together and produce legislation that makes meaningful progress on securing America's energy future—the Senate will rise to the
occasion. The American people expect nothing less." Heavy opposition, however, is not coming solely from oil lobbyists as many in the
American public might assume, but the multi-billion dollar utility industry as well. Early last month, an article published on
RenewableEnergyAccess.com reported that the utility Southern Company openly opposed a National RPS—and was spending huge
sums of money lobbying against such legislation arguing that it would increase costs for it's 4.3 million customers in Alabama, Georgia, Florida
and Mississippi. "It's a bit of moving target," said Rubens, who noted Bingaman's amendment is expected to be filibustered after being
introduced. "The challenge will be overcoming the filibuster."
30
Cap and Trade – Bipartisan
Cap and Trade is gaining bipartisan support in congress

McCarthy, 8 (Shawn, The Globe and Mail, “Cap-and-Trade push grows in U.S.; Republicans vow to battle democrats on legislation;
higher oil sands costs loom” April 9, 2008, Lexis-Nexis Academic)
Momentum is building in the United States for adoption of a national cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it
won't come without a titanic fight.
Leading Democrats in Congress - with the support of some moderate Republicans - are expected to move quickly after the November
election to pass climate change legislation that would impose strict caps on carbon dioxide emissions and establish rules for a national
trading system for carbon credits.
31
Cap and Trade – Popular with Public
The public supports Cap and Trade

Opinion Research Corporation , 8 (Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
“Americans Support Cap-and-Trade Scheme” June 14, 2008, http://www.angus-
reid.com/polls/view/americans_support_cap_and_trade_scheme/)
Many adults in the United States would welcome a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce global warming, according to a poll by Opinion
Research Corporation released by CNN. 52 per cent of respondents support a proposal to have the government set a limit on the
amount of emissions that a company could produce each year, with companies being allowed to buy credits from those who pollute
less.
32
Cap and Trade – Republicans Oppose

Republicans oppose cap and trade
Glicksman, 8 – Professor of law at University of Kansas
(Robert, The Wichita Eagle, “Conservatives Flip-Flopped on Cap and Trade” June 28, 2008,
http://www.kansas.com/205/story/447780.html)
This month, the Senate debated such a bill, with bipartisan sponsorship by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.. The hue and cry against the bill from industry and its conservative allies in Congress was deafening.
Notably, their arguments against cap-and-trade echoed the ones they made about "command-and-control" approaches. Suddenly, the
market-based approach they'd championed in the past was a manifestation of economy-wrecking, "big government," tax-and-spend
liberalism.
The plain truth is that these critics will find something to attack no matter what form environmental protection legislation takes. They
are more concerned with protecting what they regard as the property "right" of polluters to make a profit by fouling our air, land and
water than they are with controlling polluting activities that threaten our health and destroy the environment.
33
Permits – Concession to Democrats
Emissions Trading would be a concession to democrats and moderate republicans

National Journal 11/13/04 l/n
The White House is pushing Congress to rewrite the Clean Air Act by adopting President Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative." His plan
would create an emissions-trading program to reduce power-plant emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide.
White House aides say, however, that the administration has no plans to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions linked to
global warming. During past debates, Democrats and moderate Republicans have pushed to include carbon dioxide in any
new emissions-trading program.
Emissions Trading would be a concession to democrats

National Journal 2/14/04 l/n
This administration's effort to rewrite the landmark act hasn't gotten far. Congressional Democrats and GOP moderates want the
emissions-trading plan to include carbon dioxide, which is widely linked to global warming. But Bush has steadfastly refused to
regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The only progress made on the bill so far came in June 2002, when the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee approved a version more palatable to environmentalists. Republicans killed that measure on the Senate floor.
Now GOP leaders concede that they don't have the votes to get Bush's original package through the Republican-controlled Senate.
34
Permits = Unpopular
Cap and trade scheme will face mass political opposition
Greenwire 5 / 16 / 03
Pew researchers considered several options for a domestic GHG reduction program. One option would address virtually all sources of U.S. carbon
dioxide emissions through an "upstream" cap-and-trade system, researchers said. Under such a program, fuel suppliers would be required to hold
emissions allowances equal to the amount of carbon in the fossil fuels they supply. Fuel suppliers would have to buy the allowances from the
government though an auction system, and companies could buy and sell allowances to meet their emissions targets. Because of its relative low
cost and potential environmental benefits, "this alternative may be the best one if it can be in place," wrote the report's authors, Robert Nordhaus and
Kyle Danish. The upstream cap and trade system would likely face tough political opposition, however, because it would drive up energy prices
for consumers. "Even in times of most compelling national circumstances, such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo, Congress was unwilling to use energy
price increases to rein in consumer demand," the report said.
Passage of emissions trading schemes requires political horsetrading

Hsu 01, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University School of Law
[Shi-Ling, “Reducing Emissions from the Electricity Generation Industry,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, Summer, 14 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 427, LN]
Can we finally reverse course and reduce emissions from the electricity generation industry? Even the incomplete lessons of the SO<2> cap-and-
trade program suggest that engaging certain members of the regulated industries can yield surprising successes. From a societal viewpoint, a cap-and-
trade program offers at least four distinct advantages: (1) it produces a market incentive to reduce emissions, (2) it stimulates innovation and
competition in methods of emissions reduction, (3) it allows emissions reductions to occur in the most cost-effective way, and (4) it provides a
mechanism for offsetting the competitive advantage to high-emitting firms that take advantage of the subsidy by also creating a valuable asset in the
hands of low-emitting firms. Even though economists have been touting these benefits for decades, passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,
which provided for SO<2> emissions trading under the Acid Rain Program was difficult and required a unique set of circumstances - the steadfast
commitment of a Republican president, the bipartisan support of key lawmakers and extensive horse-trading. n138 Prospects for the kind of
bipartisanship necessary for a comprehensive pollution control program appear quite slim in this divided Congress. A subsidy program thus plays
the perfect complementary role: it can be used to overcome [*457]opposition from electricity generation firms that have resisted cap-and-trade
programs because they feared that their stock of coal-fired power plants were a losing hand in a cap-and-trade program. These two policy
instruments need each other.
35
Biodiesel = Bipart
<Biodiesel is bipartisan- environment and the economy
Whitman 06 (Christine Todd Whitman, President of the Whitman Strategy Group, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 50th governor of
the State of New Jersey; Hall Institute of Public Policy; 6-27-06, http://www.hallnj.org/cm/document_handler.jsp?dId=1000156)
Similarly, representatives
of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and
biomass fuels. Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment, but also promotes rural economic
development and may lessen the international trade gap. American innovation, in this case to improve the environment and stimulate economic
growth, can always count on bipartisan support.>
<Biodiesel is bipartisan- tax credit proves

American Soybean Association 04 (Jenna Higgins; “Senate Passes Jobs Bill Including Biodiesel Tax Provisions”; American Soybean Association; 5-12-04;
http://www.soygrowers.com/newsroom/releases/2004%20releases/r051204.htm)
Biodiesel has strong bi-partisan support in Congress. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Grassley, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and others, the biodiesel
tax credit was included in the energy bill, which the full U.S. House of Representatives approved last fall, as well as the transportation bill that the
Senate approved in February. The tax credit amounts to one penny per percentage point of biodiesel blended with petroleum diesel. The incentive will be available to
diesel excise taxpayers and other fuel distributors who purchase biodiesel and blend it into diesel fuel, and the savings will be passed on to consumers in both taxable
and tax exempt markets. "Senate passage of this bill is an encouraging step toward enactment of key biodiesel tax incentive provisions,"
said Bob Metz, chairman of the National Biodiesel Board and ASA Executive Committee member from South Dakota. "Greater
biodiesel use will benefit all Americans, and we urge our leaders in Congress to act on this important measure.">
36
Biodiesel = Concession to Dems

Biofuels are a concession to key Democrats- energy bill proves
Southwest Farm Press ‘6 (“Democrats unveil comprehensive Biodiesel energy package”; Southwest Farm Press; May 17, 2006;
http://southwestfarmpress.com/news/05-17-06-democrats-biodisel-package/)
“The energy challenges facing our nation are real, but Americans are ready to meet the challenge,” said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.
“The answer is right here at home. From corn in the Midwest to soybeans in North Carolina, we grow the crops that can be converted into the biofuels
that power our cars. It is good for the environment, good for our economy, and it is good for our farmers.” “This plan is home-grown
and American owned,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman James E. Clyburn. “It severs the ties to foreign imports and puts American production
and growth first. It provides a stark contrast to the Republican plan that I call the methadone treatment for oil dependency-replace the
addiction to foreign oil with an addiction to foreign ethanol.” “This legislation sets a path to energy independence for the United States
that is fueled by our nation’s rural communities,” said Agriculture Committee Ranking Democrat Collin C. Peterson (D-MN). “The Rural
Working Group’s proposal includes practical solutions that will expand ethanol and biodiesel production and will make sure that
Americans can find flex-fuel vehicles at auto dealerships and biofuels at local gas stations.”
37
Biodiesel = Unpopular
Biodiesel is massively unpopular- even if people say they like it, they’re not willing to pay for it
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ‘8 (Robin Acton, “Renewable energy unpopular at farm show”, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1-10-08,
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_546710.html)
Penn State University researchers Mark Antle and Joe Perez said cost, more than anything, appears to make people less willing to
embrace alternative fuels. Right now, ethanol blends and biodiesel fuels are priced about the same as regular fuels, said Antle, a crop and
soil researcher in the university's science department. "I think people say they want cleaner-burning fuels and they want to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, but then they hear the cost and that's the end of it," Antle said.
38
Ethanol = Concession to Democrats

Ethanol is a concession to Democrats- they’ve empirically pushed for it
Washington Times ‘6 (“Democrats push ethanol growth”, Washington Times, 5-12-06, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/11/20060511-112533-
7723r/)
House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America, and they introduced bills to expand
production of ethanol. "We can grow new energy here at home from American farms to American families," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, South
Dakota Democrat. Democrats on the Rural Working Group introduced bills that call for doubling the percentage of renewable fuels,
such as ethanol, sold in the U.S. by 2012 and increasing the percentage of so-called "flex-fuel" cars capable of running partly on ethanol. The
legislation would require that 75 percent of all U.S. cars be flex-fuel models by 2013. Flex-fuel cars would cost the same as regular
cars, the Democrats said. The bills also extend the tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel production through 2015 and increase tax
benefits to small ethanol producers. The legislation also boosts incentives for increasing the number of stations that pump ethanol and
biodiesel and calls for greater investment in biofuel research.
39
Ethanol = Bipart
Ethanol is bipartisan- Democrats, Republicans, economists, and environmentalists all support it
Cilion ‘8 (“Broad Support for Ethanol”, Cilion: Fueling Change, 4-6-08, http://www.cilion.com/broadsupport.html)
The ethanol industry benefits from broad bi-partisan support in the United States. Rural farming communities support the increased
opportunity to market feed and energy crops. Macroeconomists look to ethanol to reduce the energy portion of the growing U.S. trade
deficit. Environmentalists appreciate ethanol’s improvement of air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Political leaders, as
well as recognized candidates for the 2008 Presidential Office, acknowledge that ethanol offers a rare win-win policy scenario.
40
Ethanol = Unpopular
Congress hates ethanol- subsumes their bipartisanship warrants
WTOP News ‘8 (H. Josef Hebert, “With food costs rising, ethanol benefits now questioned”, WTOP News, Associated Press, 5-6-08,
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=116&pid=0&sid=1399271&page=2)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Just months ago, ethanol was the Holy Grail to energy independence and a "green fuel" that would help nudge the country
away from climate-changing fossil energy. Democrats and Republicans cheered its benefits as Congress directed a fivefold increase in ethanol
use as a motor fuel. President Bush called it key to his strategy to cut gasoline use by 20 percent by 2010. But now with skyrocketing food
costs _ even U.S. senators are complaining about seeing shocking prices at the supermarket _ and hunger spreading across the globe, some
lawmakers are wondering if they made a mistake. "Our enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. That's all I'm saying, a second look," said
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing. In a dramatic reversal,
ethanol has shifted from being an object of widespread, bipartisan praise to one of derision, even among some of its past supporters.
41
Ethanol = Partisan
Ethanol is partisan- GOP wants to reduce and Democrats won’t give up
WTOP News 5-6 (H. Josef Hebert, “With food costs rising, ethanol benefits now questioned”, WTOP News, Associated Press, 5-6-08,
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=116&pid=0&sid=1399271&page=2)
Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he will introduce a bill to
abandon the ethanol requirement passed just before last Christmas and go back to the one Congress enacted in 2005 that would call for a more modest ethanol
increase. But Barton is not so naive to think his bill has a chance. House Democratic leaders have given no indication of retreating from
the ethanol requirement. Still, said Barton, "it's worth putting in." And congressional unease about the food-for-fuel debate is showing itself in
a number of places.
42
Cellulosic Ethanol = Bipart

Cellulosic ethanol is bipartisan- new biofuels bill proves
U.S. Senate ‘7 (“Bipartisan Group of Senators Fights for Economic & Energy Security”, U.S. Senate, 6-15-07,
http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/070615enrgjnt.htm)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – America’s energy independence is a pressing issue of not only economic and environmental security, but also
national security: roughly 22 percent of the world’s oil is in the hands of countries under U.S. or U.N. sanctions, and by some accounts only nine percent of the
world’s oil is in the hands of “free” countries. To help secure America’s energy future, a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Ken Salazar
(D-CO), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Larry Craig (R-ID) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) have
introduced a bill to increase America’s production of biofuels derived from cellulosic biofuels. Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Ron Wyden
(D-OR) are also co-sponsors.
43
Cellulosic Ethanol = Popular

Congress likes cellulosic ethanol- they want to mandate 250 million gallons by 2013
Renewable Energy World ‘6 (David Morris, “The Strange Legislative History of the Cellulosic Ethanol Mandate”, Renewable Energy World Online, 12-4-06,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=46712)
To overcome this barrier, Congress developed a simple strategy. Mandate the production of 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol by
2013, a level of production requiring six to ten plants. To attract investors, Congress guaranteed a significant market years in advance. By not
establishing financial incentives, Congress expected competition to minimize any price premium. And the second wave of cellulosic
ethanol plants should be cost competitive with grain ethanol.
44
Cellulosic Ethanol = Bush supports

Bush is already pushing for cellulosic ethanol
Auto Observer 2-29 (Dale Buss, “Bush Comments Lend Another Boost to Cellulosic Ethanol”, Auto Observer, 2-29-08,
http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/02/bush-comments-lend-another-boost-to-cellulosic-ethanol.html)
Remaining presidential candidates have made a point of touting cellulosic ethanol — which can be made from a number of sources other than corn
— as an important alternative fuel. On Thursday morning President Bush added to the chorus of support at his White House news conference. He
emphasized cellulosic ethanol as a crucial part of the short-term answer to problems of fuel pricing and availability, as well as a long-
term solution. Answering a reporter’s question about tax breaks for renewable forms of energy, Bush referred to the growing pressure under worldwide
food prices that is being created by a rise in competing demand for U.S. corn stocks by ethanol producers. “If you look at what’s happened
with corn out there, you’re beginning to see the food issue and the energy issue collide,” the president said. “And so, to me, the best dollar spent is to
continue to deal with cellulosic ethanol in order to deal with this bottleneck right now.” He also said “the best way to deal with
renewables is to focus on research and development that will enable us to use other raw material to produce ethanol.”
45
Removing Brazilian Tariff = Bipart

Removing the Brazilian tariff on ethanol is bipartisan- new bill proves
Wcax-TV ‘8 (“Gregg introduces bipartisan bill to reduce tariff on imported ethanol”, Wcax-TV, Associated Press, 6-5-08,
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=8434638)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg has introduced a bipartisan measure with Democrat Dianne Feinstein of
California to reduce the tariff on imported ethanol. If it passes, Gregg says the legislation would allow US refiners to buy cheaper and more
climate-friendly ethanol from foreign sources, which could then help lower gas prices. Gregg says imported ethanol is especially important for coastal
states since almost all domestic ethanol is produced in the Midwest and is costly to transport because it can't be moved through a pipeline. He says ethanol from
Brazil and other friendly nations can be provided to coastal states more easily and at a lower cost.
46
Removing Brazilian Tariff = Partisan

Repealing the tariff on Brazilian ethanol is partisan- neither side agrees on it
Ethanol Producer Magazine 1-31 (Kris Bevill, “Senators discuss ethanol tariff”, Ethanol Producer Magazine, 1-31-08, http://www.ethanol-
producer.com/article-print.jsp?article_id=3670)
The Bush administration willsend its proposed 2009 U.S. budget to Congress next week, and it may include changes to the current 54-
cent tariff on ethanol imports. Senators on both sides of the aisle have strong opinions on the ethanol tariff and have been vocal on this issue.
“By lifting the ethanol tariff, we’d end up subsidizing Brazilian ethanol,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “I can’t figure out why [Energy
Secretary Samual] Bodman would want the United States to risk becoming dependent on Brazilian ethanol when we’re already dependent on Middle East oil.” Bodman
said the administration “will start to deal with that question” after the budget is sent to Congress. Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate
Finance Committee. Last year, he and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., cosponsored a measure to extend the tariff until Jan. 1, 2011. A tariff
extension was included and passed as part of the Senate Farm Bill. It is now in conference with the House. A spokesman for Thune said the
senator also strongly supports the retention of the ethanol tariff in order to provide continued assistance to farmers in the United
States. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-N.E., said at a breakfast meeting in Washington this week that the ethanol tariff would be repealed “over my dead
body.” Nelson serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee and is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Early today,
Nelson further commented on the possible repeal of the ethanol duty. “Among farm state senators, the idea of eliminating the tariff is
at best unpopular," he said. "It’s likely Congress will reinstate the tariff if it’s not included in the budget and defeat any effort to repeal
it. In fact, I’ve proposed legislation that would direct the proceeds to a biofuels investment trust fund to spur research and
development of biofuels in the United States. I’m not interested in trading our dependence on foreign oil fields for a dependence on
South American sugarcane fields. Congress taking this administration’s advice on agriculture issues would be like the New England
Patriots adopting the Miami Dolphins’ playbook for the Super Bowl.”
47
Ocean Power Popular

Ocean Energy and other alternate energies are popular with the American people.
Boehner – House of Representatives minority leader – 2008 (John, 6-20-2008, Federal News Service, “Weekly Press Conference with House Minority Leader John
Boehner,” Lexis-Nexis) // THK
Earlier this week, a

poll was released showing that two-thirds of the American people support deep-ocean energy exploration. A Gallup
poll from last month shows that more than 60 percent support more energy production here in America, whether on remote federal
lands or far off our coasts. I think it's clear the American people want more production of American-made energy, but this Democrat
Congress is standing in the way of it.
Representative Ron Klein supports ocean-based renewable energy.
Cox News, 7 (Larry Lipman, “Ocean Energy Moving Towards Reality, Congress told,” 5-7-2007,
http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/content/reporters/stories/2007/05/07/BC_OCEAN_ENERGY_ADV07_COX.html) // THK
The briefing was sponsored by Rep. Ron Klein, D-Fla., who said he wanted to show that there are several alternative energy sources
Congress should consider besides ethanol, which is now lawmakers' primary focus. Klein said he hopes Congress will provide money for other
energy research and development projects that would be selected on a competitive basis. Among the bills he is co-sponsoring is one
that would earmark $50 million a year for 10 years for ocean-based energy research.
48
Ocean Power = Unpopular

Democrats oppose deep-ocean energy exploration
Boehner – House of Representatives minority leader – 2008 (John, 6-20-2008, Federal News Service, “Weekly Press
Conference with House Minority Leader John Boehner,” Lexis-Nexis) // THK
<REP. BOEHNER: Another week here in Congress is about to end without any action from this Democrat
Congress that's presiding over $4 gasoline. This week, the Democratic leadership had time to schedule a vote on the interstate sale and
movement of monkeys, but no time to deal with the serious energy shortage that we have in our country.
I just can't help but ask, what are the congressional Democrats afraid of? You know, what is it they fear in allowing the Congress of the
United States, the House of Representatives, to vote on commonsense energy solutions?
Earlier this week, a poll was released showing that two-thirds of the American people support deep-ocean energy
exploration. A Gallup poll from last month shows that more than 60 percent support more energy production here in America, whether
on remote federal lands or far off our coasts. I think it's clear the American people want more production of American-made energy, but
this Democrat Congress is standing in the way of it.
Yesterday, Congressman John Peterson was prepared to offer an amendment in the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee markup to open up oil and gas exploration in deep ocean energy zones. But knowing that they
would have a hard time actually stopping the amendment, they abruptly canceled their subcommittee markup.
And it's interesting, the Senate subcommittee canceled next week's Interior Appropriations Subcommittee markup
as well.
I just -- it keeps begging the same question. What is it they're afraid of? Are they afraid that their members are actually going to vote to
allow us to have more American-made energy?>
49
Ocean Power = Unpopular

OTEC is unpopular with everyone: it’s too risky for investors, too ugly for citizens, and too unpopular for the federal
government.
HPR 6 (Harvard Political Review, Becca Freidman, “An Alternate Source Heats Up: Examining the future of Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion,” 2-26-2006, http://hprsite.squarespace.com/an-alternative-source-heats-up) // THK
Although it may seem like an environmentalist’s fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend that the technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the United
States already exists in the form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and promising prototypes, however, a lack of
governmental support and the need for risky capital investment have stalled OTEC in its research and development phase. Regardless,
oceanic energy experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a Department
of Energy team on oceanic energy, told the HPR, “If we can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC] for electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It
is more than 100 to 1000 times more than the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any other renewable energy that can
compare with OTEC.” The Science of OTEC French physicist George Claude first explored the science of OTEC in the early twentieth century, and he built an
experimental design in 1929. Unfortunately for Claude, the high maintenance needed for an OTEC plant, especially given the frequency of storms in tropical ocean
climates, caused him to abandon the project. Nevertheless, his work demonstrated that the difference in temperature between the surface layer and the depths of the
ocean was enough to generate power, using the warmer water as the heat source and the cooler water as a heat sink. OTEC takes warm water and pressurizes it so that it
becomes steam, then uses the steam to power a turbine which creates power, and completes the cycle by using the cold water to return the steam to its liquid state.
Huge Capital, Huge Risks Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of
building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale
plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary
presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to
Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s
main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a
huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney
told the HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely
disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating.
In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill up with
seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman. Even environmentalists have impeded OTEC’s
development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of
the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution. Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that
federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company specializing in OTEC technology, told the
HPR, “Years ago in the ’80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC and it was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few
people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government funding for this. It’s not the Democrats, not the Republicans. It’s a bureaucratic
issue.”
50
Nuclear Power = Bipartisan

Bipartisan support in favor of nuclear energy is growing
Howard 03, Executive Vice President of Nuclear Energy Institute
[Angie, Federal News Service, Jun 10, LN]
Without question, nuclear energy in the United States is experiencing a renaissance. We see clear signs that this renaissance is gaining new
recognition in Congress--through bipartisan legislation introduced this year in the House and Senate, by the administration in its national energy
policy and among the American public. The renaissance is driven by the overwhelming need to maintain our diverse mix of energy generation and to
meet the ambitious energy and environmental requirements of the future.
Pro-nuclear policies get strong bipartisan support

Foster Electric Report 5 / 19 / 04
NEI's new chairman, George Hairston III, the president and chief executive officer of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, sounded a similar
theme. Hairston observed that the state of the nuclear industry is strong. During 2003, he noted that operators beefed up their nuclear plant security
systems, and the Department of Energy (DOE) began preparing an application to build the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Another
positive development was the industry's success in garnering bipartisan congressional support for energy policies that recognize the value of
nuclear power. Like Colvin, Hairston emphasized nuclear plant safety must remain the nuclear industry's top priority.
51
Nuclear Power = Unpopular
Passing nuclear power legislation will cost political capital

Ashby 4 (The Importance of Nuclear Energy, Ashby 2004 Republican for President, http://blakeashby2004.com/nuclearenergy.html)
The oversight of the construction and operation of nuclear power plants was not necessarily well handled during the paranoia and
secrecy of the cold war years, but nuclear energy is too important not to pursue. Sooner or later nuclear energy will again have to be
part of our energy policy. Presidents, certainly have to weigh many different needs and viewpoints and choose their battle carefully,
and Bush is right to be concerned about the near term economic and social effects of a spike in energy prices. But at some point in the
not to distant future, our ability to construct, operate and overseen safe and efficient nuclear power plants is going to be of critical
importance. Lets hope our new President has the political capital available to get the discussion started sooner rather than later.
Major nuclear power initiative requires massive political capital

Gaffney 97, Director of Center for Security Policy
[Frank, Washington Times, Sep 26, LN]
The obvious solution to the legitimate need to maintain a viable American nuclear energy industry - without compromising the nation's security
interests by selling reactors to China - is to embark upon a major American nuclear infrastructure upgrade program and the associated public
education effort. The objective of such a program would be ensure that advanced designs for fail-safe nuclear reactors are built to serve the largest
energy market of all, that of the United States. Naturally, under present circumstances, such an initiative would take enormous leadership,
political capital and courage on the part of the president and vice president. Given their intense concerns about the effects of fossil fuel emissions on
global warming, however, a program to bring about a new generation of clean-burning nuclear power for the 21st century may be the only hope for
containing - to say nothing of reducing -greenhouse gas emissions without savaging the American economy.
Bipartisan opposition exists to new loan guarantees for nuclear power

Charleston Daily Mail 6 / 11 / 03
A bipartisan group of senators - backed by environmentalists concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants and taxpayer groups opposed to
subsidies for the industry - sought to strip the loan guarantees from a sweeping energy bill the Senate is debating. They contended that the subsidies
could cost taxpayers as much as $ 16 billion if the projects fail.
52
Hydropower = Popular
Congress loves hydropower: 402-9 House vote proves
NHA, 7 – (National Hydropower Association, “Congress overwhelmingly supports hydropower as renewable,” 8-8-2007,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=49602) // THK
In a stunning 402-9 vote, the House sent a clear message of support for the nation's hydropower resources when it voted to reaffirm its
recognition of hydropower as a renewable energy resource. In his speech on the floor, Sali reminded colleagues that hydropower is a clean, renewable,
domestic source of energy—one that provides the largest amount of renewable energy generation in the U.S. today. “NHA is extremely pleased with the House vote.
Hydroelectric energy, along with the many benefits it provides, is a vital component of the nation’s energy portfolio,” said Linda Church Ciocci, NHA’s Executive
Director. “This recognition is well-deserved, and NHA is gratified by the tremendous show of support. As the nation’s largest renewable energy, hydropower is one
of the key tools in combating climate change.”
The hydropower vote came during debate of H.R 3321, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, on
an amendment offered by Representative William Sali (R-ID) seeking support for both large- and small-scale conventional hydropower
technologies. In his speech on the floor, Sali reminded colleagues that hydropower is a clean, renewable, domestic source of energy—one that provides the largest
amount of renewable energy generation in the U.S. today.
Republicans want to lower gas prices and relieve foreign oil dependence by investing in hydropower.
Jones – CNSNews.com Senior Editor – 8 (Susan, “Rupublicans Blame Democrats for ‘A Nation of $$ Gasoline’,” 6-9-2008) // THK
<"House Republicans have put forth a comprehensive plan to help lower gas prices by harnessing new technologies and unlocking
America's natural energy resources in an environmentally responsible way," Boehner said. "Every American has a right to ask: What will it take for
the Democrat-controlled Congress to finally take action and help ease the pain of the Pelosi Premium on behalf of struggling families and small businesses? Speaker
Pelosi has the power to schedule a vote on our plan to begin breaking America's costly dependence on foreign sources of energy. She should not wait another day to do
so." Republicans are reminding the American people average gas prices under the Democrat-controlled Congress have risen from $2.33 a gallon on January 4, 2007 --
the first day of the Democratic Majority -- to the current $4.00 a gallon. (But Pelosi, on her official Web site, notes that gasoline prices have "more than doubled since
President Bush took office.") Republicans say they are committed to boosting supplies of all forms of energy "right here at home" to reduce
America's dependence on foreign sources of oil. They insist oil drilling in the U.S. can be done without damage to the environment. Republicans also
are promoting "advanced" nuclear power and next-generation coal as well as renewable energy from wind and hydroelectric power.>
53
Hydropower = Bipart
Hydropower has bipartisan support: House vote proves
Hoffman, 7 ( Wayne Hoffman, 8-4-2007, “Sali Gets Congress to Support Hydropower; Freshman Idaho Congressman's
Proposal Approved Overwhelmingly by House of Representatives,”
http://sali.house.gov/News/DocumentSingledf36.shtml?DocumentID=70957” // THK
Congressman Bill Sali won overwhelming bipartisan approval in U.S. House of Representatives for a proposal in support of hydropower
as America looks for new sources of energy. The House voted 402-9 in favor of Sali's proposal. The vote took came in a rare Saturday session as the House
finished business ahead of the August recess. Sali's amendment to a House Democrat energy bill calls for the development of clean, consistent,
pollution free large and small scale hydropower. Without Sali's amendment, the legislation made no reference to hydropower."If we are going to discuss
renewable energy, then we need to include hydropower," Sali told the Congress. "Hydropower for America means no greenhouse gas emissions. Hydropower offsets
more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy resources combined." It is estimated that last year, Americans avoided around 160 million tons of carbon
emissions by using hydropower. More than 60 percent of power in the Pacific Northwest comes from hydropower. Sali's amendment is now part of the energy
bill that cleared the House, although Sali voted against the total bill because, apart from his amendment, it does nothing to encourage development of new energy
sources.
54
Hydropower = Unpopular
Congress hates funding hydropower: they slashed 100% of funding when they passed the Continuing Resolution.
Kagel - works for the Geothermal Energy Association – 6 (Alyssa, 10-23-2006, “Congressional Inaction Causes Renewable
Energy Programs to Suffer,” http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46308) // THK
<When Congress left town to stand for re-election, it left without finishing the business of funding national energy programs. Instead,
it put in place a stop-gap bill called a Continuing Resolution (CR), which leaves hydropower research at zero, slashes geothermal research
80%, reduces Electricity R&D funding by nearly a quarter, and decimates building code efficiency programs -- to name just a few of the federal energy programs left by
the wayside. What Congress will do when it reconvenes November 14th is anyone's guess. In the meantime, numerous renewable energy and energy
efficiency programs have had their budgets cut. Congressional action -- or inaction, as the case may be -- will decide the fate of many
critical energy programs. -- Alyssa Kagel With Congress planning to return for only a few days in November, after the elections, it's hard to imagine how
lawmakers will complete the many unfinished appropriations bills before the end of the year. Considering the growing public awareness about climate
change, depleting oil reserves, and the need for more renewable energy, one would think members of Congress would be pressing hard to expand
these programs. "Not so," said Ken Bossong, Coordinator of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and Director of the Sun Day Campaign,
a national network of grassroots organizations promoting renewable energy technologies and improved energy efficiency. "We've heard a lot about carbon taxes and
auto fuel efficiency legislation -- two directives that could make a real difference -- but we've seen no Congressional action," Bossong said. Significant Cuts
in the Continuing Resolution (CR) The appropriations process starts when the administration releases its budget recommendations, usually in January. Then the House
and Senate each review the recommendations and vote on funding proposals for the agency programs. They work out their differences by producing a Conference
Report that takes into consideration the House, Senate, and Administration recommendations. This Conference Report sets final funding amounts that, once approved
by the House and Senate, are sent to the President to become law. But this year, Congress hasn't even begun to produce a Conference Report for the Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill -- the one that includes the Department of Energy's (DOE) programs -- nor has a Conference Report been produced for the nine other bills whose
programs remain suspended in uncertainty under the Continuing Resolution (CR). While the President's budget proposed some renewable program increases, it also
included some serious renewable and efficiency program cuts. Yet for the past several months it looked like the tides were turning. The House and Senate each restored
some of the programmatic budget cuts proposed by the Administration, particularly the geothermal and hydropower research programs. It looked like a Conference
agreement could maintain or expand many renewable and efficiency programs. But Congress never finished most of the regular appropriations bills, and now the CR is
changing that forward momentum. The CR could wipe out any gains made. When ten of twelve annually required appropriations bills -- bills that approve funding for
federal agencies -- were not completed before Congress adjourned, the CR was passed to cover the gap. One of these ten bills, the Energy and Water Appropriations
Bill, contains funding for all renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at DOE. A CR allows federal agencies and programs to operate, usually based upon
historic funding levels, until Congress signs a bill with final budget numbers. But not this year's CR. This year's CR, good through November 17, 2006, allows
federal agencies and programs to operate at the lower of the two funding levels set by the House and Senate. So, if either House has cut a
program, it is reduced to the lowest funding level -- which could be zero. While the CR is usually a short-term stopgap measure, this time it may
be extended for six months or more, program cuts that will have a devastating impact on federal renewable energy efforts. A number of worthwhile
programs are being terminated or reduced under the CR. Take the Geothermal DOE Program, for example: funded at $ 24 million last year, the Administration
recommended terminating the program, the House recommended restoring $5 million, and the Senate recommended nearly full restoration. Under the CR, geothermal
receives only $5 million in 2007. Programs that have had funding partially or fully restored by the House or Senate, but that now face cuts compared with FY
'06 levels under the terms of the CR, include: Renewable Energy Programs: -- Geothermal (78% decrease) -- Hydropower (100% decrease) Efficiency
Programs: -- Industrial Technologies (16% decrease) -- Industries of the Future (30% decrease) -- Vehicle Technologies (5% decrease) -- Clean Cities (19% decrease) --
Federal Energy Management (12% decrease) -- State Energy Program (30% decrease) -- Weatherization Assistance Program (16% decrease) -- Electricity R&D (22%
decrease) Inaction Spells Continuing Confusion for Renewable Energy Without federal investment in research and demonstration projects, new technologies will not
reach their full potential, said Linda Church Ciocci, Executive Director of the National Hydropower Association. "Cutting hydropower
funding within the DOE is extremely short-sighted when there is so much to be gained in bringing these clean, non-polluting technologies to the market at a time when
our nation needs greater diversity and more home grown energy," she said.
Similarly, the geothermal industry believes DOE research support is critical to achieving future potential. "We are tapping only one or two percent of the U.S. geothermal resource base," said
Karl Gawell, Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association. Not all programs were cut, however. Some received temporary increases. The Solar, Building Technology and Biomass
programs have both received more funding. But these programs have only short-term budgets, making long-term program planning nearly impossible. As Congress adjourned, the
Appropriations Committee leadership took a strong stand against pulling together the unfinished bills into one "omnibus" measure. As Congress Daily reported, House Appropriations
Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) sent a written appeal to GOP leaders to avoid bundling together unfinished FY 2007 spending bills
into a collective package after the elections. "It is our belief that omnibus legislation that bypasses the regular order is not in the best interests of the Congress, or ultimately the taxpayer,"
Lewis and Cochran wrote in a letter Monday to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). Many factors make the passage of an appropriations bill
uncertain. Congress won't return until November 14, 2006, so that leaves four days in which ten bills must be passed. That is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Even if Congress can sort
through the bills, some are skeptical about how the '07 appropriations numbers will finally turn out. "We're
worried our programs will get hit hard in conference,"
said Kara Rinaldi, Director of Policy at the Alliance to Save Energy. "Because Congress increased funding for defense, a great deal of
money could be taken out of important domestic spending programs." If Congress doesn't pass all the remaining appropriations bills before adjourning
for the holidays, some say that another CR might be passed. That CR would likely extend through January or February. That could cause chaos in the next Congress.
When Congress adjourns, bills that have not passed must start at the beginning of the legislative process. If Congress cannot complete action on the
appropriations bills in the twelve months of this year, it is unlikely that new leadership will be able to pass them in a matter of
weeks.This has been on the minds of many agency officials, as planning for the FY 2008 budget is already well underway and funding decisions for FY 2007 still
have not been made. According to insiders at DOE, the current CR budget numbers are being used to plan for 2007 and 2008. Therefore, some programs will be forced
to operate as if their budgets have been terminated or reduced until Congress can finish its business. When Congress adjourned, Senate Democrats blasted the
Republican leadership for failing to adopt a fiscal 2007 budget resolution or complete 10 out of 12 appropriations bills. "This Republican leadership is in total
gridlock -- refusing to act, refusing to compromise, and refusing to govern," said Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND).>
55
Hydrogen = Bipart
There is bipartisan support for incentives in hydrogen innovation – House vote proves
Epstein, 6 – Chronicle Washington Bureau (Edward, SFC, “Congress Considers Hydrogen Prize House OKs program to reward researchers who find ways to end
fossil-fuel dependence” 05-11-2006, http://inglis.house.gov/sections/news/pdf_news_coverage/SFC_05_11_06.pdf”) // DCM
A group of congressmen think they know the right recipe for getting America started down the hydrogen highway to a new energy epoch --
take a helping of good-old American know-how and throw in the lure of millions of dollars. The result is the H-Prize, a $50 million program of awards
for researchers who come up with breakthrough technologies that will free America from the polluting fossil fuels used in motor vehicles. On
Wednesday, the House voted 416-6, with one member voting present, to create the program, which features a $10 million grand prize. The Senate version of
the legislation is due to be introduced today. "Perhaps one day we'll look back on this day as the day that led to a cleaner, more secure America,'' said Rep. Dan
Lipinski, D-Ill., one of the prize competition's creators. The bill directs the energy secretary to contract with a private foundation to create criteria for the prizes and
administer the contest. The grand prize, to be awarded within the next 10 years, would go for creating a "transformational technology'' that brings hydrogen fuel or
hydrogen vehicles or the infrastructure to distribute hydrogen fuel closer to reality. The congressional sponsors also hope to hook up the grand prize winners with
private financiers armed with millions of dollars to commercially exploit the winning idea. Prizes of $1 million or $4 million would be awarded every two years for
lesser technical advances or prototypes of vehicles. The proposed prize money is separate from government-awarded research funds for creating hydrogen vehicles,
which President Bush has made a centerpiece of long-range energy research. And it is also separate from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to
develop 200 hydrogen fueling stations for what he hopes will be mass-produced hydrogen vehicles. "This is an exciting opportunity to do for hydrogen what the X
Prize did for spaceflight,'' said Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., the bill's main sponsor. Inglis was referring to the $10 million Ansari X Prize, which was won in October 2004
by a group that managed to privately build and fly a space vehicle that could carry three people to an altitude of about 66 miles, return to Earth, and do it again within
two weeks. Previous prizes, public and private, have helped develop other technologies. Charles Lindbergh flew nonstop from New York to Paris in 1927 to win the
$25,000 Orteig Prize, which had been offered since 1919 for the first pilot to pull off the feat. And in the 1860s, Congress and President Abraham Lincoln made
railroad companies an audacious offer to create a transcontinental railroad. The rail companies got a subsidy for every mile of rail they laid, along with land grants
along the right of way. By 1869, they had finished the monumental task. "We can do it now,'' Inglis said, "because we did it before.'' House Republican leaders
cited the legislation as proof they are serious about addressing high gasoline prices, even though any dividends from hydrogen breakthroughs
would be years away. Inglis initially wanted a much more generous prize of $100 million, but negotiations in the House Science Committee whittled away the
amount. Some of Inglis' fellow GOP conservatives questioned why Congress should offer multimillion-dollar prizes at all. But Inglis said he pointed out that the
money will be awarded only if researchers reach the goals set by the judges. "This is actually fiscally conservative,'' he said, "because I believe the
reinvention of the car can do the same thing as the tech boom'' of the late 1990s, when the stock market and the economy took off, flooding the
federal government's coffers with tax receipts. Besides, Inglis said, if nobody is awarded the prizes, the government won't spend the money. Inglis also said the prize
program is designed to get people involved who have never received government research grants and to encourage teams of researchers across disciplines to work
together on problems that have defied solution by hydrogen researchers, who so far have produced prototype hydrogen vehicles that cost almost $2 million. "Prizes
make sense. They incentivize people,'' said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., the Science Committee's chairman. One hydrogen researcher who agrees
is Anthony Eggert of UC Davis' Hydrogen Pathways Program. He said a prize competition inspires people. "People develop a passion to achieve the goal of winning a
competition. Team members give more when the opportunity for recognition is greater, and for the money,'' said Eggert. "Each team believes it can win. ... You get
much greater leverage than from just funding research.'' The competition is open to anyone, including non-Americans, providing their research for the competition is
done in this country. Researchers who receive federal grants are eligible, provided their work for the contest is done separately from their federally funded work. Even
if the legislation becomes law, the money for the prizes will have to be appropriated separately later in Congress, always a tricky process.
56
Hydrogen – Bush supports

Bush already extremely supportive of hydrogen initiatives – budget proposal proves
CNN, 3 (“Bush Hydrogen Initative Fuels Debate” February 9, 2003 http://www.theblackvault.com/article-print-6134.html) // DCM
<After drawing attention to the potentials of hydrogen, which can power everything from cars to cell phones, in his State of the Union address, Bush
said Thursday he considered his $1.5 billion hydrogen development plan a legacy for future generations and key to the nation's energy
security. "I don't know if you or I are going to be driving one of these cars, but our grandkids will. And we can say we did our duty (and) ... proposed some
initiatives," the president told hydrogen and auto industry leaders who had come to Washington, at White House request, to show off their latest
technology. Bush wants to double federal research money to develop hydrogen, map out a fuel distribution system and help auto
companies overcome some of the remaining barriers to making affordable cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells. >
57
Wind Power = Unpopular

Wind power faces severe opposition from the environmental lobby – funded lobbying is making energy legislation unpopular
in congress
Washington Post, 6 (Anne Appleton, “Tilting at Windmills” 04-19-2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801188.html) // DCM
To my eye, they are lovely: Graceful, delicate, white against green grass and a blue sky. Last summer my children and I stopped specially to watch a group of them,
wheels turning in the breeze. But to those who dislike them, the modern wind turbine is worse than ugly. It is an aesthetic blight, a source of noise pollution, a murderer
of birds and bats. As for the still-young wind industry, it is "an environmental plunderer, with its hirelings and parasites using a few truths and the
politics of wishful thinking to frame a house of lies." Far from being clean and green, "corporate wind is yet another extraction industry relying on false promises," a
"poster child for irresponsible development." Such attacks -- those come from http://www.stopillwind.org/ , the Web site of Maryland anti-wind activist Jon
Boone -- are not atypical. Similar language turns up on http://www.windwatch.org/ , on http://www.windstop.org/ , and on a dozen other anti-wind sites,
most started by local groups opposed to a particular project. Their recent, rapid proliferation is not an accident: After languishing for years on the eco-fringe,
wind energy has suddenly become mainstream. High oil prices, natural gas shortages, better technology, fear of global warming, state renewable-energy
mandates and, yes, tax breaks have finally made wind farms commercially viable as well as clean. Traditional utility companies want to build them -- and thus the
traditional environmental movement (which supports wind energy) has produced a handful of untraditional splinter groups that are trying to
stop them. They may succeed. Already, activists and real estate developers have stalled projects across Pennsylvania, West Virginia
and New York. In Western Maryland, a proposal to build wind turbines alongside a coal mine, on a heavily logged mountaintop next to a
transmission line, has just been nixed by state officials who called it too environmentally damaging. Along the coast of Nantucket, Mass. --
the only sufficiently shallow spot on the New England coast -- a coalition of anti-wind groups and summer homeowners, among them the Kennedy
family, also seems set to block Cape Wind, a planned offshore wind farm. Their well-funded lobbying last month won them the attentions of
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who, though normally an advocate of a state's right to its own resources, has made an exception for Massachusetts and
helped pass an amendment designed to kill the project altogether.> The groups do have some arguments, ranging from the aesthetic --
if you are bothered by the sight of wind turbines on a mountaintop, which I am not (or, anyway, not when compared with the sight of a strip mine) -- to the
economic. They are right to note that wind will not soon replace coal or gas, that wind isn't always as effective as supporters claim, and that some people are going to
make a lot of money out of it (though some people make a lot of money out of coal, and indeed Nantucket summer homes as well).
58
Solar = Bipart
Solar energy has bipartisan support – more cost effective
HSTC Press Release 08 (House Science and Technology Committee, “U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Presides over Bipartisan Congessional Field Hearing on
Utility-Scale Solar Power”, March 18, http://scidems.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2137)
(Tuscon, Arizona) U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords today called solar energy a practical solution to some of the most significant
challenges America will confront in the 21st century. "The time for solar is now," Giffords told an audience of 130 attending a
bipartisan congressional field hearing on solar energy. "Technologies are improving, costs are falling and the reasons to adopt it
are increasingly compelling." Giffords, who presided over the hearing in her capacity as vice-chairwoman of the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, compared the solar energy industry of today to the early years of space program
because of the many positive ways it can shape our future. "In the coming months and years, we will face critical decisions on
how to address climate change, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and boost our economic competitiveness," the Tucson
lawmaker said. "The beauty of solar power is that it offers an elegant solution to all three of these pressing concerns." The goal of
the two-hour hearing was to explore the potential of making solar energy a significant source of electric generating capacity in the United States. Giffords
and five other members of Congress heard testimony from six expert witnesses who spoke about solar technologies, energy
transmission and regulatory issues, and the role of government and the private sector in the development of utility-scale solar
power. "
59
Solar = Popular
Massive support for solar energy initiatives – bipart, Bush, agriculture and environmental coalitions
Business Net 06 (“Solar EnerTech Corp. Applauds 25x'25 Bi-Partisan Congressional Resolution Calling for New National Renewable Energy Goal”, June,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200606/ai_n16500491/pg_1)
Solar EnerTech Corp. (OTCBB: SOEN) (the Company) today announced its wholehearted support for the recently introduced 25x'25 Resolution in the United
States. The bi-partisan congressional resolution calls for a new national renewable energy goal whereby 25% of the nation's
energy supply would derive from renewable sources like solar, wind and biofuels by 2025. Solar EnerTech is focused on the
development and manufacture of solar cells and applications along with advanced technologies in solar energy and commends Congress for its commitment to
clean, renewable energy. The objective of the 25x'25 Resolution is to encourage the United States to embrace renewable energy
technology and adopt initiatives that will result in the entire country moving towards a cohesive national renewable energy program with targeted
benchmarks and achievable goals. The resolution builds on a broad and politically influential coalition including agriculture, industry,
and environmental leaders, as well as several governors and state legislatures. Republicans and Democrats, rural and urban
interests, and representatives from over 140 different farm, forestry and environmental organizations have so far come together
behind this national energy goal. As initiatives like 25x'25 create visibility and awareness, the demand for alternative energy increases and spurs new
technological advances opening up avenues of funding for the industry as a whole. As existing Federal and State initiatives currently provide for varying and
uneven levels of alternative energy adoption, this new initiative provides for a completely new venue whereby the Renewable Energy industry can enjoy
improved access and response from key legislators on a national level working towards common goals. The planned initiative, arriving concurrently with
President Bush's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget proposing the new $148 million Solar America Initiative which identifies a 78%
increase of $65 million over Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations for solar energy technology comes at a time when the global solar power
marketplace grew 55% last year to $11.2 billion. Solar EnerTech believes these factors add up to a compelling trend that identifies marked growth
opportunities for the entire sector, especially Solar Energy. Management is satisfied that the ongoing efforts by the Company to initiate solar cell
manufacturing, development of new technologies and enter into agreements identifying and securing silicon feedstock will prove beneficial for the company
and its shareholders as Renewable Energy in all its forms is increasingly adopted around the world.
60
Solar = Popular
Solar lobbies very powerful – empirically proven
Solarbuzz 07 (News site for solar power, “Washington, DC, USA: House Passes Energy Bill; Solar Industry Starts Calling Their Senators”, December 7,
http://www.solarbuzz.com/news/NewsNAGO346.htm)
The solar industry earned a major victory yesterday when the House passed the Energy Security and Savings Act of 2007 and the
Clean Renewable Energy and Conservation Tax Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) that includes a $21 billion tax package. Recent lobbying by solar industry
proponents has directly resulted in the successful passage in the House of the industry’s top priority, extension and
improvement of the solar investment tax credits. The solar investment tax credit and other tax provisions in H.R. 6 are as follows: · Provides an
eight-year extension (through December 31, 2016) of the existing 30 percent Investment Tax Credit for businesses under Section 48 of the tax code. · Removes
the prohibition barring utilities from using the section 48 Investment Tax Credit. · Provides the ability for commercial filers to claim the Investment Tax Credit
against the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). · Provides a six-year extension (through December 31, 2014) of the existing 30 percent Investment Tax Credit
for residential solar electric and solar water heating property, and raises the cap on the credit for solar electric property to $4,000. · Provides the ability for
personal filers to claim the Investment Tax Credit against the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The energy bill now is now under negotiation between the
Senate, House and the President. Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industries Assocation (SEIA) said, “Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues gave
the American people exactly what they are demanding – a fundamental shift towards production of clean, domestic renewable energy. With the solar incentives
in this legislation, we estimate solar power will provide 50 percent of all new electricity generated in the U.S. within eight years. The growth of solar energy
markets will create tens of thousands of high-tech jobs throughout the nation, improve energy security, and save American taxpayers billions in energy costs."
“This historic bill, shifts the U.S. from 20th century energy policy to the 21st century. The $21-billion tax measure reinvests unnecessary oil and gas subsidies
into carbon-free renewable technology such as solar. Now, all eyes are on the Senators who must decide if they stand with the 80 percent of Americans who
want clean energy and a more secure America or if they will stick with more of the same. American voters are watching.” Several members of Republican
leadership have said that they will vigorously oppose the tax package because it increases taxes on the oil and gas industry and includes a 15 percent national
Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). However, the $21 billion tax package is smaller than the roughly $32 billion tax plan Republicans successfully blocked
from the broad Senate energy bill approved in June. Democratic Senators have expressed varying degrees of confidence that the bill has the 60 votes needed to
pass. A repeat of the intensive solar industry lobbying activity (reported in the tens of thousands) that took place two weeks ago
is now required. This will be a defining moment for the short term prospects of developing a national US solar market.
61
Solar = Popular
Solar power popular with republicans – they recognize need for environmental policies
Last week the Senate took up a sweeping climate change bill in what many hoped would be a historic debate. But it ended up fizzling quickly, and now any
efforts at comprehensive global warming legislation will likely be shelved until next year. Progress on the legislation (S 3036) was thwarted by partisan sniping
and procedural maneuvers. Still, there was evidence of widening bipartisan consensus on key points of energy proposals that are
likely to resurface in the new administration. The debate over the climate change bill demonstrated that most Republicans aren’t yet ready to vote
for a bill that would fundamentally transform the economy by putting a price on fossil fuel emissions. But last week’s debate saw even diehard oil-
and coal-state Republicans publicly acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need to transition to a low-carbon
economy. It also highlighted a shift that is already taking place in Congress, as more Republicans support major incentives for low-carbon
and renewable-energy technologies. “It wasn’t that long ago that if you were a Republican, you were looked at strangely if you talked about
conservation, about these energy alternatives,” said Ryan Loskarn, communications director for the Senate Republican Conference. “In the past, Republicans
have been vocal mainly on more drilling. But there’s been a perceptible shift in the mood of the party.” In speech after speech, GOP lawmakers called
for more funding and research into solar, wind and geothermal power; plug-in hybrid cars; and carbon sequestration. While some Republicans have
in the past voted for renewable-power incentives that could help their home-state industries, now party leaders are getting out in front of the issue
and seeking to define it as their own. New World Order As the climate change debate kicked off last week, the heads of the Senate
Republican Conference, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas, hosted a forum on the need for what Alexander likes to tout as
a “new Manhattan Project”: a policy centered on research and development of a raft of low-carbon energy initiatives, from plug-in cars to green
buildings. “We need a crash program for carbon recapture and solar. We stand ready for an agenda for more clean energy, and we have
the moment to marshal bipartisan support on this,” Alexander said. He said he’d like to see the heads of the Senate Energy Committee, Jeff
Bingaman , D-N.M., and Pete V. Domenici , R-N.M., work with the National Academy of Sciences to determine the top alternative energy priorities, “and then
say, ‘What should we do in Congress to put that on the fastest track possible?’ ” Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure, this doesn’t mean Republicans are
abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables
may be, even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be “exploring for more oil and gas. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project,
you need to start with more oil drilling.” And Cornyn, who hails from the nation’s chief oil state, backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and wind
power, but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. There’s a large consensus of people who think we need to be good stewards
of the environment. We all realize we can’t live on a petroleum-based economy indefinitely,” Cornyn said. “But the problem with our friends in the Democratic
majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution.” Still, Democrats see promise in the new Republican renewables movement.
“There’s greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy,” Bingaman said. “We are hoping to be able to
move ahead in that area. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been.” In the House, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the
House Republican Conference, said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the “game-changers.” “The lines that were drawn clearly about what
would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill — those are changing. Those old battle lines aren’t necessarily true
anymore,” he said.
62
Solar = Concession to Dems

Solar power has democrat support
CQ 08 (Congressional Quarterly, “Democrats Eye More Energy Proposals”, January 11, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002654421)
With higher oil and gasoline prices burdening voters and the economy, Democrats are girding for another effort to enact
mandates and tax incentives aimed at promoting alternative energy sources. Lawmakers who backed provisions dropped from broad
energy legislation enacted in December plan a second push for a renewable-energy mandate on utilities and an extension of tax
incentives for wind and solar power. House Democrats who pressed for a requirement that utilities produce a significant portion
of electricity from alternative sources have been working with leadership on how to advance the mandate this year, probably as a
stand-alone bill. “A series of meetings began occurring right after the energy vote took place,” said Marissa Padilla, a spokeswoman for Democrat Tom Udall
of New Mexico, the leading House champion of the idea. “The coalition that was built for passing it has not given up.” Meanwhile, alternative-energy
advocates are pushing for extensions to the solar and wind energy tax credits scheduled to expire at the end of 2008.
63
Solar – Bush Supports

Bush already supports solar power – budget increases
REW 07 (Renewable Energy World, “Bush Allocates $1 Billion to Renewable Energy”, February 6,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=47337)
Out of the $24.3 billion requested by President Bush for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fiscal 2008 budget,
approximately $1.2 billion will be allocated to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -- up $60 million or 5
percent from 2007. The 2008 budget request includes $179 million for the Biofuels Initiative (an increase of $29 million or 19 percent from 2007), which
is designed to help the U.S. reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years and make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive by 2012 through research and
development of biomass made from switch grass, wood chips and corn stalks. The budget also calls for expansion in key energy programs that
focus on developing clean and renewable energy including vehicle efficiency technology, $176 million; the Solar America Initiative,
$148 million; hydrogen technology, $213 million (includes fuel cell development); and wind projects, $40 million. "We applaud the Administration
for continuing to support the President's Solar America Initiative (SAI) at robust funding levels. The Administration's FY 2008
budget request calls for $137 million in funding for the SAI, a major new R&D effort to achieve cost-competitive solar energy
technologies across all market sectors by 2015," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). "At the same time,
the administration's request funds solar water heating research at just $2 million and concentrating solar power at just $9 million. It is important that Congress
recognize the vital contributions that these technologies can make to our energy security, by providing funding for concentrating solar power and solar heating
/ lighting programs at $25 million and $15 million, respectively. Moreover, the budget does not include a long-term extension of the Federal solar investment
tax credits, which is the single most important policy affecting solar development. We urge Congress to enact an eight-year extension of the Federal solar
investment tax credits as contained in H.R. 550., the Securing America's Energy Independence Act of 2007," continued Resch.
64
Solar = Unpopular
Solar power is unpopular with republicans – growing partisanship
Las Vegas Review Journal 08 (“Solar-power lobby's pressure has Ensign feeling alienated”, June 14,
http://www.lvrj.com/business/19939644.html)
WASHINGTON -- Breaking with an industry that is growing significant in Nevada, Sen. John Ensign cried foul this week against a solar power
lobbying campaign. Ensign said an effort to pressure him on solar tax breaks has had the opposite effect of "personally
alienating" him and other senators. In an outburst notable for its bluntness, the Republican sent a blistering letter Thursday to the national membership
of the Solar Energy Industry Association, and later gave it to reporters. He said lobbyists threw away their goodwill when they carried out a strategy that
included a statement suggesting Ensign was favoring "billionaire hedge fund managers" over job creation in Nevada. "It is rare to have such
overwhelming bipartisan support in today's political climate but the solar industry had it and your association's leadership
squandered it," Ensign wrote. The episode exposed a fissure that had been widening since last year as Congress tries but fails to
extend investment and production tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources that expire this year. Nevada
solar executives privately expressed unhappiness that Ensign was voting against bills containing the tax credits along with other expiring tax breaks. Ensign
said he opposed the bills because they would have paid for the new tax breaks by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry and other business interests. He
argued the trade-off would blunt the overall benefit to the economy. Earlier this spring, Ensign sponsored an alternative with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.,
that called for new renewable energy tax breaks without cost offsets. It passed the Senate 88-8, but is stuck in the House. On Tuesday, the latest effort
to move a tax bill was blocked by Republicans 50-44. A new vote is expected next week. In advance of Tuesday's vote, the solar industry said in a
statement that Ensign "will have to choose between job-creating solar power for Nevada or continuing a veto threat that protects the off-shore tax havens of
billionaire hedge-fund managers." That set off Ensign, along with disclosure of a solar lobbying plan targeting Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and
Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado. "Following a partisan playbook is
not a proven or wise track," Ensign said in his letter to the solar industry. "Instead of capitalizing on this opportunity to achieve your goals, SEIA wasted it."
Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industry Association president, said Friday the intent was not to alienate Ensign but to prod Congress to find a way to pass the tax
provisions. If they expire, investment in solar will come to a halt, he said.
Oil lobby hates solar and is key to the republicans

Grist News 07 (“Federal renewable portfolio standard update”, August 3, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/3/102021/3745)
The extension of the federal solar tax credit should be heard on the House Floor Saturday, and Big Oil is rallying the opposition
to kill solar as we speak. It will be an extremely tight vote - tight like a noose - and we need you to call your Representative right now. The situation is
this. Earlier this year, House leadership committed to 'pay as you go'--that is, any new tax incentives must be balanced by getting rid of existing incentives.
In this case, that means paying for renewable energy programs by reducing tax cuts for oil production. That's all good right? In a time of
record profits for Big Oil, an approaching climate crisis and energy security scaring us all, why not reduce oil profits to help bring solar into the
mainstream? Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is holding the line on keeping subsidies for Big Oil, while some Democrats in oil
districts haven't gotten the message that the public is tired of business as usual and wants a real commitment to renewables.
65
Geothermal = Bipart
Geothermal has strong bipartisan support
GEA 08 (Geothermal Energy Association, “Renewable Industry Association Asks Congress to Direct DOE to Follow New Law”, March 19,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=51930)
At issue is the Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 passed as part of the 2007 energy bill. The legislation “defines a bold
new vision of public-private partnerships and federal research and information initiatives that could help bring substantial new geothermal energy sources
online to meet national energy needs,” according to GEA. Congressional action on geothermal research was at least in part a response to
efforts by the Administration to terminate all federal geothermal research, as proposed in their FY 2007 and FY 2008 budgets.
But, Congress rejected the Administration’s proposals to close the program. Last December Congress approved $20 million for
DOE’s geothermal research efforts in FY 2008 as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. A few days earlier Congress passed national energy
legislation, H.R.6, which contained the new research program for advanced geothermal technologies. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told his
colleagues “...with the Senate's passage of the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 and H.R. 6, the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007,
the Department of Energy must now finally understand that its irrational hostility toward geothermal energy research and development has come to an end.”
Last month, a bipartisan group of a dozen Senators led by Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Murkowski (R-AK) sent Secretary
Bodman a letter urging DOE to move forward immediately with the new geothermal research law. “An important part of the
Energy Independence and Security Act, HR 6, are the provisions that authorize and direct the Department of Energy to
undertake a broad, new advanced geothermal energy research program,” the Senators told Bodman. “These provisions were based
upon legislation that had strong, bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate...” they added. In their statement today, GEA urged
Congress to “direct the DOE to implement the new law and to provide adequate funding to achieve its goals.” The association proposed funding for the
program should be $77.5 million in FY 2009. While DOE’s budget proposal for FY 2009 included funding for geothermal research, it would fund only work
on enhanced geothermal systems and ignore many other opportunities to expand geothermal energy production, according to GEA.
66
Geothermal = Popular
Reid supports geothermal energy – called for more funding
Washington Post 07 (“In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served”, May 24, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301782_pf.html)
Reid, as a senator from the electricity-needy West, noted that the legislation set aside $300 million in new money for research
in energy efficiency and renewable energy and suggested that some money be used to reverse the administration's original plan
to end its geothermal-energy research program. Reid demanded that the administration fund the geothermal program at 2006
levels or higher. "Geothermal energy has the potential to cleanly and renewably satisfy the new electricity needs of the West,"
he wrote. Reid also asked the administration to expand a federal loan program to include geothermal research projects. Other
lawmakers, from both parties, inundated the Energy Department with similar requests. Democrats slammed such practices when Republicans ruled the House,
but such calls and letters have not let up in the Democratic Congress, executive branch officials said. "Certainly, we have heard from various members of
Congress this year to express their support for various projects and groups seeking funding from the department," said Energy Department spokeswoman Anne
Womack Kolton. "There's no difference from previous years."
Another key Democratic reform requires House members seeking earmarks to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in the
project.
67
Geothermal = Concession to Dems

Democrats are pushing geothermal
Roll Call 07 (“In '09, Democrats Would Test Appetite for Change”, November 27,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/in_09_democrats_would_test_app.html)
A second major priority will be control of global warming and development of alternative energy sources. Clinton
proposes to create a $50 billion
strategic energy fund, paid for by ending oil and gas subsidies and taxing oil company profits, to develop alternative clean-fuel
technology. Democrats show a distinct partiality toward solar, wind, geothermal and agricultural sources of energy - and increased
fuel economy standards for automobiles - as opposed to coal and nuclear power. On the regulatory front, Clinton and other
Democratic candidates all are promising stricter environmental controls, such as requirements that utilities generate at least 20
percent of electric power using renewable fuels by 2020. They are likely to be more aggressive in enforcing occupational health and safety laws
and oversight of corporate governance, including CEO pay.
On spending, Clinton calculates that her health insurance proposal will cost $110 billion a year - half to be paid for by making the health system more efficient,
half by raising taxes on the wealthy. She is proposing to double the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation and to
establish a government-matched 401(k) savings program for all citizens costing $25 billion per year, paid for by limiting the tax exemption on estates valued at
more than $7 million.
68
Geothermal = Unpopular
Bush and congress oppose funding geothermal programs – empirically proven
CSM 06 (Christian Science Monitor, “US TO CUT FUNDS FOR TWO RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES”, September 15,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0915/p02s01-uspo.html)
Out at the Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River, a new turbine is being tested that generates more electricity, but won't kill so many fish - thanks to research
dollars from Uncle Sam. Down in California's Long Valley, on the Sierra Nevada range, federal researchers are working to boost efficiency of
geothermal energy, which uses the earth's natural heat to generate power. But renewable energy advocates may have to kiss
goodbye those and other research projects. The US Department of Energy (DOE) is quitting the hydropower and geothermal power
research business - if Congress will let it. Declaring them "mature technologies" that need no further funding, the Bush
administration in its FY 2007 budget request eliminates hydropower and geothermal research, venerable programs with roots in the energy
crises of the 1970s. "What we do well is research and funding of new, novel technologies," says Craig Stevens, chief spokesman for the DOE.
"From a policy perspective, geothermal and hydro are mature technologies. We believe the market can take the lead on this at
this point." Still, "zeroing out" such research could end up being a penny-wise, pound-foolish move, some energy advocates say. Any
savings from the cuts would be nil since all of the nearly $24 million ($1 million from hydropower and $23 million from geothermal) research funding would
go to other programs such as biofuels.
Republicans are opposed to funding for geothermal

Grist News 08 (“No renewal for renewables”, June 10, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/10/11530/1857)
The second bill, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, was the Senate partner to the tax-extenders legislation that passed in the House last
month. The $54 billion package would have extended tax breaks for renewable energy that are set to expire at the end of this year. It includes a six-year
extension of the investment tax credit for solar energy; a three-year extension of the production tax credit for biomass,
geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas, and solid waste; and a one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind energy.
The bill also has incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and cellulosic biofuels, incentives for companies that produce energy-
efficient products, and incentives to improve efficiency in commercial and residential buildings. Funding for the tax credits would come from closing
loopholes for hedge-fund managers and multinational corporations. Republicans Smith, Snowe, and Bob Corker (Tenn.) voted in favor of
cloture on the bill, as did all of the Democrats present for the vote. The tax-break extensions have stalled in the Senate several
times before, and folks in the renewables industry are starting to get nervous as we near the expiration of those credits at the
end of this year. “More than ever, with record energy prices, record unemployment, and grave concerns about global warming, Congress needs to work out
differences so we can stabilize energy costs for consumers and businesses, improve our nation’s energy security, and create tens of thousands of quality, green-
collar jobs,” said Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch following the vote. Green groups rushed to chastise GOP leaders for
the obstruction. “By once again blocking efforts to extend these crucial clean energy tax incentives that are in danger of
expiring, this minority is responsible for kicking the economy while it’s down,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope in a written
statement. “Jobs are already being lost in the renewable-energy industry and at least 100,000 more could disappear unless Congress acts to immediately renew
these tax incentives.”
69
Geothermal = Unpopular
Bush oppose increase funding for geothermal
LA Times 07 (“Priority changes on green policies”, August 21, http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/21/nation/na-green21)
While legislation to raise vehicle miles-per-gallon standards and cap emissions from power plants has been slower moving – because of resistance from some
lawmakers – Democrats have turned to the budget to advance their environmental priorities by increasing spending on a variety of
lower-profile programs.
That is likely to set up a showdown this fall between Congress and President Bush, who wants to spend less on climate-change
initiatives. The White House budget office, which has criticized excessive spending in the overall appropriations bills, noted that the president’s proposed
budget provides for a 3% increase in spending for climate-change activities.
“Congress is putting its money where its mouth is,” said Lowell Ungar, senior policy analyst at the Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington coalition of
business, consumer, environmental and government leaders. “They are devoting real resources to trying to address the problem of climate change.”
Lawmakers from both parties also see the public’s heightened interest in climate change and energy security as an opportunity to steer federal money to their
states through earmarks billed as environmentally friendly.
Money has been set aside for scores of home-state research initiatives and construction projects, including $1 million for a plug-in hybrid vehicle
demonstration project at Southern California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District.
“Green is becoming very fashionable,” said Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), a senior appropriator who secured $500,000 for a geothermal demonstration
project. “I think members are going to be challenged in their district” about how they are responding to concerns about climate change and U.S. dependence on
foreign oil, he said.
Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), for example, got $500,000 for a fuel-cell project by Superprotonic, a Pasadena company started by Caltech scientists.
“America needs to wean itself off of foreign oil,” Schiff said in a statement. “This is as much a national security imperative as it is an environmental one.
And federal support for innovative new technologies is part of the answer.”
Early this year, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee asked scientists how government efforts could be cranked up to combat global warming
and reduce oil use. “The question then became: How do we get the biggest bang for our buck?” said Kirstin Brost, spokeswoman for committee Chairman
David R. Obey (D-Wis.) “We’ve only accomplished a small first step, but it is a step in the right direction.”
Environmental initiatives are scattered throughout the 12 House appropriations bills for the federal fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. Kei Koizumi, research and
development policy program director of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, said money for addressing climate change had been added “even
in areas where you might not expect to find it.”
The bill funding foreign-aid programs calls on the U.S. Export-Import Bank to increase investment in renewable energy projects – a provision that its sponsors,
Schiff and Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), say could lead to about $1 billion in additional green exports in 2008.
The bill funding the Department of Housing and Urban Development requires it to incorporate “robust green building” standards.
And the bill funding Congress provides $3.9 million to the Green the Capitol initiative that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is pushing to make the
House carbon neutral by the end of next year.
Some of the largest increases are in the bill that funds the Department of Energy.
The House provided about $1.9 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, about 52% more than the administration requested. Just two
years ago under the Republican-controlled Congress, the programs received about $1.2 billion.
The Senate has yet to complete its spending bills, but its appropriations committee has recommended about $1.7 billion for energy efficiency and renewable
energy programs.
The House energy appropriations bill also provides $44 million to promote geothermal energy, a ninefold increase compared
with current spending. The Bush administration, on the other hand, has proposed doing away with spending on the geothermal
energy program, contending that it is a mature industry.
70
Hybrid Cars = Bipart

Lobbying and public support has fueled bipartisan support in Congress for hybrid cars
Whitman, 6 – President of the Whitman Strategy Group, a management consulting/strategic planning partnership servicing both government and business clients,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Bush, 50th Governor of the State of New Jersey (Christine, Hall Institue of Public Policy, “Open
Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government” 6-27-06 http://www.hallnj.org/cm/document_handler.jsp?dId=1000156) // DCM
With gasoline prices at record highs, Americans have a renewed interest in the development of more fuel-efficient cars. Majorities of
voters in both parties would like to see auto manufacturers create cars that use less fuel and produce less pollution. As such, the tax
credits for hybrid cars, recently signed into law by President Bush, received strong bipartisan support in the Congress. The policy was so forward-
looking and logical that it even received the enthusiastic support of the environmental lobby and the auto industry.
There is increased bipartisan interest in Congress to encourage hybrid technology

Hopson, 6 – Washington Representative for Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles Program (Eli, “Hybrids on the Hill – 2006 Legislative Look” 1-19-2006,
http://www.hybridcenter.org/best-of-the-blog/best-blog-consumer-2006-legislative-look.html) // DCM
<So I thought I’d give you a bit of an inside look at what’s happening on Capitol Hill. In addition to Congressman Rahm Emanuel’s (D-IL) domestic hybrid
tax credit expansion bill Scott mentioned earlier, there are several other bills that would either remove the unproductive 60,000 vehicle cap on
the tax credit, or provide an incentive to manufacturers to retool existing plants to produce efficient vehicles that use new technologies, including
hybrids.
Two of these are comprehensive oil savings bills that set oil savings targets for federal agencies to meet. Both the House bill (H.R. 4409) and the Senate version (S.
2025) include several provisions that would help reduce oil usage for certain vehicles, but there is still no guarantee that the entire oil savings goals would actually be
met. They’re popular, at least in concept, as these bills have drawn together a diverse collection of supporters, from conservatives like Sam
Brownback (R-KS), Jack Kingston (R-GA), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to moderate to liberal members such as Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Elliot Engel (D-NY). This
newly formed collaboration on both sides of the aisle is a sign of increasing support for reducing our use of petroleum and increasing advanced technology vehicle
availability through a variety of policy approaches. Representative Chris Shays (R-CT) introduced a comprehensive bill that would provide incentives to manufacturers
to produce advanced technology vehicles, and remove the cap on the hybrid tax credits. Rep. Shays’s bill (H.R. 4384) also provides incentives to businesses and
consumers to use natural gas and electricity more efficiently, and to increase there use of renewables.
Other bills include Representative Jim Gerlach’s (R-PA) oil savings bill that would provide incentives to manufacturers to produce efficient vehicles, and require that
the improvements to the overall vehicle fleet are over and above existing fuel economy requirements. Senator Barak Obama (D-IL) and Congressman Jay Inslee (D-
WA) also introduced bills (S.2045 and H.R. 4370, respectively) that would assist manufacturers with increasingly burdensome health care costs in exchange for the
manufacturers’ agreement to produce advanced vehicles, including hybrids.
Finally, there are a couple of bills that place a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and use that revenue to either encourage manufacturers or consumers to produce
more efficient automobiles. Senator Richard Durbin’s (D-IL) bill would focus on automobile manufacturers and suppliers, while Representative Pallone’s (D-NJ) bill
would provide a tax credit to consumers of $1,000 for purchasing a vehicle that gets over 30 miles per gallon.
So as you can see, there’s a lot of interest in Congress in trying to address oil usage and encourage hybrid technology (if you want to look at
the specific text of any/all of these bills you can head to the Thomas website), but it’s still too early to tell if any of these bills will become law in the near future.
With all of these bills it’s important to focus on the details to make sure that any federal dollars spent will actually encourage advanced technology AND decrease
overall oil usage, which is not an easy thing to accomplish. We’ll keep delving into the minutiae, and let you know if any of these look likely to move.>
71
Hybrid Cars – Popular With Environmental Lobbies

Automakers and environmental groups back tax incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles
San Francisco Chronicle 01
[“Automakers, environmentalists agree on clean vehicle tax credits,” Apr 24,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/04/24/national1643EDT0692.DTL] bg
Several major automakers and environmental groups have joined forces for the first time to support tax credits to promote cleaner vehicles and reduce
fuel consumption. Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., along with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense
Council and other environmental groups, announced support Tuesday for legislation offering credits to people who buy cleaner motor vehicles.
Auto and environmental lobbies back the CLEAR Act

Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition 03
[“The CLEAR ACT: Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies,” http://www.ngvc.org/ngv/ngvc.nsf/bytitle/clearact2003summary.html]
bg
A broad and diverse group that includes representatives from automobile manufacturers, the environmental community and alternative fuel groups support
the [CLEAR Act] proposed legislation.
72
Gas Rationing = Unpopular

Gas Rationing is unpopular with Bush and Democrats
The Topeka Capital Journal Online – 5-20-2001

[Energy plans come without sacrifice, http://www.cjonline.com/stories/052101/new_energyplans.shtml]
Concepts like sacrifice, rationing, austerity -- maybe turn down the air conditioning or even give up the sport utility vehicle -- are
missing in President Bush's plan to deal with the crunch. They are missing in Democratic plans, too.
Conservation," says Bush, "does not mean doing without."
Bush's blueprint relies on more energy supplies and a basket of enticements for greater energy efficiency. In his speech introducing it,
he called conservation "the result of millions of good choices made across our land on a daily basis," and asked for no hard choices in
particular.
Rozanne Weissman, speaking for the Alliance to Save Energy, wasn't surprised.
"Americans do not want sacrifice and deprivation," she said.
"This administration doesn't want to look like the Jimmy Carter administration -- telling people to turn their thermostats down and
then not getting re-elected."
Congressional Democrats have proposed a variety of steps to shelter Americans from sky-high costs. Like Bush, they don't question
the idea that people can continue to have it all.
"Democrats do not advocate energy policies that will require rationing or reductions in our standard of living," says the House
Democrats' energy plan.
73
Hybrid Cars = Concession to Dems

Democratic support for green cars and alternative fuels
Fezziwig, 6 – Administrator for GreenCarsNow.Com, a website promoting fuel efficient cars and cleaner alternative energy (“Democrats Good for Hybrid Cars” 11-
19-06 http://www.hybridcars.com/node/23006) // DCM
<Americans demonstrated their dissapointment over middle eastern energy dependence on fossil fuels and rising gas prices with a resounding defeat of Bush’s energy
policies. These concerns are inextricably linked to hybrid cars and cleaner alternative fuels. The Democrats big win was a major bolster to green cars and
alternative fuels.
Fuel efficient standards are emerging as a major political topic. Fuel-efficiency has declined during the past decade for nine of the 13 major
manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States, according to a new study by the Consumer Federation of America.
Democrat Edward Markey has proposed raising combined light truck-car standards to an average of 33 miles per gallon by 2016 models.
Democrat Barack Obama proposed increasing the average to 40.5 mpg for passenger vehicles and 32.6 mpg for the light-truck category, which includes
SUVs, by 2020. Jerry McNerney, who defeated Pombo in California, says he will "dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of new vehicles.">
74
CAFE = Bipart
There is strong bipartisan and lobby support for CAFE
Terry, 7 – Republican Representative from Nebraska (Lee, The Hill, “Senate CAFÉ Plan Goes Too Far” 10-26-07, http://thehill.com/op-eds/senate-cafe-
plan-goes-too-far-2007-10-26.html) // DCM
The Hill-Terry CAFE bill requires the secretary of transportation to mandate separate CAFE standards for model year 2022 such that car standards and pickup
trucks standards will be no less than a combined 32 miles per gallon and no more than 35 mpg. H.R. 2927 keeps in place the current separation of standards for regular
cars and light trucks, which includes sport utility vehicles. Alternative CAFE legislation largely calls for all automobiles to be grouped into one category. However,
increasing fuel economy standards must be done right or it will have disastrous impacts for our economy. Done incorrectly, by imposing unrealistic timetables and
CAFE standards such as those in the Senate’s energy bill, CAFE increases could result in the closing of light-truck manufacturing facilities and the loss of jobs
dependent on the auto sector.
The Hill-Terry proposal will protect good-paying American manufacturing jobs, preserve consumer choice in auto vehicles, and set achievable timetables for
compliance. Additionally, our bill possesses the widest possible bipartisan support in the House with 172 cosponsors from every ideological
stripe in Congress. It has been endorsed by the House Democrat Blue Dog Coalition, members of the Congressional Black Caucus,
the United Autoworkers and the Alliance of Automobile manufacturers, and groups ranging from the American Farm Bureau
Federation to the National Conference of Black Mayors and the Traditional Values Coalition.>
75
CAFE = Unpopular
Increased CAFE Standards is unpopular with the auto industry lobby – High costs would threaten profits Edmuds Inside
Line, 7 (“Chevrolet Volt Goes to Washington To Underline GM's Anti-CAFE-Increase Argument” 7-19-07
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121774) // DCM
General Motors' North American operations chief, Troy Clarke, is meeting with legislators on Capitol Hill today, and he's bringing along the Chevrolet
Volt plug-in hybrid prototype. GM hopes the Volt will help convince lawmakers that electric and alternative-fuel vehicles are the route to energy independence. The
Big Three have strenuously opposed a proposed increase in CAFE standards, saying the cost of meeting higher mpg averages would
take away resources that could be put toward development of alternative-energy vehicles.
While in Washington, the Volt will also be present at an Electric Power Research Institute meeting on plug-in hybrids, to be held at the National Press Club, the Detroit
News reported today.
Earlier this week, about 100 auto dealers visited legislators in Washington, carrying the same message. The proposed increase, already approved by
the Senate, would mean cars and light trucks would have to attain an average 35 mpg by 2020. GM has said it would have to spend more than $40 billion to meet that
standard.
76
Military = Unpopular
Renewable energy projects at military bases will anger environmentalists who believe that resources will be wasted
Bowles, 8 – Writer about environmental issues for the Press-Enterprise since 1999, attended a year-long fellowship at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where
she studied natural resources law, policy and science (Jennifer, Press Enterprise, “Renewable Energy Projects Meet Opposition from Environmentalists”
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_renewable03.3cc481c.html) // DCM
<A rush to build environmentally friendly renewable energy in the windy, sunny Inland region has stirred up some unlikely foes:
environmentalists.
They say the projects mean new transmission lines and towers across some of the very mountains and desert vistas people have
fought to protect.
"It seems kind of silly to have a solar project in Blythe (in eastern Riverside County) and send it along transmission lines," said Jeff Morgan, chairman of the Sierra
Club group in the Coachella Valley. "They should put them on the roofs of Los Angeles. It's best and most efficient when it's used where it is generated."
It's not just environmentalists who are objecting. A Riverside County supervisor said he opposes plans to erect 400-foot-tall wind turbines for the first time on the 4,000-
foot elevation of Mount San Jacinto, near Palm Springs. And a San Bernardino County supervisor has strongly urged Los Angeles to abandon plans to string new
transmission lines to carry renewable energy through the Morongo Basin east of Joshua Tree National Park.
Apple Valley leaders passed a resolution in April opposing plans to erect wind turbines along the ridgeline of the Granite Mountain range east of town.
"There's almost a Gold Rush type of thing happening in the Inland Empire and up in the desert to capture what we have here," said Scott Nassif, an Apple Valley town
councilman. "They're great resources," Nassif said of the wind and sun, "but we need to make sure we're approaching it the right way and
know the impacts on the communities." He noted that while the projects might be located in the Inland region, they benefit much of Southern California by
feeding into the electricity grid. Mike Marelli, power contract manager for Southern California Edison, said the state's utility companies may not have much choice
about building new transmission lines. Edison and other utilities must meet a legislative mandate to have 20 percent of their energy production from renewable sources
by 2010. "For renewable energy to really move forward," Marelli said, "there has to a significant investment in transmission."
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has received so many applications for solar energy projects that the agency last week put new applications on hold and launched
an environmental review for such projects on public land in six Western states.
In California's desert, which includes eastern Riverside County and much of San Bernardino County, the agency has 66 applications for solar projects on more than
518,573 acres, BLM spokeswoman Jan Bedrosian said.
The agency will host hearings this month to gather public input on what environmental and socioeconomic issues should be considered.
Besides the potential for the renewable-energy projects to change the landscape, Bedrosian said, a number of threatened and endangered species, including the desert
tortoise, live on the land where companies want to build. San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt said the review will help decide where such
projects are appropriate and where they should be restricted.
"At a time when the desert has become smaller because of urban growth, set-asides for (endangered species) habitat and wilderness, and expansion of military bases,
we cannot surrender huge areas of public land without a serious discussion about which resources we can sacrifice and which
need to be protected," he said in a statement.
77
Military = Unpopular
The use of alternative energy in the military and Air Force faces opposition from environmentalists, the DOD, community
groups and lobbies, and Democrats
Energy Washington Week, 6 (“DOD Emerging as Key Proving Ground for New Energy Alternatives” 01-11-2006, Volume 3 Number 2
http://members.communityfuels.com/InTheMedia/tabid/53/EntryID/55/Default.aspx) // DCM
While the efforts to cut energy consumption and greenhouse gases generally win praise from environmentalists and energy efficiency
advocates, some DOD efforts face criticisms. For example, environmentalists are challenging claims by DOD and some states that a
controversial technology for producing diesel fuel from coal does not provide the kinds of environmental benefits that proponents
claim. Congressional efforts to use DOD resources to increase energy supply have also drawn criticism, in some cases from DOD. Similar
plans by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), chairman of the House energy committee, and Senate environment committee chief James Inhofe (R-OK) to encourage
construction of new refineries on closed bases has drawn significant opposition from community groups and Democratic lawmakers.
78
Military – Bush supports

Bush already supports alternative energy policies for the military – budget plan proves
Bloomberg News, 7 (“Military and Alternative Energy Sectors Win in the Proposed U.S. Budget”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/05/business/spend.php) // DCM
<Military
contractors like Boeing and companies developing alternative fuels like VeraSun Energy stand to gain from President George W. Bush's
2008 budget plan. But some health care companies and drug makers may be pinched by plans for Medicare and Medicaid benefit programs for elderly and low-
income Americans.
Bush's spending plan of $2.9 trillion, which he sent to the Congress on Monday, contains money for grants, loans, programs or changes in the law
worth tens of billions of dollars to U.S. businesses. The budget will benefit a cross- section of basic U.S. industries, said Michael Darda, chief economist at
MKM Partners in Greenwich, Connecticut. "The winners are still going to be the industrials, because of a strong economy, high profits and a war on terror in which
there's no end in sight," Darda said. Bush said the spending plan would lead to a balanced budget in five years through continued U.S. economic growth and cutting
spending on government programs outside the military. For the first time in his presidency, Bush is submitting his budget to a Congress controlled by Democrats.
"We've been able to manage our budget after five years of war behind us and we will manage our budget in the out-years,"
Bush said Monday following a meeting with his cabinet. Bush said the military sector was his top priority, and the Pentagon budget reflects that. Core military
spending would rise to a record $481 billion, an increase of 11.3 percent. In addition, the president sought an extra $100 billion this year and $145 billion next year for
the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader war against terrorism. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Textron, Boeing and European Aeronautic Defense
& Space all would get a lift. The largest programs of Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland and the world's top military contractor, would be almost fully
financed under the budget. That includes $6.1 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter, its largest weapons program and $4.6 billion to buy 20 Lockheed F-22A Raptor
fighters.
The U.S. Air Force will also formally open an aerial refueling competition that is likely to pit Boeing against a team of Northrop and EADS, the
parent of Airbus. The budget includes $314.5 million for research and development. The U.S. economy has "been so strong, its given us a bit more flexibility in terms
of our ability keep our expenditure levels consistent with funding the global war on terror and still have the deficit coming down," Edward Lazear, chairman of the
White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on C-Span's "Newsmaker" program broadcast Sunday. Another area where Bush plans to spend more
money is alternative energy, including $9 billion in loan guarantees to support a mandate for the country to use 35 billion gallons, or 132.5 billion liters, of
renewable fuels annually in the next decade and to lower emissions.>
79
Air Force = Popular

Private industry lobby supports alternative fuels for the Air Force – they see a potential for profit
Wall Street Jounal, 8 (Keith Johnson “Wild Green Yonder: How the Pentagon Could Push Alternative Fuels” 05-21-2008
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/21/wild-green-yonder-how-the-pentagon-could-push-alternative-fuels/)
Alternative energy isn’t just for greens—it’s also for the folks who wear dress greens. And like computers or the Internet, when the military plants the
seeds, civilian industry often reaps the rewards. The WSJ’s Yochi Dreazen reports today on the Pentagon’s latest experiment with
alternative fuels, a supersonic synthetic-fuel flight by a B-1 bomber. As with commercial aviation, the alternative-energy drive is part of a push to reduce fuel bills,
of course—the Air Force’s gas bill has tripled to $6 billion since 2003. But finding an alternative to petroleum is also increasingly a matter of national security for the
Pentagon, which alone uses 1.5% of oil in the U.S. Strategic planners are edging closer to the “peak oil” thesis—and getting nervous. The Pentagon’s push could
be a way to break the chicken-and-egg stalemate that has plagued alternative-energy development so far, a solution supported by many
in private industry, like GE boss Jeff Immelt. The Air Force is working with companies like Boeing and Pratt and Whitney, which make
planes and jet engines. More importantly, the Pentagon, notorious for $400 toilet seats, can operate outside economic restraints in a way Silicon Valley—or
commercial aviation—can’t. The paper notes: In late 2006, Baard Energy of Vancouver had said it would build the first commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refinery in the
U.S., to be completed in 2012. Chief Executive John Baardson says he decided to roll the dice on the $6 billion plant because of the military’s interest. “There isn’t a
market for this right now, so it takes a little bit of faith to get these plants going,” he says. “Knowing the military was out there took one huge risk factor out of the
decision-making process.”
80
Air Force = Unpopular

Environmentalists are opposed to using clean coal for Air Force Fuel, claiming that it will still produce heavy pollution
Boston Globe, 6 (John Donnelly, “Military Wants a More Fuel Efficient Humvee” 10-02-2006, p.A1, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // DCM
Last year, the Air Force won a "Green Power" award from the Environmental Protection Agency as the largest US purchaser of renewable energy. It accounted for 41
percent of the government's renewable energy purchases, by buying gas made from landfill refuse, and by wind and solar power. But two years ago, the EPA also gave
the Defense Department a "national security exemption" that allowed it to use trucks that did not meet emissions standards for commercial trucks. The department's
most promising initiatives are mostly several years away from starting, Defense officials say. A Humvee replacement will not be ready for at least
three years. Last week, a B-52 bomber made two test runs using a synthetic fuel made with natural gas. In the future, the same type of fuel will be made with coal.
While officials reported no problems with the new fuel, the cost brought looks of astonishment from members of Congress at a hearing last week: $23 a gallon, almost
10 times the cost at the pump. Greg G. Jenkins, executive vice president of Syntroleum, a Tulsa, Okla., company that helped produce the fuel for the demonstration
project, said that once the process was commercialized on a large scale, the cost of turning coal into a gas mixture would be less than $3 a gallon. Told of the price
estimate, Michael Aimone, who helps oversee the Air Force's energy savings plans, said: "He said that? Put that in print. We don't know what the cost will eventually
be." Aimone said the industry has promised that it could deliver 650 million gallons of synthetic fuel from coal by 2016. That figure would
be roughly 25 percent of the Air Force's consumption. Environmentalists, though, have criticized coal-based fuel, saying that it will produce as
much carbon dioxide pollution as gas. Aimone argued that there would be a "marginal improvement in greenhouse gases," because coal-based fuel would
not generate sulfur dioxide, but acknowledged that coal is far from clean.
The use of alternative energy in the military and Air Force faces opposition from environmentalists, the DOD, community
groups and lobbies, and Democrats
Energy Washington Week, 6 (“DOD Emerging as Key Proving Ground for New Energy Alternatives” 01-11-2006, Volume 3 Number 2
http://members.communityfuels.com/InTheMedia/tabid/53/EntryID/55/Default.aspx) // DCM
While the efforts to cut energy consumption and greenhouse gases generally win praise from environmentalists and energy efficiency
advocates, some DOD efforts face criticisms. For example, environmentalists are challenging claims by DOD and some states that a
controversial technology for producing diesel fuel from coal does not provide the kinds of environmental benefits that proponents
claim. Congressional efforts to use DOD resources to increase energy supply have also drawn criticism, in some cases from DOD. Similar
plans by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), chairman of the House energy committee, and Senate environment committee chief James Inhofe (R-OK) to encourage
construction of new refineries on closed bases has drawn significant opposition from community groups and Democratic lawmakers.
81

PTX Links

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PTX Links

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michigan 7 Wk Jrs CHPS

Politics – Politics Links

Removing Brazilian Tariff = Bipart.......................................................................................................................46

Alternative Energy = Concession to Dems

Alternative Energy = Popular with Republicans

Alternative Energy = Unpopular with Republicans

Alternative Energy = Unpopular

Alternative Energy = Unpopular With Big Oil

Alternative Energy = Unpopular (AT: Turns)

Renewables – Pelosi Supports

Pelosi 7, (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “Greening the Capitol”, 03-01-07, http://speaker.gov/issues?id=0023)

Renewables = Unpopular with public

Low carbon policies = Popular with Republicans

Oil Shales = Popular

How Republican Solutions Will Fix It:

Climate Change Laws = Popular

Tax Incentives = Popular

Tax Incentives = Popular

Tax Incentives = Pelosi Supports

Nancy Pelosi pushes for a tax package

Tax Incentives = Unpopular With Republicans

Democrats support renewable tax breaks – the GOP opposes

Net Metering = Unpopular

Loan Guarantees – Bush Supports

RPS has bipartisan support

RPS = Popular with Environmental Lobbies

RPS Unpopular - Congress

Star Telegram 7-1

Senate opposes RPS – raises energy prices

RPS Unpopular - Democrats

RPS = Unpopular - Boucher

RPS Unpopular - Domenici

U.S.News, 7 (Bret Schulte, 11-15-2007, “More on the Energy Bill,”

RPS is unpopular with Domenici – increase in energy prices

RPS Unpopular - Bush

RPS = Unpopular with Industry Lobbies

Cap and Trade – Bipartisan

Cap and Trade is gaining bipartisan support in congress

Cap and Trade – Popular with Public

The public supports Cap and Trade

Cap and Trade – Republicans Oppose

Permits – Concession to Democrats

Emissions Trading would be a concession to democrats and moderate republicans

Emissions Trading would be a concession to democrats

Passage of emissions trading schemes requires political horsetrading

<Biodiesel is bipartisan- tax credit proves

Biodiesel = Concession to Dems

Ethanol = Concession to Democrats

Cellulosic Ethanol = Bipart

Cellulosic Ethanol = Popular

Cellulosic Ethanol = Bush supports

Removing Brazilian Tariff = Bipart

Removing Brazilian Tariff = Partisan

Ocean Power Popular

Earlier this week, a

Representative Ron Klein supports ocean-based renewable energy.

Ocean Power = Unpopular

Ocean Power = Unpopular

Nuclear Power = Bipartisan

Pro-nuclear policies get strong bipartisan support

Nuclear Power = Unpopular

Passing nuclear power legislation will cost political capital