Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AR EXTS – COAL – NO CLEAN COAL TECH....................................................................................................47
1AR EXTS – NO CLEAN COAL TECH...................................................................................................................48
1AR EXTS – CLEAN COAL DECADES AWAY.....................................................................................................49
2AC OIL DA FRONTLINE STARTER.....................................................................................................................50
EXTS – OIL DA ANS – NO LINK............................................................................................................................51
2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................................52
2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................................53
2
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
ADVANTAGE ____: THE ECONOMY
THE FINITE NATURE AND SUPPLY INSTABILITY OF FOSSIL FUELS GUARANTEES PRICE
VOLATILITY – DELAYING ACTION INCREASES THE COST OF TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM
FOSSIL FUELS
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 2008 [“Statement on Energy Science and Technology”,
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1890&use_sec=false&sec
_url_var=region1/ ttate]
Plentiful, accessible, inexpensive energy is the underpinning of modern society. It is the basis for meeting
numerous national and global needs such as increased demands for electricity and transportation, affordable food
and water, and adequate resources for manufacturing. In the U.S., reliable, affordable energy is crucial to the
economic well-being and security of our nation. The time has come for us to confront future energy options. The
ACS and AIChE believe a comprehensive national energy strategy must address S&T opportunities thoroughly to
make the best near-term decisions and develop new options for a more sustainable future.
The most important reason to address this issue now is the growing, global dependence on oil and natural gas,
which experts agree are available in limited and rapidly declining quantities. Demand for oil will continue to grow
as countries raise standards of living—especially populous, developing nations like China and India. As we move
beyond the world’s maximum oil production point and demands continue to rise, prices and instability will
certainly increase. Estimates vary on total oil resources, but it would be a mistake to assume that fossil fuel would
remain at current prices, given the inherently unstable nature of commodity markets, geopolitics, and policy
changes. We believe a targeted allocation of funds and timely change in energy policy would postpone the inevitable date that oil production would begin to decline.
Thus, investment in increasing energy options is paramount. Market forces will play an important, but not sufficient, role in meeting future energy needs. A sudden
increase in energy prices or long periods of energy-price instability would result in energy shortfalls, which in turn
would significantly impact global economic growth. Sufficient investment in energy innovations to increase availability and allow profound
infrastructure changes (e.g., converting gasoline vehicles to hydrogen or increasing the use of public transportation) would require an ongoing, commitment over several
decades. Given the investment of time and the technology needed, it is imperative to take immediate steps toward solving this problem. According to the Energy Information
Agency, U.S. domestic energy utilization in 2003 was roughly 85 percent fossil fuel, 8 percent nuclear power, and 6 percent renewable energy—including hydroelectricity.
Clearly, America is overly dependent on fossil fuel, much of which comes from unstable regions of the world. Energy-use patterns—22 percent residential, 52 percent
industrial, and 27 percent transportation—must also be considered in developing a comprehensive U.S. energy policy. Energy efficiency and conservation must be
encouraged across the board.
At present, the S&T required to move beyond fossil-energy dependence and provide safely produced, sustainable power to meet growing, global needs, is simply not
available. The ACS and AIChE recommend developing a dual-track, comprehensive R&D strategy that would simultaneously implement a near-term advancement of energy
technologies (including fossil, solar, wind, nuclear, and efficient utilization) and a comprehensive S&T policy for developing sustainable sources to replace dwindling fossil
supplies in the long term.
Finding solutions to meet advancing world needs for sustainable energy is one of the biggest challenges mankind
will ever face. Burning fossil fuels places humanity at risk environmentally, and the potential consequences are
dramatic. We must call upon universities, the private sector, and national laboratories to provide the best minds and teams to develop creative solutions through energy
R&D.
3
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
4
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
5
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
6
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
AND, A NATIONAL RPS IS KEY TO CHECKING BACK FUTURE ENERGY PRICE SHOCKS AND
VOLATILITY - SAVE CONSUMERS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate]
Both the UCS and EIA analyses show that a national RPS can save consumers money in several ways. First, by
reducing the demand for fossil fuels, and creating new competitors for the dominant fuel sources, renewable
energy helps reduce the price of fossil fuels and restrain the ability of fossil fuel prices to increase in the future.
Natural gas therefore costs less for electricity generation, as well as for other purposes, benefiting both electricity consumers and other natural
gas consumers. Second, some renewable resources, especially wind energy at good sites, are now less expensive than building new
natural gas- or coal-fired power plants over the expected lifetimes of the plants, and reduce projected generation
costs. And third, a national RPS reduces the cost of renewable energy technologies, by creating competition among
renewable sources and projects to meet the requirements, and by creating economies of scale in manufacturing,
installation, operations, and maintenance. Most importantly, projected savings are robust enough to be found in all
of the recent RPS scenarios, at both the 10 percent and 20 percent levels, and despite large differences in projected renewable energy costs and performance in
the EIA and UCS assumptions.
Using UCS assumptions for renewable energy technologies, average consumer natural gas prices would be lower than business as
usual in nearly every year of the forecast under the 20 percent RPS, with an average annual reduction of 1.5 percent. In addition,
average consumer electricity prices would be lower than business as usual in every year of the forecast, with an average
annual reduction of 1.8 percent. As a result, the 20 percent RPS would save consumers $49.1 billion on their electricity and
natural gas bills by 2020 (Figure 1).19 All sectors of the economy would benefit, with commercial, industrial, and
residential customers' total savings reaching $19.1 billion, $17.4 billion, and $12.6 billion, respectively.
With UCS running NEMS using EIA's assumptions unmodified, the results showed that a 20 percent RPS would still reduce gas and electricity prices. Cumulative savings
to electricity customers under a 20 percent RPS totaled $15.4 billion by 2020, with cumulative savings to gas consumers of an additional $11.6 billion, for a total savings of
more than $27 billion.
A 10 percent renewable standard would save less money than the 20 percent scenario. In the UCS scenario, consumers would save almost $28.2 billion on their electricity
and natural gas bills by 2020, with the savings continuing to grow to $37.7 billion by 2025. EIA's own analysis found that the 10 percent RPS would save consumers $22.6
billion by 2025.20
energy bills would be reduced in every region of the country,
National RPS scenarios using either UCS or EIA assumptions also show that
including the Southeast, where some people have suggested there is limited low-cost renewable energy potential (Table 1). This
is primarily due to the
lower natural gas prices for electricity generation and other direct gas consumers that all regions would see. In addition,
all regions do have some renewable energy resources, and would likely see an increase in using local resources for generation that would often displace the need for
importing fossil fuel. Furthermore, the national credit trading market created by a national RPS would allow utilities in all regions to purchase RECs for the same price,
providing utilities with negotiating leverage over local renewable generators.
The strong relationship between renewable energy generation, and natural gas demand and prices is further supported by a 2005 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBL) study, which reviewed 13 analyses using different computer models and assumptions. The analyses all confirmed that renewable energy (and energy efficiency) could
reduce gas demand and put downward pressure on natural gas prices and bills by displacing gas-fired electricity generation. The report also found that the higher the level of
renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved, and the more gas prices are reduced. Furthermore, LBL's study shows how these results are broadly consistent with
economic theory, with results from other energy models, and with limited empirical evidence.21
Because of this relationship, long-term natural gas prices have a significant effect on the impact of a national RPS. As gas price forecasts have increased,
analyses have shown that a national RPS is more cost-effective. For example, a 2001 EIA analysis-using wellhead natural gas prices that
averaged $3.28 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period-projected that a 20 percent national RPS would result in cumulative consumer energy bill costs of $14 billion by
2020.22 By comparison, the 20 percent RPS scenario (EIA assumptions) from 2004, which showed consumer savings of $27 billion, used a natural gas price forecast that
averaged $3.97 per Mcf (2002$). While EIA changed a number of the assumptions used in NEMS between 2001 and 2004, most of the difference in energy bill impacts is
due to the increase in natural gas prices. EIA has consistently increased its long-term natural gas price projection each year since 1997 to conform to new data. In the
recently released AEO 2007, wellhead gas prices average $5.06 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period.23
7
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
Most people in the United States only think about where electricity comes from when the lights go out suddenly.
But unless the antiquated transmission grid is fixed, expensive blackouts that bring modern life to a grinding halt
will become ever more common, according to "Lights Out" (Wiley, $27.95), a new book by Jason Makansi.
Before the 1980s, power generating companies were responsible for the entire chain of supply, from securing fuel to transmitting power to homes. Deregulation,
meant to increase competition, has busted that chain apart and left the wires and substations that deliver electricity
as a "neglected stepchild," Makansi writes.
As demand for electricity rises, especially in the hot summer months when air conditioners are humming, the result is an
overstretched grid, exploding transformers, brownouts and blackouts.
Transmission only accounts for about 10 percent of the industry's assets, and for decades utilities and regulators have focused on more expensive parts of the system.
Now, even electricity generated in ultramodern plants is dependent on the brittle transmission grid. "Imagine
driving a Maserati over a road littered with potholes," Makansi writes.
AND, A NATIONAL RPS WILL LEAD TO VAST TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR ENERGY
GRID
Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007
[“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu]
3. Transmission: A National RPS Speeds Infrastructure Investment
Some utilities object to aggressive RPS mandates on the grounds that greater penetration of renewables will
require costly transmission system upgrades. New wind projects, for example, will need to be located in windy
areas that are often far from the cities where the most electricity is consumed.116 Mandating that utilities invest in
new renewable generation, therefore, is also mandating investment in new and expensive transmission upgrades.
Creating incentives for utilities to invest in much needed transmission system upgrades actually may be one of the
hidden benefits of a national RPS.
Utilities can overcome public opposition to new transmission infrastructure by arguing for the need to access
renewable resources. While public reaction to renewable energy is far from uniform, using access to renewable
resources as a justification for new transmission wins local support for projects and speeds their development.
In addition, because renewable energy technologies have much shorter lead-times than conventional power plants,
utilities can start getting use out of new power lines even as they wait to bring large conventional projects online.
Quicker use of new transmission capacity benefits ratepayers because new rules allow utilities to start recovering
the full cost of transmission investments even before utilities have built new capacity to fill them.
8
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
AND, THE ENERGY GRID IS VULNERABLE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK, LEADING TO
BLACKOUTS ACROSS THE US, GUTTING THE US ECONOMY – A NATIONAL RPS PREVENTS
THIS
Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007
[“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu]
Second, larger penetration rates are needed to ensure energy security. This is because the geographical dispersion of
generators not only improves their overall reliability; it makes them more secure--and thus resilient to accidental
power outages and failure, or intentional attack and disruption. Notwithstanding intense media focus on the security dangers from nuclear
reactors and natural gas facilities, the nation's power grid represents an equally serious threat to energy security. The security issues
facing the modern electric utility grid are almost as serious as they are invisible.
For example, in 1975 the New World Liberation Front bombed assets of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company more than ten times, and members of the Ku Klux Klan and
San Joaquin Militia have been convicted of attempting to attack electricity infrastructure. n23 Internationally, organized paramilitaries such as the Farabundo-Marti National
Liberation Front were able to interrupt more than ninety percent of electric service in El Salvador and even had manuals for attacking power systems. n24
Some caution that all it would take to cause a "cascade of power failures across the country," costing billions of dollars in
direct and indirect damage, is a few motivated people with minivans and a couple of mortars and balloons, which they would use to chaff substations and
disrupt transmission lines. n25 A deliberate, aggressive, well-coordinated assault on the electric power grid could devastate
the electricity sector. Replacement time would be "on the order of Iraq," not "on the order of a lineman putting things up a pole." n26
Several recent trends in the electric utility industry have increased the vulnerability of its infrastructure. To improve their
operational efficiency, many utilities and system operators have increased their reliance on automation and computerization. Low margins and various competitive priorities
have encouraged industry consolidation, with fewer and bigger facilities and intensive use of assets in one place. As the National Research Council noted, "control is more
centralized, spare parts inventories have been reduced, and subsystems are highly integrated across the entire business." n27
Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing
electricity generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them
to produce power in incremental and modular amounts makes it much more difficult to disrupt large segments of
generation. The International Energy Agency has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant targets for terrorism
because attacking a few facilities can cause large power outages. n28 In contrast to the security risks of large centralized generators,
decentralizing energy facilities and providing power through more modular and distributed energy systems
minimizes the risk of accidents and grid failures, and does not require transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have
tended to refer to renewable energy systems (and other forms of distributed generation such as fuel cells and small-scale cogeneration units) as "supple" power technologies
because they are modular suited to dispersed siting. n29 A national
RPS or SBC promoting renewables could greatly contribute to the
overall security of the nation's electric infrastructure by forcing more technologies into the portfolio of all
American utilities.
9
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
Grid failure leads to nuclear reactor meltdown – a transition to renewable energy is key to solve
Smith environmental journalist 2000 Gar Earth Island Journal, winter proquest
The third type could happen if the electricity fails. Reactors depend on off-site electric power to run cooling systems and control
rooms, with emergency diesel generators for automatic backup. Unfortunately, according to Olsen, even in the US these
generators are "not even 90 percent reliable."
In the US, most local emergency officials are planning for three weeks without power. But diesel generators often overheat and usually are not operated for weeks at a time.
Many generators also have digital components that may be subject to Y2K failure.
"It takes only two hours without the cooling system functioning for reactor fuel to melt," Olsen says. Power failures also
could cause "a meltdown of nuclear fuel storage pools.... These pools must be cooled for at least five years."
Loss of off-site electrical power poses the most prominent risk to nuclear powerplant safety. Reliable back-up power is needed
immediately at each nuclear site. Fuel cells and gas turbines are more reliable than diesel generators. There are well over 1,000 private utilities, non-utility generators,
public utilities, and rural electric cooperatives in the US and Canada operating more than 15,000 generating units. Many will reach the millennium with Y2K issues
unresolved.
The US electric power grid is fragile. In 1996, two disruptions in one five-week period caused 190 generating stations (including several nuclear reactors)
to shut down. On August 10, 1996, a sagging tree limb in Oregon caused a short that caused a blackout in California, Arizona and New Mexico. Millions of people were left
without power. In some regions, the blackout lasted several weeks.
MRS notes that increasingly severe winter storms have caused power outages in the eastern US in recent years. Such wintertime power failures "could lead to extended
blackouts and resultant nuclear catastrophes."
Batteries charged by solar
The NIRS has petitioned the NRC to require all nuclear power stations to stockpile a 20-day supply of fuel for diesel generators.
cells, windmills, hydroelectric or geothermal energy would give the greatest assurance of long-term stability
10
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
THE UTILITY SECTOR CONTINUES TO INCREASE THEIR DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS IN THE
STATUS QUO – CAUSING FUTURE PRICE SPIKES
Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007
[“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100,
Liu]
Natural Gas Prices Will Increase
“There is a risk in investment in nuclear and coal. Coal has got the carbon unknown mostly in terms of draconian impositions by the Feds. Nuclear has got safety and liability concerns. So I think
people will still go gas because they have less money invested in it, with the idea they can pass it on to retail customers, particularly in market-oriented areas.”
- Respondent #15, Platts Survey of Utility Executives, 2006
Many of the electricity generating units used for intermediate and “peaking” purposes (for example, to meet increased demand for air
conditioning on hot, summer days) use natural gas for fuel. This is because natural gas generating units usually require a lower capital investment than nuclear or coal-fired plants,
have shorter construction and lead-times, and tend to produce lower emissions than coal plants. Natural gas-fired units also can be turned on or off quickly, giving them operational flexibility to
meet short-term peak electricity demands.
The electricity sector’s demand for natural gas has increased from 24 percent of total natural gas consumption in 2000 to 29 percent in 2005.59 And
consumption of natural gas is likely to increase even further for two reasons:
Lower Reserve Margins
First, increased electricity demand in many areas has shrunk reserve margins to historically low levels. By 2005, reserve
margins across the contiguous United States had dropped to 15 percent and, in some large states (like Texas and Florida), as low as 9 percent. Shrinking reserve margins coupled with increased
electricity demands have forced many utilities to restart “mothballed” natural gas-fired generating units. And plans for new peaking units in large consumer states like Texas and Florida rely
overwhelmingly on natural gas.60
Prospects for New Sources
Second, because U.S. utilities have over-invested in gas-fired generating units, they hunger for new supplies of
natural gas. Congress responded recently by authorizing greater drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and has hinted at granting greater access to federal lands where natural gas drilling is
currently off-limits.61 Whether new drilling rights are granted or not, the tantalizing prospect of vast new sources of natural gas may lead utilities to believe that gas-fired units are safer investments
than they really are.
Future Carbon Controls
Third, as pressure builds for the United States to adopt some form of binding greenhouse gas reduction targets, more
generators will turn to natural gas because its carbon intensity is about half that of coal.62
Roger Garrett, Director of Puget Sound Energy’s Resource Acquisition Group, for example, recently told industry executives that PSE had plans to invest in a significant number of new natural-gas
fired combined cycle facilities partly because the company anticipates future binding carbon constraints.63
In its most recent energy outlook (AEO 2007), EIA projects natural gas wellhead prices to average $5.06 per million cubic feet (2002$) from 2007 to 2030. If there are delays in the construction of
the nearly 45,000 miles of new gas pipelines that industry analysts say are required to ensure adequate supply, the base-case price grows to $6.43 per million cubic feet.64 Since 1997, however, the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has had to increase its projections for natural gas prices each year to conform to new data showing that the price was higher
than expected.65 The year 2007 was no exception. In its report on short-term energy and summer 2007 fuels outlook, the DOE said it expected natural gas prices over the summer season to be 18
percent above its predictions a year earlier.66
While natural gas has enjoyed a recent period of depressed prices, substantial long-term price increases are
virtually inevitable.
Recent evidence suggests that EIA’s long-term projections – as in its short-term forecasts – make optimistic assumptions about growth in domestic natural gas production. In October 2006,
for example, Chesapeake Energy stunned the gas industry by announcing that it would shut off 100,000 cubic feet per day of unhedged gas production until natural gas prices rebounded. A week
later, Questar Exploration & Production curtailed its output for the same reason.67 These unusual moves repudiated government (and industry) optimism about domestic natural gas output and
reminded analysts that the gas market can be far more volatile and easily manipulated than forecasts predict.
Greenspan predicted continued strain in the long-term market for natural gas:
As early as 2003, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Today’s tight natural gas markets have been a long time in coming, and futures prices suggest that we are not apt to
return to earlier periods of relative abundance and low prices anytime soon.68 // pg. 38-40
11
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
AND, HIGH NATURAL GAS PRICES COLLAPSE THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR – LEADING TO
RECESSIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT, INFLATION, AND HIGH INTEREST RATES
Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC
UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, "The Case Against Gas Dependence", April, lexis, Yoder)
The energy crises of the 1970s demonstrated the harmful impact on jobs and the economy that natural gas
shortages can have. The U.S. economy suffered through recessions, widespread unemployment, inflation, and
record-high interest rates. In the winter of 1975-76, unemployment resulting from gas curtailments in hard-hit regions ran as high as 100,000 for periods
lasting from 20 to 90 days. n14 These effects were especially serious for the poor and for the nation's minorities. n15 More recently, the winter of 2002-2003 brought
higher natural gas bills to many consumers, and low-income families were especially hard hit.
Moreover, two articles last year in Public Utilities Fortnightly that addressed natural gas supply, demand, and price issues seemed to confuse the solution with the
high gas prices would lead to "demand destruction" in the industrial sector, which would,
problem. Robert Linden noted that
in part, counterbalance increasing power sector demand. n17 He further stated, "This price-induced demand destruction can be added to the
other causes of reduced gas demand, including the closure of industrial facilities using natural gas as a feedstock." n18 Similarly, John Herbert, after noting that high
natural gas prices have forced U.S. fertilizer plants to shut down, stated, "As fertilizer and other chemical plants continue to shut down, this will reduce demand for
natural gas and increase overall supplies." n19
that high natural gas prices will tend to reduce industrial natural gas demand as
Both authors are correct in pointing out
industrial plants shut down, and that this will temper future natural gas price increases. However, the
"destruction" of the nation's industrial sector is an extremely serious problem for the United States; it is not a "solution"
to the natural-gas pricing problem. We should be very concerned with the strongly negative impact high natural gas prices
are having on the U.S. industrial sector and the potential implications of this for the U.S. economy.
Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They
and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our
system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that
case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China,
India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to
world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.
12
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
AND, CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION OF LNG TERMINALS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO RISKS THE
ENTIRE OCEAN ECOSYSTEM
RAPPLEYE 2005 [Christine, staff writer, “Plan to warm LNG to gas using Gulf of Mexico may kill
marine life”, KNIGHT RIDDER TRIBUNE BUSINESS NEWS, February 24, lexis/ttate]
Feb. 24--A liquefied natural gas company's plan to use Gulf of Mexico water to warm the LNG to a gas could
devastate marine life, according to biologists. The terminal, proposed by Shell US Gas & Power LLC, would be 38 miles off the Cameron Parish
coast, is apparently the first terminal to propose using the "open loop" system, which would suck in more than 100 million gallons of Gulf water a day to warm the liquefied
natural gas. An Olympic 50 meter competition pool holds approximately one million gallons of -- water To be stored as a liquid, the gas has to be cooled to at least 260
The water isn't usually
degrees below zero. "It's going to cause trouble," Richard Harrel, a Lamar University biology professor, told The Enterprise.
reheated before being pumped back into the Gulf of Mexico, Harrel said in a telephone interview. The eggs and larval, or
juvenile, marine animals like shrimp, crabs and fish, aren't likely to survive in the chilled water, said Terry Stelly, an Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department ecosystem biologist at the Pleasure Island station. "There aren't many things that are going to be able to survive being
sucked in and hit with negative 270 degree pipes," Stelly said in a telephone interview. Populations of several species of
fish, including red fish, trout and red snapper, crabs, shrimp, jellyfish, worms and coral would all be affected by the super-cold water, Stelly
said. Fish like red snapper would take a double hit, affecting both the survival of the fish and it's food, like shrimp,
Stelly said. Certain marine animals need a specific temperature range to grow and spawn, Stelly said. "The impacts aren't just going to be in Sabine
Lake. It's going to be Gulf wide," Stelly said. "Sooner or later, the impact is going to affect all of us." The terminal is
expected be operational by the end of the decade, according to information from Shell's Web site. The three on-shore terminals planned for the area will have a "closed
loop" system, which uses about 2 percent of the natural gas it carries to warm the rest. "Impacts would occur to all specials with egg and larval stages in the project area, but
available data are insufficient to quantify impacts to most species," according to a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration submitted to the U.S.
Coast Guard. The report also estimates the mortality rate would be in the "billions of fish eggs and larvae annually," according to the
report.
13
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
COLLAPSE OF OCEAN ECOSYSTEMS THREATENS ALL LIFE ON EARTH
CRAIG, associate prof of law @ Indiana U, 2003 [Robin Kundis, lexis]
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far
rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide -
coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste
treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a
major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of
marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the
functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly
dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265]
Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine
environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species
have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and
restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon
Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents,
should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront
of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has
traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even
though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and
policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can -
especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but
we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.
14
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
AND, AN ACCIDENT OR ATTACK ON LNG FACILITIES WOULD COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY AND
LEAD TO MASS FAMINE – IT WOULD BE THE DEATH EQUIVALENT OF 55 HIROSHIMAS
BOWMAN 1995 [Stephen, published author, “US still ripe for terror”, DENVER POST, May 28, lexis/ttate]
The destruction, or perhaps even the disruption, of energy supplies could bring on the loss of millions of jobs
virtually overnight, the starvation of hundreds of thousands and to at least some extent an environmental
catastrophe. And there is another reason why energy sources should be a top priority on our national-defense list: They are so simple to destroy that
it is ridiculous to even imagine they are not at the top of the list of terrorist targets. As one Department of Defense official explained
in the wake of the World Trade Center bombing, the terrorist strives to get the most bang for his buck by achieving the most efficient kill ratio. He can spend $ 5,000 and
explode a bomb in the World Trade Center. Or he can spend $ 1 on a bullet and wipe out the electricity of a whole city. Or maybe kill millions of people with a small vial of
cheap but lethal chemicals. If the option is left open, sooner or later the terrorist will respond. According to a General Accounting Office report, in 1977, "Successful
sabotage of an LEG (liquefied energy gas) facility in an urban area could cause a catastrophe. We found security precautions and physical barriers at LEG facilities
generally aren't adequate to deter even an untrained saboteur. None of the LEG storage areas we saw are impervious to sabotage, and most are highly vulnerable."
Liquefied energy gas is the generic term to describe both liquid natural gas - LNG - and liquid petroleum gas - LPG. Even though the energy content of a
single LNG transport tanker is equivalent to that of 55 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs, very little has been done to
assure that LNG shipments are protected from sabotage as they come and go through the ports of some of our
major cities. Regardless of the government's own reports and warnings, LNG ships chug into the hearts of city harbors, and these cities are in danger of
being leveled on any given day. Whereas oil contains more energy than does LNG, the liquid natural gas is actually more hazardous. Burning oil does not
spread far over either water or land. LNG, on the other hand, is less than half as dense as water, so a single cubic meter of LNG weighs just over half a ton. One cubic
meter of spilled LNG rapidly boils into about 620 cubic meters of natural gas, which mixes with the air - a mixture of
between 5 and 14 percent is flammable. A single cubic meter of spilled LNG can make up to 12,400 cubic meters of flammable gas-air mixture.
15
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AC
AND, EXPANDING RENEWABLES THROUGH RPS DECREASES DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS
SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and
Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate]
A national RPS can save consumers money especially by reducing demand for natural gas. Several studies have
documented that an increase in renewable energy production would decrease costs for electricity generation by
offsetting the combustion of natural gas. [48] Because some renewable resources generate the most electricity
during periods of peak demand, they can help offset electricity otherwise derived from natural gas-fired “peaking”
or reserve generation units. Photovoltaics, for example, have great value as a reliable source of power during extreme peak loads.
Substantial evidence from many peer-reviewed studies demonstrates an excellent correlation between available
solar resources and periods of peak demand. In California, for example, an installed PV array with a capacity of 5,000 MW reduces the peak load for
that day by about 3,000 MW, cutting in half the number of naturalgas “peakers” needed to ensure reserve capacity. [49]
The value of renewable energy to offset natural gas combustion varies with the projected supply (and thus the
price) of natural gas. When demand for natural gas increases (or supply decreases), its price increases and so does
the value of the renewable resources used to displace it. Researchers at Resources for the Future calculated that,
given the historic volatility of the natural gas market, a 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand can reduce the
price of natural gas by up to 2.5 percent in the long term. [50] This inverse relationship between renewable generation and natural gas prices
was confirmed by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) who reviewed the projected effect of 20 different RPS scenarios on future natural gas
prices:
Each 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand could lead to long-term average wellhead price reductions of 0.8 percent to 2 percent, with some of the models predicting
more aggressive reductions. Reductions in the wellhead price will not only have the effect of reducing wholesale and retail electricity rates but will also reduce residential,
commercial, and industrial gas bills. [51]
LBNL researchers reviewed 13 studies and 20 specific analyses all confirming that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved and the more
Nine of fifteen studies specifically evaluating national RPS proposals of 10 to 20 percent found
gas prices are reduced.
that consumers would save anywhere from $10 to $40 billion from decreased natural gas prices.
16
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
17
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
18
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
When offsite AC power is lost due to electrical grid failure, reactors are designed to automatically switch over to
required backup emergency diesel generators. These are locomotivesize, fuelguzzling generators that provide enough power to operate a
narrower but basic set of reactor safety systems. Each reactor unit is required to have at least two emergency diesel generators onsite. Should these backup
generators fail due to overheating, mechanical failure or the fouling of the diesel fuel, etc. a smaller subset of vital reactor cooling instrumentation and
control systems would rely upon power from large onsite battery banks. The failure of both onsite and offsite AC power supplies
result in the condition known as station blackout. According to the NRC safety study, a station blackout leads to battery
depletion after approximately 4 hours and sets in motion a time table where “approximately 3 hours beyond battery depletion was
allowed for the restoration of AC power before core uncovery would occur.” Uncovering of the reactor core of
cooling water would lead to a meltdown of the extremely hot and radioactive nuclear fuel.
The most significant event is the loss of offsite power, a problem that can lead to a “station blackout.” During operation, all
atomic reactors rely upon alternating current (AC) electricity generated and transmitted from offsite sources to
provide the power needed to operate the reactor’s vital safety systems. Without these systems in operation, even
when the reactor is shut down, the thermally hot and radioactive fuel inside the reactor would quickly overheat and
cause a nuclear meltdown.
19
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
BLACKOUTS EXTS – NUCLEAR POWER MELTDOWN IMPACTS
25 million people need to be evacuated, according to the trailer for the show. That would be about right for the immediate area (say,
50 miles around the San Onofre plant, which would include most of San Diego and Orange counties, and parts of Los Angeles, San Bernadino, Imperial,
and other nearby counties). Unlike the U.S. Government's official position, a real evacuation may not be orderly or even
possible. The producers have said that they have tried to be "accurate." They had ribbons of highways with stopped cars in the trailer. Will they have
Radiation
fights? Flare-ups, riots, chaos? Swaths of sickened and dying people, cut down because the winds cut across THAT stretch of highway?
from a nuclear meltdown is carried by the wind, it does not simply radiate out evenly in all directions from the
stricken power plant. In a meltdown it is often carried thousands or even tens of thousands of feet into the air
before it begins to descend. The radioactive "plume" -- which will be invisible but deadly -- can stay fairly
concentrated -- that is, in a relatively small volume of air -- for hundreds or even thousands of miles. If that invisible foul wind rains
on your city, even half a world a way, it could kill thousands of people. Yet in a city of a million people, it would be nearly
impossible to prove what caused any rise in cancer deaths over a period of decades after the accident. Better health
care in the area affected might mean cancer rates will go down, yet still, they would have gone down more, if there had not been an accident. More likely
than landing half a world a way, of course, is that the "fallout" as it's called, will come down within the first couple of hundred miles. Exposure to
high doses of radiation via inhalation of nuclear particles causes gruesome deaths among those who happen to be
in the path of the fallout -- downwinders, as they are called.
20
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
SOFT POWER EXTS – ENVIRO LEADERSHIP DECLINING
THE US IS LOSING OUR MANTLE AS THE WORLD’S ENVIRONMENTAL LEADER – THE EU HAS
TAKEN OUR LEAD AS WE REFUSE TO SIGN INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
FALKNER 2005 [“American Hegemony and the Global Environment”, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
REVIEW, page 585/ttate]
For many environmentalists in Europe and elsewhere, the United States has emerged as the new ‘‘rogue
state’’ in global green politics. Ever since the United States took a backseat at the UN Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, US foreign policy has appeared to be lukewarm about, and
often hostile to, multilateral environmental policymaking. From the rejection of the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) to the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the United States has shown itself
to be concerned more with national economic interests than global environmental threats. Many observers see
this as a fundamental shift away from the US environmental leadership of the 1970s and 1980s. In the early
days of global environmentalism, the United States pioneered modern environmental legislation and promoted the
creation of global regimes ranging from ozone layer protection to the preservation of threatened species. More
recently, however, the US government has repeatedly challenged the need for new environmental treaties;
questioned the scientific basis of international regulation; and rejected the notion that precautionary action is
warranted in the face of potential ecological dangers. Whereas in the 1970s and 1980s, the United States frequently
branded European countries as environmental laggards, it is the European Union (EU) that now claims the
mantle of international leadership in sustainable development.
21
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
22
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
America will need a world-class energy policy. The prominent positions that
In order to break the national addiction to outdated fuels and technologies,
Germany and Spain hold in wind power, for example, and that Japan and Germany enjoy in solar energy, were achieved
thanks to strong and enduring policies that their legislatures adopted in the 1990s. These policies created steadily growing markets for
renewable energy technologies, fueling the development of robust new manufacturing industries.
By contrast, U.S. renewable energy policies over the past two decades have been an ever changing patchwork. Abrupt changes in direction at
both the state and federal levels have deterred investors and led dozens of companies into bankruptcy. If America is to
join the world leaders and achieve the nation’s full potential for renewable energy, it will need world-class energy
policies based on a sustained and consistent policy framework at the local, state, and national levels.
Across the country, the tide has begun to turn. All but four U.S. states now have incentives in place to promote
renewable energy. More than a dozen have enacted new renewable energy laws in the past few years, and four states strengthened their targets in 2005, signaling fresh political
momentum. If such policies continue to proliferate, and are joined by federal leadership, rapid progress is possible.
23
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
tax credit: This program gives wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable power sources a leg up with a 1.9-cent per kilowatt-hour credit, which makes them
more competitive with natural gas or coal-fired power plants. Congress has let the tax credit lapse before, and each time investment in
wind and other renewable energy projects dropped.
24
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
NATURAL GAS EXTS – PLAN ↓ DEPENDENCE
25
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
26
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
27
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
RPS provides incentives for renewable energy generators to decrease the cost of energy as a result of cost
competition among producers for their share in the RPS;
Distributed Resource Policies < Standard Contracts for Small Distributed Projects
< Net Metering
< Line Extension Policies
a. Literature and clash check abuse—renewable energy to RPS is both central to the topic and has a deep
literature base which checks all of their arguments
a. All plans are by definition a mandate – every plan by definition has to enact a mandate. It is
infinitely regressive to define plan enactment as a mandate vs a cap as a mandate.
AND, FX T is good
A. INCREASES NEG GROUND – the neg can get links from every step the plan takes.
B. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE – every real world bill has to go through steps to get to the incentive.
There is no objective way to get to the increase of that incentive.
29
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
30
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
T HELPERS – 20% IS SUBSTANTIAL
WE WILL CONTROL THIS DEBATE – 20% IS SUBSTANTIAL IN THE ENVIRONMENT
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2002 [“Final Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat
Designation for the Santa Cruz Tarplant, April/ttate]
This calculation reflects conservative assumptions and nonetheless yields an estimate that is still far less than the
20 percent threshold that would be considered “substantial.” As a result, this analysis concludes that a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities will not result from the designation of critical habitat
for the Santa Cruz tarplant. Nevertheless, an estimate of the number of small businesses that will experience
effects at a significant level is provided below.
31
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE
FIRST, YOU DID NOT LISTEN TO THE 1AC – FEW REASONS WHY CP DOES NOT SOLVE:
AND, PERM: DO BOTH - HAVE THE USFG IMPLEMENT THE PLAN AND THE 50 STATES AND
TERRITORIES IMPLEMENT THE COUNTERPLAN
32
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
government to prevent states from adopting protectionist or autarkic policies that would attribute a product's
market share to its geographic origins rather than to market mechanisms.
2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE
33
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE
AND, THE COUNTERPLAN CREATES A RACE-TO-THE-BOTTOM
SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008
[Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate]
However, Kirsten Engel and Susan Rose-Ackerman note that a race to the bottom can occur for multiple reasons: (i) enforcement
actions are subject to economies of scale, but most state-by-state approaches create diseconomies of scale; (ii)
state officials may have been captured by regulatory interests; (iii) state officials may be unwilling to bring
enforcement actions against their own agencies or local governments or companies; (iv) state officials may
want to lure industries to relocate or construct new facilities within the state. Contrary to the five reasons advanced above by
advocates of decentralization, empirical evidence seems to support a race to the bottom rationale. Kirsten Engel notes that
competition between states for industry is extremely intense, and that competition between firms for sites for new plants is limited (and sometimes nonexistent).
The demand for
Statistics show that the number of new plants looking to be built in the United States at a given time in a given [*440] state is very few.
new plants or relocating existing ones is extremely high relative to supply, especially since the United States
continues to lose manufacturing jobs to foreign locations and outsource labor. Interstate competition for new industrial plants
has even been deemed "a second war between the states," in which most throw up a "dizzying array" of incentives to keep or lure plants. Engel argues that because
"the usual number of states competing against each other for the location of all but the largest plants is small," the extent that states compete with each other in setting
environmental standards to attract business is limited to only a few states at a time. Industrial "firms looking to site new plants have disproportionate market power ...
, and the small number of actors on both sides of the plant site market indicates that interactions in this market are more likely to resemble a strategic game than a
industry generally considers the stringency and scope of
perfectly competitive neoclassical market." Ultimately, Engel found that that
state environmental regulation in its decision to locate plants, and that it consistently exploits state standards to
choose the most favorable location. The excessive market power held by industries over states allows them to "exert considerable influence" over
state regulatory regimes "to relax existing environmental standards or adopt less stringent standards in the first place." "I ultimately conclude," Engel clarifies, "... that
the preponderance of the evidence indicates that states engaged in interstate competition for industry are also
engaged in a race to the bottom in environmental standard-setting, and that the general direction of the race is
toward more lax standards." [*441] Engel's conclusions complement those of Rena I. Steinzor, who found a race to the bottom in the manner in
which states issue permits for major industrial sources that discharge waste into the nation's surface waters and air, as well as the fact that many states have chosen not
to comply with federal statutes. Steinzor found, in terms of water quality permits, that "in twenty-seven states, more than twenty percent of "major sources' regulated
under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES') were operating under expired permits." The problem was so acute that in
Pennsylvania and Maryland, about one-fifth of the files reviewed in a study of daycare centers and schools showed that those facilities' drinking water contained
excessive levels of lead. One school's water supply contained so much pollution that it had four times the levels permitted under federal standards. Neither state
reported such violations to the federal government. Steinzor also documented that roughly one out of every six major industrial facilities in the United States had
committed significant violations of their NPDES permits. More than sixty percent of these violations in 1998 involved excessive discharges. In terms of air
pollution, the responsibility for enforcing violations of ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act falls to the states. The New Mexico Air Pollution Control
Program, however, inspected only fifty-three percent of its 199 major sources of air pollution, with the result that more than one third of their facilities had not been
inspected in at least seven years. Texas did not even have any procedures in place to assess the economic costs or benefits of compliance concerning air pollution for
most of the 1990s, meaning that many polluters released toxic substances into the surrounding environment with impunity. Due to this lack of state enforcement, it
was estimated that in the mid-1990s the country was "spending $ 1,850 per household annually on pollution control." "This figure represents only the direct costs of
pollution control in terms of capital equipment and operating costs," and excludes undoubtedly more expensive effects [*442] of pollution such as environmental
damage and human health. Another study estimated that for most of the 1990s "major discharging facilities [across the nation] were in violation of the Clean Water
Act no less than 58% of the time." When the General Accounting Office reviewed state implementation of federal environmental policies related to hazardous waste,
water pollution, and drinking water supply in 1995, they found that "many states have difficulty performing key functions, such as monitoring environmental quality,
setting standards, issuing permits, and enforcing compliance ... EPA and state officials uniformly acknowledged that resource limitations are a major cause of these
problems." Clearly, because states have different interests, resources, and industrial bases, a race to the bottom is occurring in at least some circumstances.
34
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
we find that such vague enforcement standards may be sufficient: as long as obligated utilities know that the regulator is serious, they
will comply. In restructured markets, however, a more clear non-compliance penalty such as that used in Texas may be preferred (Texas
applies a penalty of as much as 5 cents/kWh for any shortfall in compliance).
35
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
AND, THE CP DOES NOT SOLVE OUR COMPETITIVENESS ADVANTAGE – INDUSTRY CALLING
FOR FEDERAL ACTION
Global Power Report 2007 [“Industry lobbies Senate for renewable standards this year to boost domestic energy
supplies,” May 31, lexis/ttate]
About 200 trade associations, businesses, utilities and environmental groups are urging the Senate to pass this year
a market-based national renewable portfolio standard that would require electric utilities to obtain a minimum
percentage of their power from low-emission domestic resources. In a letter to Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, the companies and advocates said that substantially increasing
renewable energy generation would enhance national security, help stabilize energy prices and reduce pollution.
Bingaman's office released a copy of the letter May 25. The letter, which was signed by Google, GE, United
Steelworkers, BP America, Alliant Energy, Sempra Energy, and Wisconsin Power and Light, among others, was
also sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky and Senator Pete Domenici, the senior Republican on the energy committee. "We believe the time has
come for Congress to move quickly to enact national RPS legislation," the letter said. "The costs of inaction for our
RPS cleared the Senate but failed in the House. The Bush administration opposes a national RPS. Already 22
states have adopted their own renewable energy standards to require electric utilities to generate a specific amount
of power from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal resources. But the group told lawmakers that the US "will not
realize the full potential for renewable electricity without the adoption of a federal program to enhance the states'
efforts."
36
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
37
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AR - STATES CP EXTS – OHIO
OHIO JUST PASSED AN RPS BUT IT IS LOWER THAN 20% - CP WOULD CRIPPLE OHIO’S
ECONOMY
NEXT100.COM 2008 [“Ohio: The New Green State”,
http://www.next100.com/2008/04/ohio-the-new-green-state.php/ttate]
Last Friday Ohio announced that its state senate passed legislation mandating a renewable portfolio standard (RPS).
The bill, awaiting Governor Strickland's signature, mandates that 12.5% of the Ohio's electricity must come from
renewable sources by 2025.
Ohio is now the 26th state in the U.S. to enact a RPS.
In contrast to California's 20% by 2010 RPS goal, this may seem like a fairly weak mandate, but it requires context. Ohio
gets 87% of its power from coal. Moreover, the state is a major producer of coal, meaning that a move to renewables could have a
broader economic impact.
38
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
39
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
2AC OBAMA GOOD FRONTLINE
FIRST, MCCAIN WILL WIN –
[Zachar, “Congressional stalemate over renewable energy”, San Francisco Chronicle, June 18,
2008, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL, Zhang]
House Democrats, seeking to abide by "pay-as-you-go" budget rules, insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising
revenue elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at every proposal so far to find that money.
The House first passed a measure early last year to extend the renewable energy credits by
cutting subsidies to big oil companies. The oil industry lobbied fiercely, President Bush vowed
to veto it and the Senate blocked it.
Last month, the House approved a bill to extend the credits by delaying an obscure tax break for companies with foreign
Republicans objected to what they called a
operations and closing a tax loophole for hedge fund managers. But
stealth tax increase, and the Senate's 52-44 vote Tuesday fell short of the 60 votes needed to
prevent a filibuster and move the legislation forward.
40
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
2AC OBAMA GOOD FRONTLINE
AND, NO SPILL OVER – ZERO EVIDENCE that an RPS plan would cause Republicans or Democrats to
switch their votes in November or would be a swing issue for independents.
William Durbin: Well, what you're describing here are some pretty serious political issues and we try to look at this whole issue
outside of the political debate. So it would be hard for me to say whether or not they're valid. What we can say is there are positive benefits associated if
you're looking for reductions in gas demand, reductions in CO2, and reductions in power prices. But then again, as
we step off into the greenhouse gas and CO2 legislation we can run the risk of undermining that if we try to rush
that process too fast.
AND, PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL SUPPORT FOR A
NATIONAL ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PLAN
FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing
Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy
Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate]
Public support, and even support from individual utilities, for renewable energy, of course, does not translate into
national support for a particular program, policy, or fuel source. The best methods for promoting and providing renewable energy-and who
should pay for it-are issues in search of a solution. Ultimately, though, renewable energy has moved well beyond the theoretical stages. If desired, a national RPS can be
efficiently and effectively implemented. That does not mean it would not require significant upfront expense, and perhaps long-term expense, as well. But those risks face
any energy policy, including the status quo.
AND, NO LINK – THE ELECTION IS MONTHS AWAY – MANY INTERVENING VARIABLES WILL
OCCUR THAT WILL IMPACT THE ELECTION BETWEEN NOW AND NOVEMBER.
41
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
B. PUBLIC OPPOSITION
BROWN AND DORN 2008 [“The Beginning of the End for Coal: A Long Year in the Life of the
US Coal Industry”, April 02, http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htm/Beck]
What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power plants is quickly evolving into a
national tidal wave of opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations as well
as leading climate scientists and state governments. Growing concern over pending legislation to regulate
carbon emissions is creating uncertainty in financial markets. Leading financial groups are now
downgrading coal stocks and requiring utilities seeking funding for coal plants to include a cost for carbon
emissions when proving economic viability.
42
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
2AC CLEAN COAL DA FRONTLINE
AND, CLEAN COAL IS DECADES AWAY – EXPERTS VOTE AFF
GPACE 07-10-2008 [“Our energy economy”, GREAT PLAINS ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY”,
http://www.gpace.org/?q=our-energy-economy/ttate]
Coal is not a clean energy source, whether considering pollutants such as mercury, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, or ozone (which cause illness and
premature death, especially among children) or the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Advances have been made in the industry to develop and
implement scrubbers that remove some of the mercury and other pollutants from coal-fired emissions, but these
processes simply remove those pollutants from airborne emissions and capture them in sludges or slurries that
are then stored at the plants and/or dumped into rivers or groundwater. As for the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide, there is currently no existing technology that can remove carbon dioxide from coal-fired emissions and
effectively “sequester” it. Most credible experts agree that so-called “clean coal” technologies are at least ten to
twenty years off, if in fact ever feasible at all. Additionally, carbon capture and sequestration technology for pulverized coal plants uses three
times as much water as the coal plant alone – which already uses vast amounts of water.
AND, NON-UNIQUE AND TURN – JOB LOSS INEVITABLE IN COAL INDUSTRY – EXTERNALITIES
IN THE INDUSTRY UNDERMINE THE ECONOMY NOW
KAMMEN, ET AL, researcher @ Energy and Resources Group in Goldman School of Public Policy @ Berkeley,
2006 [Daniel, “Putting Renewables to Work”, Edited version of original report,
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html / ttate]
According to the Worldwatch Institute, jobs in extractive industries are on the decline, as mechanization and mergers lead to continuous layoffs. While coal
production in the US increased 32 percent between 1980 and 1999, coal-mining employment declined 66
percent, from 242,000 to 83,000 workers. Further, jobs in the coal industry are expected to fall by 36,000 workers between 1995 and
2020, even without any greenhouse gas–reducing policies, such as carbon caps or taxes, in place. In the oil industry, over 40 percent of US oil-
refining jobs were lost between 1980 and 1999. Petroleum refining and wholesale distribution account for only 0.3 percent of all US employment in 2000. Further,
commodity prices’ boom-bust cycles make these industries, and employment in them, very volatile.10
Contrary to popular belief, very few of these job losses are caused by environmental regulations. The Worldwatch Institute reports: “A survey of 224 permanent plant
closings in 1980–86 by the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers’ Union found that just 12 plants listed environmental reasons as a partial motive for closure. And surveys
conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1987–92 and again from 1995 on show that environment–related reasons for layoffs were of minute significance:
0.14 percent of all layoffs in 1995–97 (the surveys cover layoffs of 50 people or more for a month or longer). All in all, annual layoffs from plants shut down
due to environmental regulation have averaged 1,000–3,000 in the United States since the 1970s. Relative to economy-wide layoffs of
typically more than 2 million workers each year, this is less than one tenth of 1 percent.”11
The Worldwatch study also demonstrates that mining and utility companies are responsible for substantial toxic pollution. In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency
revealed that 48 percent of the 7.3 billion pounds of toxic pollutants tracked by its Toxic Release Inventory, are released by mining companies (a category which includes
extraction of metals, coal, oil and gas). Another 15 percent of TRI releases were attributed to the utility sector. Although these two sectors were responsible for 63 percent of
the toxic releases tracked by the EPA, together they provided only 1.4 million jobs, or 1.3 percent of all private enterprise jobs in the United States in that year.12
The fossil fuel industry provides little overall new employment, but generates huge economic externalities through
pollution that somebody has to pay to clean up, or has to endure. These externalities become manifest in the loss of productive work
days caused by illness due to pollution exposure, costs borne by industry (and eventually consumers) to clean up pollution,
or costs borne directly by taxpayers for clean-up.
43
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
Coal causes massive pollution leading to global warming, environmental damage, public health crises, and
fetal death – we will turn back your economy impact
SHOOCK, JD CANDIDATE, 2007 [Corey, “Blowing in the Wind”, FORDHAM JOURNAL OF CORPORATE
FINANCE AND LAW,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4048/is_200707/ai_n21032683/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1/ ttate]
The casus belli for such outside action is the fact that the government's pricing figures neglect to factor in the full costs of fossil fuel
production, including environmental and health costs that are not passed onto consumers directly in their utility bill.65 For example,
utility companies do not have to account for the consequences of approximately six billion metric tons per year of carbon dioxide
emissions, a total that will increase to nearly eight billion metric tons per year by 2030, a twenty-five-year increase of about 30%.66 Nor
is a financial charge indexed to other consequences of fossil fuel burning. Increases in the emission of sulfur, methane, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, volatile organic compounds, and other particulate matter wreak havoc on human and natural
habitats alike by causing things like acid rain, urban ozone (caused primarily by nitrous oxide emissions, resulting in
respiratory problems in humans), and global climate change.67 Among fuels used for electricity generation, coal is by far the
largest producer of these emissions, producing far beyond its proportional market share.68 While coal-based power is seen to be
the least expensive source of electricity on the market today,69 the market dynamics that favor coal are substantially flawed.70
The indirect costs associated with the production of electricity from coal are simply staggering.71 During the mining stage land is
permanently damaged, air and water sources are contaminated, ground subsidence causes surface collapses, and workers can
be injured or killed.72 During processing and utilization, heavy metal and acid is given off, and particulate matter,
carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides are emitted into the atmosphere, causing seemingly immeasurable
damage and destruction to public and private property, wildlife, and public health.73
Every year, the more than 600 coal-burning plants in the United States74 emit more than 98,000 pounds of mercury into the air75 while
creating another 81,000 pounds of mercury pollution from fly ash and scrubber sludge76, all after 20,000 pounds of mercury is released in
preburning "cleaning" procedures-totaling 200,000 pounds.77 That mercury, along with arsenic, cadmium, and other heavy metals, seeps
out during the coal-burning process and travels either directly through ground water and airborne particles, or indirectly through the food
chain (often through fish), to humans.78 Mercury, even in small doses, is converted easily through human metabolism
into the neurotoxin methylmercury.79 The result of the contamination is that one out of every six women of childbearing
age may have enough of a concentration of mercury to permanently damage a developing fetus, meaning 630,000
babies a year born in the United States (out of 4 million) are at risk for severe neurological consequences as a result of
gestational mercury poisoning.80 Coal also causes nearly 554,000 asthma attacks, 16,200 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 38,200
non-fatal heart attacks each year.81 Not surprisingly, proximity to coal-burning facilities increases the likelihood that a
person becomes one of the 23,600 deaths every year attributed to power plant pollution,82 each death taking an average
of fourteen years off normal life expectancy.83 All told, the health care costs caused by plant emissions total an estimated $160 billion
annually. 84 Other grisly consequences from living near coal burning include a high rate of stomach cancer,85 autism in children (for
every 1,000 pounds of mercury released in a Texas county, autism rates rose 17%),86 and pneumoconiosis in coal miners (also known as
"black lung disease").87
Environmentally, the externality costs of air pollution, acid rain, and global warming are also significant.88 For
instance, according to one set of estimates, the "annual marginal cost of air pollution and acid deposition" is
between $10.39 and $11.02 per short ton of coal; for climate change, the marginal cost is between $0 and $4.50 per million
Btu.89 Absent any consideration of climate change, the approximate "social costs of coal as a percentage of private costs range from
about 40% to 275%."90 The range for natural gas is 12% to 95%, 112% to 123% for petroleum, and 14% to 17% for nuclear. 91 Another
set of estimates emphasizes that "coal is by far the most under-priced energy resource,"92 and that at a price of $30 per ton would carry
with it external costs of almost $160 without including climate change risks which would bring costs to $190 per ton.93 While monetizing
the total social and environmental costs to society of fossil fuel use is an inexact science, the causal link between polluting fuels and
resulting externalities is undeniable.94
44
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
45
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
46
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
47
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
1AR EXTS – NO CLEAN COAL TECH
- CLEAN COAL IS A FARCE – COAL STILL EMITS CARBON DIOXIDE AND IT IS DANGEROUS TO
EXTRACT FROM THE EARTH
BIGGERS 2008 [Jeff, staff writer, “’Clean’ Coal? Don’t Try to Shovel That”, WASHINGTON POST,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html/ DGuo]
Every time I hear our political leaders talk about "clean coal," I think about Burl, an irascible old coal miner in West Virginia. After 35 years underground, he struggled to
conjure enough breath to match his storytelling verve, as if the iron hoops of a whiskey barrel had been strapped around his lungs. In 1983, during my first visit to
Appalachia as a young man, Burl rolled up his pants and showed me the leg that had been mangled in a mining accident. The scars snaked down to his ankles. "My
grandpa barely survived an accident in the mines in southern Illinois," I told him. "He had these blue marks and bits of coal buried in his face." "Coal tattoo," Burl
"Don't let anyone ever tell you that coal is clean." Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more
wheezed.
insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by
the Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward
a sustainable energy policy. Democrats excoriated President Bush last month when he released a budget calling for more -- billions more -- in funds to
reduce carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants to create "clean coal." But hardly a hoot could be heard about his proposed cuts to more practical investments in
solar energy, hydrogen fuel and home energy efficiency. leading Democrats were up in arms over the Energy Department's recent decision to
Meanwhile,
abandon the $1.8 billion FutureGen project in eastern Illinois,
planned as the first coal-fired plant to capture and store harmful carbon
dioxide emissions. Energy Department officials, unlike politicians, had to confront the spiraling costs of this
fantasy. Orwellian language has led to Orwellian politics. With the imaginary vocabulary of "clean coal," too
many Democrats and Republicans, as well as a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the dirty realities of extracting coal
from the earth. Pummeled by warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans have fallen for
the ruse of futuristic science that is clean coal. And in the meantime, swaths of the country are being destroyed
before our eyes. Here's the hog-killing reality that a coal miner like Burl or my grandfather knew firsthand: No matter how "cap 'n trade"
schemes pan out in the distant future for coal-fired plants, strip mining and underground coal mining remain the
dirtiest and most destructive ways of making energy. Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly. More than 104,000
miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died from black lung disease.
Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are
innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a recent report revealing that in the last six years the Mine Safety and Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than
4,000 violations, Bush administration officials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by 6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who were entombed
underground in Utah last summer? Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited, torn and churned
into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United States today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the
"United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child for strip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An
estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470
mountains and their surrounding communities -- an area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the
southeastern mountain range in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the equivalent of several
Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities every year. How can anyone call this clean?
When the Bush administration announced a plan last year to do away with a poorly enforced 1983 regulation that
protected streams from being buried by strip-mining waste -- one of the last ramparts protecting some of the
nation's oldest forests and communities -- tens of thousands of people wrote to the Office of Surface Mining in
outrage. Citizens' groups also effectively halted the proposed construction of 59 coal-fired plants in the past year. Yet at last weekend's meeting of the National
Governors Association, Democratic and Republican governors once again joined forces, ignored the disastrous reality of mining and championed the chimera of clean coal.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell even declared that coal states will be "back in business big time." How much more death and destruction will it
take to strip coal of this bright, shining "clean" lie? As Burl might have said, if our country can rally to save Arctic polar bears from global
warming, perhaps Congress can pass the Endangered Appalachians Act to save American miners, their children and their communities from ruin by a reckless industry. Or
at least stop talking about "clean coal."
48
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
49
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
2AC OIL DA FRONTLINE STARTER
50
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
51
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE
FIRST, FEDERALISM DECLINE NEVITABLE
SOVACOOL 2008 [Benjamin K., “The Best of Both Worlds: Environmental Federalism and the Need for
Federal Action on Renewable Energy and Climate Change,”, STANFORD LAW JOURNAL, June ,
lexis/ttate]
Congress responded with an array of environmental statutes - most notably the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and the Clean Water Act in 1972 - to reorient the federal-state
relationship in environmental law. The federal government asserted broad authority to regulate pollutants, animal species, the
design of vehicle engines, and the contents of consumer products such as paint and hairspray. The federal government's efforts were largely inspired by the unappealing prospect of forcing the business community to comply with
fifty different state environmental statutes.
The discussion about the role of federal versus state action dates back to the founding of the country, and debates about federalism
became especially pronounced during the era of the New Deal in the 1930s. The Supreme Court has long fought to maintain a balancing act, toeing the
line to promote different forms of environmental federalism. Lawmakers generally believed that this balance helped achieve responsive governance, governmental
n6
competition, innovation, participatory democracy, and resistance to tyranny.
Fast forward to today and federal and state roles have changed considerably. In what has been termed a
"jurisdictional mismatch," the states and the federal government have seemingly subverted each other's traditional
roles. n7 National policymakers have preempted state action concerning drinking water contamination, solid waste disposal, and land restoration.
AND, TURN – ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAN
SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008
[Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate]
While the states have a significant history and authority as regulators of electric utilities, only the federal
government has the constitutional authority to regulate wholesale electric power and interstate commerce (in the
form of RECs). While the states have historically set prices for retail electricity sales, approved the permitting of
electric generators, regulated the environmental effects of electricity sales, and developed integrated resource plans
for utilities, only the federal government has the power to regulate the national wholesale power market under the
Federal Power Act of 1935. This Act gives The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive
authority over the sale of electric power at wholesale rates and the transmission of electric power on a national
scale.
52
SDI 2008 KMT
RPS Aff – Supplement
2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE
AND, TURN – INTERACTIVE FEDERALIM KEY TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS GLOBALLY
SOVACOOL 2008 [Benjamin K., “The Best of Both Worlds: Environmental Federalism and the Need for
Federal Action on Renewable Energy and Climate Change,”, STANFORD LAW JOURNAL, June ,
lexis/ttate]
The importance of exploring environmental federalism and the need for federal action on the environment extends
beyond merely promoting renewable energy and addressing climate change. First, such a discussion should give pause to those
who are driving for more decentralized environmental regulation or at least a general presumption towards
devolution. This conclusion has far-reaching implications for other areas of social regulation where discussions about decentralization and centralization continue to
dominate deliberations about the proper scale of government intervention. The lessons from environmental federalism can inform
policymaking relating to areas as diverse as health care, welfare reform, tax policy, and education.
[*406] Second, the Article is an attempt to invigorate the environmental policy debate and move from discussing what we regulate to how we regulate. Focusing on
the merits of the differing types of environmental federalism explores which scale of environmental regulation best
maximizes social welfare, and offers a more nuanced discussion of how the states and the federal government can
serve supportive roles in advancing public policy goals. For American democracy is about more than just "one person, one vote." The opportunities for the
individual voter to affect the outcome of a particular election are quite small. In contrast, under a "conversational" model of democracy, citizens can influence policymakers
by participating in public conversation. n23 By balancing and preserving prerogatives for local, state, and national governments in environmental policy,
interactive
federalism offers opportunities for meaningful involvement in the political process for millions of Americans.
Third, other countries continue to model American-style federalism. Germany, the Republic of Austria, Russian Federation, Spain, India, and Nigeria have all based parts of
their government structure on American federalism, choosing to decentralize power by adopting constitutions that are more federalist than the ones that they have replaced.
n24
The "American experience with ... federalism," writes John Kincaid, "may have useful implications for an
emerging federalist revolution worldwide." Mikhail Gorbachev even stated that "the phenomenon of federalism affects the interests of the entire
n25
global community." Given such trends, it seems likely that other countries may model American environmental federalism. If this is the case, ensuring that
n26
the United States government addresses renewable energy and climate policy at the proper scale becomes even
more important for the signal it sends to the world.
53