Starter Set

RPS Aff & Neg 1
Michigan Debate Institutes 2008
Index
Affirmative
Index..............................................................................................................................................................................................1
RPS 1AC – Contention 1 & Plan..................................................................................................................................................3
RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv.........................................................................................................................................................4
RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv...............................................................................................................................................10
RPS 1AC – Terrorism Adv..........................................................................................................................................................18
RPS 1AC – Terrorism Adv..........................................................................................................................................................19
Environment Ext – RPS Reduces Coal Use................................................................................................................................20
Competitiveness Ext – Competitiveness Key to Heg / Heg Impact............................................................................................21
Terrorism Ext – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg...................................................................................................22
No Renewables Now...................................................................................................................................................................23
A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***......................................................................................................................................................24
A2: No Enforcement....................................................................................................................................................................25
A2: No Transmission / Infrastructure..........................................................................................................................................26
A2: States CP ..............................................................................................................................................................................27
A2: States CP...............................................................................................................................................................................28
A2: States CP ..............................................................................................................................................................................29
A2: States CP ..............................................................................................................................................................................30
A2: Clean Coal DA ***...............................................................................................................................................................31
A2: Clean Coal DA – Support Decreasing..................................................................................................................................32
A2: Clean Coal DA – Doesn’t Solve Environment.....................................................................................................................33
A2: Clean Coal DA – Renewables Better...................................................................................................................................34
A2: Clean Coal DA – Neg Evidence Biased...............................................................................................................................35
A2: Obama DA – A2: Obama Winning Now..............................................................................................................................36
A2: Obama DA – No Support for RPS........................................................................................................................................37
A2: Obama DA – Energy / Climate Not Key to Election............................................................................................................38
A2: Obama DA – All Purpose Impact Answer............................................................................................................................39
A2: Obama DA – Middle East Ans.............................................................................................................................................40
A2: Obama DA – Soft Power Ans...............................................................................................................................................41
A2: Obama DA – Appeasement Turn..........................................................................................................................................42
A2: Obama DA – A2: Disad Turn the Case.................................................................................................................................45
A2: Topicality – Incentives Can be Positive or Negative............................................................................................................46
A2: Topicality – Incentives Can be Positive or Negative ...........................................................................................................47
Renewables Inevitable.................................................................................................................................................................48
Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts.............................................................................................................................................49
Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement.................................................................................................................................50
Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met...........................................................................................................................................51
Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed...............................................................................................................................53
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use...............................................................................................................54
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Help Environment.............................................................................................................55
A2: Terrorism Adv – Threat Declining / No Spillover................................................................................................................56
RPS Aff & Neg 2
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now......................................................................................................................................57
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Internal Links Ans..........................................................................................................................58
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Will Push Jobs Overseas........................................................................................................59
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Won’t Increase Competitiveness............................................................................................60
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Hegemony Ans...............................................................................................................................61
States CP – 1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................62
States CP – Modeled by the USFG.............................................................................................................................................63
States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS.....................................................................................................................64
States CP – A2: Federal RPS Key...............................................................................................................................................65
States CP – A2: Uniformity Necessary........................................................................................................................................66
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC.....................................................................................................................67
Clean Coal DA – 1NC.................................................................................................................................................................68
Clean Coal DA – 1NC.................................................................................................................................................................69
Clean Coal DA – Clean Coal / Coal Industry Increasing............................................................................................................70
Clean Coal DA – RPS Links.......................................................................................................................................................71
Clean Coal DA – Environment Impact........................................................................................................................................72
Clean Coal DA – Competitiveness Impact..................................................................................................................................73
Clean Coal DA – Pollution / Economy Impact...........................................................................................................................74
Clean Coal DA – Economy Impact.............................................................................................................................................75
Obama DA – 1NC.......................................................................................................................................................................76
Obama DA – 1NC.......................................................................................................................................................................77
Obama DA – Obama Winning Now............................................................................................................................................78
Obama DA – Public Supports RPS / Renewables.......................................................................................................................79
Obama DA – Internal Links / A2: McCain Will Keep Distance from Bush...............................................................................80
Obama DA – Energy Issues Key to the Election.........................................................................................................................81
Obama DA – A2: Economy is Key Issue....................................................................................................................................82
Obama DA – 2NC Soft Power Impact........................................................................................................................................83
Obama DA – Solves the Case......................................................................................................................................................84
Obama DA – A2: Appeasement Turn..........................................................................................................................................85
Topicality – Incentives Exclude Regulations – 1NC...................................................................................................................86
Topicality – Incentives are Positive.............................................................................................................................................87
RPS Aff & Neg 3
RPS 1AC – Contention 1 & Plan

Contention 1 is the Status Quo
( ) Renewable Portfolio Standards being adopted by individuals States is creating an uncertain regulatory
environment for investors and fueling market distortions. Only a federal RPS can create a diverse and predictable
national renewable market
Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of
the Network for New Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Electricity Journal, “Big Is Beautiful: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard,” May 2007, vol. 48, no. 4, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
State-based renewable portfolio standards (RPS) create regulatory uncertainty for investors and inherent inequities among
ratepayers. Ultimately, federal legislation can help create a more just, diverse and predictable national market for renewable
resources without significantly increasing aggregate electricity prices.
"There are times when we are 50 states and there are times when we're one country and have national needs. And the way I
know this is that Florida did not fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights." - (the fictional) President Josiah
Bartlett, The West Wing
Arguably, we face no greater national priority than crafting a coherent national energy strategy. Americans face energy
challenges over the next several decades - growing dependence on foreign sources of fuel, continued exposure to the threat of
terrorist sabotage,1 increasing vulnerability to impending climate change, and environmental threats - that demand
progressive federal leadership. Yet federal legislation to establish a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) has failed no
less than 17 times in the past 10 years.
While supporting state-based RPS efforts, the Bush Administration has officially opposed a national RPS on the grounds that
it would create "winners" and "losers" among regions of the country and increase electricity prices in places where renewable
resources are less abundant or harder to cultivate.2 In the meantime, 21 states (and the District of Columbia) have adopted
their own RPS mandates, and eight others - Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont, and
Virginia - are considering some form of RPS.
With so much state-level action, one might be tempted to agree with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA) that "activities on a number of fronts supplant the need for a federal RPS."3 But looks can be deceiving. Because
the accumulated demand for electricity is expected to accelerate over the next several decades, the penetration of renewable
energy technologies in individual states, while noteworthy, is not likely to substantially alter the national fuel mix nor
materially address the energy risks we all face.
Framing the debate as a choice between a perfectly functioning, undistorted energy market and a clunky, artificial federal
intervention, opponents of a national RPS tend to ignore the unique drawbacks associated with a complex web of state-based
mandates.4 Indeed, the most compelling argument for federal action is that a national RPS may help correct many of the
market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions. Not only does reliance on state-based action
make for an uncertain regulatory environment for potential investors, it creates inherent inequities between ratepayers in
some states that are paying for "free riders" in others. Ultimately, federal legislation can help create a more just, more diverse
and more predictable national market for renewable resources without significantly increasing aggregate electricity prices. A
national RPS may help correct many of the market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions.
Thus we present the plan:
The United States federal government should require that twenty percent of the electricity produced in the United
States come from renewable energy resources by the year 2020, and establish renewable energy credits to facilitate
this goal.
RPS Aff & Neg 4
RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

Contention 2 is Conventional Energy
Conventional energy sources results in thousands of systemic deaths – outweighs the one-shot risk of their disad
Dr. Sovacool, 8 – Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant
Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA
(Benjamin K., also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
“The Costs of Major Energy Accidents, 1907 to 2007,” 4-29-2008,
www.scitizen.com/stories/Future-Energies/2008/04/The-Costs-of-Major-Energy-Accidents-1907-to-2007/) // JMP
Conventional energy technologies-- namely nuclear, coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric power generators-- may kill more people
than you think.
From 1907 to 2007, a new study finds that 279 major energy accidents in the coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear
sectors have been responsible for $41 billion in damages and 182,156 deaths.
The claim that humans are imperfect needs no further citation. It is unsurprising, then, that major energy accidents occur. But what counts as an energy
“accident,” especially a “major” one?
The study attempted to answer this question by searching historical archives, newspaper and magazine articles, and press wire reports from 1907 to 2007.
The words “energy,” “electricity,” “oil,” “coal,” “natural gas,” “nuclear,” “renewable,” and “hydroelectric” were searched in the same sentence as the words
“accident,” “disaster,” “incident,” “failure,” “meltdown,” “explosion,” “spill,” and “leak.” The study then narrowed results according to five criteria:
The accident must have involved an energy system at the production/generation, transmission, and distribution phase. This means it must have occurred at an
oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, renewable, or hydroelectric plant, its associated infrastructure, or within its fuel cycle (mine, refinery, pipeline, enrichment
facility, etc.);
It must have resulted in at least one death or property damage above $50,000 (in constant dollars that has not been normalized for growth in capital stock);
It had to be unintentional and in the civilian sector, meaning that military accidents and events during war and conflict are not covered, nor are intentional
attacks. The study only counted documented cases of accident and failure;
It had to occur between August, 1907 and August, 2007;
It had to be verified by a published source;
The study adjusted all damages—including destruction of property, emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, lost product, fines, and
court claims—to 2006 U.S. dollars using the Statistical Abstracts of the United States.
Unsurprisingly, the data concerning major energy accidents is inhomogeneous. While responsible for less than 1 percent of total energy accidents,
hydroelectric facilities claimed 94 percent of reported fatalities. Looking at the gathered data, the total results on fatalities are highly dominated one accident
in which the Shimantan Dam failed in 1975 and 171,000 people perished.
Only three of the listed 279 accidents resulted in more than 1,000 deaths, and each of these varied in almost every aspect. One involved the structural failure
of a dam more than 30 years ago in China; one involved a nuclear meltdown in the Ukraine two decades ago; and one involved the rupture of a petroleum
pipeline in Nigeria around ten years ago.
The study found that only a small amount of accidents caused property damages greater than $1 billion, with most accidents below the $100 million mark.
The second largest source of fatalities, nuclear reactors, is also the second most capital intense, supporting the notion that the larger a facility the more grave
(albeit rare) the consequences of its failure. The inverse seems true for oil, natural gas, and coal systems: they fail far more frequently, but have
comparatively fewer deaths and damage per each instance of failure.
While hydroelectric plants were responsible for the most fatalities, nuclear plants rank first in terms of their economic cost, accounting for 41 percent of all
property damage. Oil and hydroelectric come next at around 25 percent each, followed by natural gas at 9 percent and coal at 2 percent.
By energy source, the most frequent energy system to fail is natural gas, followed by oil, nuclear, coal, and then hydroelectric. Ninety-one accidents occurred
at natural gas facilities, accounting for 33 percent of the total; oil, 71 accidents at 25 percent; nuclear, 63 accidents at 23 percent; coal, 51 accidents at 18
percent; hydroelectric, 3 accidents at 1 percent.
Therefore, energy accidents exact a significant toll on human health and welfare, the natural environment, and society. Such
accidents are now part of our daily routines, a somewhat intractable feature of our energy-intensive lifestyles. They are an often-ignored negative externality
associated with energy conversion and use. This conclusion may seem quite banal to some, given how fully integrated energy technologies are into modern
society. Yet energy systems continue to fail despite drastic improvements in design, construction, operation, and maintenance,
as well as the best of intentions among policymakers and operators.
Perhaps one striking difference between energy accidents and other “normal” risks facing society concerns the involuntary
aspects of energy accidents. Alcoholics, rock climbers, construction workers, soldiers, and gigolos all take a somewhat active and voluntary role in
their risky behavior. Those suffering from nuclear meltdowns, exploding gas clouds, and petroleum-contaminated water do not.
The death and destruction associated with large-scale energy technologies is significant. Tallied as a whole, the 182,156
energy-related deaths total more than twice the number that died in the Vietnam War. Indeed, if averaged out for each year,
energy technologies have been responsible for the equivalent of a September 11, 2001 happening every 1.65 years, year after
year.
The fact that such deaths are systemic means that they can be predicted to occur, with certainty, well into the future. Therein
also lies hope, for recurring events can be anticipated and responded to. Their “high probability” means that they can be more
easily predicted, planned for, and minimized than unforeseen and catastrophic events.
RPS Aff & Neg 5

In particular, a federal RPS key to prevent water shortages and thermal pollution that will collapse ecosystems
Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
B. Water Conservation
If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors, America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for
farming. Perhaps the
most important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that
is extremely water-intensive. The nation’s oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities consume about 3.3 billion gallons of water each day.244 In 2006, they accounted
for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface- or ground-water source), roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for
irrigated agriculture in the entire United States.245
A conventional 500 MW coal plant, for instance, consumes around 7,000 gallons of water per minute, or the equivalent of 17
Olympic-sized swimming pools every day.246 Older, less efficient plants can be much worse. In Georgia, the 3,400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much
as 9,913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. 247 Data from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) also confirms that every type of traditional power
plant consumes and withdraws vast amounts of water. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. Coal
plants also use water to clean and process fuel, and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss.
Newer technologies, while they withdraw less water, actually consume more. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating, closed-loop cooling
technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to
the original source. Thus, while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent, they contribute even more to the nation’s
water scarcity.248
Nuclear reactors, in particular, require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods. Because much of the water is turned to steam, substantial
amounts are lost to the local water table entirely. One nuclear plant in Georgia, for example, withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River, but
actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply, enough to service more than 196,000 Georgia homes,.249
With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years, continuing
to rely on fossil fuel-fired and nuclear generators
could spark a water scarcity crisis. In 2006, the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030,
to 7.3 billion gallons per day, if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in
1995.250
Water Shortages
The electric utility industry’s vast appetite for water has serious consequences, both for human consumption and the environment.
Assuming the latest Census Bureau projections, the U.S. population is expected to grow by about 70 million people in the next 25 years.251 Such population growth is already
threatening to overwhelm existing supplies of fresh and potable water.
Few new reservoirs have been built since 1980 and some regions have seen groundwater levels drop as much as 300 to 900 feet over the past 50 years as aquifers extract water
faster than the natural rate of replenishment.252 Most state water managers expect either local or regional water shortages within the next 10 years, according to a recent survey,
even under “normal” conditions.253 In fact, 47 states in the country reported drought conditions during the summer of 2002.254
Water shortages risk becoming more acute in the coming years as climate change alters precipitation patterns. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, global warming is expected
to induce a dramatic loss of snow-pack as more precipitation falls as rain. As a result, numerous studies have suggested that the hydrology of the region will be fundamentally
altered with increased flood risks in the spring and reductions of snow in the winter. 255 Consequently, power retailers in the region have expressed concern that large
hydroelectric and nuclear facilities will have to be shut down due to lack of adequate water for electricity generation and cooling.256 During the steamy August of 2006, the record
heat sparked unplanned reactor shutdowns in Michigan and Minnesota as nuclear plant operators scrambled to find enough water to cool radioactive fuel cores.257
Thermal Pollution
The Argonne National Laboratory has documented how
power plants have withdrawn hundreds of millions of gallons of water each day for
cooling purposes and then discharged the heated water back to the same or a nearby water body. This process of “once-through” cooling
presents potential environmental impacts by impinging aquatic organisms in intake screens and by affecting aquatic ecosystems by discharge effluent that is far hotter than the
surrounding surface waters.259 Drawing water into a plant often kills fish and other aquatic organisms, and the extensive array of
cooling towers, ponds, and underwater vents used by most plants have been documented to severely damage riparian environments.
In some cases, the thermal pollution from centralized power plants can induce eutrophication—a process where the warmer
temperature alters the chemical composition of the water, resulting in a rapid increase of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Rather than
improving the ecosystem, such alterations usually promote excessive plant growth and decay, favoring certain weedy species over
others and severely reducing water quality. In riparian environments, the enhanced growth of choking vegetation can collapse
entire ecosystems. This form of thermal pollution has been known to decrease the aesthetic and recreational value of rivers, lakes, and estuaries and complicate drinking
water treatment.260 // pg. 97-100
RPS Aff & Neg 6

This causes extinction
Coyne and Hoekstra, 07 - *professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago AND **
Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University (Jerry and Hopi, The
New Republic, “The Greatest Dying,” 9/24, http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-
dying)
Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one,
We are relentlessly taking over the
however, is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens.
planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much faster than the mass
extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At this rate, we could
lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that biodiversity will ever
recover, since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay.
To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is
that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three
million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast
majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means
that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably.
But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all
the great apes - our closest relatives - are nearly gone from the wild.
And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major
greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of
Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction.
Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the
forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully
jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a very real
possibility.
But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services like waste disposal,
nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both
intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in
North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these
with increased pollution and runoff, as
developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile,
well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster.
In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and
warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans
depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest
coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for human
populations and buffer coastlines against erosion.
In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per
year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if
ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace.
Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent
discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just
this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and
hirudin (another anticoagulant).
Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More
than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful
anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends.
Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction
rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years.
Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in
Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of
biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking
around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else,
apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul.
But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are
creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste
accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must
accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain,
scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when
humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the
greatest dying of them all.
RPS Aff & Neg 7

A federal RPS will effectively displace harmful conventional energy sources and eliminate free-riding and externalities
that are caused by individual state efforts. This evidence answers all of their objections a national RPS.
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and
Christopher Cooper, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, “State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse with the
Cart?” Fall 2007, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 5, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
Third, renewable energy generation is subject to a free rider problem. Since everyone benefits from the environmental advantages of renewable energy,
private companies that invest millions of dollars in researching and developing clean energy technologies are often unable to recover the full profit of their investments. Inevitably,
the market allows some consumers to be free riders, benefiting from the investments of others without paying for them.
STATE GOVERNMENT MECHANISMS FOR PROMOTING RENEWABLE ENERGY
State policy interventions intend to stimulate a market for renewable resources and spur additional research, development, and implementation of renewable energy technologies.
So far, state governments in the United States have relied predominately on RPSs and SBCs to level the playing field by neutralizing a legacy of unequal federal subsidies and
directly requiring renewable energy. While
state policies are innovative and well intentioned, the time has come to shift to federal
regulation and intervention. Continued reliance on state-based activity alone will ironically promote more market
externalities and "free riding" than harmonized federal action.
SYSTEM BENEFIT CHARGES
Systems benefit charges (also called public benefit funds, system benefit funds, and clean energy funds) originated in the 1990s at a time when state policy makers were
considering electric utility restructuring legislation. Afraid that gains made in pursuing research, development, and implementation of environmentally-preferable renewable energy
technologies would end after markets were deregulated, advocates of the novel [*6] technologies won concessions in some states for a new funding mechanism for high-risk or
long-term projects. A SBC places a small tax on every kilowatt hour ("kWh") of electricity generated and utilizes those funds to pursue socially-beneficial energy projects. n5
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that SBCs have been responsible for promoting 1,117 megawatts ("MW") of renewable energy capacity. n6
SBCs were first implemented in Washington State in 1994 and were endorsed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1995 as a way to fund services that had previously
been included in customers' bills from regulated utility companies. n7 As part of the negotiations for California's restructuring law, environmental advocates won a provision for a
public benefit fund that would expend at least $ 872 million on energy-efficiency work from 1998 to the end of 2001 and would allocate $ 540 million on renewable energy
projects. n8 To develop renewable energy technologies and other programs expected to struggle after deregulation, the California Energy Commission created its Public Interest
Energy Research program, which initially drew about $ 62 million annually from the state's SBC. n9
By 2006, fifteen states created SBCs. The seventeen organizations that administer the funds, which are scheduled to total $ 4 billion by 2017, collaborate through a nonprofit
organization called the Clean Energy States Alliance. The organization sponsors original research, collects information and analyses, and seeks to expand the use of clean energy
technologies with a special emphasis on solar, wind, and fuel cells. Moreover, the group seeks to increase the efficiency of state research by eliminating duplication of efforts and
by providing forums for the states to share knowledge and insights. n10
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS
An RPS is a legislative mandate requiring electricity suppliers (often referred to as "load serving entities") in a given geographical area to employ renewable resources to produce a
certain percentage of power by a fixed date.
An RPS program transfers the risk of renewable energy investments from regulators to investors. n11 RPS uses the market as a mechanism to determine the efficacy of any given
technology; as a result, higher costs, if they occur, are distributed evenly throughout society to those that benefit from them, and are blended with the lower costs of existing
conventional generation. n12
Unlike instruments developed by public utility commissions with long and complex procedures, often followed by litigation, RPSs are bureaucratically simple. n13 RPSs enable
customers to pay producers directly for renewable energy, obviating the need for the administration of funds by government agencies. And, unlike a one-time award for funds, no
project is guaranteed a place in the market. n14
First implemented by Iowa and Minnesota in the 1980s, twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have already passed RPS laws requiring utilities to use renewable
resources as a portion of their overall provision of electricity. n15 Four other states have nonbinding renewable energy goals. n16 Five more states--Florida, Indiana, Louisiana,
Nebraska, and Utah--are considering mandating some form of RPS. Of the approximate 9,000 MW of wind energy in the United States, roughly fifty percent, or 4,500 MW, have
been promoted directly by RPS policies, whereas ten percent, or 900 MW, have been promoted by SBCs from 2001 to 2006. n17
THE CASE FOR FEDERAL INTERVENTION
There are three reasons, however, why continued reliance on state-based efforts such as SBCs and RPSs will be insufficient to promote renewable
energy technologies in the United States on the scale needed to fight climate change.
IMPROVING RELIABILITY
First, federal intervention is needed to improve electricity reliability. Contrary to what some opponents of renewable energy assert, the variability of
renewable resources becomes easier to manage the more they are deployed. Electrical and power systems engineers have long held the principle that the larger a system becomes,
the less reserve capacity it needs. Demand variations between individual consumers are mitigated by grid interconnection in exactly this manner. When a single electricity
consumer, for example, starts drawing more electricity than the system allocated for each consumer, the strain on the system is insignificant because so many consumers are
drawing from the grid that it is entirely likely another consumer will be drawing less to make up the difference. This "averaging" works in a similar fashion on the supply side of
the grid. Individual wind turbines average out each other in electricity supply. n18 So when the wind is not blowing through one wind farm, it is likely blowing harder through
another.
Because the technical availability of one wind turbine rivals that of a single conventional power plant, wind farms of hundreds or thousands of turbines have even greater reliability
because it is unlikely that all turbines would be down at the same time. Furthermore, when turbines do malfunction, they take far less time to recover than massive conventional
power plants or nuclear reactors that have literally millions of individual components, arranged in complex circuits prone to mechanical failure. n19 Analysts already confirmed the
benefit of wind power's greater technical availability in the United States. Indeed, a November 2006 study assessing the widespread use of wind power in Minnesota [*7]
concluded that "wind generation does make a calculable contribution to system reliability" by decreasing the risk of large, unexpected outages. n20
Improved reliability of supply is important, as blackouts and brownouts exact a considerable toll on the American economy.
The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") estimates that while power interruptions often last only seconds or minutes, they cost consumers an average of $ 150 to 400 billion every
year. n21 The Electric Power Research Institute projects the annual costs of poor power reliability at $ 119 billion, or forty-four percent of all electricity sales in 1995. n22
Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted

RPS Aff & Neg 8

However, to
capture such benefits, renewable energy technologies must be spatially deployed in every state and must have
national penetration rates above ten percent. Penetration rates of renewable energy technologies nationwide are still low--around three percent of overall
installed electricity capacity in 2007. Collective state efforts are expected to increase this amount to only around four percent by 2015 and five percent by 2030, but the
environmental benefits of renewable energy only really start to accrue at penetration rates well above this rate. Federal
intervention in the form of a nation-
wide SBC or RPS aiming for targets of ten to twenty percent by 2020 would expand the diversity of technologies used to access
renewable resources.
IMPROVING ENERGY SECURITY
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.
PROVIDING CLIMATE BENEFITS
Third, and perhaps most important, federal intervention is needed to fight climate change and minimize "free-riding" going
on in states that have chosen to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels to generate electricity, instead of promoting renewable energy. The DOE has already determined
that only "the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities." n30
Examinations of fuel generation in several states confirm this finding, as well as the tendency for a national RPS to displace oil-fired generation, which is still a significant source
of electricity in Florida, New York, and Hawaii. Equally important, but often overlooked, is how SBC- or RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several
regions of the United States.
[*8] Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that a state-wide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental impacts
associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors. n31 In Oregon, the Governor's Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a twenty-five percent statewide
RPS by 2025 and projected that every fifty MW of renewable energy would displace approximately twenty MW of base-load resources, including nuclear power. n32 Environment
Michigan estimates that a twenty percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal
facilities. n33
By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, only large-scale renewable energy penetration rates
would avoid many of the environmental and social costs associated with the mining, processing, transportation, combustion,
and clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. By promoting technologies that displace conventional forms of electricity generation, federal promotion of renewable
energy would substantially decrease air pollution in the United States. A single one MW wind turbine running at only thirty percent of capacity for one year displaces more than
1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 2.5 tons of sulfur dioxide 3.2 tons of nitrous oxides, and 60 pounds of toxic mercury emissions. n34
One study assessing the environmental potential of a 580 MW wind farm located on the Altamont Pass near San Francisco, California, concluded that the turbines displaced
hundreds of thousands of tons of air pollutants each year that would have otherwise resulted from fossil fuel combustion. n35 The study estimated that the wind farm would
displace more than twenty-four billion pounds of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide over the course of its twenty-year lifetime--enough to cover
the entire city of Oakland, California in a pile of toxic pollution forty-stories high. n36
Renewable energy technologies possess an even greater ability to mitigate climate change. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that when direct and indirect carbon
emissions are included, coal plants are around ten times more carbon intensive than solar technologies and more than forty times more carbon intensive than wind technologies.
Natural gas fares little better, at three times as carbon intense as solar and twenty times as carbon intensive as wind. n37 The Common Purpose Institute estimates that renewable
energy technologies could offset as much as 0.49 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per every MWh of generation. According to data compiled by the Union of Concerned
Scientists, a twenty percent RPS would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 434 million metric tons by 2020--a reduction of fifteen percent below "business as usual" levels, or the
equivalent to taking nearly seventy-one million automobiles off the road. n38
These estimates are not simply theoretical. Between 1991 and 1997 renewable energy technologies in the Netherlands reduced that country's annual emissions of CO[2] between
4.4 million and 6.7 million tons. Renewable
technologies were so successful at displacing greenhouse gas emissions that Europe now
views renewable energy as "the major tool of distribution utilities in meeting industry CO[2] reduction targets." n40

RPS Aff & Neg 9

CONCLUSION
Given such obvious and overwhelming advantages, it is hard to believe that many utilities and policymakers diligently oppose national promotion on renewable energy, repeating
myths that have long since been debunked. Largely, the remaining objections to federal intervention constitute a diminishing series of canards that mischaracterize a national SBC
or RPS as an unnecessary federal intervention in a relatively free market. Forgetting that a
majority of states are well on their way to imposing their own
clunky, overlapping, inconsistent, competing, and sometimes irrational mess of mandates, opponents churn out four war-torn myths every
time the issue is considered:
The first criticism is that a national SBC or RPS would create "winners and losers." In reality, all states have renewable resources they can affordably develop. However, under the
current system of state mandates, some states are "losers" by subsidizing the cheap, polluting electricity in other states. Other states are victims to inconsistencies between state
mandates that produce perverse predatory trade-offs and require them to export their cheap in-state renewable electricity in exchange for more expensive electricity or renewable
energy credits. A national mandate would level the playing field by creating consistent, uniform rules and by allowing utilities to
purchase renewable energy credits or develop renewable resources anywhere they are cost competitive.
The second criticism is that a national mandate would increase electricity rates. However, in most states, renewable [*9] energy mandates have not
significantly increased rates and a consensus of economic models predict that a national policy would generate substantial
consumer savings over the existing patchwork of state programs. By expanding the amount of energy that would offset gas-fired generation, a
federal intervention would reduce demand on a strained and volatile natural gas market. Renewable energy units with markedly
faster lead-times than conventional and nuclear reactors speeds the cost recovery of critical transmission investments and reduces the rate increases needed to pay
for new transmission.
Another common criticism is that a federal mandate would harm the utilities sector in the form of future profits they will not be able to recover from consumers through higher
electricity rates. For policymakers, balancing utility profits with electricity prices is one of the hard decisions we elect them to make. However, elected officials should consider
that utility claims of lost profit are short-sited and strategically unsound. In reality, a more predictable regulatory environment decreases utility litigation and compliance costs
relative to a growing tangle of vague and unstable state mandates. Expanding the universe of eligible renewable resources and establishing clear, uniform trading rules creates far
more flexibility for regulated utilities and rewards utility investments on the basis of smart market strategy. By
promoting a robust domestic renewable energy
manufacturing sector, a national mandate reduces the costs utilities pay in unfavorable exchange rates for foreign parts and
labor and redirects those investments to the U.S. labor market.
A final criticism is that a national RPS or SBC would promote only least-cost options such as wind turbines and landfill gas generators (and not solar photovoltaic, solar thermal,
small-scale hydroelectric, and geothermal plants). Existing state programs, however, reveal that mandates with broad qualifying resource eligibility actually have led to the
development of many different renewable resources. Utilities have already demonstrated that they can meet state requirements by deploying a diverse portfolio of renewable
resources that best match their service areas. By
geographically and monetarily expanding the market for renewable resources, a national
RPS is likely to further diversify the deployment of renewable energy technologies. In Nevada, geothermal energy may be cheaper to develop
than wind. In the Pacific Northwest, incremental hydroelectric power may be cheaper than solar. In the Southeast, biomass may be the most affordable. A national RPS mandate
with a fuel-based definition of eligible renewable resources ensures that free market principles, rather than regulatory set-asides or political patronage, determine which
technologies will be most cost competitive in certain areas of the country. An added bonus is that a
national RPS decreases compliance costs for regulated
utilities, since a technology-neutral mandate allows utilities to meet RPS obligations using the technology that is most cost
competitive for the fuels available.
Ultimately, by establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules, a national SBC or RPS can create a more just and predictable regulatory environment for
utilities while jump-starting a robust national renewable energy technology sector. By
offsetting electricity that utilities would otherwise generate with
conventional and nuclear power, a federal action would decrease electricity prices for American consumers while protecting
human health and the environment at a scale and magnitude not possible with state programs.
RPS Aff & Neg 10
RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

Contention 3 is Competitiveness
The global renewable market is rapidly expanding – the U.S. will miss out on this multi-billion dollar energy
revolution without strong and consistent government support for domestic renewable energy production
Sawin, 2 – Research Associate at the Worldwatch Institute

(Janet, Climate Wise, “Losing the Clean Energy Race,” 3-26- 2002, www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=20066) // JMP
The United States once led - actually, began - the clean energy revolution. As recently as 1990, U.S. industries played the
dominant global role in wind and solar PV development and deployment.
But, due to a lack of appropriate and consistent government support for clean energy technologies, and government subsidies
that continue to favor dirty, conventional fuels and technologies, we are losing our role as technological leaders.
We are now falling farther and farther behind as Japan and Europe surpass us with regard to total installed clean energy
generating capacity, share of the global market, and ownership of manufacturers.
U.S. companies must compete in the global marketplace.
If this trend is not reversed, America will lose millions of potential high-wage, high-tech jobs, billions of dollars in potential
investment and revenue. The US will also fail to glean multiple benefits not traditionally measured in economic terms that
come with clean, safe, domestic and renewable energy technologies - including cleaner environment, reduced risk of global
warming, improved human health, better quality of life, and a more secure future.
With only 4.5 percent of the United States land area and a fraction of its wind resource potential, Germany has more than
double the U.S. installed wind energy capacity. Denmark, a small nation of about five million people, is the world's leading
manufacturer of wind turbines, with several turbine companies that consistently rank in the global top ten. The U.S. share of
global PV shipments reached a peak in 1996, declining from 44 percent that year to 27 percent in 2001.
Total grid-connected PV in the United States is now estimated to be only 15 percent of that in Japan, and 31 percent of that in
Germany.
The rising demand for Japanese and European made technology is due primarily to the dramatic increases in demand for
renewable energy capacity in these countries, sparked by successful government policies aimed to develop markets for
renewable energy. Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power, at levels many
times that for renewable energy technologies.
Around the world, leaders in business and government are calling for a transition to a clean energy economy to address global
climate change, increase national security and meet rising demand for energy worldwide. Perhaps most importantly, the
American public wants clean energy.
In poll after poll, Americans have expressed their preference for investment in renewable energy technologies over
conventional energy. According to a Gallup poll taken November 8, 2001, 91 percent of Americans favor investments in new
sources of energy, such as solar and wind.
Top level advisors under Clinton, Reagan and Nixon have urged Congress to adopt strong measures now to advance
renewable energy in order to advance America's energy security. "They [renewable energy technologies] are now ready to be
brought, full force, into service…. Speedy action by the Administration and the Congress is critical to establish the regulatory
and tax conditions for these renewable resources to rapidly reach their potential."
David Freeman, who has held top positions at the New York Power Authority and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and
now heads the California Power Authority, notes that "our whole system of electric
power supply is hard to defend against attack. The worst is nuclear."
Sir Mark Moody Stuart, former CEO of Shell Oil company last month called on governments of northern countries "to
expand renewable energy targets, removing inappropriate subsidies and switching some to renewable energy to provide a
level playing field in the energy sector."
Russian Vice Prime Minister Ylia Klebanov recently said that "using traditional energy technologies, it's hard to talk about [a]
competitive economy. And for renewable energy technologies we do too little…."
Every region and state in this nation has significant renewable energy potential - wind and solar energy, geothermal energy,
ocean power, crops for biomass, and environmentally sustainable hydropower. In fact, North America has some of the world's
greatest wind energy resources; North Dakota alone has enough to produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity
each year , 37 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption in 1999 (3 trillion kWh ). Every minute, the sun drenches earth's
surface with more energy than the world consumes in a year. The United States has the best solar resource of any
industrialized country.

RPS Aff & Neg 11

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enough electricity could be generated to meet all of U.S. demand with solar
energy on a plot of land 100 miles square in Nevada. The benefits of renewable energy are compelling: a cleaner environment
for current and future generations, reduced threats of global warming, economic growth, greater diversity of fuel supply,
improved energy and national security, rapid and modular deployment, and a global potential for technology transfer and
innovation.
In addition, renewable energy technologies provide more jobs per unit of energy generated than do conventional energy
technologies. According to the Department of Energy, wind energy provides about five times more jobs per dollar invested
than coal or nuclear power. A recent study concluded that solar PV provides the most jobs of any renewable technology, on an
energy capacity basis, and many of these positions are high-wage, high-tech jobs.
The global markets for renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are booming. Wind has been the fastest growing
energy source worldwide for most of the past decade, while global shipments of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and modules
have increased at an average annual rate of 33 percent since 1996.
During the same period, the use of coal for generating electricity has declined by 9 percent worldwide. Solar PV and wind
power technologies have matured considerably since the 1980s, experiencing dramatic increases in productivity and lifetime,
while achieving significant declines in cost. In good wind sites, wind power is now the cheapest new energy source, with full
life-cycle costs below those of most fossil-fuel powered plants.
Today, solar PV provides electricity for several hundred thousand people around the world, creates employment for more
than ten thousand people and generates business worth more than $2 billion annually. According to some forecasts, clean-
energy markets will grow from less than $7 billion in 2000 to more than $82 billion by 2010 , and the U.S. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) predicts that PV technology has "the potential to become one of the world's most
important industries."
Driven by concerns about global warming, energy security, increasing demand for energy worldwide - particularly in
developing countries and advances in renewable energy technologies, nations around the world are setting targets for
renewable energy. The European Union aims to generate ten percent of its electricity with renewables by 2010, and the
European Wind Energy Association projects that Europe will have 60,000 MW of installed wind capacity by that year. By the
year 2020, wind energy could generate 10 percent of the world's electricity and create more than 1.7 million jobs. The
European PV Industry Association projects that solar PV will provide 26 percent of total global annual electricity demand by
2040.
Even China, India and Brazil have committed to significant increases in the use of renewable energy; India established a
ministry for advanced energy technologies, and China has eliminated subsidies for coal. These three nations combined have
more than two billion people, with rapidly rising demand for energy and the technologies that produce it, offering nearly
unlimited market potential.
The current political and commercial commitment to renewable energy around the world implies that the recent surge of
activity in this industry is only the beginning of a massive transformation and expansion expected to occur over the coming
decades. But without strong and sustained political leadership at home, Americans will lose out in this energy revolution. To
compete successfully in the clean energy race, U.S. industries must be strong and resilient, which requires a strong and
consistent domestic market for their products.
RPS Aff & Neg 12

The lack of a federal RPS is robbing domestic industries of valuable export opportunities and locking in U.S.
inferiority in this critical market
Fitzgerald, 6 – directs of the Law Policy and Society program at Northeastern University
(Joan, The American Prospect, “Help Wanted – Green; Green development could be a big generator of good jobs -- if
America will seize the opportunity,” 12-17-2006, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=help_wanted_green) // JMP
There are good jobs to be had in environmentally friendly development, and construction jobs are just the beginning.
Thousands of jobs are in products that go into green buildings. The job potential in renewable energy production is even more
impressive. The Renewable Energy Policy Project estimates that producing 10 percent of the nation's electricity with
renewable sources would create 381,000 jobs producing the component parts of the systems. Already, renewable energy
(biomass, solar, wind, geothermal) employ more than 115,000 people directly. These new jobs more than compensate for
ongoing job loss in the coal and oil industries as clean forms of energy replace polluting ones.
Renewable energy is labor-intensive. It generates more jobs in construction, manufacturing, and installation per megawatt of
power than coal and natural gas. These jobs start with research and development. They produce an array of goods and
services from renewable energy itself to products made from high-tech or recycled materials. The majority of the jobs created
would be in manufacturing, although there are many in operations and maintenance and in system installation.
These jobs, often called greentech or cleantech, could provide middle-class wages for hundreds of thousands of Americans
while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving the environment. Producing for export could improve the
balance of trade. That's the potential. The reality is that we're falling behind other countries. Solar power was invented in the
United States, but Japan and Germany moved ahead of us in production in the late 1990s and China is not far behind. In wind
power capacity, we're behind Germany and Spain. We're also behind on enacting policies to spur the growth of cleantech
industries -- and it is public policy that drives research and development, as well as the employment that follows.
Forty-three countries have renewable portfolio standards that require a specified percentage of energy be from renewable
sources by a given year. But the U.S. Congress has failed to enact such a standard for our country. Instead, states and cities in
the United States are trying to fill the policy vacuum.
In addition, the proliferation of individual state renewable portfolio standards is creating confusion for electricity
providers that undermines U.S. competitiveness
UPI, 7 (Rosalie, Westenskow, United Press International, “Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” 6-8-2007,
http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/06/08/analysis_nation_ripe_for_a_federal_rps/4681/) // JMP
WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- A national renewable energy portfolio standard could decrease greenhouse gas emissions
and simultaneously shrink electric bills, some experts say.
The mandate would require electric utility companies to generate a specific percentage of their power from renewable energy
sources or buy renewable energy credits from others. Almost half of the states already have renewable portfolio standards in
place -- 23 plus the District of Columbia, and including Oregon and New Hampshire, the two most recent to pass RPS
legislation.
However, this medley of standards has created confusion among electricity providers, many of whom operate in multiple
states, said Marilyn Brown, a commissioner for the National Commission on Energy Policy.
"Many large companies now ... face this hodgepodge of different rules," she told United Press International. "Different
renewable resources qualify in one state and not the other, so it really is a competitiveness issue. How can the U.S. compete
and be effective if the regulations aren't uniform?"
A federal RPS would attempt to reconcile the current patchwork of standards and distribute the burden of renewable-energy
development among the states, eliminating so-called "free-rider" states that benefit from the efforts of their neighbors but
impose no mandates within their own borders.
RPS Aff & Neg 13
Renewable energy has big time market potential – it could become a world leading industry with active U.S. support
Kammen, et al, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society with the Energy and Resources Group and Professor Public Policy at
Cal Berkeley
(Dan Kammen – Director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Antonia Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman –
postdoctoral researchers at RAEL, and Jennifer L. Edwards – research assistant at RAEL, Environment, “Renewable Energy:
A Viable Choice,” December 2001, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983.html) // JMP
The push to develop renewable and other clean energy technologies is no longer being driven solely by environmental
concerns; these technologies are becoming economically competitive. According to Merrill Lynch's Robin Batchelor, the
traditional energy sector has lacked appeal to investors in recent years because of heavy regulation, low growth, and a
tendency to be cyclical. (10) The United States' lack of support for innovative new companies sends a signal that U.S. energy
markets are biased against new entrants. The clean energy industry could, however, become a world-leading industry akin to
that of U.S. semi-conductors and computer systems.
Ultimately, the renewable market is key to U.S. economic and technological leadership
Kammen, 1 – Professor of Energy and Society Director at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory Energy and
Resources Group
(Daniel, FDCH Congressional Testimony, “Energy Tax Incentives,” 7-11-2001, Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP
As a nation we are ignoring the importance of maintaining leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of
which are related to the energy sector.3 This includes keeping pace with Japan and Germany in the production of solar
photovoltaic systems, catching up with Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and with Japan, Germany,
and Canada in the development of fuel cell systems. The development of these industries within the U.S. is vital to both our
international competitiveness and commercial strength, and to our national security in providing for our own energy needs.
Renewable and distributed energy systems and energy efficiency are areas experiencing tremendous market growth
internationally. These systems combine the latest advances in energy conversion and storage, with improvements in computer
and other advanced technologies, and are therefore natural areas for U. S. business interests and for U.S. strategic leadership.
The U. S. must improve the financial and political climate for clean energy systems in order to reassert our leadership in this
vital area.
RPS Aff & Neg 14

U.S. technological leadership is crucial to America’s global primacy and economic prosperity
Segal, 4 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations

(Adam, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html) // JMP
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than
anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the
country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor,
the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead.
Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming
from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential
policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and
ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by
scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest
producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for
clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and
telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers,
biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing.
Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting
considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is
both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to
prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone
else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering
technological entrepreneurship at home.
The result is global nuclear exchange
Khalilzad, 95 – Rand Corportation

(Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a
return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a
vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have
tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values --
democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with
the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.
leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
RPS Aff & Neg 15

Federal leadership is the only way to provide sufficient investor confidence to develop a renewables market that
boosts U.S. competitiveness
Flavin & Podesta, 6 – *president of the Worldwatch Institute and **president of theCenter for American Progress,
(Christopher and John, American Energy: The Renewable Path to Energy Security
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/AmericanEnergy.pdf)
Americans today are no less clever or ambitious than their great-grandparents were. A new and better energy future is
possible if the country can forge a compelling vision of where it wants to be. Recent developments in the global marketplace
show the potential:
• Global wind energy generation has more than tripled since 2000, providing enough electricity to power the homes of about
30 million Americans. The United States led the world in wind energy installations in 2005.
• Production of electricity-generating solar cells is one of the world’s fastest growing industries, up 45 percent in 2005 to six
times the level in 2000.
• Production of fuel ethanol from crops more than doubled between 2000 and 2005, and biodiesel from vegetable oil and
waste expanded nearly four-fold over this period.
Global investment in renewable energy (excluding large hydropower) in 2005 is estimated at $38 billion—equivalent to
nearly 20 percent of total annual investment in the electric power sector. Renewable energy investments have nearly doubled
over the past three years, and have increased six-fold since 1995. Next to the Internet, new energy technology has become
one of the hottest investment fields for venture capitalists.
These dynamic growth rates are driving down costs and spurring rapid advances in technologies. They are also creating new
economic opportunities for people around the globe. Today, renewable energy manufacturing, operations, and maintenance
provide approximately two million jobs worldwide.
The United States will need a much stronger commitment to renewable energy if it is to take advantage of these
opportunities. As President Bush has said, America is “addicted to oil,” and dependence on fossil fuels is rising, even in the
face of high oil prices and growing concern about global warming. Of particular concern is the well over 100 coal-fired
power plants now on the drawing boards of the U.S. electricity industry—most of which lack the latest pollution controls and
could still be pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a halfcentury from now.
In order to break the national addiction to outdated fuels and technologies, America will need a world-class energy policy.
The prominent positions that 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.
RPS Aff & Neg 16

Creating a stable domestic market for renewable will allow U.S. industries to capture large shares of the global
market and overtake competitors in Europe and Japan
Walsh & White, 8 – * national policy director for Green For All and ** senior policy associate with the Center on Wisconsin
Strategy
(Jason Walsh and Sarah White, Asia Times, “Jobs up for grabs in cleaner economy,” 5-20-2008,
www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE20Dj07.html) // JMP
Employment opportunity
In the United States, green-collar jobs offer new opportunities for low-income and working class people who have been at the short end of persistent and
increasing inequality in this country. Despite significant boosts in worker productivity over recent decades, median wages remain stagnant. The decline in
manufacturing jobs over the past decade gathered steam with an 18% national job loss after the 2001 recession, plummeting with particularly devastating
consequences in the industrial heartland, which bore up to a third of the national job loss recorded between 2000 and 2005.
Nationally, median family income has not recovered to the pre-recession levels of 2000, and job insecurity threatens workers at all levels. This trend toward
greater inequality, wage stagnation, job loss and insecurity stems from many factors, not least economic and trade policies that have encouraged offshoring,
real and threatened, and wage triage on a global scale.
The new-energy economy will not solve all of the problems of economic inequality, environmental degradation and energy insecurity. But it can
contribute mightily to a resurgence of the American middle class and a sustainable environmental ethos. By expanding
existing industries and creating new ones, the emerging green sector can retain and create significant numbers of domestic
jobs.
What are these green-collar jobs? We define the core of this sector as family-supporting, middle-skill jobs, most of them in the primary sectors of a clean-
energy economy - efficiency, renewables and alternative transportation and fuels. There are many ways to count them, none perfect. One respected source,
using a broad set of parameters, estimates that the renewable and efficiency sectors may account for as many as one in four jobs by 2030. This projection
includes both the full range of jobs in these industries - from accountants to mechanics - and those created indirectly by them. Whatever the relative merits of
such approximations, even the most modest modeling indicates that the green economy holds much promise for urban and rural revitalization.
A large part of this promise is based on the reality that green-collar jobs are community-based: because they focus on transforming the immediate natural and
built environment, they are harder, in some cases impossible, to offshore. No one will ship a building from Chicago to be retrofitted in China. The energy
efficiency industry provides perhaps the most exciting opportunity. Substantially reducing energy waste through systematic retrofitting and upgrading of
residential and commercial buildings is a key area where environmental and equity agendas can come together to create good jobs in plentiful numbers. The
work requires a multi-skilled, local workforce, and it feeds a building-materials industry that is still largely domestic.
Make no mistake: we are talking about a lot of jobs here. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority estimates that for every gigawatt
hour saved, the agency's programs create or retain 1.5 jobs. A recent report for the American Solar Energy society counts eight million jobs created in the US
energy efficiency industry in 2006 alone (3.7 million directly in efficiency).
Building-trades jobs are not the only green-collar occupations resistant to offshoring. The manufacturing sector, which has borne the brunt of
job losses in this country could receive a marked job creation boost from a substantial shift to renewable energy. The Renewable
Energy Policy Project has published a series of reports identifying the potential for states with existing industrial infrastructure and skilled labor to become
component manufacturing leaders for the wind industry.
If the country can muster the US$62 billion investment required to expand wind capacity by 125,000MW over the next 10 years - the amount needed to
stabilize US carbon emissions - the wind energy sector could create nearly 400,000 domestic manufacturing jobs. And the top 20 states
that stand to benefit are some of the most populous and hardest hit by recent manufacturing job loss. California and Texas lead the list, followed by the Great
Lakes states: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Industrial capacity and transportation networks are key assets to turbine production. Wind turbines are massive and extremely heavy machines. The towers
alone are up to 250 feet tall, 16 feet in diameter and weigh more than 100 tons. An assembled nacelle - the fiberglass case that sits on top of the tower and
houses the gearbox and generator - weighs around 70 tons, and the rotor assembly with blades, each of which can be up to 200 feet long, weighs in at around
40. It is no surprise that most new facilities in the US are sited close to water and rail, like the Gamesa plant on the Delaware River in Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, or the Siemens factory on the Mississippi in Fort Madison, Iowa.
The United States is playing catch-up to others, especially the Europeans and the Japanese, who have invested heavily in developing the
expertise and manufacturing base for this production. But there are good reasons to believe we can and should catch up. Transporting huge turbines
overseas is unsound from a carbon perspective; with oil periodically breaching $100 per barrel, it is financially irrational as well. Soaring shipping costs (and
a foundering dollar) are already driving greater domestic production. Some of the key wind turbine manufacturers serving the US market, such as Vestas
(Denmark), Siemens (Germany), Gamesa (Spain), Mitsubishi (Japan), and Suzlon (India), have already started to produce turbines locally.
The siting by foreign companies of manufacturing facilities in the United States, and the potential of US manufacturers to be the
links in a supply chain for the wind industry, are signs of progress. They should not obscure the additional promise that US-
based green industries hold to be globally competitive sectors. With the right policy supports, US-based renewable energy
and energy efficiency industries can capture large shares of these rapidly expanding global markets and export their products,
from solar cells to energy efficiency appliances, to consumers around the world.
Sound national policy
The possible future, then, is compelling, as long as we demonstrate the policy smarts and political will to achieve it. This
means crafting sound national policy to create stable domestic markets for renewable energy and using related energy
standards as green job creation tools.
RPS Aff & Neg 17

( ) A national RPS is key to create a robust manufacturing base for renewables – overcomes inevitable bottlenecks
created by State programs
C. A National RPS Improves Manufacturing Efficiency

Because the U.S. does not currently have a national RPS, it also lacks a relatively robust manufacturing base for most
renewable energy technologies. Renewable energy developers in the U.S. largely rely on European or other overseas
manufacturers for the requisite materials (and sometimes expertise and labor) to install renewable energy systems. This
reliance on foreign materials and labor increases construction lead-times as well as shipping costs. It also increases the
likelihood of unexpected delays and shortages.
The fragmented nature of state-based RPS policies actually compounds this problem by creating artificial bottlenecks in the
distribution of materials necessary to deploy renewable energy systems. New state mandates can create unexpected surges in
demand for renewable energy projects, driving up the price of components and labor. Roger Garratt, Director of Resource
Acquisition for Puget Sound Energy, recently remarked that the quick and somewhat unanticipated passage of Washington’s
initiative-driven RPS mandate “created a seller’s market caused by increasing competition for projects and a shortage of
turbine supplies” among wind manufacturers.351
A national RPS would instigate market-based solutions to unexpected material bottlenecks in at least three ways:
First, by providing a stable investment stream and a predictable regulatory environment, investors would have a greater
incentive to establish domestic manufacturing facilities and to rely on local materials and labor.
Second, under a national RPS, American developers would no longer suffer unfavorable exchange rates (given the recent
weakening of the dollar) when purchasing materials. One wind company (Nordex) even estimated that changes in the
exchange rate between Euros and dollars alone cost some American developers as much as $152,000 per project.352
Third, given the certainty of a national market for renewable energy, investors would likely develop better economies of scale
in manufacturing in order to ensure that a sufficient number of materials would exist to satisfy the resulting demand for
renewable energy projects. // pg. 133-134
RPS Aff & Neg 18
RPS 1AC – Terrorism Adv

Contention 4 is Terrorism
Federal government concessions on climate policy are critical to long-term U.S.-E.U. cooperation on the war on terror
Busby, 3 – doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University

(Joshua, Current History, “Climate change blues: Why the United States and Europe just can't get along,” March 2003, vol.
102, no. 662, p.113, from EBSCO) // JMP
But rhetorical objections to hegemonic leadership may net political gains at home. A state may seek to differentiate itself from the most powerful state in the way that France has had an onagain/ off-again
ambivalent relationship with NATO. In the current climate, secondary powers may serve as the moral guardians of the Western order in a division of labor. With the United States providing the security
umbrella and demonstrating (until recently) overwhelming economic strength, European countries may see defense of social democratic gains and humanitarian internationalism as their distinctive contribution
to the Western order. Although this may have advantages when courting the developing world, the primary gains may be for domestic audiences, anxious in the face of regional integration and globalization to
have a cover of legitimacy for activities that bind them internationally to their peers. This may explain why the United States and Europe differ in so many areas, both in terms of substantive disagreements over
policies as well as conflicts over unilateralist and multilateralist decision-making processes.
Do the significant differences on both substance and process signify that the consequences of the clash are potentially serious
for United States interests on matters the administration really cares about, such as terrorism? If the issue of global warming were
considered in isolation, the answer is no; the fallout from the dispute is not significant. Environmental issues in the United States tend not to win or lose elections. Instead, the dispute
between the United States and Europe on global warming may be preferable for both parties since the conflict can be blamed on the other’s intransigence, with neither side having to make the hard choices
required to actually deal with the problem.
However, as mass publics become increasingly convinced that global warming is a real phenomenon that demands attention,
efforts to blame other actors will incur political costs, as Bush discovered early in his administration. Moreover, since the issue of global warming is
a proxy battle over the way in which the United States exercises its power, significant domestic difficulties may prevent European
partners from contributing meaningfully when the United States desires. Indeed, barring a major terrorist event on European soil, Europe is likely to lack
the same sense of vulnerability and threat that has motivated America’s vigorous prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and
beyond. Such domestic opposition is clearly true with respect to Iraq. While empathy was significant in the days following September 11, the long-run commitment
by Europeans to the project depends on the sense of shared norms, which must mean something other than the fight against
terrorism. A positive set of values not merely reducible to democracy must motivate the collective sense of mission.
In a recent volume on American hegemony, a number of prominent scholars—Stephen Walt and Joseph Joffe among them—see the European and United States conflict over global warming as indicative of a
8With European cooperation on the war on terrorism needed, Walt counsels that the Bush administration would be
larger disconnect between the two parties.
wise to make policy concessions on climate change to reward allies on issues over which they have quarreled. Again,
concessions on other issues Europeans care about— global warming, chemical weapons—are seen as the price of hegemony.
As policy prescription, this scenario fails to give guidance on when such policy concessions are more costly than nonagreement. Cooperation may not always be a good thing. As Amity Shlaes, a columnist for
the Financial Times, recently noted, there is a danger that the process will become an end in itself: “The trouble with multilateralism is that it has become a game—a game for its own sake. Multilateral
institutions are, after all, only as good as the goal they serve.”9
SELF-ENCIRCLEMENT
In terms of global warming, there is obviously room for disagreement between those who see ratification as the point of finally getting to implementation and those who view it as a reprieve from a death
sentence. If global warming were merely one issue over which the United States and Europe were in conflict, it might be reasonable for the United States to wait for Europe to make the first move in the same
way Britain has watched the euro unfold. Although it may be inevitable that the United States will join the effort (and Britain the euro), that will happen only when its domestic politics are in order and the ill-
conceived aspects of the framework are discarded.
Global warming never was completely isolated from other aspects of foreign policy, and its significance becomes clearer as ties between the United States and Europe are strained. Although it may make sense
Even if balancing is no longer the primary
for the United States to oppose particular agreements on substantive grounds, blanket rejection of all multilateral initiatives does not.
worry, noncooperation or foot-dragging in an area where European support is needed could render ineffective efforts such as
tracking terrorists and their sources of financing.
American noncooperation will most likely generate domestic constraints in Europe that contribute to a division over the sense
of shared values—and mutual threat. Thus, even where elite leaders in Europe may want to cooperate fully with the United States,
they may feel vulnerable to domestic polities increasingly upset with their governments for allying with the United States yet
receiving no apparent reciprocity. The net result of United States noncooperation may be self-encirclement.10
( ) European nations support a 20% mandatory target for renewables
Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 – *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and
**Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, “Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio
standards and climate change policies,” July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP
IN EUROPE this past February, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that the United Kingdom would support a 20 percent
mandatory target for renewable power as a share of European generation capacity. (1) His announcement complements the
policies of 17 other European Union countries that have also set some type of national, mandatory target for promoting renewable
energy. And in terms of climate policy in Europe, the European Union Green-house Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) calls for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and allows countries to trade carbon credits. In the past five years, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Israel, Nicaragua, Norway, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, and Turkey
have adopted mandatory renewable energy of climate change targets. (2) These countries have frequently linked action on renewable energy and climate change together because
they realize that the combustion of fossil fuels greatly contributes to climate change, and they do not like fouling their own nests.
RPS Aff & Neg 19
RPS 1AC – Terrorism Adv

( ) Anti-terror cooperation is critical to prevent extinction
Jerusalem Post, 4 (David Rudge, “Terror expert: Worst is yet to come; [Daily Edition],” 5-12-2004, p.06, Proquest) // JMP
Global terrorism is on the rise and is likely to continue unabated for the next 100 years, according to Prof. Yonah Alexander, one of the world's
leading analysts on the subject.
Alexander, director of the Inter-Universities Center for Terrorism Studies, also believes it
is only a matter of time before groups like al-Qaida use non-
coventional weapons as part of attempts to promulgate their ideology and undermine western society.
In this respect, he anticipates that al-Qaida's next theater of operations will be Europe, where the organization has established a
widespread base and network.
"If you ask me whether the worst is yet to come, the answer is definitely yes," Alexander told The Jerusalem Post prior to giving a lecture as guest speaker at the University of
Haifa's National Security Studies Center.
"We can expect to see an escalation in terrorism on a global scale with a continuation of conventional acts of terror, such as suicide bombings and
shooting, as well as mega-terror like September 11 in the US and March 11 in Spain.
"There will also be a move towards the use of non- conventional weapons: biological, chemical, nuclear as in dirty bombs, and cyber-
terrorism, whereby perpetrators will try to disrupt power supplies and air traffic, for example, at the touch of a button."
Alexander, who is based in the US and Israel, has studied the subject of terrorism in the Middle East and the global arena for over 40 years and has published over 100 books on
the issue. The center he heads is a consortium of universities and think-tanks in some 30 countries.
He said there had already been indications of future trends by terrorist organizations such as the anthrax attacks in the US after September 11, 2001, reports that al-Qaida was
trying to produce ricin and, in Israel, the abortive attempt to blow up the Pi Glilot fuel and gas storage depot.
"According to the studies we have conducted, we can expect a continuation of bus bombings like the ones that have occurred in Israel, as well as attempts to strike at chemical
plants and infrastructure targets and super- terrorism with non-conventional weapons," said Alexander.
The supposition that international terrorism will expand and escalate is based, according to Alexander, on factors such as the spread of radical theological ideology, racial
intolerance, ethnic and religious differences and, especially in Africa, tribal rivalries, as well as extremist nationalism and separatism.
Furthermore, he cited the numerous disputes and conflicts throughout the world, such as those in Chechnya, Kashmir, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and South America, as well as
the gap between developed nations and poorer countries.
"Other important factors include the intensification of the link between terrorism and organized crime, and the education of hatred, including anti-Semitism, that we see all the time
on various Internet sites," said Alexander.
"The problem here is that children are being brought up to hate and they will pass this on to their children and so forth, which is why we don't see an end to terrorism in the next
100 years.
"Should we be concerned about the future? Yes, we should, because of the motivation of terrorists, their ideologies, the availability of funds, the proliferation of conventional and
non- conventional weapons, the intrinsic vulnerability of democratic societies and the high cost of trying to counter terror.
"What concerns many is the expansion of international networks as seen after the Madrid bombings, when links were discovered between Spanish citizens and people in North
Africa, Asia, and with various other groups like Hamas.
"It would be a grave mistake, however, to say that Islam is generating this terror. In fact, Islam has been hijacked and taken hostage by extremists who are using it to serve their
own interests."
Alexander, in his lecture, posed the questions of whether nations should submit to terrorism and whether civilization would survive in the event of the use of non- conventional
weapons.
In the first case, he maintained that submission only serves to encourage terrorists and their leaders and boost their motivation, while survival would depend on nations taking all
necessary steps to reduce the risks, including international intelligence cooperation.
"Dealing with terrorism requires a broad range of responses, starting with clear and coherent policies. It is necessary to have
quality intelligence, as well as law enforcement, the military, and the means to counter technological and cyber-terrorism," said
Alexander.
"We also need an educational response because the children of today will be the terrorists of tomorrow. Unless we can defuse the extremist ideological and theological elements
and their propaganda, the measures won't work.
"We have to deal with the root causes and try to improve economic and social conditions - a sort of global Marshall plan - but first it is necessary to deal with the terror leadership.
"To this end some innocent civilians might be harmed but, make no mistake, this is war and to fight it nations have to pool their resources. No nation
can deal with the problem unilaterally.
"In the past, terrorism was regarded as a tactical rather than a strategic threat but it has become a permanent fixture and a challenge to the strategic interests of nations.
"In fact," said Alexander, "it
represents the most threatening challenge to civilization in the 21st century. The question of survival
will depend to a great extent on how civilized society tackles this threat."
Terrorism outweighs on timeframe and probability
Bremmer, 8 – president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy (Ian, 1/18, A Political-Risk Outlook for 2008,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/a_politicalrisk_outlook_for_20.html, AG)
Most worrying is a pre-election attack in the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security raised its threat
warning over the summer, not based on direct intelligence on a suspected attack in the works (the previous modus operandi),
but rather because of concerns over increasing terrorist capacity and chatter over a change in strategy to accept smaller
attacks in the United States - given increased al-Qaida resources and the long time since a successful attack has been
perpetrated. It's impossible to put a useful quantified prediction on these sorts of concerns, but all of those factors make the
likelihood of a small to medium-scale U.S. attack in 2008 higher than at any other point since 9/11.
RPS Aff & Neg 20
Environment Ext – RPS Reduces Coal Use

( ) RPS will reduce natural gas and coal use
A National RPS Better Conserves Water, Air and Land

• A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.
In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS, the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS
would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like
Michigan, New York, Virginia, and Texas. // pg. 11
( ) RPS will displace natural and gas and coal facilities – preventing environmental harms
6. Environment: A National RPS Conserves Water, Air & Land

A. A National RPS Displaces Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has already determined that that “the imposition of [a national] RPS would lead to lower
generation from natural gas and coal facilities.”236 Examinations of fuel generation in several states confirm this finding.
The New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA), for example, looked at load profiles for
2001 and concluded that 65 percent of the energy displaced by wind turbines in New York would have otherwise come from
natural gas facilities, 15 percent from coal-fired plants, 10 percent from oil-based generation, and 10 percent from out of state
imports of electricity.237 A more recent study conducted in Virginia found that the electricity mandated by a state RPS would
otherwise be generated with a mix of 87 percent coal, 9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil.238 In Texas, the Union of
Concerned Scientists also confirmed that renewable energy technologies primarily displace natural gas and coal facilities.239
Often overlooked, is how RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in several regions of the U.S.
Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that a statewide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear
fuels and minimize the environmental impacts associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors.240 In
Oregon, the Governor’s Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a 25 percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that
every 50 MW of renewable energy would displace approximately 20 MW of base-load resources, including nuclear
power.241 Environment Michigan estimates that a 20 percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW
of power that would have otherwise come from both nuclear and coal facilities.242 Utilities in Ontario, Canada,
are deploying renewable energy systems in an attempt to displace all coal and nuclear electricity generation in the region
entirely.243
By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, a national RPS avoids many of the environmental and
social costs associated with the mining, processing, transportation, combustion and clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. // pg.
97
RPS Aff & Neg 21
Competitiveness Ext – Competitiveness Key to Heg / Heg Impact

( ) U.S. competitiveness is key to hegemony; a loss of our edge will cause isolationism
Khalilzad, 95 – Rand Corportation

(Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis)
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In
such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States
would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external
interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength,
the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes.
In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively
affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not.
Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and
the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its
relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced
by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by strengthening education and training; and
by generating and using superior science and technology. In the long run the economic future of the United States will also be
affected by two other factors. One is the imbalance between government revenues and government expenditure. As a society
the United States has to decide what part of the GNP it wishes the government to control and adjust expenditures and taxation
accordingly. The second, which is even more important to U.S. economic wall-being over the long run, may be the overall
rate of investment. Although their government cannot endow Americans with a Japanese-style propensity to save, it can use
tax policy to raise the savings rate.
( ) This causes several scenarios for nuclear war
Ferguson, 4 – History Professor, Harvard

(Niall, A World Without Power, Foreign Policy)
The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even
depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it
would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile,
as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-
Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist
system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose
out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark
Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to
Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom
of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making
their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula
and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek
solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would
continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these
continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an
apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States
retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home
and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old
balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be
apolarity--a global vacuum of power.
RPS Aff & Neg 22
Terrorism Ext – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg

( ) Concessions by federal government on climate policy are necessary restore America’s international reputation,
engender important anti-terror cooperation with Europe and stop balancing against the U.S.
Busby, 7 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin

(Joshua, “Who Cares about the Weather? Climate Change and U.S. National Security,” Paper prepared for presentation at the
International Studies Association annual conference in Chicago, Illinois, March 1-3, 2007,
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers.php) // JMP
Climate change and soft power
One such semi-pragmatic reason might be related to soft power, what Joe Nye defined as the “ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.”62 Engaging in successful
humanitarian operations could potentially create positive feelings of association, as occurred in Indonesia after the tsunami. Failure to respond to calls for intervention may leave deep resentments against
Western governments for being hypocritical, racist, anti-Muslim, or anti-African. Of course, overzealous use of military power (as in Somalia or Iraq) can have the opposite effect. States thus need to
be judicious about their use of force for humanitarian ends and have multiple tools to address disasters, foremost among them early warning systems and rapid reaction capability.
While response to climate-related disasters may enhance U.S. soft power, a broader response to climate change writ large could also serve American
interests. The reputation of the United States in the world has not been this bad since the Vietnam War. One likely reason U.S.
popularity has suffered is because of the Bush Administration’s cavalier treatment of its allies on issues of importance to them
like climate change. The U.S.’s highhanded withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol at the start of the Bush tenure in 2001 confirmed Europe’s fears that Bush was a unilateral cowboy in the thrall of
oil companies. While we cannot know for sure if a different stance on climate change would have had any appreciable impact on America’s allies’ disposition towards the Iraq war, the rejectionist
pose of the Bush Administration on climate has been part of the mix that soured European publics on American leadership and likely
made it costlier for the U.S. to get what it wants in the international arena.63 Multilateralism, self-restraint, and giving one’s allies a voice in decision-making
may be part of a sensible grand strategy for great powers. As John Ikenberry wrote in After Victory, the U.S. construction of institutions in the post-World War II environment enshrined its influence and
legitimated its rule in the West among its allies, making the system easier to manage and more durable over the longer-term.64 It is this kind of pragmatism that led Ikenberry and Kupchan to call this approach
“liberal realism.”65
It may make sense for the United States to cooperate on issues the Europeans care more about (climate change) so that they are
more willing and able to cooperate on issues the United States cares more about (terrorism).66 This could under certain circumstances, as
diagrammed in Figure 3, lead to reputational benefits for the United States, making it easier to achieve its core security objectives.
There are better and worse ways of going about rehabilitating the U.S. image. The U.S. pursuit of a climate strategy for reputational reasons could do little for the climate and little to improve its international
standing or might be successful but resented. Even when the U.S. proposes sound climate policies, these may be resisted. At the heart of the Kyoto negotiations were flexibility mechanisms like emissions
trading. At the time, these were fiercely resisted by the Europeans and yet now form the core part of Europe’s approach to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Similarly, the Bush Administration has
championed the idea of reducing the economy’s carbon intensity. This is a sensible metric and should have great relevance to China and India where absolute emissions are likely to rise but concerted efforts to
introduce cleaner energy technology should lead to lower emissions per unit of output. Convincing the Chinese and Indians to accept an intensity target would be difficult but not impossible. However, because
the Bush Administration’s own target mirrored the natural rate of efficiency gains, the idea may have been sullied. If promoted by the United States, there are likely to be significant quarters of the
environmental community unwilling to recognize anything but a significant short-term emissions reduction target as a step forward. In the scheme of things, where net greenhouse gas emissions need to fall
on the order of 45-60% below 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change, they are right.67 The hardest part for the U.S. however may be getting started and sending a reasonably strong signal to
the private sector that governments are serious and committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions over the long haul.
In any case, the U.S. needs to evaluate what price it is willing to pay for reputational advantages. Some policy choices may prove to be expensive ways of purchasing good will. For example, the U.S. pledged at
Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 time period. Given that U.S. emissions grew more than 15% in the 1990s, meeting that target would effectively require
more than a 20% reduction in emissions.68 Different estimates of the costs of implementation of Kyoto were calculated and ranged anywhere from 0.42% to 1.96% of GDP.69 While these may overestimate the
There may be other
costs of implementation, any administration that is not wedded to climate protection goals for their own sake must evaluate different strategies for re-gaining others’ good will.
issues and ways to curry favor at lower cost, namely being nice (i.e. diplomatic) and acting like you are listening to your
allies. Such was the nature of the early visits to Europe by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush in 2005. At some point, however, America’s allies will
demand more substantive action on climate.
If the U.S. government decides that for reputational reasons it would like to embrace climate change, then for its actions to be
credible, it might have to incur some reasonably significant costs. These need not be purely material; they could entail political costs
of standing up to core constituencies. To get credit from skeptical allies, the U.S. might have to do something unexpected or against type, such as a carbon tax, a Patriot tax on gasoline
as Thomas Friedman has suggested, or embrace of a cap-and-trade emissions scheme.70As a consequence, the U.S. could find its allies were in a better position to
support the country on issues of more central concern. Such a move would also make it more difficult for critics to use the
symbolism of U.S. obstructionism on climate for their own domestic grandstanding or to engage in quasi-balancing
behavior.71
( ) A good international reputation is key to deeper collaboration and lower transaction costs

(Josh, “Memo on Reputation,” Memo presented as part of workshop 'Rationality and Reputation and International Relations
Theory' at Princeton, April 2006, http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/busby/papers.php) // JMP
Does it Matter if States are Unreliable?

Even if we accept that reputations are relevant for political interactions, how significant are the costs of failure to make or
keep promises, particularly to one’s friends? The basic argument of reputation theory is that failure to keep promises will lead
to some form of punishment by the other side. This may take the form of punitive sanctions, or more likely, a loss of a stream
of benefits over time as would-be collaborators make fewer and more shallow cooperative agreements. States with
better reputations will be able to get better terms for the agreements they make. Countries with a bad reputation will incur
higher transactions costs to get other actors to update their expectations of what the state is likely to do (Larson 1997, Tomz
1998, Guzman 2002, Miller 2003).
RPS Aff & Neg 23
No Renewables Now
( ) Oil, coal and natural gas will continue to dominate
Dr. Sovacool, & Coooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct
In an early release of its 2007 Annual Energy Outlook, EIA's updated analysis reflects the same general trend for renewables:
Despite the rapid growth projected for biofuels and other non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources ... oil, coal, and natural
gas still are projected to provide roughly the same 86-percent share of the total U.S. primary energy supply in 2030 that they
did in 2005.13
Significantly, EIA expects base-load fossil fuel generation to continue to have low operating costs compared to current
renewable technologies, making it harder for renewables to compete in state-based electricity markets without some form of
regulatory intervention.14
( ) Investment in energy technology is declining – lack of a federal lead
Kammen, 7 – Professor in the Energy and Resources Group and Professor of Public Policy at Cal Berkeley
(Daniel M., also Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, “Green Jobs Created by Global
Warming Initiatives,” Congressional Testimony on 9-25-2007, http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-
new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf) //JMP
The larger issue, however, is that as a nation we invest less in energy research, development, and deployment than do a few
large biotechnology firms in their own, private R&D budgets. This is unacceptable on many fronts. The least of which is that
we know that investments in energy research pay off at both the national and private sector levels.
In a series of papers (Margolis and Kammen, 1999; Kammen and Nemet, 2005; Nemet and Kammen, 2007) my students and
I have documented a disturbing trend away from investment in energy technology—both by the federal government and the
private sector, which largely follows the federal lead. The U.S. invests about $1 billion less in energy R&D today than it did
a decade ago. This trend is remarkable, first because the levels in the mid-1990s had already been identified as dangerously
low, and second because, as our analysis indicates, the decline is pervasive—across almost every energy technology category,
in both the public and private sectors, and at multiple stages in the innovation process. In each of these areas investment
has been either been stagnant or declining. Moreover, the decline in investment in energy has occurred while overall U.S.
R&D has grown by 6% per year, and federal R&D investments in health and defense have grown by 10 to 15% per year,
respectively.
One of the clearest findings from tracking actual investment histories, is that there is a direct and strong correlation between
investment in innovation and demonstrated changes in performance and cost of technologies available in the market.
( ) The U.S. under invests in clean energy development
Raise Clean Energy Research, Development, and Deployment Spending to Reasonable Levels
The U. S. has under-invested in energy research, development, and deployment for decades (Kammen and Nemet, 2005), and sadly the
FY2008 budget request is no exception. Federal energy research and development investment is today back at pre-OPEC levels – despite a panoply of reasons why energy
dependence and in-security, and climatic impact from our energy economy are dominating local economics, geopolitics, and environmental degradation
At $2.7 billion, the overall energy RD&D FY08 request is $685 million higher than the FY06 appropriated budget. Half of that increased request is accounted for by increases in
fission, and the rest is in moderate increases in funding for biofuels, solar, FutureGen, and $147 million increase for fusion research. However, the
National Renewable
Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) budget is to be cut precisely at a time when concerns over energy security and climate change
are at their highest level, and level of need. The fact that a plan exists to cut assistance to lowincome families by 41% from FY06 levels for weatherization to
improve the energy efficiency of their homes is startling.
RPS Aff & Neg 24
A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***

( ) The upsides of a federal RPS outweigh – success is likely and even one that fails will only lead to minor price
increases and highlight important problems to tackle
Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
Although this Article has attempted to raise a number of questions that should be resolved, or at least considered, before
imposing a national RPS, an element of uncertainty is bound to remain. There are those who believe that a national RPS is
only a valid option once all scenarios are considered, and, in essence, all potential problems solved. This would, certainly, be
ideal, but it is not feasible. Legislation designed to tackle difficult issues requires making, hopefully, educated decisions, but
is inherently uncertain. In fact, the vast majority of current studies indicate that results from a national RPS would range
between either: (1) a fundamental change in how electricity markets operate; or (2) a moderate price increase for consumers,
with moderate changes to the current system.
Any major policy decision imposes risks; but, despite the histrionics, a national RPS actually appears to present limited
downside, along with significant upside. That is, a national RPS, along the lines of those recently proposed, that fails (or is
moderately successful) would likely lead to minor increases in consumer rates. A major success could reduce natural gas
consumption and lower rates by a significant margin.
The reality is that, without major advances in technologies, a national RPS is likely only to have moderate success. However,
the implementation of an RPS could be the catalyst needed to trigger major advances in technologies. No major policy
change should be implemented without careful consideration. But, while more study and analysis will help the debate, the
potential upside to a national RPS appears to outweigh the downside, at least from a nationwide perspective.
[*77] Risk is a part of all major policy changes, and the downside in this situation is far lower than in many other cases. If
nothing else, a national RPS would further highlight the lack of necessary transmission in the United States. It is likely that
the local nature of renewable energy generation would provide an awareness of infrastructure issues at a more local level than
exists today, and that could help address the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) problem that has long plagued transmission
projects. n209 Although it is unlikely anyone would welcome transmission lines in their backyard, local jobs created from
both renewable generation and transmission projects may make siting more palatable than it has been in the recent past.
Renewable energy has great potential for expanded economic development, improved national security, lower electricity
prices, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And, while a national RPS is one way to help realize this potential, it
should also be clear that for a national RPS to lead to more than moderate change, a comprehensive national energy policy is
necessary.
That is not to say that all questions must be answered before moving forward. In fact, without a national RPS in place, it may
be impossible to determine the potential of renewable energy because even a moderately increased market for renewable
energy could lead to significant technological advancements. All the planning in the world will not necessarily translate into
effectiveness in the marketplace. At some point, an idea must be tested to find out if it will actually work.
Public opinion polls, growing support from utilities, and continually increasing state RPS legislation indicate that support for
a renewable energy mandate is stronger than ever. However, opposition remains strong. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of
Americans appear ready to take a calculated risk to find out if renewable energy can fulfill its promise. The question remains:
Is Congress?
RPS Aff & Neg 25
A2: No Enforcement
( ) RPS is enforceable through civil penalties
[*71] For covered utilities that fail to meet the RPS requirements, the enforcement provisions of the Proposed RPS would
require additional review and possible adjudication. The Proposed RPS provides that a retail electric supplier that does not
comply with the RPS requirements "shall be liable for the payment of a civil penalty," n170 meaning that the Department of
Energy would need to review filings from, and assess penalties upon, those failing to report compliance with the national
RPS. n171 This enforcement, while adding an additional administrative burden, is necessary for an effective RPS. State RPS
programs with ineffective or under-enforced penalties have been less effective than those with strong enforcement policies.
n172 In Arizona, for instance, the "lack of enforcement and non-compliance penalties has resulted in significant under-
compliance with the [renewable energy] standards." n173
( ) Existing organizations can help facilitate compliance
The implications of a national RPS may not be quite as burdensome as they initially appear, however, because, many states
have RPS programs already, and, as explained below, even those operating in non-RPS states are often served by
organizations, e.g., Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs), n112 with the
expertise necessary to facilitate compliance. Nonetheless, it is retail electricity suppliers that would bear the greatest burden
of a nationally imposed RPS, because they would need to participate in facilitating compliance, as well as facilitating the
renewable generation market.
( ) State and federal regulators would enforce a national RPS
IV. Impact on State and Federal Regulators

A national RPS would require new or expanded activity by state and federal regulators. The first order of business for state
and federal regulators would be the implementation or expansion of a REC tracking program. Second, state and federal
regulators would each have a role in enforcing the national RPS.
RPS Aff & Neg 26
A2: No Transmission / Infrastructure

( ) A federal RPS will accelerate infrastructure investments to accommodate new renewable development
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. // pg. 59
( ) A national RPS will lead to critical upgrades in electricity infrastructure
Transmission –
A National RPS Speeds Investment in Critical Infrastructure
• Utilities benefit from congestion pricing
When transmission is saturated, prices increase because there is not enough electricity to meet demand. Market forces create perverse incentives for some utilities to profit from
congestion prices, delaying new transmission until the system is at risk of catastrophic failure.
• A national
RPS forces critical transmission system upgrades
Maintaining adequate transmission will require the construction of 26,600 miles of new transmission in the next decade,
quadrupling planned expenditures to $56 billion by 2011.
• Renewable energy overcomes public objection to new transmission lines
Case studies show that public opposition to transmission lines turns into widespread support when utilities justify the infrastructure with the need to interconnect new renewable
generation.
• A national RPS speeds recovery of transmission investments
Because of their quicker lead-times, renewable
energy systems can start providing revenue to help pay down debt on transmission
investments while conventional plants are waiting to come online. Expedited debt repayment decreases capital costs and lowers electricity rates
• Increased deployment of renewables improves system reliability
The variability of renewable resources becomes easier to manage the more they are deployed. When energy is not available in one area, it is made up by larger outputs of
renewable energy in other areas.
• More renewable energy decreases the need for reserve capacity
Modern wind turbines have a technical reliability of 97.5 percent, compared to coal and natural gas plants with a reliability of 85 to 90 percent. Higher technical reliability lowers
the probability of unexpected outages and requires less short-term operating reserve. // pg. 9-10
RPS Aff & Neg 27
A2: States CP
( ) Permutation solves best – solidifies state action
Moving to Federal Action – A Green Jobs/Renewable Energy Portfolio

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have now enacted Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, which each call for a specific percentage of electricity generated to
come from renewable energy. Federal
legislation should, at minimum, solidify state action with federal support. A great deal would be
achieved if Congress took the logical step and instituted a federal standard. A 20% federal RPS enacted today and required by
2020 is reasonable and achievable, and should be a focal point of congressional action.
( ) A federal RPS will create a harmonized system that still allows States to experiment and be flexible
Conclusion
The RPS and greenhouse gas caps are excellent policy mechanisms: unlike other policy incentives such as tax credits and subsidies, these tools minimize government intervention
and rely on the efficiency of the market--instead of continual monetary disbursements or political salience--to dictate how utilities, industries, and consumers promote renewable
energy and fight climate change. (43) They also have the tendency to be self-expiring (or "self-sunsetting"). When utilizing RECs and tradable permits, for example, the value of
such commodities will automatically reach zero once the RPS and greenhouse gas target levels have been met.
The impressive growth in state-based RPS and climate change initiatives utilizing these policy mechanisms is testimony, most of all, to woeful inaction at the federal level. Perhaps
new Democratic control of Congress will overcome objectives at the federal level, but that remains to be seen. (44)
A multi-jurisdictional approach to these issues would create a national system for the first time requiring all states to
participate in a harmonized system that would include the trading of RECs and nationally certified carbon offsets. A consensus-
based federal system would produce a meaningful and achievable regime eliminating the "free rider" phenomenon that now exists. Under a multi-jurisdictional framework,
however, states
wanting to do more than what the federal program entails would be permitted to do so. Federal preemption
would not be permitted to snuff out these "laboratories of democracy" that wish to go forward with bold, aggressive, and
experimental programs. If these state programs are successful over time, one would expect to see their results gradually
incorporated into the federal program.
Ultimately, however, state experience will yield profuse results only if it inspires a national standard that motivates the country to truly promote renewable energy and fight climate
change.
( ) A federal RPS is key to the renewable industry – creates long-term predictability and attracts more investment
Peterson, 7 – partner practicing in the Sustainability and Real Estate & Land Use Practice Groups.
(David J., Sustainability Law Blog, “Why We Need a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard,” 12-3-2007,
http://www.sustainabilitylawblog.com/2007/12/why_we_need_a_federal_renewabl.html) // JMP
Oregon and Washington joined the District of Columbia and 22 states that have enacted state renewable portfolio
In the past year,
standards (RPS). Oregon’s Renewable Energy Act (SB 838), signed by Gov. Ted Kulongoski June 6, 2007, requires Oregon’s largest utilities to acquire 25 percent of their electricity from renewable
sources by 2025, with more modest targets for smaller utilities.
Washington’s voters passed Initiative 937 in November 2006, making theirs the second state after Colorado to enact an RPS by initiative. The initiative requires Washington’s 17 largest utilities to obtain 15
percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates Washington’s Initiative 937 will create $2.9 billion in new capital investment, nearly $167 million in new property tax revenues, $30 million in lease and royalty
payments to landowners, 2,000 new jobs and a $148 million increase in the gross state product in Washington alone. Oregon’s SB 838 is expected to stimulate development of 1,500 megawatts (MW) of new
renewable energy in the state, according to the Renewable Northwest Project.
Against the backdrop of increasing state support for renewable portfolio standards, Congress is debating HR 969, which would create a national renewable portfolio standard that compels utilities nationwide to
generate or buy 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
A federal RPS would be good for the renewable energy industry as a whole, providing long-term predictability, attracting
more investment capital and allowing manufacturing of renewable energy technologies to achieve economies of scale. Contrary to
claims of anti-RPS industry groups, most legal observers and HR 969’s sponsors in Congress are confident a federal RPS would not pre-empt more stringent state
standards, such as those of Oregon and Washington. In fact, Oregon and Washington are poised to take particular advantage of the benefits of a
federal standard. Both states can quickly capitalize on increased market demand for renewable energy.
This robust growth is based on simply serving increased demand from Washington and Oregon utilities for renewable energy. If a federal standard is enacted, utilities in states
not subject to a state RPS will clamor for even more renewable resources. Many will look out of state, especially utilities in
states that do not have abundant renewable energy resources or an established renewable energy industry of their own. HR 969
would establish a tradable, national renewable energy credit to facilitate this new national marketplace.
RPS Aff & Neg 28
A2: States CP
( ) Industry wants a federal RPS – they believe it is key to creating a level of certainty in renewable markets
Large-scale production of renewable energy induced by a federal RPS could also decrease costs, according to the "Renewable America"
report, which points to wind power as an example.
When the Department of Energy installed its first commercial wind turbines in 1980, wind energy cost about 81 cents per kilowatt-hour. By 2004, when the wind turbine capacity
had increased from a few megawatts to 6,000, the cost fell to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Some utility companies are pushing for a federal RPS precisely because of this rationale, including Alliant Energy, a power company with its
headquarters in Wisconsin.
"We believe that a national RPS would help to create a floor for renewables and give us and the wind turbine industry a
greater level of certainty," said Scott Smith, spokesman for Alliant, which just received approval to build its first wind farm. "Instead of a boom-and-bust
cycle, it will help to solidify the demand which will create a robust market."
( ) A federal RPS benefits utilities – comparatively better than state-based approaches
B A national RPS benefits utilities

The U.S. electricity market has evolved into a national commodities market increasingly at odds with the anachronism of
state-based regulation. In 1935, Congress passed the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUCHA), which made utility holding companies subject to Security and
Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations and mandated that any entity owning more than 10 percent of a utility had to divest all of its non-utility assets. PUCHA also placed
geographical restrictions on the integration of electricity markets. Holding companies were restricted from owning utilities in non-contiguous service areas without meeting a
number of additional regulatory burdens. Because of PUCHA, the U.S. electricity market was constrained to vertically integrated public utilities where supply, generation,
transmission, and distribution was provided by a single entity overseen by state regulators and servicing a specified franchise area.50
The world of electricity has changed dramatically since 1935. Investor-owned
utilities have faced increased pressure from stockholders to
produce per-share profit beyond what they have been able to wring from organic growth alone. In turn, these utilities have
pressured lawmakers to allow greater industry consolidation in order to tap economies of scale.
The pressure paid off. In 2005, Congress finally repealed PUCHA. With its demise came a flurry of announced mergers, including the consolidation of Duke Power in the
Carolinas, Cincinnati Gas & Electric in Ohio, Union Light Heat & Power in Kentucky and PSI Energy in Indiana. In the Pacific Northwest, MidAmerican Holding Company (with
operations in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota) merged with PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of ScottishPower servicing customers in Oregon, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, and
California.51
By eliminating PUCHA, Congress opened the door to "area hopping." Adam Wenner noted that, "If you can't merge with your neighbors because of market-power issues, you can
hop over them ... a utility's possible map is no longer just three states; it's the whole country."52
However, many state utility commissions are loath to see their authority eroded and will fight to retain it, if provoked. State PUCs have already responded to federal repeal of
PUCHA by increasing their scrutiny of proposed utility mergers. In 2006, Maryland's Public Service Commission rejected the merger of Constellation Energy with Florida Power
and Light and New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities scuttled attempts by Chicago-based Exelon Corporation to acquire PSE&G. While the failure of these transactions may slow
the wave of mergers sparked by PUHCA's repeal, they risk engendering a type of "forum shopping" where utility holding companies flock to states more likely to allow their
consolidation. In fact, some analysts have warned of a possible "balkanization of industry standards that increase the costs of maintaining a holding company or, even worse,
subject a holding company to conflicting standards."53
PUHCA's repeal may have an even more profound affect on the secondary market for wholesale power and natural gas. The elimination of PUHCA's restrictions on asset
ownership may spur more utilities to acquire independent power plants and gas pipelines outside their service territories or encourage large oil and gas companies to purchase
integrated electric companies. London-based National Grid announced in 2006, for instance, that it would acquire Keyspan, the largest distributor of natural gas in New England
and New York State's largest electricity generator.
The consolidation of a national electricity holdings market renders as nonsense the argument that a national RPS would benefit some states at the cost of others. Since a properly
designed national RPS would require all load-serving entities (including publicly owned utilities, municipal utilities, and electric cooperatives) - not individual states - to meet RPS
mandates, the burdens and benefits of a national program are likely to reflect the emerging interstate nature of the U.S. electricity market.
Moreover, with increased consolidation of the electricity market, a federal mandate is far less likely to create inequities than requiring companies to be subject to competing
regulations of any state in which they have holdings. One recent incident illustrates how utilities are becoming caught in the middle of these emerging state conflicts.
In January 2007, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission rejected plans by PacifiCorp to build a coal-fired power plant in Utah by 2012 and another in Wyoming by 2013. Oregon
regulators claimed that the utility had exaggerated projected demand and had not properly considered conservation efforts and renewable resources. The decision was heralded by
Oregon Citizens' Utility Board, a ratepayer group arguing that Oregon should not pay for Utah's dirty power.54
But in Utah, where 95 percent of the state's electricity is already generated by coal, the state's largest electricity consumers strongly supported the new plants. So much so that
Utah's regulators have accused PacifiCorp of not moving fast enough and have warned that delaying the construction of new coal-fired plants could leave Utah ratepayers exposed
to high prices for short-term purchases to make up for demand shortfalls.
The specter of Oregon regulators deciding the fate of electricity generation in Utah highlights an emerging disconnect between the structure of the U.S. electricity market and the
regulations to which it is subject.
In the absence of federal action, U.S. utilities must answer to the whims of state regulators with multiple, often contradictory
perspectives on how and where companies should invest in new generation. A national market subject to federal mandates
expands the universe of available renewable resources and ensures that competition - not artificial geographical restrictions -
determines the price of those resources.
RPS Aff & Neg 29
A2: States CP
( ) A federal RPS is comparatively better than State policies for consumers and rate increases would be mild
V. Impact on Consumers
The impact on consumers of a national RPS is one of the most hotly contested issues surrounding possible legislation. As one might expect, varying proposals provide widely varying projected impacts. Even
small changes can lead to significant differences. For example, the EIA determined that under a 15% national RPS, "retail electricity prices [would] rise by an average of 0.9 percent over the 2005 to 2030
period in the RPS case," as compared to the reference case, and RECs would cost 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour between 2020 and 2030. n186 In contrast, under a proposed 25% national RPS, the EIA determined
that the average retail electricity price is 6.2% higher in 2030 and the REC prices would vary between 3.8 cents and 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour from 2025 to 2030. n187 This is not an apples-to-apples
measuring the specific
comparison because there are a significant number of variables in each study, n188 beyond just the RPS percentage. Nonetheless, this helps underscore the point that
impact of a national RPS is complex and difficult. On a more general level, however, it is clear that there are some consistent issues consumers will face, regardless of the
specific national RPS put in place.
consumer impacts of a national RPS would be limited, although not insignificant. Important in considering the likely consumer impact of a
From a practical perspective,
many consumers (indeed, roughly half of the country) are already subject to some form of RPS. As such, the question is not a
national RPS is that
decision between a national RPS and no RPS; instead, the question is whether all consumers will be subject to an RPS or just some. n189
For those consumers not currently buying electricity under an RPS, a state RPS may be pending. n190 Further, as one study advocating a federal
RPS stated, "Not only does reliance on state-based action make for an uncertain regulatory environment for potential investors, it
creates inherent inequities between ratepayers in some states that are paying for "free riders' in others." n191 The study explained that
renewable energy generation has a free-rider problem because [*74] "everyone benefits from the environmental advantages of renewable energy." n192 As such, private companies might invest millions of
dollars in researching and developing clean energy technologies, yet be unable to recover the full profit of their investments. n193 To the extent this is accurate, consumers not under an RPS, even those with
less renewable generation resources in their state, would reap the benefits of technologies developed under state RPS programs, without paying their fair share.
consumers throughout the country would face a relatively mild
In the short term, direct consumer impacts are limited to cost concerns. By most accounts,
increase or mild decrease in the cost of electricity. One report that reviewed the RPS program analysis of both the Union of Concerned Scientists and
the EIA found cumulative energy bill savings throughout the country in each of the four scenarios considered. n194 The savings by
region varied significantly, though. For example, in the review of EIA assumptions if there were a 20% RPS, savings, by Census region, ranging from as high as 8.1% in the West South Central to 0.1% in the
South Atlantic were reported. n195 All of the review studies showed a significant variance by region, which explains some of the resistance to an RPS from regions, like the South Atlantic, with less renewable
energy resources. Potential savings are far more limited under an RPS for the region, and if costs were to increase, those regions would likely face a greater share of the cost increase.
( ) State implementation varied – no uniformity
Bryner, 2 – Dept Political Science @ Brigham Young

(Gary, Environs 26 Environs Envtl. L. & Pol'y J. 1, Fall)
Federal agencies are believed to be insulated enough from resource-depleting communities to ensure preservationist values are pursued. When agencies fail to protect resources or reduce pollution, the solution
2
studies have compared states according to their
is to replace them with more ambitious regulators and to strengthen the regulatory authority of federal officials. A number of
commitment to environmental protection and found significant variation in expenditures, legal authority, methodologies to
determine environmental quality, reporting [*3] requirements, enforcement actions, and in the environmental standards they are authorized to set
under federal law. 3
( ) Only federal law is uniform ---- state policies are necessarily fragmented and ineffective
Morgan and Zietlow, 5 – *Professor of Law at NYU and ** Professor at the University of Toledo Law School
(Denise, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Summer, Lexis)
The limitations that the Supreme Court has placed on Congress's powers in the name of states' rights have severely weakened the one institution that has a constitutional mandate to create a nationally uniform
baseline of rights of belonging and the ability to do so. Although state legislatures have played--and should continue to play--an important role in more fully developing our national understanding of what rights
state legislation is simply not an adequate substitute for federal legislation because it must necessarily
are necessary to belong to America,
be piecemeal and varied. In contrast, Congress has greater institutional competence to determine when there is a need for rights of belonging than individual state legislatures have, only
Congress can create a nationally uniform baseline of rights, and a shared understanding of rights of belonging reinforces those rights and strengthens our political
community. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not attempt to delegate Congress's role in protecting rights of belonging to
state governments based on the assumption that there is parity between the institutions.
( ) Fiating uniformity takes out their competition and experimentation arguments
Kansas Law Review ‘99 (November, p. 1322)
If all of the states pursued identical regulatory strategies, or were prevented from instituting meaningful agendas altogether, these values, as a logical matter,
could not be promoted. Obviously there would be no regulatory diversity, because all of the states would structure the lives of
their citizens in the same way. Moreover, this uniformity would prevent state competition and experimentation: people would have no incentive
to "vote with their feet" if each state provided the same package of public goods, and experimentation by definition requires that different states attempt different solutions to the same social problems.
RPS Aff & Neg 30
A2: States CP
( ) Utilities will inevitably use the Court to strike down States RPSs on commerce clause grounds – causing the
repeal of the RPS and the collapse of energy policy
G Seventh sin: Inviting constitutional challenge
Joel B. Eisen doesn't mince words in declaring his belief that the retail electricity market represents the essence of interstate commerce : Electricity involves a
national marketplace that reaches every American and cannot be carved into neatly defined or clearly distinct markets and regulatory jurisdictions. It is perhaps the clearest case of unfettered Commerce Clause
jurisdiction extant today.36
state RPS mandates remain at perpetual risk from constitutional legal challenges. In many ways, the tension of state RPS policies
Yet,
regulating an interstate electricity market is founded on a legal house of cards that could collapse at any time. Article 1, section 8 of the
Constitution grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes." In the many years since ratification of the Constitution, the U.S.
Supreme Court and other lower courts have consistently repealed state legislation that may hinder or prohibit interstate
trade.37
States are permitted to promote in-state business, but they are not permitted to protect those businesses from out-of-state
competition. The courts have ruled that this "dormant Commerce Clause" means that a state cannot "needlessly obstruct interstate trade or attempt to place itself in a position of economic isolation."38
The smooth functioning of the national market requires the federal government to prevent states from adopting protectionist or autarkic policies that would attribute a product's market share to its geographic
State RPS statutes that set geographic restrictions on renewable generation or otherwise limit the
origins rather to market mechanisms.
interstate trade of RECs may be accused of violating this central tenet of the U.S. Constitution.
Not surprisingly, utilities have demonstrated a natural proclivity for successfully challenging state regulations on Commerce Clause
grounds.39 In 1982, New England Power Company successfully invalidated a New Hampshire statute prohibiting a hydroelectric company from exporting electricity out of the state without the utility's
approval. In 1992, utilities in Wyoming convinced the Supreme Court to overturn an Oklahoma statute requiring the state's regulated utilities to consume a certain percentage of Oklahoma-mined coal.40
regulated
But the Supreme Court's 2002 decision upholding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction over the transmission component of retail sales may be the starkest signal yet that
utilities can call upon the federal government to intervene when they feel unfairly compromised by state regulations.41 Indeed,
Eisen argues that the practical implication of the Court's decision in New York v. FERC is that, "the federal government could assert jurisdiction all the way to the consumer's toaster if it so chose."
Thus, it is only a matter of time before utilities and lawmakers challenge the constitutionality of certain state RPS mandates.42
Nevada, New Jersey, and Texas have all adopted restrictions that only count in-state renewable resources toward their respective RPS mandates. Similarly, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the District of Columbia
stipulate that RPS-eligible renewable resources must come from within PJM's territory.43 Some states have gone so far as to devalue RECs from other states. California's RPS, for example, requires RECs to be
bundled with the electricity generated from renewable resources (which has the practical effect of restricting unbundled RECs from other states).44 Even the California Public Utilities Commission has warned
state policymakers that their position on out-of-state RECs may be constitutionally questionable.45
state and federal regulators are starting to engage in a kind
While the legality of these restrictions has yet to be challenged on Commerce Clause grounds, Eisen warns that
of "Commerce Clause brinksmanship."46 As recently as 2006, Constellation Energy threatened to sue Maryland's Public Utility Commission on Commerce Clause grounds for
rejecting its merger with Baltimore Gas and Electric.47 If a state RPS were found to violate the Commerce Clause, the practical effect would be its
immediate repeal. While state legislatures could try to craft an RPS that would pass Constitutional muster or appeal to a higher court, one successful challenge would be
enough to risk a cascade of copy-cat litigation as regulated entities piggyback on judicial precedent. In any event, the result is a
risky and unpredictable regulatory environment threatening the longevity of state-based RPS mandates and the long-term
stability of the nation's renewable energy market.
( ) The federal modeling argument is empirically denied
In the last 10 years--from 1997 to 2006--federal bills promoting RPS were introduced in Congress 17 times. (12) In addition, 102 legislative proposals
dealing with climate change have been introduced from 1997 to 2004. (13) All have been beaten back by Republican-dominated Congresses.
It is safe to say, therefore, that considerable state action in both cases has arisen not because of some judgment that state-based action is
optimal or preferable but rather because of the perceived policy vacuum at the federal level. A federal-scale political
philosophy of allowing market forces to determine energy and environmental policy dates back at least as far as the presidency of
Ronald Reagan, and it has been reinforced by the political power of Washington, DC-based interest groups and trade
associations who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. However, this philosophy and political structure is not mirrored throughout much of the country, and hence
many states have become very active in the RPS and climate change arena. And, similarly, many other states that mirror the philosophy and approach of the federal level remain inactive.
RPS Aff & Neg 31
A2: Clean Coal DA ***

( ) Non-Unique and Turn – job losses are inevitable in the coal industry and the industry undermines the economy
through externalities
Kammen, et. al, 6 – of the Energy and Resources Group Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley
(Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp, Report of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
“Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” corrected version of report was
published on 1-31-2006, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html) // JMP
Extractive industries and utilities provide declining number of jobs, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with
environmental regulations
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.
RPS Aff & Neg 32
A2: Clean Coal DA – Support Decreasing

( ) Clean coal is lagging – government support is collapsing
NYT, 8 (Matthew L. Wald, “The Energy Challenge; Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal,” 5-30-2008,
www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?em&ex=1212292800&en=425f6009b9e65c19&ei=5087%0A) // JMP
WASHINGTON — For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the
carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground.
President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of “clean coal.” All three candidates to succeed him
favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it.
Utility executives are practically begging for the technology.
But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.
In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen
site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon
dioxide for eons.
Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that
would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.
Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and
perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with
limiting global warming.
“It’s a total mess,” said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University
of California, Berkeley.
( ) Clean coal is stalling
NYT, 8 (Matthew L. Wald, “The Energy Challenge; Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal,” 5-30-2008,
www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?em&ex=1212292800&en=425f6009b9e65c19&ei=5087%0A) // JMP
“Coal’s had a tough year,” said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment for processing coal
into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising
construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster.
Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least
several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants
will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere.
Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective
and affordable.
Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure
the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And
some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or
caused other damage far from the power plant.
Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with
Schlumberger, the oil field services company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration.
But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to a halt,
raising doubts that the technique any can be ready time in the next few decades. And without it, “we’re not going to have
much of a chance for stabilizing the climate,” said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task
Force, an environmental group.
RPS Aff & Neg 33
A2: Clean Coal DA – Doesn’t Solve Environment

( ) Clean coal doesn’t solve – real devastation is from the mining process that destroys ecosystems
The Herald News, 8 (Letter to the editor from Robert S. Rak, “Coal will never be clean,” 6-3-2008,
www.heraldnews.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/x1208367555/LETTER-Coal-will-never-be-clean-06-03-08) // JMP
We have been hearing about coal as a clean energy source through advances in technology that can remove some of the
pollutants. While this is good from the point of view of emissions, it fails to address the total pollution package.
In our region, people must periodically wash coal pollution from their cars, homes, clotheslines, etc. Chances are you are also
breathing some of this in.
The real devastation comes from removing coal from the ground. While coal mining underground has posed health and safety
threats to miners and resulted in land sinking and water pollution from mining waste, the major damage is caused by surface
mining — strip mining, open pit mining and mountaintop removal. According to the National Mining Association, in 2007 69
percent of coal was extracted through surface mining. This method removes the surface of the ground or blasts away
mountain tops to get at the coal beneath. The material removed to get at the coal is cast into nearby valleys, leveling off the
area.
Surface mining totally destroys ecosystems. More importantly, the toll is great on people living in the areas — air pollution,
water pollution and loss of their heritage. The pollution comes from acid mine drainage, which leaches metals such as copper,
lead and mercury into water. Also, large amounts of ground water must be extracted from the mines. There is also the release
of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Surface mining is considered progress because it is cheaper and more efficient in terms of the amount of coal extracted. It is
also considered safer for the miners, many of whom are not needed for this process.
Coal use is on the upswing. The burden of our use of coal in this area is being borne on the backs of others. We can stick our
heads in the sand and say all is well or we can start to do something about it, such as developing intensive energy
conservation measures and utilizing our multi-billion megawatt power source, the sun.
( ) Clean coal is another ruse by the coal industry to sustain its harmful practices
Hitt, 8 – executive director of Appalachian Voices, an environmental organization

(Mary Anne, NYT, “Doubts About ‘Clean Coal’” 6-6-2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/lweb06coal.html?ref=opinion) // JMP
“Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal” (“The Energy Challenge” series, front page, May 30) describes the
challenges facing the push for “carbon capture and sequestration,” the idea of burying global warming pollution from coal-
fired power plants.
In Appalachia, many of us dismiss so-called clean coal as the latest in a century of broken promises by the coal industry.
Where the industry promised economic prosperity, we have some of the poorest counties in America. Where it promised
responsible mining, we have a landscape and culture decimated by mountaintop removal. This industry has shown a blatant
disregard for environmental and safety laws.
Holding out the possibility of a distant new technology has served this industry well. Meanwhile, over the past year, coal has
doubled in price as American companies have shipped more and more overseas.
Meanwhile, wind can’t be exported, and the price of the sun never goes up.
( ) The coal industry is pushing to clean technology to improve its image – price of coal has doubled
Hitt, 8 – executive director of Appalachian Voices, an environmental organization

(Mary Anne, NYT, “Doubts About ‘Clean Coal’” 6-6-2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/lweb06coal.html?ref=opinion) // JMP
“Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal” (“The Energy Challenge” series, front page, May 30) describes the
challenges facing the push for “carbon capture and sequestration,” the idea of burying global warming pollution from coal-
fired power plants.
In Appalachia, many of us dismiss so-called clean coal as the latest in a century of broken promises by the coal industry.
Where the industry promised economic prosperity, we have some of the poorest counties in America. Where it promised
responsible mining, we have a landscape and culture decimated by mountaintop removal. This industry has shown a blatant
disregard for environmental and safety laws.
Holding out the possibility of a distant new technology has served this industry well. Meanwhile, over the past year, coal has
doubled in price as American companies have shipped more and more overseas.
Meanwhile, wind can’t be exported, and the price of the sun never goes up.
RPS Aff & Neg 34
A2: Clean Coal DA – Renewables Better

( ) Renewables are better than new clean coal plants
Sargent, 8 (Sara Sargent, “Duke Energy Corp.’s new plant will allow coal to remain king in Indiana but keep emissions low,”
6-3-2008, http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=92169) // JMP
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management has issued a permit for the Edwardsville IGCC, indicating the plant’s
compliance with all state and federal air pollution requirements.
“IDEM permitted the Duke Energy Edwardsport facility based on these environmental regulations .... This plant will be a
showcase for new clean coal technology, assisting our nation in producing electricity in a more environmentally sensitive
manner,” IDEM spokesman Robert Elstro said in an e-mail.
Yet, despite IDEM’s approval, as well as thumbs-up from conservation organizations such as the Clean Air Task Force and
the Indiana Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana are vocal in their opposition.
“In Indiana they are locked into this coal addiction problem,” opined Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s national coal
campaign. “Public officials who are beating this drum are doing a disservice to Indiana because the state will be left behind in
this clean energy economy.”
Instead of coal, which he says has a “legacy of destruction with the coal mining and the carbon emissions,” Nilles champions
using alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power and encouraging state residents to consume energy efficiently
by renovating old buildings and cutting electricity usage.
( ) Increasing wind and solar power is comparatively better
Bloomberg, 8 (Jim Efstathiou Jr., “Rio Tinto Says U.S. Must Spend Billions for Clean-Coal Devices,” 6-2-2008,
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aKVuoOkwQtkI&refer=australia) // JMP
Deeper Hole
Coal-burning plants supply about half of U.S. power demand. Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on reducing greenhouse
gases by expanding solar and wind power, said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research of Takoma Park, Maryland. He suggests linking the wind-rich Midwest part of the U.S. to cities that require more
electricity instead of building expensive gas-scrubbing machinery.
``There's no shortage of energy sources with low carbon dioxide,'' Makhijani said. ``If we're going to invest in something that
isn't going to pay off for 15 or 20 years, we're going to dig a much deeper hole and make it much more costly to solve the
problem.''
Fifteen years of tests are needed before capture and storage can be installed at generators, the U.S. Energy Department has
said. Worldwide, $4 billion a year is needed for pilot projects, quadruple the current spending, said Howard Herzog, principal
research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Energy Initiative, who has studied carbon capture since
1989.
( ) Renewables better than clean coal
Boston Globe, 8 (Editorial from Loie Hayes, “Green and coal don't exactly mix ,” 6-8-2008,
www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/06/08/coal_gasification_is_dirty_and_unproven/) // JMP
I wonder if the legislators who think coal gasification is a green energy source also believed Ronald Reagan when he argued
that ketchup should count as a vegetable in school lunch programs. "Coal gasification" and "green energy" don't belong
together in the same sentence, let alone in legislation that's supposed to lessen our dependence on dirty fuels.
State subsidies should not be used to tilt the market toward technologies that tear the tops off mountains, dumps the refuse
into valleys, and buries toxins in the nation's shrinking fresh water supply. The coal lobby - and the Big Ag lobby behind the
biofuels boondoggle - are already buying up every politician within reach!
Legislators should cut these two poison pills from the energy overhaul bill that is otherwise a wonderful breath of fresh air
from Beacon Hill.
RPS Aff & Neg 35
A2: Clean Coal DA – Neg Evidence Biased

( ) Their evidence is biased – it is a product of the coal industry’s media ambush
Silver, 8 (Dianne, Salon.com, “Celebrate clean coal, come on!; The coal industry has turned up the heat on its ad campaign and apparently
McCain, Clinton and Obama are buying,” 5-15-2008, www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/) // JMP
May. 15, 2008 | In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in America. In another, white and black, young and old, male
and female, and even someone in a doctor's green scrubs, stare into the camera and soulfully declare: "I believe" American know-how will make coal clean and stop it from contributing to climate change. Not
Maybe you missed the newspaper ads and billboards warning that turning away from coal could mean blackouts,
sold?
unemployment and higher electric bills.
These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-
fueled utilities, railroads and related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as prospects for new plants
have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more environmentally
friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants were either canceled
or halted across the nation.
When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of
climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral right
now."
The coal industry's woes have risen as worries over climate change have increased. Today's coal-fired plants emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide, a major
greenhouse gas. One new plant planned for Iowa, for example, would dump 5.9 million tons of the stuff into the air in just one year. Two proposed Kansas plants would add 11 million tons annually.
none of these facts make it into the industry's marketing campaign. Two images you also will never see in a pro-
Not surprisingly,
coal commercial are pictures of coal plants or smokestacks. If imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery, then the coal industry is positively in love with the
environmental movement. Blue skies with fluffy white clouds and greenery abound in pro-coal commercials.
The industry's campaign gained visibility this year by piggybacking on the presidential race. First up was a CNN ad buy where the industry co-sponsored four presidential debates. As early as the Iowa
caucuses, Clean Coal staffers were driving their blue-sky-bedecked vans from rally to rally, shadowing the candidates. Billboards and ads tailored to each area have appeared in almost every state during each
primary and caucus campaign.
As the primary and caucus season has dragged on, it's been hard to avoid the Clean Coal message. If you've watched a Sunday morning political talk show, you've seen a Clean Coal commercial. If you've
attended a candidate rally and someone gave you a free Clean Coal T-shirt or ball cap, or shoved a Clean Coal brochure into your hand, you, too, have been touched by the coal industry. (Currently Clean Coal
staff are in Kentucky in conjunction with Tuesday's primary.) Even Santa Claus got into the act in December. The industry sent 30 Santas to Capitol Hill to put a pro-coal twist on the old idea that only the
naughty get a lump of something black in their Christmas stockings. The Santas delivered stockings filled with coal-shaped chocolate.
Coal's message has been carried by an ever-morphing conglomeration of nonprofit organizations that all work out of the same
Alexandria, Va., office and use the same staff. The Center for Energy and Economic Development (working "on behalf of coal's interests") begot Americans for Balanced Energy
Choices (promoting coal, but also "proponents of wind, solar and nuclear," its senior communications director reported). The two merged on April 17 to become the American Coalition for Clean Coal
Electricity, or "ACE," as its leaders like to call it.
All three groups have been funded by the biggest names in coal and related industries. In its existence as ACE, the organization is supported by 40 corporations. Each incarnation has received funding from
Peabody Energy, the world's largest private-sector coal company. Gregory H. Boyce, chairman and CEO of Peabody, sits on ACE's board.
Whatever face the industry has put on its campaign, though, coal and its allies are pouring millions into the effort. The budget of ACE's predecessor, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, leaped from $8
million in 2006 to $15 million in 2007 to $35 million in 2008. This month ACE announced that its budget this year will be $45 million.
At the heart of the Clean Coal campaign are two ideas: 1) We can't stop using coal because it is abundant and cheap, and non-polluting sources like wind and solar power can't meet our needs; 2) technology
will fix everything. Environmentalists assume that once a permit has been granted for a new plant, that plant will immediately start emitting carbon dioxide, explains Joe Lucas, vice president for
communications for ACE. "In reality, it is between eight and 12 years before a plant goes into operation," Lucas says. "What has been missed is that during that period new technologies are going to start to
come online."
The savior of the Earth will be a collection of technologies that will enable plants to capture the carbon they currently send into the air. The carbon would then be stored underground. "There has never been a
technological challenge facing the coal-based sector where technology hasn't solved the problem," Lucas says.
The problem with the "trust us, we'll fix this" approach is that carbon capture and storage isn't close to being technically
perfected or to becoming economically feasible. "When they say 'clean coal,' the first question that comes to mind is have they invented a new product that actually solves global
warming, because right now that doesn't exist," says Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "It is a figment of their imagination." The Clean Coal
campaign, he says, "is the latest example of trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge."
Achieving workable carbon capture and storage may be even more difficult than first thought. The New York Times recently reported that many energy experts have likened it to putting a man on the moon.
Among the many problems is the fact that this moon shot has to be replicated at coal plants throughout the world. Many of those plants are in economically and technologically poor countries. The task is so
expensive that the federal government's only major project designed to demonstrate the technology, a full-scale plant called FutureGen, is in danger of going under. The Department of Energy is attempting to
revamp the project, while the latest word from Congress is that it might be put on hold until a new president takes over.
Even the most enthusiastic coal boosters admit that widespread use of carbon capture and storage technology is at least a
decade away. Other estimates place that date at 20 years, says Patrick Hogan, a solutions fellow at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Lucas' time frame is even a bit off for individual plants. The planned Kansas facilities would only take about five years to go online, not the eight to 12 years Lucas cited. Scientists warn that any delay will be
disastrous. The problem is that greenhouse gases remain in the air. "Every day we delay, we're pumping stuff out there, and it's building up and making the problem worse and worse," Hogan says. "Even if we
all stopped emitting tomorrow -- shut off all cars, and all power plants reached zero emissions -- you'd still see the effects of that buildup, probably over the next few centuries."
Climatologist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has proposed a moratorium on building new coal- fired plants without carbon capture and storage. Existing plants would
be phased out over the next 20 years. Last March, former Vice President Al Gore testified before Congress for the same kind of moratorium.
As the coal debate continues, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced April 23 that global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 19 billion tons in the last year. The
worldwide concentration is now 385 parts per million. The level that is expected to tip the world into disaster is 450 parts per million.
But climate change isn't raining on the coal industry's campaign. In April, Barack Obama acknowledged a voter sporting one of the industry's hats at a campaign stop in Dunmore, Penn., and then used the
industry's own terminology to talk about his support for investing in carbon storage research. In an appearance in Charleston, W.Va., Hillary Clinton also used the industry's own words to pledge her support for
doing the same.
Obama, Clinton and John McCain all favor legislation to fight climate change. The nearly identical programs proposed by the two Democrats are more far-reaching than that put forth by McCain. However,
none of them support a moratorium on building new coal-fired plants.
Meanwhile, the Clean Coal marketing machine keeps rolling. As one commercial declares, coal powers "our way of life." On the soundtrack, Kool and the Gang sing, "Celebrate
good times, come on!"
RPS Aff & Neg 36
A2: Obama DA – A2: Obama Winning Now

( ) Too early to watch the polls – there will be several lead changes
Martelle, 8 (Scott, LAT Blogs, “John McCain, Barack Obama and the ever-shifting polls,” 6-11-2008,
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/john-mccain-bar.html) // JMP
Let's see: It's June 11, election day is Nov.

4, that's just under five months away.... Yep -- time to start watching the polls!
Not really. There will be more lead changes than in a Lakers-Celtics game before this thing is done, but some numbers have cropped up
in recent days that are interesting to ponder. First, there are the dueling tracking polls. Gallup today gives Obama a "statistically significant" six-point lead in the national head-to-
head matchup, a lead the pollsters describe as "stabilizing" after holding in that neighborhood for a couple of days.
Over at Rasmussen , the lead for Obama is five points, 46% to 41% -- "a slight decline for Obama who had attracted 48% support for each of the preceding three days. For
McCain, the results are little changed. For the past week, his support has stayed between 40% and 42%."
So it looks as if Obama still is getting a bit of a bump -- on the back side of it -- from the attention surrounding his sealing of the nomination, a cycle in which McCain didn't get a
whole lot of free media time. Now
that they're one on one, expect the coverage to balance out more and those numbers to yo-yo.
More interesting is to look at the polls in some of the battleground states, where things are much tighter. In Michigan, Obama has been
holding a slight lead within the margin of error, as he has in Wisconsin and Ohio (note, though, that some of these polls are a week or more old). The Obama campaign has made
some noise about maybe being able to put Georgia into play. So far, that's not happening.
In the Western states of Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico? There hasn't been any polling there in at least three weeks, so it's anybody's guess what's going on. But you can
usually get a sense of where the campaigns believe the close contests are by where they're spending time and energy. So far, not a lot of either has been happening in the Western
states.
( ) Polls that show Obama ahead are meaningless – a lot will change before the election
Rose, June 18th – veteran liberal campaign strategist who has been reading political polls most of his adult life
(Don, Chicago Daily Observer, “Don’t sweat the polls…yet,” 6-18-2008, http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/dont-sweat-
the-pollsyet%2C1268/) // JMP
Almost everyone I know in the netherworld of political hipsterdom either agonizes or exults or plunges into deep swami-like meditation with every presidential poll that pops up
on the internet or TV screen.
My advice to all, on either side of the aisle, is save yourself the agony and forego the ecstasy. Worry about gasoline prices, paying off
your mortgage, the state or nonstate of your love-life—anything but the polls.
Forget them.
They have no meaning now whatsoever. Do not permit your shorts to get into a bunch about something so fleeting and ultimately without merit as a poll nearly
five months from Election Day.
Remember how far ahead of the pack Hillary Clinton was just five months ago? And how Rudy Guiliani was a shoo-in?
So most of the polls show Barack Obama ahead by four to six points. If this were November 1 that might be meaningful. But even then, as those old
enough to remember the year 2000 will recollect, it is not the national percentages that count, but the cumulative totals of the Electoral
College.
Even then, a six-point lead for Obama might not be sufficient. Unless a national poll were magically corrected for state-by-state performance, Obama
might need to show something closer to a 10-point lead in order to win.
First, we have seen the so-called “Bradley effect” in play this year, where people tell pollsters they will vote or have voted for an African American but it turns out to be a lie. Also,
even if everyone were perfectly truthful,
a substantial portion of Obama’s vote is concentrated in relatively few congressional districts.
Thus, in broad strokes, he
might hypothetically carry Illinois by 30 points but lose Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida by 1 point each.
The national polls would have him ahead, while he could be smashed in the Electoral College.
Please note: I cite this not as any kind of prediction—at this juncture I still believe he will win—but simply to show the potential folly of the so-called national poll.
At this early stage I would also take those individual state poll with several grains of salt. Certainly any considered to be a marginal or battleground
state.
Forget, too, about poll “averaging.” Just consider the final polling in February’s California primary: the polling firm Survey USA had Clinton ahead by 10 points while Zogby had
Obama ahead by the same margin. An average suggested a dead heat. But Zogby was dead wrong; Survey USA was dead on the money.
Be especially forgetful about “internals” of the polls. One big-time poll recently showed Obama ahead with all women, but lagging McCain among a subset of suburban women by
12 points.
What they didn’t tell you was that, although the overall poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 3 points, the subset sample of suburban women was so small that the margin of
error was plus or minus 10 points—in other words, a meaningless statistic that the cable-babblers babbled about for days.
I am not dissing polls altogether, by any means. What I am suggesting is that we have yet to have the conventions, we have yet to know the vice-presidential choices, we have yet
to see much of a general election campaign. Moreover, the essence of that campaign—where the candidates and their commercials really begin to define the opposition
—has not yet begun.
My final word to political hipsterdom is that all
the polling until about mid-September is no more predictive of the outcome than the first
five minutes of an NBA basketball game. Unless, that is, you see a serious pattern emerging—such as, say, Obama gaining two points a week or vice-versa.
The only person I know who is happy that the polls are causing so much anxiety is my friend Harvey the Shrink. It’s so good for business he’s about to put Zogby on his payroll.
RPS Aff & Neg 37
A2: Obama DA – No Support for RPS

( ) Public support for renewable energy doesn’t translate into support for an RPS
VI. Conclusion
Often lost in the debate about the value and appropriateness of a national RPS is that there is little dispute about the value and
appropriateness of renewable energy itself. Awareness that energy issues intersect with other key issues like national security
and climate change has never been higher. Support for renewable energy, at least as a concept, is overwhelming. n198 A
recent poll indicates that 85% of those polled believe that existing federal incentives for [*75] renewable energy
technologies should be extended. n199 Other polls have indicated support across the political spectrum for renewable energy
n200 and, more specifically, a renewable portfolio standard. n201
In addition, more than thirty states have taken some kind of legislative action to promote renewable energy programs, and
more programs are being proposed. n202 Some states have even increased their commitment to energy from renewable
resources. Colorado, for example, implemented a 10% RPS in 2004, against the wishes of the state's utilities; in 2007, "with
utility support, Colorado increased its RPS to 20% by 2020." n203
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.
( ) The plan is empirically divisive – a federal RPS has been defeated 17 times in Congress. This also proves that an
Obama victory would not result in the plan.
In the last 10 years--from 1997 to 2006--federal bills promoting RPS were introduced in Congress 17 times. (12) In addition,
102 legislative proposals dealing with climate change have been introduced from 1997 to 2004. (13) All have been beaten
back by Republican-dominated Congresses.
It is safe to say, therefore, that considerable state action in both cases has arisen not because of some judgment that state-
based action is optimal or preferable but rather because of the perceived policy vacuum at the federal level. A federal-scale
political philosophy of allowing market forces to determine energy and environmental policy dates back at least as far as the
presidency of Ronald Reagan, and it has been reinforced by the political power of Washington, DC-based interest groups and
trade associations who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. However, this philosophy and political structure is not
mirrored throughout much of the country, and hence many states have become very active in the RPS and climate change
arena. And, similarly, many other states that mirror the philosophy and approach of the federal level remain inactive.
RPS Aff & Neg 38
A2: Obama DA – Energy / Climate Not Key to Election

( ) Energy not an issue
Chicago Sun Times, 7 (11-16-2007)
Since oil prices have flirted with the $100-per-barrel price milestone, you'd think that energy policy would be an urgent
political issue in the presidential campaigns. Yet, it is easily eclipsed by the Iraq war, health care, Social Security and whether
Hillary Clinton plants questions at her campaign stops. Candidates mention gas prices in their stump speeches, and several
have offered detailed energy proposals, but other concerns appear more pressing to voters.
( ) Election not about energy
Greenwire, 8 (5-20-2008)
At the same conference yesterday, the nation's top electricity regulator and a prominent utility official both predicted that U.S.
climate change legislation will not be a reality anytime soon.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Joseph Kelliher said the presidential election is not shaping up as a
referendum on climate change. If that remains the case, he said, the new president may steer clear of pushing domestic
legislation right out of the gate, especially if his or her mandate is about the economy and other issues. A quick focus on
domestic climate change legislation could be seen as a distraction, he said. Kelliher predicted a new president may focus
climate change efforts on negotiating a new post-Kyoto agreement and then turn later toward a U.S. climate bill. "It is
possible a new president might decide, 'My first focus in this area will be to re-engage the international community in pursuit
of a new treaty, and I just will not propose domestic legislation, I will pursue an international approach,'" he said. The Senate
plans to debate the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, which seeks a 70 percent emissions cut by the middle of the century, in
early June. But Jeff Sterba, chief executive of PNM Resources, called final domestic legislation this year unlikely. He said
this view is shared by many other CEOs participating in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of businesses and
environmental groups that is calling for a mandatory cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. "I would say that most of us feel
that the likelihood of anything happening this year is pretty remote, and I would have to say that is unfortunate," said Sterba.
"We need to have this happen sooner rather than later." He predicted that a domestic plan is more likely to be completed
about a year into the new administration, in perhaps late 2009 or early 2010. Sterba is also chairman of the Edison Electric
Institute, a trade group for investor-owned utilities.
( ) Climate won’t be an election issue
Financial Times, 7 (December 24, 2007)
The US administration's position on climate change was in the spotlight last weekend as its delegation was booed in the
closing hours of the marathon United Nations meeting in Bali. Nevertheless, the issue is unlikely to be high on the
presidential election agenda. Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, said in Bali: "It won't have much effect and I'm
probably overstating it. It won't be (on the agenda) at the next election but it will be on the political agenda as we go forward.
Every other place I've been in the last two years is talking about it in a more advanced way. It's not really discussed by the
presidential candidates."
( ) Climate an irrelevant election issue
AFP, 8 (March 1, 2008)
Former US vice president and renowned climate change fighter Al Gore said Saturday that the global warming crisis is
getting short shrift in this year's presidential race. Gore used the stage at a prestigious Technology, Entertainment and Design
conference in Monterey, California, to call for activism to push climate change to the top of the candidates' political agendas.
RPS Aff & Neg 39
A2: Obama DA – All Purpose Impact Answer

( ) The new president won’t be able to accomplish what they promise – political realities will stand in the way
McClatchy Washington Bureau, 8 (“Steven Thomma, “U.S. president has less power than candidates might lead you to
think,” 6-19-2008, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/106/story/41617.html) // JMP
WASHINGTON — As a member of Congress for years, Leon Panetta often heard complaints about gasoline prices. He'd look up Pennsylvania Avenue toward the White House
and think that the president should do something about it.
All that power to be applied — domestically, diplomatically. "Surely the president has the ability to do something," he thought.
Then Panetta went to the White House himself, first as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, then as the chief of staff to President Clinton. He found that there
wasn't much a president could do to bring down the cost of gasoline. The office wasn't that powerful.
In the heady days of a presidential campaign such as this one, when candidates John McCain and Barack Obama are wrapped in the majesty of traffic-clearing motorcades and
surrounded by adoring fans, when
they promise to deliver great things within days of taking office, Americans should remember that
the reality of governing can be far, far different.
Cut through the spin — think of how many times you've heard a president called the most powerful man in the world or that they "run" the country — and the fact is that the
president isn't omnipotent. Not even close.
"While we have an image of them as superheroes, they are much weaker and more limited than we give them credit for," said Michael A. Genovese, a political scientist at Loyola
Marymount University in Los Angeles and a scholar of presidential power.
"You certainly could be blinded to the facts if you listen to campaigns," Panetta said. "They're all about what new candidates can get accomplished. The
reality is there
are real limits. ... Every presidential election is a period of great hope followed by crushing disappointment."
There are exceptions, of course, when presidents of great political talent such as Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan match their skills with moments of
national hunger for change and accomplish more than most.
More often, however, presidents
find themselves hamstrung by a system that the Founding Fathers, weary of overreaching monarchs, designed
to check, not magnify, presidential power.
Just look at the Bush presidency.
Despite the aura of vast power surrounding the way that President Bush led the country to war in Iraq or acted unilaterally to
combat terrorism, recent headlines underscore his limits rather than his reach.
Last week, for example, the Supreme Court ordered that he must allow terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba to appeal their cases to a U.S. court.
This week, Bush urged that oil drilling be allowed off the U.S. coast. He can lift an executive order banning such drilling that was first signed by his father, but he also must
convince Congress to lift its moratorium, which is highly unlikely.
"It is a fairly powerful office," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "But we have three equal and distinct branches of government. And just last week we saw one of those
branches exert its muscle over the other two."
Pressed as to why Bush couldn't revoke the executive order banning offshore oil drilling, Fratto added, "that would do nothing until Congress lifts its moratorium."
Even when a president's party controls Congress — as Bush's did for most of his first six years in office, and Clinton's did his first two years — he can
find it difficult to get his way.
Clinton couldn't get an economic stimulus package through Congress and never even got a vote on his proposed expansion of health care, two of the key proposals of his 1992
campaign.
Bush pushed through temporary tax cuts in his first term, but couldn't get Congress to make them permanent. He also couldn't get his way on overhauling Social Security and
immigration policy or opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
Even as he and Congress agreed on a tax rebate plan this year to stimulate the faltering economy, Bush faces the reality that a president doesn't have nearly as much power over a
$14 trillion economy as he'd like.
"We have the image of them making momentous decisions," Genovese said. "But the story we tell is different than the day-to-day reality. That's especially true of economic policy,
where the market has much more power and the Federal Reserve has more authority."
McCain or Obama could face similar challenges.
McCain wants Congress to make the Bush tax reductions permanent, a tough sell at best in Congress, which is likely to remain under Democratic control. Obama wants to expand
health care, which could be difficult if the Democrats remain short of the 60 votes that are needed to get anything controversial through the Senate.
If presidents can't do such things on their own, and can't count on Congress to go along, how can they do anything?
One way is to have broad support, particularly in a time of crisis such as the 2001 terrorist attacks. Bush's approval rating soared past 90 percent, and for a time he was able to get
anything through Congress, including an authorization to invade Iraq and the USA Patriot Act, which gave the federal government new powers to combat terrorism at home. It's
doubtful that either could pass Congress today.
"Power is conditional," Loyola's Genovese said. "In a crisis, post 9-11, presidents have extraordinary power independent of Congress. In more normal times, presidents are very
limited. When presidents are strong, they're too strong. When they're weak, they're too weak."
Eventually, most presidents grow frustrated with the limits on them at home and turn their attention overseas.
"You can do things militarily. You can affect trade. You can establish relations with a country. Presidents generally find out that, when it comes to their foreign policy role, they
have much more control," Panetta said.
Yet as Bush has discovered, even that power has its limits.
In Afghanistan, Bush was able to lead a successful invasion, but he hasn't been able to put down Taliban resistance. In Iraq, he's found that even hard-won military success hasn't
brought promised political reconciliation or burgeoning Mideast democracy.
"He thought the world could be bent to his desired shape," Genovese said. "But reality has a way of kicking you in the behind."
"In foreign policy, the presidency is very powerful," Fratto said at the White House. "But there are checks there as well. ... We can't make other countries do things. They are
sovereign nations. We have to use persuasion."
RPS Aff & Neg 40
A2: Obama DA – Middle East Ans

( ) Middle East war won’t escalate to a super-power conflict
Ferguson, 6 – Professor of History at Harvard

(Niall, LAT, “WWIII? No, but Still Deadly and Dangerous,” 7-24-2006, p.B11, Proquest)
THIS IS NOT the first time that world leaders have had their summers ruined by "a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing." In the summer of 1938, the quarrel between
Germans and Czechs over the Sudetenland -- which inspired Neville Chamberlain's notorious phrase -- brought Europe to the brink of war.
The British prime minister's shuttle diplomacy, which saw him fly three times to see Adolf Hitler in Germany, was inspired by memories of an earlier quarrel over another obscure country. In August 1914, the
world had gone to war as a result of a quarrel between Serbs and Austrians over Bosnia. In September 1939, despite Chamberlain's efforts at appeasement, another quarrel between Germans and Poles over
Danzig (now Gdansk) led to World War II.
Could today's quarrel between Israelis and Hezbollah over Lebanon produce World War III? That's what Republican Newt Gingrich, the former
speaker of the House, called it last week, echoing earlier fighting talk by Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations.
Such language can -- for now, at least -- safely be dismissed as hyperbole. This crisis is not going to trigger another world war. Indeed, I do not expect it to produce even
another Middle East war worthy of comparison with those of June 1967 or October 1973. In 1967, Israel fought four of its Arab neighbors -- Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked
Israel. Such combinations are very hard to imagine today.
Nor does it seem likely that Syria and Iran will escalate their involvement in the crisis beyond continuing their support for Hezbollah. Neither is
in a position to risk a full-scale military confrontation with Israel, given the risk that this might precipitate an American
military reaction.
Crucially, Washington's consistent support for Israel is not matched by any great power support for Israel's neighbors. During the Cold War, by contrast, the risk was that a Middle East war could spill over into
a superpower conflict. Henry Kissinger, secretary of State in the twilight of the Nixon presidency, first heard the news of an Arab-Israeli war at 6:15 a.m. on Oct. 6, 1973. Half an hour later, he was on the phone
to the Soviet ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin. Two weeks later, Kissinger flew to Moscow to meet the Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev.
The stakes were high indeed. At one point during the 1973 crisis, as Brezhnev vainly tried to resist Kissinger's efforts to squeeze him out of the diplomatic loop, the White House issued DEFCON 3, putting
American strategic nuclear forces on high alert. It is hard to imagine anything like that today.
In any case, this war may soon be over. Most wars Israel has fought have been short, lasting a matter of days or weeks (six days in '67, three weeks in '73).
Some Israeli sources say this one could be finished in a matter of days. That, at any rate, is clearly the assumption being made in Washington.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been in no hurry to get to the scene (she is due to arrive in Israel today). Nor has she scheduled any visits to Arab capitals. Compare this leisurely response to the
frenetic shuttle diplomacy of the Kissinger era. While striving to secure a settlement between Israel and Syria, Rice's predecessor traveled 24,230 miles in just 34 days.
And yet there are other forms that an escalation of the Middle East conflict could conceivably take. A war between states may
not be in the cards, much less a superpower conflict. What we must fear, however, is a spate of civil wars -- to be precise, ethnic conflicts -- across the region.
( ) Iraq and other regional conflicts in the Middle East won’t escalate or draw in other countries
Cook, et al., 7 (Steven A. Cook and Ray Takeyh are fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations, Suzanne Maloney is a
senior fellow at Saban Center, Brookings Institution, International Herald Tribune, “Why the Iraq war won't engulf the
Mideast,” 6-28-2007, www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/28/opinion/edtakeyh.php) // JMP
Long before the Bush administration began selling "the surge" in Iraq as a way to avert a general war in the Middle East, observers both inside and outside the government were growing concerned about the
potential for armed conflict among the regional powers.
Underlying this anxiety was a scenario in which Iraq's sectarian and ethnic violence spills over into neighboring countries,
producing conflicts between the major Arab states and Iran as well as Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government. These wars then destabilize the entire region well
beyond the current conflict zone, involving heavyweights like Egypt.
with the exception of the conflict between Turkey and the Kurds, the scenario is far from an accurate
This is scary stuff indeed, but
reflection of the way Middle Eastern leaders view the situation in Iraq and calculate their interests there.
It is abundantly clear that major outside powers like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey are heavily involved in Iraq. These countries have so much at stake in the future of Iraq that it is natural they would seek to
influence political developments in the country.
Yet, the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to war either to protect their own sect or ethnic
group or to prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in Iraq.
The reasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle Eastern leaders, like politicians everywhere, are primarily interested in
one thing: self-preservation. Committing forces to Iraq is an inherently risky proposition, which, if the conflict went badly, could threaten domestic
political stability. Moreover, most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather than projecting power and thus have little capability for
sending troops to Iraq.
Second, there is cause for concern about the so-called blowback scenario in which jihadis returning from Iraq destabilize
their home countries, plunging the region into conflict.
Middle Eastern leaders are preparing for this possibility. Unlike in the 1990s, when Arab fighters in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union returned to Algeria, Egypt
and Saudi Arabia and became a source of instability, Arab security services are being vigilant about who is coming in and going from their countries.
In the last month, the Saudi government has arrested approximately 200 people suspected of ties with militants. Riyadh is also building a 700 kilometer wall along part of its frontier with Iraq in order to keep
militants out of the kingdom.
Finally, there is no precedent for Arab leaders to commit forces to conflicts in which they are not directly involved. The Iraqis and
the Saudis did send small contingents to fight the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but they were either ineffective or never made it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Arab countries other than Syria, which had a compelling
interest in establishing its hegemony over Lebanon, never committed forces either to protect the Lebanese from the Israelis or from other Lebanese. The civil war in Lebanon was regarded as someone else's
fight.
Indeed, this is the way many leaders view the current situation in Iraq. To Cairo, Amman and Riyadh, the situation in Iraq is worrisome, but in the end it is an Iraqi and American fight.
As far as Iranian mullahs are concerned, they have long preferred to press their interests through proxies as opposed to direct engagement. At a time when Tehran has access and influence over powerful Shiite
militias, a massive cross-border incursion is both unlikely and unnecessary.
SoIraqis will remain locked in a sectarian and ethnic struggle that outside powers may abet, but will remain within the borders
of Iraq.
RPS Aff & Neg 41
The Middle East is a region both prone and accustomed to civil wars. But given its experience with ambiguous conflicts, the
region has also developed an intuitive ability to contain its civil strife and prevent local conflicts from enveloping the entire
Middle East.
Iraq's civil war is the latest tragedy of this hapless region, but still a tragedy whose consequences are likely to be less severe than both supporters and opponents of Bush's war profess.
A2: Obama DA – Soft Power Ans

( ) McCain also supports multilateralism
NYT, 8 (Elisabeth Bumiller, “How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue,” 6-17-2008,
www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) // JMP
On diplomacy, Mr. McCain has regularly distanced himself from the go-it-alone unilateralism of the Bush administration.
“We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to,” Mr. McCain said in a major
foreign policy address in Los Angeles in late March. “We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new
compact.”
( ) Election victory itself not enough – Obama will need to adopt a new set of policies to build up soft power
Nye, 8 – Professor of IR at Harvard

(Joseph, Huffington Post, “Barack Obama and Soft Power,” 6-12-2008, www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-obama-
and-soft-pow_b_106717.html) // JMP
Unfortunately, a President Obama will inherit a number of policy problems such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and
North Korea where hard power plays a large role. If he drops the ball on any of these issues, they will devour his political
capital. At the same time, he will have to be careful not to let this inherited legacy of problems define his presidency. Some
time between November 4 and January 20, he will need to indicate a new tone in foreign policy which shows that we will
once again export hope rather than fear. This could take several forms: announcement of an intent to close Guantanamo;
dropping the term "global war on terror;" creation of a special bipartisan group to formulate a new policy on climate change;
a "listening trip" to Asia, and so forth. Electing Obama will greatly help restore America's soft power as a nation that can
recreate itself, but the election alone will not be sufficient. It is not too soon to start thinking about symbols and policies for
the days immediately after the election.
RPS Aff & Neg 42
A2: Obama DA – Appeasement Turn

( ) Obama will promote appeasement that effectively crushes U.S. credibility, invites nuclear blackmail and makes a
U.S.- Iran war inevitable
Glick, 8 – deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post and the senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for
Security Policy
(Caroline, Jerusalem Post, “Our World: Obama's unique appeasement style,” 5-20-2008,
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668679789&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) // JMP
OBAMA'S RESPONSE to Bush's speech was an effective acknowledgement that appeasing Iran and other terror sponsors is
a defining feature of his campaign and of his political persona. As far as he is concerned, an attack against appeasement is an attack against Obama.
Obama and his supporters argue that seeking to ease Iranian belligerence by conducting negotiations and offering military, technological, military and financial concessions to the
likes of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who refers to Israel as pestilence, daily threatens the Jewish state with destruction, and calls for the eradication of the US while
claiming to be divinely instructed by a seven-year-old imam who went missing 1100 years ago is not appeasement. Indeed, Obama claims that conducting direct face-to-face
negotiations with the likes of Ahmadinejad is the right way to be "tough."
But is this true? Obama recalls that US presidents have often conducted negotiations with their country's enemies and done so to the US's advantage. And this is true enough.
President John F. Kennedy essentially appeased the Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis when he offered to remove US nuclear warheads from Turkey in exchange
for the removal of Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba.
But there are many differences between what Kennedy did and what Obama is proposing. Kennedy's offer to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev
was made secretly. And the terms of the deal stipulated that if its existence was revealed, the US offer would be cancelled. More importantly, Khrushchev was open to a deal and
was ready to give up the Cuban nuclear program. And - most
importantly of all - Kennedy deployed military forces and went to the brink of
war to make the alternatives to negotiation credible.
Obama has repeatedly stated that unlike Kennedy, if he is elected president, he will not openly threaten war while being open
to private talks. Instead, Obama intends to surrender the war option while conducting direct, public negotiations with the mullahs. So from the
very beginning, he wants to undermine US credibility while giving Ahmadinejad and his murderous ilk the legitimacy that
Kennedy refused to give Khrushchev.
Far from exerting force to strengthen his diplomatic position, Obama has pledged to withdraw US forces from Iraq where
they are fighting Iranian proxies, cut military spending and shrink the size of the US nuclear arsenal.
SINCE THE definition of appeasement is to reward others for their bad behavior, and since the US has refused for 29 years to reward the Iranians for their bad behavior by having
presidential summits with Iranian leaders, Obama's pledge represents a massive act of appeasement. And since it is Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program
that would bring a President Barack Obama to the table, his policy would invite nuclear blackmail by other countries by signaling to them that
the US rewards nuclear proliferators.
But even if Obama and his supporters were right and negotiating with the ayatollahs was not by its nature an act of appeasement, the question remains whether it would be possible
to reach a deal with them that would not endanger US interests or US allies a la Neville Chamberlain at Munich.
Since the EU-3 began negotiating with the Iranians four years ago, the Iranians have
made clear at every opportunity that while they welcome negotiations, they will
never give up their nuclear program. Over the weekend, Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei again repeated that there is no deal that anyone can offer Iran that
would move the regime to give up its nuclear aspirations and nascent arsenal. So there is no deal to be had.
Iran's support for terrorism and its nuclear aspirations make confrontation with the US inevitable. Since there is no way that in the midst
of presidential negotiations the US would confront Iran, by pushing for such summitry, Obama is conceding to Iran the US's right to choose when and
how the confrontation will begin.
IN MANY ways, Obama and his allies call to mind the influential American newspaperman H.L. Mencken. In the 1920s and early 1930s, Mencken was the most influential writer
in the US. He was an anti-Christian and anti-Semitic agnostic, a supporter of Germany during World War I, and a fierce opponent of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New
Deal. He also opposed American participation in World War II.
In his biography of Mencken, The Skeptic: A Life of H.L. Mencken, Terry Teachout argues that the reason Mencken did not think it was worth fighting Hitler's Germany was
because Mencken simply couldn't accept the existence of evil. He could see no moral distinction between Roosevelt, who he despised, and Adolf Hitler who he considered "a
boob."
There are strong echoes of Mencken's moral blindness to Hitler's evil in the contemporary Left's refusal to understand the nature of the threat posed by Iran and its terror proxies.
And Bush made this clear in his speech to the Knesset when he said, "There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their
words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong."
Obama's supporters seek to silence these echoes by pointing to Obama's life story as Obama told it in his two autobiographies, Dreams From my Father and The Audacity of Hope.
His supporters‚ argue that since his life story is unique, his decision to appease the Iranians is uniquely wise. Yet the most interesting aspect of his life story is how little is actually
known about it.
As the New York Times noted in an article Sunday about Obama's career as an autobiographer, "In the introduction [of Dreams from my Father], Mr. Obama acknowledged his use
of pseudonyms, composite characters, approximated dialogue and events out of chronological order."
That is, the man who is supposedly uniquely qualified to appease, adopted an attitude of indignation at Bush's condemnation of those who seek to cut deals with evil men, is also
rather cavalier about facts. Justifying Obama's fast and loose treatment of the truth about his past, his editor Deborah Baker explained that Obama's attitude was more important
than the facts or, in her words, "The fact is, it all had a sort of larger truth going on that you couldn't make up."
LIKE HIS life story, Obama's policies are not based on facts, but on his attitude. And his attitude, like Mencken's in the 1930s, is based on a naïve and
arrogant belief that the worst thing that can happen is to have someone who talks about evil in the White House.
Peter Osnos, Obama's former publisher told the Times that Obama's meteoric rise to the pinnacle of politics is due in large part to his gift as a storyteller. In his words, "It's almost
all based on these two books, two books not based on a job of prodigious research or risking one's life as a reporter in Iraq. He has written about himself. Being able to take your
own life story and turn it into this incredibly lucrative franchise, it's a stunning fact."
Indeed, it is stunning. And frightening. It says that in
a world in which evil men are combining and preparing for war and genocide, good
men are preparing for pleasant chitchat with their foes because they have come to prefer attitude to substance. It is a world in which
indignation can be summoned as readily (and perhaps more easily) for partisan political attacks as for delusional dictators‚ open preparation for genocide. And it is a world in
which it is more important to discuss "healing" emotional wounds than devising policies capable of coping with an ever-more-dangerous international coalition of murderers.
RPS Aff & Neg 43

( ) Obama’s foreign policy is just dangerous appeasement
Bolton, 8 – senior fellow at AEI

(John R., LAT, “Obama the Naïve,” 6-5-2008, www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28097/pub_detail.asp) // JMP
Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a
Barack
naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential
campaign.
Consider his facile observations about President Kennedy's first meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, in Vienna in 1961. Obama saw it as a meeting that helped win the Cold War, when in fact it was
an embarrassment for the American side. The inexperienced Kennedy performed so poorly that Khrushchev may well have been encouraged to position Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, thus precipitating one of
the Cold War's most dangerous crises.
Such realities should cause Obama to become more circumspect, minimizing his off-the-cuff observations about history,
grand strategy and diplomacy. In fact, he has done exactly the opposite, exhibiting so many gaps in his knowledge and
understanding of world affairs that they have not yet received the attention they deserve. He consistently reveals failings in
foreign policy that are far more serious than even his critics had previously imagined.
Consider the following statement, which was lost in the controversy over his comments about negotiations: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a
serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. . . . Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."
Let's dissect this comment. Obama is correct that the rogue states he names do not present the same magnitude of threat as that posed by the Soviet Union through the possibility of nuclear war. Fortunately for
us all, general nuclear war never took place. Nonetheless, serious surrogate struggles between the superpowers abounded because the Soviet Union's threat to the West was broader and more complex than
simply the risk of nuclear war. Subversion, guerrilla warfare, sabotage and propaganda were several of the means by which this struggle was waged, and the stakes were high, even, or perhaps especially, in
"tiny" countries.
In the Western Hemisphere, for example, the Soviets used Fidel Castro's Cuba to assist revolutionary activities in El Salvador and Nicaragua. In Western Europe, vigorous Moscow-directed communist parties
challenged the democracies on their home turfs. In Africa, numerous regimes depended on Soviet military assistance to stay in power, threaten their neighbors or resist anti-communist opposition groups.
Both sides in the Cold War were anxious to keep these surrogate struggles from going nuclear, so the stakes were never "civilizational." But to say that these "asymmetric" threats were "tiny" would be news to
those who struggled to maintain or extend freedom's reach during the Cold War.
Had Italy, for example, gone communist during the 1950s or 1960s, it would have been an inconvenient defeat for the United States but a catastrophe for the people of Italy. An "asymmetric" threat to the U.S.
often is an existential threat to its friends, which was something we never forgot during the Cold War. Obama plainly seems to have entirely missed this crucial point. Ironically, it is he who is advocating a
unilateralist policy, ignoring the risks and challenges to U.S. allies when the direct threat to us is, in his view, "tiny."
What is implicit in Obama's reference to "tiny" threats is that they are sufficiently insignificant that negotiations alone can resolve them. Indeed, he has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations
with Iran caused the threats: "And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah."
This is perhaps the most breathtakingly naive statement of all, implying as it does that it is actually U.S. policy that motivates Iran rather than Iran's own perceived ambitions and interests. That would be news
to the mullahs in Tehran, not to mention the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.
It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world's
ills. In 1984, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick labeled people with these views the "San Francisco Democrats," after the city where Walter Mondale was nominated for president.
Most famously, Kirkpatrick forever seared the San Francisco Democrats by saying that "they always blame America first" for the world's problems. In so doing, she turned the name of the pre-World War II
isolationist America First movement into a stigma the Democratic Party has never shaken.
This is yet another piece of history that Obama has ignored or never learned. There may be one more piece of history worthy of attention: In 1984, Mondale went down to one of the worst electoral defeats in
American political history. We will now see whether Obama follows that path as well.
( ) The perception of weakness will embolden terrorists and rogue states
Wood, 6 (Sgt. Sara Wood, American Forces Press Service, “Rumsfeld: U.S. at ‘Time of Great Consequence’” 12-15-2006,
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=2440, JMP)
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15, 2006 – The war on terrorism is a difficult task, but it is not hopeless or without purpose, outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said here
today.
Breaking convention one final time in his farewell speech at the Pentagon ceremony in his honor, Rumsfeld spoke not about his accomplishments of the past, but the challenges of
the future.
“This is a time of great consequence,” Rumsfeld said. “Our task is to make the right decisions today so that future generations will not have to make much harder
decisions tomorrow.”
Speaking with the perspective of the only defense secretary to have served for two presidents in two different centuries, Rumsfeld warned that today, just as in the Cold War,
weakness is provocative to America’s enemies. Today’s world is one of unstable dictators, weapons proliferators, rogue
regimes, and friends and allies with declining defense investment and capabilities, he said. This environment creates
vulnerabilities, he added, and requires even more U.S. dedication.
“Today it should be clear that not only is weakness provocative, but the perception of weakness on our part can be provocative as well,” he said. “A
conclusion by our enemies that the United States lacks the will or the resolve to carry out missions that demand sacrifice and
demand patience is every bit as dangerous as an imbalance of conventional military power.”
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, awakened Americans to the global extremist movement, Rumsfeld pointed out. This movement has tens of thousands of adherents who
believe it is their calling to kill Americans and other free people, and it cannot be ignored, he said.
“It may well be comforting to some to consider graceful exits from the agonies and indeed the ugliness of combat, but the enemy thinks differently,” Rumsfeld said.
“Under the president's leadership, this country made a decision to confront the extremist ideology of hatred that spawned a
worldwide movement and to take the fight to the enemy. The alternative was inaction and defense, a pattern that history has
shown only emboldens the enemy.”
RPS Aff & Neg 44

( ) Appeasement will cause global nuclear war
Darr, 6 (Justin, veteran retail manager from Philadelphia and an expert in political philosophy, western world history, and the
development of American society, American Chronicle, “Setting the Stage for World War III. History is Repeating Itself,” 1-
8-2006, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=4686, JMP)
For years the term “World War III” has been tossed about to describe everything from the international fight against poverty and disease to most recently the
War on Terror. However, as anyone who actually lived through the World War II era can tell you, the battles of the past 50 years share little in common with
that dark time.
We like to romanticize the World Wars today, looking at the past through the distorting lens of victory and decades of comfort. But the reality of a World War
is far different. These are conflicts we could actually lose, requiring the marshalling of our total national resources and costing the lives of millions. Trusting
in our wealth and power to make such large-scale conflicts things of the past has made us lackadaisical to the point that we do not see the seeds of the next
World War taking root around us. This arrogance has made us blind as we repeat the mistakes of the late 1930’s and set the stage for the next World War.
There are numerous parallels between the now forming “Axis” of World War III and that of World War II. Both are composed of
two ideological tyrants and one lunatic bent on his personal aggrandizement. Both developed their military power in violation of established international
treaties. Both had their aggression initially met with appeasement policies led by an ineffective and corrupt international body
distracted by a surrogate war. Both were emboldened in their aggression through the acquisition of territory simply through the threat of force. And,
both were formed more out of strategic necessity than common goals.
The Axis of yesterday composed of the tyrannies of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Italy are now Iran, North Korea, and quite possibly Venezuela under
Hugo Chavez.
The first two partners in today’s Axis are easy to identify. Iran’s Islamic fundamentalism and North Korea’s Communism have replaced Nazi Germany’s
fascism, and Imperial Japan’s Meiji nationalism
Just as Germany and Japan built their military strength through blatant violations of the Treaty of Versailles and the 1922 Washington Navel Conference,
Iran and North Korea are pursuing the development of nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Led by
the League of, now United Nations, these treaty violations have not been challenged forcibly by the international community, but rather through
a series of conferences bent more on appeasing an aggressive enemy than stopping them. The results of this appeasement will
be the same today as they were in the 1930’s; the new Axis will disingenuously participate in these negotiations as a delay
tactic until they develop their military power to the point that the world has to choose between total war or total surrender to
their demands.
RPS Aff & Neg 45
A2: Obama DA – A2: Disad Turn the Case

( ) Doesn’t turn the case – the president is irrelevant to climate policy
Xinhua General News Service, 8 (1-31-2008)
This year's U.S. presidential election is unlikey to have a great impact on the consistency of the country's climate policy,
Andy Karsner, U.S. assistant secretary of energy, told Xinhua Wednesday. Speaking at a press briefing on the sidelines of
the ongoing major economies meeting on energy security and climate change held here Jan. 30-31, he said that the
groundwork of U.S. climate policy is actually laid down by mid-level officials who are bipartisan. "We are building a
continuity in the civil service," he said, referring to the fact that although there will be a new administration next year, those
career civil service officials will be still making policies by then. Karsner also argued that whoever becomes the new
president, whether Republican or Democrat, he or she must make climate policy decisions based on broad bipartisan support.
He noted that the energy bill President George W. Bush signed last year has already demonstrated that kind of bipartisan
consensus. On the prospect that a new president will probably not resist the mandatory pollution reduction targets like
Bush, Karsner argued that may not be the case. He said the United States has its own understanding of the issue. If it is
mandatory, Karsner said, it shall be a law which will need bipartisan support before the president's signing. Also, the U.S.
government has some mandatory regulation in place in other areas, including the energy effi-ciency standard. However, in
fact, most major presidential candidates are actually embracing for the idea of mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emission.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two frontrunners in the race for the Democratic presidential nomi-nation, have all
pledged to cut U.S. emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2050, and both of them accept that this can only
be achieved by legal caps on emissions. The leading Republican candidate, John McCain, makes the same promises,
except that he is only aiming for a 65-percent cut by 2050.
RPS Aff & Neg 46
A2: Topicality – Incentives Can be Positive or Negative

( ) RPS is an alternative energy incentive
As might be expected, the retail electric suppliers in states with an RPS are expected to account for the bulk of the renewable
energy generating capacity in the United States. n97 It is clear that RPS states have built, and are building, more renewable
energy generation facilities than non-RPS states, but it is not clear to what extent this is the result of an RPS policy. That is,
an RPS policy provides incentives for building new renewable generation capacity, but other factors, especially the
availability of renewable energy resources, also play a significant role. n98
( ) RPS and renewable credits provide and incentive for alternative energy
The mere existence of a national RPS would provide some incentive for all utilities to invest in renewable generation because
that investment would have two markets - the market for its electricity and the market for its RECs - instead of just the
market for its electricity for a traditional generation facility. n107 In [*64] addition, it is likely that power projects will
require "more equity, less debt, and shorter debt repayment periods" than in the past. n108 "Developers will probably attempt
to sign bilateral contracts with large end users, marketers, aggregators, and utilities, but contract terms are likely to be shorter
than in the past." n109 In fact, "corporate balance-sheet financing may also become more common." n110 If a utility buys
RECs and energy from another supplier, there is also a risk that purchase agreement would end up showing as a long-term
debt on the utility's balance sheet. n111 Thus, how a national RPS would impact such capital-intensive investments is hard to
predict.
( ) Incentives are either financial incentives or regulations
Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 07 (North Carolina State University,
http://www.dsireusa.org/faq/faq.cfm?&CurrentPageID=9&EE=1&RE=1)
What types of renewable energy incentives does DSIRE track?

The DSIRE project tracks information on state, utility, local, and selected federal incentives that promote the use of
renewable energy technologies. For more information on federal incentives, see What federal incentives does DSIRE track.
On the DSIRE website, incentives are grouped into two categories as follows:
(1)Financial Incentives: tax incentives, grants, loans, rebates, industry recruitment, bond programs, and production
incentives.
(2) Rules, Regulations, & Policies: public benefits funds, renewables portfolio standards, net metering, interconnection,
extension analysis, generation disclosure, contractor licensing, equipment certification, solar/wind access laws, and
construction & design standards (including building energy codes and energy standards for public buildings), required utility
green power options, and green power purchasing/aggregation policies.
RPS Aff & Neg 47
A2: Topicality – Incentives Can be Positive or Negative

Energy incentives can be positive or negative
Economic Commission for Europe, 06 (“DRAFT 2006 REVIEW OF STRATEGIES AND POLICIES FOR
AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT,” 11/14, http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2006/eb/EB/ece.eb.air.2006.4.add.2.e.pdf)
1. Positive incentives
53. Positive incentives include: grants, subsidies, tax rebates, tax incentives, credit guarantees, soft loans and tradable
permits. All of these aim to have an impact on individual patterns of consumptionand to minimize air pollution and its effects. In
Canada, under the Wind Power Production Incentive, companies opting for wind generators were eligible for payments of up to 1.2 cents/kilowatt-hour
produced. In Cyprus, since 2004, the owners of vehicles equipped with catalytic converters paid less tax than owners of non-catalytic vehicles. Additionally,
the following tax incentives were introduced in November 2003: a 15% discount on the excise duty for cars with CO2 emissions of 150g/km or less and a
10% penalty on cars with CO2 emissions of 275g/km or more. From January 2006 the purchase of a hybrid car was subsidised by the Government by an
amount of £800 CYP (about Euro 1,350) and incentives were offered for scrappage of vehicles over 15 years old. In Lithuania the Environmental Protection
Investment Fund provided subsidies for environmental protection projects of up to 350,000 litas (approximately 101,000 euros) over a three-year period. The
Fund financed 26 environmental protection projects, 18 of which (70%) were related to pollution reduction, conversion to cleaner fuels, renovation of home
boilers, installation of air-treatment filters or other energy-saving measures.
54. Many Parties used subsidies and other financial incentives to promote the use of renewable energy such as solar power or
wind turbines, including in Austria,Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. TheCzech Republic reported that it offered
financial support for pilot projects for the supply of alternative energy, especially thermal energy. Subsidies could be obtained for the preparation of project
documents and for the implementation of projects with a maximum of 100,000 euros over three years. Since July 2005, the Netherlands has stimulated the
use of sulphur-free diesel by reducing the tax charged; since June 2005, the purchase of new diesel-powered cars equipped with soot filters was encouraged
through a 600-euro discount on the tax for personal motor vehicles. Starting in mid-2006, a subsidy for retrofitting a soot filter into existing, trucks, vans,
buses, personal cars, diesel powered locomotives and inland ships would come into force. A subsidy scheme was also in force since 2006 for catalytic
converters for inland shipping. More than 100 techniques for the reduction of air pollution (e.g. wet scrubbers, desulphurisation processes, low NOx burners,
catalytic reduction system, low emission animal housing systems, etc.) were eligible for fiscal benefits intended to stimulate environmentally friendly
technologies.
55. In Slovenia, subsidies and soft loans were available for energy efficiency measures and for the use of renewable energy sources for households (e.g. solar
heating technologies, energy efficient windows, biomass heating, heat pumps) and for companies (e.g. biomass technologies). The United Kingdom has
allocated over £500 million (approximately 740 million euros) between 2002 and 2008 to support the development of renewable and low-carbon
technologies.
56. Austria noted itoffered subsidies for the rehabilitation of old residential buildings in order to reduce their impact on air pollution. Positive incentives in
Germany included tax incentives for the use of low sulphur fuels and for renewable energies and federal grants to promote public transport in municipalities.
57. Tradable permits were also being increasingly utilized to minimise emissions. Canadareported it had implemented tradable unit systems to reduce two
toxic substances, tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene. At the provincial level, Ontario’s cap and trade system for NO and SO2 emissions from power
plants and British Columbia’s differentiated fees for industrial polluters were noteworthy. At the federal level, a cap and trade system to phase out methyl
bromide and HCFCs had been introduced. In theNetherlands, a NOxemission trading system, started in July 2005, was based on performance standard rates.
It focused on extra overall reductions in addition to those resulting from the ELVs set forth in national legislation. Slovakia also had an emissions trading act
for SO2 and CO2.
2. Negative incentives
58. Negative incentives include taxes, fees, and various charges. In the Czech Republic, the Air Protection Act imposed fees for air pollution
for the operators of very large, large and medium-sized sources and small stationary sources. For large sources fees were paid into the State Environmental
Fund, which then promoted projects intended primarily to reduce emissions. For small sources, the fees went directly to the municipality and were
earmarked for environmental protection. Germany applied a range of dissuasive market measures including road user charges for heavy goods transport and
emission-based vehicle taxes. Further planned measures included the reduction of the distance-related tax refund for commuters and the equalisation of fuel
tax on petrol and diesel. In Estonia, a plant that emitted more than was stipulated in its permit was subject to higher taxes.
59. In Lithuania,charges on pollutants discharged to the atmosphere from stationary and mobile pollution sources were
introducedthrough the 1991 Law on Pollution Charge. Energy plants with a capacity exceeding 1MW (0.5 MW if solid fuel was used) must possess an
environmental permit. Charges on pollution from stationary sources were paid according to the amount of pollutants actually emitted during a reporting
period. If the polluter implemented measures to reduce pollutant emissions by at least 5 per cent from the maximum allowable, it would be exempted from
the charge on the pollutants. Exemptions were valid for the period of implementation of the air pollution abatement measures, but not more than 3 years.
60. In Switzerland, two taxes were introduced in 2000. One was applied to VOCs whereby CHF 3 (approximately 2 euros) per kg of VOC was to be paid on
imports of solvents. The second was on fuel with a sulphur content higher than 0.1%. Another dissuasive economic tool applied in Switzerland was the
distance-related heavy-duty fee introduced in 2000. This followed the European norms (EURO 1, 2 or 3) according to the emission category. In Slovenia,
taxes were applied to waste, depending on the level of methane emissions.
RPS Aff & Neg 48
Renewables Inevitable
( ) High oil prices are driving huge investment in renewables
Fox Business, 8 (“Global Investment in Renewable Energy Reaches $100 Billion According to UN Report,” 5-5-2008
www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/energy/global-investment-renewable-energy-reaches--billion-according-report/#) // JMP
WASHINGTON, May 5, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ ----High oil prices and an array of government incentives are
leading to soaring rates of investment in renewable energy, according to the United Nations' annual "Global Trends in Sustainable Energy
Investment" report.
The UN report calculates global investment capital flows into renewable energy companies reached $100 billion for the first time
in history last year. More than $30 billion of the total was the result of mergers and acquisitions led by investment banks such as JP Morgan and
Goldman Sachs.
"The finance community has been investing at levels that imply disruptive change is now inevitable in the energy sector," says
Eric Usher, Head of the Energy Finance Unit at the UN. Usher said the UN's "report puts full stop to the idea of renewable energy being a fringe interest
of environmentalists. It is now a mainstream commercial interest to investors and bankers alike."
The huge investment flows mean that IPO's, largely dormant since the heady days of the technology boom nearly a decade ago, are now re-emerging. A trio
of solar companies went public with impressive returns in 2007, including JA Solar (Nasdaq: JASO), Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL: 49.95, -0.15, -0.29%) and
Solarfun Power Holdings (Nasdaq: SOLF).
In the wind power sector, regular CNBC guest analyst and IPO expert Francis Gaskins was the first to cover Nacel Energy (OTC Bulletin Board: NCEN)
which has seen its stock soar more than 250% since IPO. Last month, Nacel Energy unveiled a major 80-megawatt wind energy expansion, including two
new projects in Texas. Gaskins currently has $4 target on the company (Nacel Energy closed Friday at $2.79).
( ) Investment in renewable is inevitable
Silverstein, 8 – Editor-in-Chief of EnergyBiz Insider

(Ken, “Credit Crunch Bites Clean Tech,” 4-28-2008, www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=499) // JMP
The credit crunch has taken a bite out of the clean tech sector. But despite the critical situation, the industry is expected to go
on to prosper.
The fundamentals are all in place. The rise in oil prices has caused an upward spiral in all of the fossil fuels, giving
sustainable sources not only an economic advantage but an environmental one as well. Indeed, national governments around
the globe are enacting clean air laws that encourage renewable energy consumption. The result, over time, will mean increasing levels of
investment in clean technologies.
"While the long-term trend shows continued expansion of the category as a whole, we are seeing contraction in what had been the market-leading sectors first-generation bio-fuels
and second-generation solar," says John Balbach, managing partner of the Cleantech Group in San Francisco. "This healthy minor correction indicates exuberance is giving way to
tempered optimism."
Clean Edge, a different research firm that has been tracking the growth of clean-energy markets since 2000, had reported last year a 40 percent increase in revenue growth for solar
photovoltaics, wind, bio-fuels and fuel cells. That equates to $77.3 billion in investment in 2007 and $55 billion in 2006. For the first time, three of these are generating revenues of
$20 billion each, with wind now exceeding $30 billion.
New global investments in energy technologies-including venture capital, project finance, public markets, and research and development-have expanded by 60 percent from $92.6
billion in 2006 to $148.4 billion in 2007, according to research firm New Energy Finance. But that was last year.
This year, the credit crunch is taking its toll. Clean energy investments made in the first quarter of 2007 totaled $3.7 billion, says New Energy Finance. But the same group
attracted only $2.4 billion in the first quarter of 2008. It says that private equity investors cut the level of their investments by 64 percent, reflecting the uncertainty and volatility of
the financial markets as well as the credit crisis.
Money raised in public equity markets has also dried up since the $7.2 billion initial public offering of Iberdrola Renovables in December 2007, which "marked the top of the
market," the firm say says. The industry attracted just $807 million in the first quarter of this year. That compares to $5.2 billion during the same period last year. Venture capital
investors, though, increased their stakes by 57 percent during the same time period.
"If anything, high
oil prices should strengthen the renewable energy sector and encourage people to invest in clean energy that is
cheaper and more secure, long term," says Matthew Clayton, investment manager at Tridos Bank, in an interview with BusinessGreen.com.
"I have no massive concern for companies getting funding."
RPS Aff & Neg 49
Solvency – Jurisdictional Conflicts

( ) The plan will create jurisdictional conflicts with States – intensifying regulatory uncertainty
Michaels, 8 – Professor of Economics at CSU Fullerton

(Robert J., Energy Law Journal, “National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Smart Policy or Misguided Gesture?” 29 Energy L.
J. 79, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
Finally, most advocates of a national RPS have said little about federal and state regulatory jurisdiction. State commissions
determine both retail rates and [*110] requirements for new generation and transmission to meet anticipated load growth.
They will continue to have those powers under a national RPS, but federal compliance requirements may impose new
constraints on them. The situation may mirror the concerns that state regulators have expressed about the Energy Policy Act
of 2005's grant of federal "backstop" authority over the siting of certain transmission lines that states have not approved.
Lengthy regulatory proceedings and court tests on transmission will surely occur in the near future. The same will happen for
generation under a national RPS, perhaps even more confrontational because generation is a larger percentage of delivered
power costs. The FERC cannot compel investment in generation, but the penalty provisions of a national RPS would coerce
utilities into constructing generation (or arranging RECs) that state regulators might not approve. Many questions remain.
May a utility be excused if it made a good-faith effort to gain state regulatory approval for a national RPS compliance
investment but was refused? What if a proposed facility is not reachable because state regulators have blocked transmission
to it? What if state-level intervenors introduce interminable litigation and regulatory proceedings to stop a compliance
project? A national RPS threatens a larger displacement of state regulatory authority than any policy change since open
access, and state regulators now know how to fight wars of attrition.
( ) A federal RPS will create jurisdictional conflicts with States

Advocates of a national RPS have also said little about the jurisdictional conflicts it will create between state and federal
regulators. State regulators set cost-based retail rates and have authority over utilities' planning of generation and
transmission additions, while the FERC has authority over wholesale transactions, even if the parties are in the same state. It
is not easy to see how disagreements over investments made by utilities for compliance will be resolved. A requirement that
state regulators include all of a utility's compliance investments (including RECs) in its rate base (on which it earns the
allowed return) takes away an important part of their authority with no corresponding benefit. Allowing state regulators to
disallow investments intended for compliance leaves the federal authorities with question of how to treat them. (Even if the
legal answer is clear the political answer is not.) Federal regulators will be at least a shadow presence in state procurement
proceedings, and probably an unappreciated one. n132 Most proposals for a federal RPS differ from existing state programs
in having no price cap on renewables that will excuse a utility if renewable power is unavailable for less. n133 The political
problems of reconciling state price caps with an uncapped federal program also remain unexplored. n134
( ) A federal RPS will add another layer of reporting requirements for electricity suppliers – creating uncertainty
and increasing energy costs
B. Compliance Requirements
A national RPS would mean new federal reporting requirements for retail electricity suppliers. For those operating in RPS
states, a federal RPS would mean a second, potentially duplicative, reporting requirement. Electricity industry representatives
(such as the Edison Electric Institute) have argued that a federal RPS, which mandates "different targets, technologies, and
timetables through a federal RPS on top of the state programs would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting
renewable mandates even further for electricity suppliers and consumers in those states." n116
RPS Aff & Neg 50
Solvency – No Compliance / Enforcement

( ) RPS standards won’t be met or increase competitiveness – State RPSs prove
Michaels, 8 – Adjunct Scholar at CATO and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute
(Robert J., Electricity Journal, “A National Renewable Portfolio Standard: Politically Correct, Economically Suspect,” April
2008, vol. 21, no. 3, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
California's 2001 collapse resulted from market conditions and faulty implementation, but its failure brought a counter-
revolution. Competition's critics saw few benefits for consumers, questioned the adequacy of wholesale investments, and
were concerned about excessive reliance on gas-fired generation. Competition did turn out to be compatible with efficient
environmental regulation, but both slipped down the agenda as climate policy displaced them. Most other environmental
issues can be compartmentalized, but climate is nearly universal. If warming really matters and remediation is feasible,
policymakers must address carbon sources as diverse as automobiles, power plants, and manure. If some climate modelers
are right, policy must be quickly formulated and implemented. Washington moved slowly, but some states legislated
renewable portfolio standards (RPS) obligating utilities to obtain some of their power from unconventional sources. Iowa
introduced a modest 197MW requirement in 1983 (since increased), and today 25 states and the District of Columbia have
enacted RPS.1 Encouraging reports from the states have led to proposals for a national RPS.2 On Aug. 4, 2007, the U.S.
House of Representatives approved a bill that included a 15 percent national RPS, but the Senate's counterpart bill contained
no such provision.3 Predictions that an RPS will be a "free lunch" for the economy are based on an incorrect analysis of gas
markets.
In reality the state programs are in near-total disarray. Almost every one whose RPS is a binding constraint is already out of
compliance with its own program, and there is no reason to expect a reversal under a federal standard. Regardless of state
performance, a national RPS would be a major policy blunder: inefficient, inequitable, and incompatible with existing
environmental and electrical regulation. It violates every economic principle of efficient emissions control and its errors will
be compounded in the case of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Claims that a national RPS will alleviate unemployment and
enhance America's international competitiveness are no more than rephrasings of elementary economic fallacies. Predictions
that an RPS will be a "free lunch" for the economy because falling gas prices will cancel rising power prices are based on an
incorrect analysis of gas markets. A national RPS will diversify generation, but will also conceal risks and shift them to
captive customers. "Infant industry" justifications for supporting renewables development through an RPS are mostly self-
serving politics, and in the event public intervention is warranted the RPS is a poor instrument for the job. Both energy
security and national security are at best tenuously related to renewables, and direct policies are far superior to indirect ones
like a national RPS. It is hard to imagine any environmental policy that delivers as little in theory as a national RPS, and the
experiences of the states show that it delivers equally little in practice as well.
( ) Regulatory agencies will side with industry – crushing solvency
Ottinger & Jayne, 2000 – *Dean Emeritus of Pace University School of Law, founder of the Pace Energy Project, former
Member of Congress and Chair of the House Energy, Conservation and Power Subcommittee, and **Pace Law School
student and Research Assistant
(Richard L Ottinger and Mindy Jayne, “Global Climate Change – Kyoto Protocol Implementation: Legal Frameworks for
Implementing Clean Energy Solutions,” www.solutions-site.org/special_reports/sr_global_climate_change_4.htm) // JMP
Effective enforcement is critical to the success of any standards program. Theoretically, the governments adopting the
standards should enforce them, and any standards program, to be effective, should incorporate substantial resources for
training, inspection and enforcement. In practice, however, governments and their regulatory agencies often come to identify
with the industries or companies that they regulate. Also, political pressures often prevent effective government enforcement.
Citizen enforcement, adopted in the U.S. in the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes has been found to be a most
effective enforcement mechanism. NGOs in the U.S. are able to hold regulators’ feet to the fire very effectively by filing suit
to enforce standards, with the award of attorney’s fees for such litigation; the very presence of citizen suit provisions enables
the NGOs to influence government enforcement policies.
RPS Aff & Neg 51
Solvency – Standards Won’t be Met

( ) It’s impossible to meet even a 10% RPS – wind power is the most likely technology and it’s unworkable
Josten, 07 – Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
(Bruce, Letter to Rep. John Dingell and Rick Boucher, 6/15,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf)
As previously stated, the Chamber opposes a federal RPS, so discussion of a target is notpossible. However, the Chamber
recentlyanalyzedthe attainability of a 10 percent RPS—astandardconsiderably lower than anycurrently beingconsidered—
andfound:(1) it would beliterally impossible to meet even that standard using a single energy solution (i.e.,
wind,photovoltaics, biomass) on its own; and (2) because an energy mix would be required to evenattempt to meet the 10
percent baseline,inconsistent renewable source capabilities from state tostate will likely result in failure.
A.Neither Wind, Photovoltaic, nor Biomass can Individually Meet a 10 Percent RPS.
In 2005, base sales of electricity from investorowned utilities (IOUs)were about3,553,139gigawatthours (GWh),2and about
501,549 GWh3of total electricity generation wasproduced using“classicallyrenewable” energy resources, i.e., solar, wind,
biomass, andgeothermal(and not hydroelectric, nuclear or socalled “clean” energysources).If IOU base sales of electricity
growatapproximately1.64% per year4relative to the year2005 base production level, then IOU base electricity production in
2020 will be about 5,052,141GWh.Requiring in 2020, for sake of argument,that 10percentof this base electricityproduction
mustcome from additional “classic renewables,” then thesesourcesmustgeneratean505,214 additional GWh of electricity
above the501,549 GWh produced from renewables in2005.
Compared with conventional powergeneration, the currentmost cost competitive“classically renewable”technology is
generation of electricity via the use of wind turbines, andthe least cost competitive “classically renewable”option is solar
power generation of electricityvia the use of photovoltaic technology.Comparing the costs and demands of
producingelectricity from wind (~ 3+¢ to 6¢ per kWh)5versus photovoltaic (~ 20¢ per kWh)6versusconventional power
generation (e.g., using natural gas, which costs ~3¢ to 4¢ per kWh)7can helpframe an understanding of the impacts of the
RPS.8
1.Wind
A typical largescale winddriven turbine has a capacity ofapproximately1.5 megawatts(MW);9in 2007, installed electric power capacity from wind
wasapproximately11,700 MW.10In all, thisresults inelectricity production ofroughly1,200 MWh of electricity production perMW of installed
capacity.Thisequalsmaximum power generation 23percentof the time over aperiod of one year, indicating that, overall, generation of electric power from
wind is highlyintermittent.Hence, there is astrong interest in developing wind power projects offshore, wherethe potential for generating electricity from wind
is more substantial than at most onshorelocations. For purposes of the calculations presented below, the projected capacity factor isassumed to be
42percent11rather than 23percent, reflecting wind technology improvements.For wind turbines to producethe additional505,214
GWhnecessary to meet a 10 percentstandardin 2020 using 1MW turbines that produce 4,500 MWh of electricity per MW
ofinstalled capacity12, one would need to put in place more than 115,0001MWwind turbines.13If the average capital cost for
electricity generation is $1194/kW14for each 1MW windturbine15, then the total capital cost of constructing about 115,000
of themwould amount to roughly$138 billion
. This figure does not include operation and maintenance costs,
whichconstitute1.5 to 2percentof the initial investment annually.16
Perhaps even more disturbing than the lofty capital cost of 115,000 wind turbines is theplacement: if the space allotted for
each 1MW wind turbine placed in the ocean comprises anarea ofroughly0.16 square miles,17then 115,000 turbines of this
size would occupy an area ofabout18,000 square miles.Incomparison, the combined area of Albermarle Sound, DelawareBay,
Pamlico Sound, Long Island Sound, Cape Cod Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, SanFrancisco Bay, Biscayne Bay, and
Buzzards Bay isonly8,500 square miles.If the 115,0001MW wind turbines were placed in a straight line about 2,000 feet
apart in the water, they wouldhave a totallength of about 43,000 miles from end to end.This is nearly four times the length
ofthe U.S. shoreline, andalmost double the entirecircumference of the earth!18
Moreover, because generation of electricity by wind power is intermittent, to providepower when it is needed(as opposed
towhen it is produced)onemusthave intermittent, multihour energy storage capacity in place.Althoughthere are technologies
that can store energy forhours, the sheer size of the storage capacity needed to hold the amount of required intermittentenergy
generatedto meet a 10 percent RPS requirementsimply does not exist.Creating suchstorage capacityremains a critical issue
that requires much more attention.Moreover, at thescale needed to meeta 10 percentRPS, the use of batteries to store
RPS Aff & Neg 52
intermittent energy, which isa current common practice, could create a broad range of hazardous waste disposal problems
inthe future.
A recent projection19indicates installed wind capacity by 2020 will be less than 50,000GWh, which is much less than the
target amount of 505,214 GWh of required renewableelectricity sales in 2020. Thisshortfall, combined with capital cost
restrictions and sitinglimitations, leads to the inevitable conclusion that wind technologywill not meet the RPS on itsown,
andcan only fulfill a small fraction of a 10 percent RPS requirementwhen mixed withother renewables.
RPS Aff & Neg 53
Solvency – Transmission Upgrades Needed

( ) RPS by itself won’t solve – legislation to increase the transmission grid is a necessary precondition to expand
renewables
D. The Great Unknown: Operational and Infrastructure Implications

Considering the major operational impacts on electric utilities is exceedingly difficult. Many of the studies discussed in Part
II provide significant caveats related to the assumptions used in developing the respective models. The outcomes of the
currently available studies are so broad that the results seem to add little more than quantified speculations, at least in terms
of making specific predictions about the implications of a national RPS. That is, the studies provide a lot of numbers to
consider, but the results indicate that the impact of a national RPS could be revolutionary or exceedingly moderate.
For instance, the study from Woods MacKenzie indicates that a national RPS would lead to such significant amounts of
renewable energy that consumers could save as much as $ 100 billion on their electric bills. n127 If this is to become a
reality, it will mean a fundamental change in how utilities operate.
Whether from wind, solar, biomass, or other renewable sources, massive amounts of renewable energy generation would
require tremendous investment in new generation facilities. n128 Some sources, like solar or wind, could even require
additional investment in additional traditional-fuel generation to support the intermittent energy sources (i.e., to provide
energy when the wind or sun is [*67] not available). n129 Furthermore, to provide renewable energy at that level, major
investments in the transmission grid would need to occur. n130 Infrastructure changes at such a high level would
fundamentally change how electricity is delivered, and thus how utilities operate.
It is not clear how quickly, if at all, major transmission infrastructure can be made available. n131 Some western states have
worked to develop a renewable-only transmission, the Frontier Line. n132 The proposed Frontier Line is a transmission line
that would run as long as 1300 miles, from Wyoming to California (through Nevada and Utah). n133 It would "leverage up to
6,000 megawatts of wind power and 6,000 megawatts of clean coal power," n134 at an estimated cost of $ 3.3 billion, with
estimated annual benefits of between $ 926 million and $ 1.7 billion annually for the area. n135
More significantly, "development of a nationwide transmission super highway" would likely be needed to satisfy major new
wind generation at a level leading to cost savings of $ 100 billion. n136 Whether related to renewable energy or not, a
national transmission superhighway would provide additional benefits, in terms of reliability and, potentially, financially.
n137 In fact, in the CapX 2020 project is one such program that is intended to help (among other things) facilitate compliance
with Minnesota's renewable energy n138 objectives. n139 The CAPX 2020 Vision Plan includes a $ 1.25 billion transmission
infrastructure project of 1620 miles of 345kV transmission lines. A CapX 2020 study concluded that the covered region,
which includes Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, "will experience specific and numerous transmission
overloads, outages, and voltage problems" if transmission additions are not made between 2005 and 2020. n140 The fact that
the need for this [*68] transmission infrastructure was clear before Minnesota's RPS was even mandatory n141 indicates
that a national RPS would likely trigger similar needs throughout the country. A national RPS would thus also require
additional, and more aggressive, legislation to facilitate transmission investment on the scale needed to satisfy the RPS goals.
n142
( ) Expanding wind power requires a massive expansion in transmission infrastructure

A transmission line to an isolated wind producing area contributes less to reliability than one embedded in a network. The
former will only be fully loaded when winds are strong, raising the cost per megawatt-hour actually carried. A new line in a
network often provides an alternative path for power if another one goes out of service, but losing a radial link to an isolated
renewable means that none of its power can reach users. There are no available estimates of additional investment required
under a wind-dominated national RPS. n88 Some local data, however, are emerging. The 10,000 MW of renewables (nearly
all wind) in Texas' 2025 RPS will require between $ 1.7 and $ 3.0 billion in new transmission. n89 As noted above, meeting
California's 2020 standard will require $ 5.7 billion of new high-voltage and substantial amounts of others. In both cases, the
investment includes both direct connections for the renewables and other construction needed to maintain reliability.
RPS Aff & Neg 54
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Reduce Coal Use

( ) RPS will only trade off with gas fired generation – won’t reduce coal use

An RPS inefficiently limits the types of generation to be used rather than constraining allowable emissions of pollutants and
GHGs. Percentage [*87] reductions in emissions over a region will not vary one-for-one with the percentage of power
produced by renewables. Both the amounts emitted and their composition depend on the types of renewables built and the
types of conventional generators they displace. As noted below, wind turbines will dominate renewable investments over at
least the medium-term, but their intermittent availability means that they will largely displace gas-fired generation that can
adjust output on short notice. Gas-fired plants emit fewer criteria pollutants and GHGs than coal-burning ones, so using
intermittent renewables to satisfy an RPS will cut emissions by less than the RPS percentage. Unlike gas-fired generators,
coal units will remain base-loaded and operating at almost all times. Among other renewables, geothermal and biomass plants
can be base-loaded, but their growth prospects appear small.
( ) A national RPS won’t significantly reduce emissions – trades off with cleaner conventional energiess

2. RPS, Emissions, and Wind

One does not need NEMS to see that a national RPS will cut carbon emissions by less than its percentage requirement - a
rough consensus is that a 10% increase in renewable output reduces them by only about 6%. n76 This occurs because
intermittently available renewables such as wind turbines (which will make up most of the renewable fleet) must be backed
by gas-fired generators whose outputs can quickly adjust to fluctuations in wind velocity. Coal-fired generators produce more
GHG per kwh hour generated, but they will be base-loaded because their output cannot be altered on short notice. Some
renewables such as biomass and geothermal can be base-loaded and will displace coal, but the wind turbines that will
dominate renewable investment primarily displace cleaner conventional energy. n77
( ) RPS won’t reduce coal consumption – trades off with natural gas
Hall & Kirkham, 7 – natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP
(Richard R. Hall and John S. Kirkham, The Enterprise Newspaper, “Coal: Like It or Not, It's Here to Stay,” 6-1-2007,
www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484) // JMP
Some point to the introduction of renewable portfolio standards as a means to reduce coal reliance and the environmental
impacts associated with coal-fired generation. Renewable portfolio standards typically require a certain level or percentage of
electricity purchased or consumed by a utility or governmental entity to be produced from renewable sources. While
renewable portfolio standards have had measured success in promoting the development of renewable energy sources, they
do not appear to have a significant effect on coal consumption. Due to price differentials, renewable portfolio standards tend
to decrease the consumption of natural gas, rather than coal. In the long run, the development of renewable energy sources
may certainly prove key to reducing global reliance on coal. However, in the short term, encouraging the development of
renewable energy sources alone does not appear to have a substantial effect on coal use or carbon dioxide emissions from the
electricity sector in the absence of other policy measures.
RPS Aff & Neg 55
A2: Environment Adv – RPS Won’t Help Environment

( ) Environmental compliance can be met with conventional plants – RPS not necessary

C. Efficiency Through Time

The principles of efficiency extend to durable investments in generation and transmission. Intertemporal efficiency entails the
choice of investments that produce a utility's planned output at the lowest cost, discounted to the present for comparability
with alternative projects. Any chosen project must also account for expected future policy constraints such as more stringent
air quality standards, and possibly GHG abatement or sequestration. Different investments will be optimal for differently
situated utilities. Some might choose gas-fired units whose emissions are easier to control but whose fuel prices are less
stable. [*88] Others might choose coal-burning technologies in the expectation that satisfactory abatement or sequestration
technologies will be available at reasonable cost. Still others might invest in demand management. The utility's optimal
choice will depend on expectations of the future and on the legacy generation the utility is bringing forward.
Renewables have been available as supply options for some time, but most utilities appear to have determined that they can
meet their service obligations and remain in environmental compliance by investing in conventional plants and demand
management. In states with RPS, utilities have generally chosen to make the required compliance investments in renewables,
but not to build renewables beyond those amounts. A national RPS affects both those states with existing programs and those
without. In the latter it forces the costly modification of supply plans that utilities expect will be in compliance with air
quality and GHG regulations. The fact that renewables have lower emissions cannot by itself justify a requirement that they
be built in lieu of conventional generation. Economic efficiency means production at least cost, where costs reflect the market
values of all relevant resources. Whether lower allowable concentrations of pollutants or emissions of GHG are warranted is
properly the subject of rulemakings like those that have set currently standards, rather than an ad hoc regulation like RPS.
( ) National RPS won’t help environment – several reasons

We begin with data on renewables which suggests that a federal RPS will bring little diversity in generation resources and
few environmental benefits. The next sections examine advocates' claims for it, finding them inadequate at best. As
environmental policy, an RPS is inefficient by every economic standard. It is a costly measure whose effects on emissions are
uncertain, difficult to integrate with existing environmental regulation, and needlessly disruptive of generation investments
intended to comply with anticipated emissions rules. Other purported consequences are also questionable. As macroeconomic
or industrial policy, a national RPS cannot possibly "create" net increases in employment and rural areas that it will
"revitalize" seldom need the help. Claims that it is necessary to stimulate reductions in production cost lose their force in a
global economy, as do expectations that it will position the U.S. to dominate the world renewables market. Rather than
facilitating risk management, standard renewables contracts only transfer it from utilities to captive customers. National
security is better advanced through direct policies instead of compulsory investment in renewables.
( ) RPS reverses standards and institutions to efficiently control pollution

VII. Conclusions
A national RPS has appeared in legislation or proposed legislation eighteen times since 1997. n129 Its continuing appeal is more the result of its rhetorical force and political
expediency than its likely consequences for electricity and the environment. RPS
at any level reverses decades of hard-won progress in determining
standards and developing institutions for the efficient control of criteria pollutants. It is also inefficient as GHG policy. It
concentrates on using a certain technology rather than directly addressing emissions, and its alternatives in a comprehensive GHG policy have
yet to be spelled out. Current trends suggest that wind power will constitute the great majority of compliance investments, but ensuring the reliability of a wind-dependent grid will
require major transmission investments and continued reliance on conventional generation. Biomass and geothermal power have not yet passed the market test and solar power is a
negligible presence, leaving wind to power any renewable future. Wind's intermittency implies that it will primarily displace gas-fired generation, while coal plants that pollute
more heavily remain base-loaded. Among the few NEMS forecasts we can accept with confidence are its projections of substantial new investment in coal, gas, and possibly
nuclear generation to keep up with even conservative estimates of load growth.
RPS Aff & Neg 56
A2: Terrorism Adv – Threat Declining / No Spillover

( ) Terrorism is declining now – Al Qaeda will lose
Telegraph, 8 (Alex Spillius, “Al-Qa'eda defeat in sight, says US anti-terrorism official,” 5-15-2008,
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1960245/Al-Qa'eda-defeat-in-sight,-says-US-anti-terrorism-
official.html) // JMP
A senior American counter-terrorism official has declared that the demise of al-Qa'eda is in sight because its failure to adapt
its violent ideology and tactics has provoked growing dissent across the Islamic world.
The uprising by Sunni tribes against al-Qa'eda in Iraq, protests in northern Africa against suicide bombings and dissent from
clerics and former terrorists have put the group's leadership on the defensive as never before, said the official.
"If al-Qa'eda maintains its current state of play of attacking civilians and Muslims, and continuing to not change its philosophy, it will start to fizzle." He said the end of the movement as a global threat was
"visible" and "foreseeable", in contrast to previous assumptions that it would last for generations. Acknowledging that the threat of a major al-Qa'eda attack remains significant, his remarks reflected a quiet
confidence within the George W Bush administration that one of its major goals will be achieved before too long.
White House officials are beginning
Declarations of triumph have been precluded by the mockery that followed the president's "Mission Accomplished" statement in Iraq in 2003. But
to express confidence that al-Qa'eda will be defeated. Juan Carlos Zarate, the White House's deputy national security adviser on terrorism, said in a recent speech:
"There has been a growing rejection of the al-Qa'eda programme and message.
"We know that all of this matters to al-Qa'eda and that its senior leadership is sensitive to the perceived legitimacy of both their actions and their ideology."
( ) Lack of action on climate doesn’t cause allied non-cooperation on other issues

Empirical Examples
Are there any empirical examples of separate reputations that fuse as a result of violations across issue domains? In thinking about the legitimation problems of the U.S. government under the present
has the U.S. failure to make and its willingness to break its commitments in multiple arenas had consequences for
administration,
other arenas? One possibility is that when the George W. Bush administration signaled that the administration was opposed to various multilateral policy initiatives across a range of unrelated
substantive domains—climate change (March 2001), small arms (July 2001), anti-ballistic missiles (December 2001), steel tariffs (March 2002), the International Criminal Court (May 2002), among other
issues --and would no longer abide by previous commitments, then the segmented reputations may well have fused into a more general impression of the United States that had cross-issue consequences.
evidence of foot-dragging and non-cooperation by U.S. allies is mixed, and may be difficult to link back to non-
However,
cooperation on secondary issues like climate change. Given the support offered by America’s allies in Afghanistan and on the
war on terror, including covert support for U.S. policy in Iraq, one could argue that these actions have not had major consequences. Denial of use of
Turkish territory for the war in Iraq, coupled with opposition by several NATO allies to troop deployments and reconstruction assistance in Iraq, indicate the U.S. may indeed be incurring some higher
costs/worse bargains than would have the case had it been a better partner on other issues. It is too soon to make a definitive judgment on this question.
Is there something about the current environment that may empower other actors to punish the U.S. more for failure to honor commitments, through foot-dragging on issues the U.S. cares about and for which
powerful states generally
going it alone is simply not a viable option? The bargaining leverage of other states in an era of interdependence would seem to be improved in some ways. That said,
may find it easier to break promises without significant consequences since others may find it too costly to punish the
violator or to engage in self-abnegating behavior that denies themselves future benefits because of earlier rounds of defection
(Downs and Jones 2002).
( ) Concessions don’t spur benefits from others

Ideational and Non-rational Elements of Reputation and Prestige

Another interesting question emerges from this assessment of Japanese and German behavior. Are their actions and motives
materially rational? Jeff Legro’s recent book on great power grand strategies suggests they reflect what ideas decision-makers
believe best serve the national interest.9 While these ideas may start out as instrumentally beneficial, they become embedded
over time and serve as standard operating procedures to facilitate decision-making, even becoming ends in themselves (Legro
2005, 7). As Keohane argued in his work on diffuse reciprocity, "the actor making a short-run sacrifice does not know that
future benefits will flow from comparable restraint by others, and can hardly be regarded as making precise calculations of
expected utility" (Keohane 1982, 342).
RPS Aff & Neg 57
A2: Terrorism Adv – Cooperation Now

( ) Counter-terror coop already increasing with Europe – disagreements on other issues are irrelevant
Kerber, 7 – retired last year from the Foreign Service of the U.S. Department of State with 26 years of service
(Frank Kerber, his last posting was at the U.S. Mission to the European Union in Brussels from 2002-2006 where he was the Counselor for
Justice and Home Affairs and the point-person on cooperation with the EU on counter terrorism, American Diplomacy, “U.S.-E.U.
Cooperation on Counter Terrorism,” 6-5-2007, www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2007/0406/kerb/kerber_useu.html) // JMP
cooperation between the United States and the EU on

In the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), the so-called Third Pillar of competencies within the European Union (EU),
law enforcement and counter terrorism has both broadened and deepened since 9/11. Despite some high-profile political and
trade differences in recent years, the fact is that our common interest in combating global terrorism has enabled us to achieve
a series of notable successes in forging working law enforcement relationships with the EU.
( ) U.S.-EU terror cooperation strong now and will be expanded
Kerber, 7 – retired last year from the Foreign Service of the U.S. Department of State with 26 years of service
(Frank Kerber, his last posting was at the U.S. Mission to the European Union in Brussels from 2002-2006 where he was the Counselor for
Justice and Home Affairs and the point-person on cooperation with the EU on counter terrorism, American Diplomacy, “U.S.-E.U.
Cooperation on Counter Terrorism,” 6-5-2007, www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2007/0406/kerb/kerber_useu.html) // JMP
Highlights of U.S.-EU cooperation

since 9/11 there have been significant accomplishments in U.S.-EU cooperation in combating terrorism and
Despite these obstacles,
organized crime. These can be divided into three broad areas: investigating and prosecuting terrorism, sharing national
security information, and cooperation on border and homeland security.
Investigating and prosecuting terrorism
At the annual U.S.-EU summit in June of 2003, the United States signed unprecedented agreements with the EU on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA). These were the first agreements ever signed
by the EU with a third country. The fact that these complicated agreements were negotiated in only eight months speaks to the strong political will on both sides to work together following 9/11. Among the key
features of these agreements is the requirement for each side to identify bank accounts of suspected terrorists in each other's territory. The agreements permit the establishment of joint task forces under the
direction of the United States or an EU Member State consisting of personnel drawn from different countries. And the agreements allow for the taking of evidence in each other's territory by means of video-
conferencing, thereby reducing the time required to obtain evidence. These agreements clearly provide the “value added” sought by the United States over existing bilateral extradition and MLA agreements. To
reconcile existing bilateral agreements with the new U.S.-EU agreements, it was necessary to go back to each EU Member State and negotiate “blended” agreements that meld or update the articles of the
existing bilateral agreements. This process was concluded in spring 2006 and the entire package of 52 agreements sent to Congress in fall 2006 for ratification. (The package includes the two U.S.-EU
agreements and the 50 new bilateral agreements—two for each of the then 25 Member States). It is hoped that the package will be ratified and the agreements operational by the U.S.-EU summit in June.
The United States is working to establish and broaden working relationships with EU law enforcement and judicial institutions. In
recent years we concluded two cooperative agreements with Europol that permit the sharing of data, including personal data, for the purpose of detecting and investigating crimes, including terrorism. We have
assigned Secret Service and FBI agents to work directly with Europol in The Hague. The ATF (the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agency) is also interested in stationing an agent at Europol. We regularly
participate in seminars and conferences on terrorism at Europol, and have brought a Europol analyst to FBI headquarters in Washington for extended periods of time to work on terrorism-related projects. For its
part, the EU has stationed two Europol agents at its Commission offices in Washington to work with U.S. law enforcement agencies. Finally, we recently signed a cooperation agreement with Eurojust in The
Hague. This relatively new agency assists in the prosecution of cases involving two or more EU Member States.
Sharing of national security information
The United States has been working with the EU to explore ways of sharing national security information with EU analysts as well as investigators and prosecutors without either jeopardizing the information
or compromising the rights of individuals. As noted above, this is a difficult area for cooperation and will take considerably more work before a smooth and regular exchange of such information becomes
possible.
Border and homeland security
After extended and difficult negotiations, the United States reached agreement with the EU on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. PNR is personal passenger data collected by the airlines. This
was a significant achievement given EU policies on personal data protection described above. Agreement was reached on the use of biometrics to secure travel documents such as passports. We jointly created
and fund a database of lost and stolen passports housed at Interpol in Lyon. The agreement on the Container Security Initiative addresses the security of shipping containers coming from the EU or transiting its
territory en route to U.S. ports. Finally, the United States is seeking ways to cooperate with the new EU border agency Frontex, based in Warsaw. We have a robust and growing dialogue on border and
homeland security issues, including frequent visits to Brussels by the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security and the director of the FBI.
Conclusion
It is evident that U.S.-EU cooperation provides a sterling example of working cooperatively to ensure our collective security.
What the United States does with the EU in the fight against crime and terrorism, and what the EU does internally to arm itself for this fight, have a global impact since these are phenomena not bounded by
The policy of the United States is to continue this important effort through enhancing existing arrangements as well as
national borders.
exploring new opportunities to increase our cooperation.
( ) Relations are improving now
Rackowski, March 3rd – senior fellow for EU affairs at the Transatlantic Institute
(Daniel, EU Observer, “A new era for EU-US relations?” 3-3-2008, http://euobserver.com/9/25748) // JMP
Recent polls conducted by the German Marshall Fund, the Bertelsmann Foundation and the University of Siena all
underscore these notions: Americans and Europeans are increasingly reconciling their threat perceptions. As a corollary, and
while support for the US in general remains weak amongst the general public in EU countries, an ever-closer transatlantic
cooperation is being desired in Brussels and European capitals.
RPS Aff & Neg 58
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Internal Links Ans

( ) Economic power is not zero-sum
Julius, 5 – Chairman of Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs
(Deanne, Harvard International Review, “US Economic Power,” Winter 2005, vol.26, no.4, p.14-18) // JMP
What is Economic Power?

The very concept of economic power is more nebulous than that of military power. The ultimate test of military power-war-is
the classic zero-sum game. If Country A has a more powerful military than Country B, then Country A is likely to win in a
war between the two. And in the lead-up to war, Country B is more likely to back down. So having military superiority is
clearly n good thing.
There is no parallel in economics because economic competition is not a zero-sum game. Country A may be richer than
Country B, but both will be better off through trade if the other grows richer. In the general case of a free-trade agreement
between a rich and a poor country (say, the United States and Mexico), the poor country gains more. Similarly, in joining a
common currency such as the euro, the poorer countries will benefit more than the richer ones. European experience since
1999 supports this: Portugal and Greece have grown faster than their historical rates while Germany and France have grown
more slowly. But on the economic battlefield, the success of one country does not imply the defeat of another.
( ) Military strength is not necessarily connected to economic power
Julius, 5 – Chairman of Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs
(Deanne, Harvard International Review, “US Economic Power,” Winter 2005, vol.26, no.4, p.14-18) // JMP
The concept of national power has both military and economic dimensions. While the two are related, they can also exist
independently. The Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s, for example, was a military superpower but economically
weak and isolated, while Japan during the 1980s was an economic superpower with a weak military. Much attention has been
devoted, on both sides of the Atlantic, to the military aspect of US power and how it is exercised both in unilateral action and
through alliances like NATO. By contrast, the question of economic power has been relatively neglected, perhaps because it
is more difficult to define and measure. This article is an attempt to remedy the imbalance and provoke further discussion on
the emerging shape of the world economy and the ability of the United States to influence it.
RPS Aff & Neg 59
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Will Push Jobs Overseas

( ) A federal RPS will jack up energy prices and push manufacturing jobs abroad
Yeatman & Ebell, 7 – * Energy Policy Analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ** Director of Energy and Global
Warming Policy at CEI
(William Yeatman and Myron Ebell, “Gone with the Wind: Renewable Portfolio Standard Threatens Consumers and the
Industrial Heartland,” 6-12-2007, No. 114, http://cei.org/pdf/5982.pdf) // JMP
As part of comprehensive legislation to raise energy prices, Congress is once again considering proposals to set a renewable
portfolio standard (RPS) for electric utilities. Such a requirement would raise electricity prices for consumers and industry,
but would negatively affect some regions of the country much more than others. As the Bush Administration Statement of
Policy of June 12, 2007 correctly states:
A limited Federal RPS would result in higher electricity costs for consumers in areas where renewable resources are less
available and could place new strains on electricity reliability needs.
Although 21 states have already passed a renewable portfolio standard, this is not an argument in favor of a federal RPS.
These RPS states tend to have a much higher potential for renewable energy, less energy-intensive manufacturing, or both. In
the RPS states that do have considerable manufacturing, the effect of adopting an RPS has been to raise electricity prices and
push manufacturing into states or other countries with lower electricity prices. Therefore, a federal RPS would require states
with low electricity prices and proportionately lower renewable energy potential, such as is found in our industrial heartland,
to raise electricity prices to a level that would force their industries to migrate overseas to countries with cheaper energy rates
and no renewable portfolio standards.
( ) A federal RPS will drive manufacturing jobs overseas
Regions With a Comparative Disadvantage. By and large, states that have adopted renewable portfolio standards were
already burdened with high electricity rates; most of them also have high wind potential.
But not every state suffers high electricity costs, nor is every state endowed with windy plains. For example, the Southeast is
a region where consumers enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the land, largely due to reliance on coal-fired
generation. On the other hand, the Southeast has the least wind potential in the country, closely followed by the Midwest.
The impact of a federal RPS on manufacturing regions with low electricity costs and low wind energy potential promises to
raise electricity rates considerably. (Map 4)
According to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis’ industry specialization index, which measures
states’ level of industrial specialization, the Upper Midwest and the Southeast are more dependent on the manufacturing
sector than other regions. Although manufacturers have moved their factories from states with high electricity costs to these
states with lower electricity costs, a federal RPS would then tend to drive these industries to foreign countries with lower
electricity rates.
( ) A federal RPS will undermine many manufacturing industries
Conclusion. Depending on the current cost of electricity and renewable energy potential, the economic impact of a federal
renewable portfolio standard is modest in some regions of the country and dire in others. State legislators have weighed
the economic costs and benefits of an RPS in their states and acted accordingly. Congress should not impose a federal
renewable portfolio standard on those states that have correctly judged that such a mandate would raise their consumer
electricity prices and destroy jobs in energy-intensive industries. While Members of Congress from some regions of the
country may be tempted to economically disadvantage states in other regions by voting for a federal RPS, they should
recognize that it is not in the nation’s interest to undermine any of our manufacturing industries.
RPS Aff & Neg 60
A2: Competitiveness Adv – RPS Won’t Increase Competitiveness

( ) RPS not necessary for U.S. competitiveness and renewable are not linked to security and defense
B "Infant industries" and technology development

If renewables are indeed the future, some advocates think that a national RPS can both hasten its arrival and mitigate its shocks. Their claims are analogues of those long made by
seekers of "infant industry" tariff protection from foreign competition. Among the variants are: (1) If a national RPS brings large and dependable orders, renewables manufacturers
will invest in high-capacity plants with low production costs; (2) Those costs will be high when renewables are a novelty, but an RPS will bring added production experience that
will lower them; (3) As operating experience accumulates, existing renewables will be used more efficiently and innovators will devise further design and operating improvements;
and (4) With a national RPS, the U.S. can outpace other nations and possibly dominate world renewables manufacture, benefiting both workers and capitalists.
There is no evidence that economies of scale are more extensive in renewables than in comparable goods, and they are clearly not a "natural monopoly" where a single producer
serves the entire market most efficiently.47 Most
manufacturing industries support a number of U.S. producers, and markets for many are
expanding to cover the world.48 Both national and international competition will exist with or without a federal RPS. The
existing renewables industry has also had few problems accessing the capital markets. New technologies are attracting
venture capital and firms as large as General Electric are using their own cash, all without a national RPS. There are also no important
economies of scale outside of manufacturing. Engineering and construction are within the expertise of numerous contractors, most quite small relative to their markets.
All competitive producers face pressure to reduce costs, with or without mandatory purchase requirements like an RPS. Competition to innovate comes from both
other renewables makers and producers of non-renewables that are substitutes for some buyers. An RPS cuts the degree of pressure that
comes from the latter by foreclosing them from part of the market. Producers also reduce costs by observing and imitating successful practices of others, including foreigners. A
growing market in intellectual property allows Americans access to new technologies without duplicating the research of
others.49 Innovations extend beyond technology to new operating practices and contract provisions which can also be imitated.
Some see RPS as a tactic that can make the U.S. the world's leading renewables producer, possibly in response to the alleged growth of a governmentally guided renewables
industry in Japan.50 Others claim that a large percentage of the jobs created by an RPS will be in exporting renewables.51 Another author is concerned about a drop in the U.S.
share of global solar collector production from 44 percent in 1996 to below 9 percent in 2005.52 The simple fact is that the case for free trade in renewables is no different from the
case for free trade in anything else.53 If Americans are relatively more productive in renewables they will supply other nations. If not, someone else will and Americans will
produce other goods and services.54 More
realistically, the U.S. will both import and export renewables. A declining share of solar
production probably indicates that others should do the job (or possibly that solar is overrated). International trade in renewables raises
few security issues because they are manufactured in so many nations and because they embody few if any materials
essential for national defense.
( ) Renewables not linked to security – they don’t impact competitiveness

Others hope that a national RPS can bring U.S. domination of the world's renewables markets. One advocate sees it as a
necessary response to renewables-based export policies that are taking shape in Japan. n39 He believes Americans must emulate the
cooperation between Japan's manufacturers and government planners, a vision of invincibility from the 1970s and 1980s that died with the recession and banking crisis of the
1990s. n40 Experience
gives little reason to expect that such concerted policy formation can make either nation dominant. The
U.S. will continue to export those in which it has a cost [*91] advantage and import those in which it does not. n41 International
trade in renewables raises no security issues, since they are ordinary manufactures that no nation or group can credibly
monopolize.
( ) RPS won’t boost jobs or export dominance
VII Conclusions
Backers of a national RPS have produced an impressive list of objectives. For every one of them an RPS will at best be an inefficient policy, and at worst it will be outrightly
pernicious. As environmental policy, it violates every economic principle of efficient emissions control, including those that are embodied in
existing programs to regulate criteria pollutants. A national RPS will impact emissions controlled under existing programs, but supporters have been silent on how to integrate it
with existing policy. Of course, even if a national RPS is a costly source of environmental benefits it might produce others that would tip the cost-benefit balance in its favor.
Unfortunately, it does the opposite. Some
of the claimed benefits are fallacies from macroeconomics (job creation in a non-depression
economy) and international economics (the importance of self-sufficiency and export dominance). Others reflect personal
preferences, like the hope that renewables will reverse rural outmigration and bring communal ownership. Renewables are but one of
many possible tools for fuel risk management, and fixed-price renewables contracts do little more than transfer risk from utilities to captive customers. "Energy independence" is
almost entirely an oil-related problem, and "national security" is more effectively ensured by hardening vulnerable assets than by building renewables.
RPS Aff & Neg 61
A2: Competitiveness Adv – Hegemony Ans

( ) The world no longer needs American leadership – they grown accustomed to a reduced U.S. role
Schwenninger, 7 (Sherle R., Direction of the New America Foundation’s Fellow Program, The Nation, “Undebated
Challenges,” from the November 19, 2007 issue, www.thenation.com/doc/20071119/schwenninger) // JMP
As important, the Democrats seem to assume that the world so wants and needs American leadership that it is there for the
taking. But as Anatol Lieven suggests, the overarching question facing American foreign policy is not how to restore
leadership but how to adjust to an increasingly multipolar world that may be less open to any one power's primacy. Russia,
China, India, South Korea, a host of South American countries and even the pro-American powers belonging to the European
Union have all grown accustomed to a world in which the United States has been preoccupied with Iraq and in which they
have had more freedom to shape the politics and economies of their regions. Much of the world has done just fine without
active American leadership during this time and thus may not be as receptive to a reassertion of US leadership, as most of the
Democratic candidates seem to suggest.
Indeed, the leading Democratic candidates have failed to grasp one of the central lessons of the Bush era: the world does not
need strong US leadership so much as it needs constructive US participation as a great power. On global climate change, on
AIDS in Africa, on engaging North Korea, to mention just a few issues, other powers and new coalitions of transnational
NGOs and intergovernmental agencies--as well as long-established ones such as the United Nations--got there just as quickly
as and in some cases before the United States, and they now have an ownership stake in these issues and well-developed
views about how they should be solved. They would welcome the United States to the fold, but they would not cede all
leadership to Washington.
( ) U.S. hegemony will remain strong – predictions of decline are delusionary
Stephens, 8 (Bret, Wall Street Journal Asia, “Marinating in ‘Decline’” 2-6-2008, p.14, Proquest) // JMP
In 1788, Massachusetts playwright Mercy Otis Warren took one look at the (unratified) U.S. Constitution and declared that "we shall soon see this country rushing into the extremes of confusion and violence."
This, roughly, is the origin of American declinism -- and it's been downhill ever since.
A couple centuries later, an international relations theorist at Yale named Paul Kennedy sought to explain the decline of great powers in terms of a ratio between military commitments and economic resources.
The Reagan military buildup and the deficits that went with it, he warned, had brought the United States to the point of "imperial overstretch." Not quite. Within a few years, the Soviet Union collapsed, Europe
and Japan (with no military burdens to speak of) entered a long period of economic stagnation, and the U.S. consolidated its position as the world's only true superpower.
Declinism is again in vogue. "America's unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order," writes
Parag Khanna in a recent New York Times Magazine cover story titled, cheerfully, "Who Shrank the Superpower?" In Sunday's Los Angeles Times, Fred Kaplan observes that "the United States can no longer
take obeisance for granted." Mr. Kaplan's new book, "Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power," sounds just a bit derivative of Nancy Soderberg's "The Superpower Myth"
(2005), Roger Burbach's "Imperial Overstretch" (2004) and Charles Kupchan's "The End of the American Era" (2003).
American "decline" is the foreign-policy equivalent of homelessness: The media only take note of it when a Republican is in
the White House. Broadly speaking, declinists divide between those who merely accept America's supposed diminishment as a fact of life, and those who celebrate it as long overdue. As for the
causes of decline, however, they tend to agree: declining (relative) economic muscle, due in large part to the rise of China; an overextended military bogged down
needlessly in Iraq and endlessly in Afghanistan; the declining value of America's "brand" on account of Bush administration policies on detention, pre-emption,
terrorism, global warming -- you name it.
Yet each of these assumptions collapses on a moment's inspection. In his 2006 book "Uberpower," German writer Josef Joffe makes the following back-of-the-
envelope calculation: "Assume that the Chinese economy keeps growing indefinitely at a rate of seven percent, the average of the past decade (for which history knows of no example). . . . At that rate,
China's GDP would double every decade, reaching parity with today's United States ($12 trillion) in thirty years. But the U.S.
economy is not frozen into immobility. By then, the United States, growing at its long-term rate of 2.5 percent, would stand at
$25 trillion."
Now take military expenditures. Monday, the administration released its budget proposal for 2009, which includes $515.4 billion for the regular defense budget. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this would be the
largest defense appropriation since World War II. Yet it amounts to about 4% of GDP, as compared to 14% during the Korean War, 9.5% during the Vietnam War and 6% in the Reagan administration.
Throw in the Iraq and Afghanistan supplementals, and total projected defense spending is still only 4.5% of GDP -- an easily
afforded sum even by Prof. Kennedy's terms.
Finally there is the issue of our allegedly squandered prestige in the world. There is no doubt America's "popularity," as measured by various global opinion surveys, has fallen
in recent years. What's striking, however, is how little of this has mattered in terms of the domestic political choices of other
countries or the consequences for the U.S.
In the immediate aftermath of the Iraq War, nearly every government that joined President Bush's "coalition of the willing" -- Australia, Great Britain, Denmark and Japan -- was returned to power. France's
Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, the war's two most vocal opponents, were cashiered for two candidates who campaigned explicitly on a pro-American agenda. The same happened in South
Korea, where the unapologetically anti-American President Roh Moo-hyun has been replaced by the unapologetically pro-American Lee Myung-bak. Italy's equally unapologetic pro-American Silvio
Berlusconi seems set to return to office after a brief holiday.
None of this is to say that perceptions about America play a decisive role in the politics of most other countries. It is to say that anti-Americanism, like illegal immigration, is fool's gold politics. Nicolas
Sarkozy and Angela Merkel were not installed in office principally to mend relations with Washington. But to the extent that both seek to liberalize their economies, or strengthen NATO, or take a responsible
position vis-a-vis Iran, it brings them closer to Washington's way of thinking.
Meanwhile, McDonald's -- the icon of everything anti-Americans detest about the U.S. -- is doing a booming business overseas even as sales in the U.S. flatlined last year. Another icon, Boeing, is having no
trouble booking orders (meeting them is another matter) for its new 787 Dreamliner to such customers as Spain's AirEuropa and Bahrain's Gulf Air. The quintessentially American film, "National Treasure," has
earned nearly half its gross revenue -- about $160 million -- in foreign ticket sales since its release in late December. So much for America's loss of "soft power."
Happily for Mr. Kaplan, I look forward to receiving his forthcoming book. I'll put it right up there on the shelf with another
favorite: "19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots." I'm guessing it will fetch a price
on eBay.
RPS Aff & Neg 62
States CP – 1NC
( ) States can empirically develop effective RPSs – a federal standard will undercut those programs and drive up
energy costs
Kranenburg, 8 – director, business development for the Edison Electric Institute

(Roger, Power, “One-size RPS does not fit all,” January 2008, vol. 152, no. 1, EBSCO) // JMP
The U.S. Congress continues to debate proposals that would mandate that a set amount of the nation's electricity come from
renewable energy sources such as wind, the sun, or biomass. These discussions about adopting a nationwide renewable
portfolio standard (RPS) raise significant concerns for power providers and customers alike.
Backers of a one-size-fits-all federal RPS believe it to be an essential component of a broad national energy strategy to
address global climate change, improve air quality, and lower electricity price volatility. But in reality, a national RPS could
disrupt existing state renewable energy programs and put added pressure on electricity prices and reliability.
Impact on state programs
States are moving forward with their own programs to promote renewable energy sources. As of September 2007, 24 states
and the District of Columbia had established an RPS. Four other states had nonbinding goals for adopting renewables, and 48
states now support programs that offer consumers incentives, grants, loans, or rebates to use renewable energy resources.
Each state's RPS plan includes carefully considered timetables and targets based upon its own unique circumstances and
available energy sources. A federal RPS that imposes different targets and timetables could undercut or preempt those efforts.
This would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renewable mandates even further for electricity suppliers and
consumers in those states.
Even among states that have an RPS, all have chosen to add energy sources unique to their areas, such as geothermal power,
which are not included in the broad-sweeping federal RPS proposals. Many state programs also include technologies such as
fuel cells, as well as alternative means of compliance such as energy-efficiency programs, which are not recognized in the
federal plans.
Higher power costs
Finally, not all regions of the country have abundant renewable energy sources that they can turn to for generating electricity.
The cost for states in these regions to comply with a federal RPS could be high, because many of the retail electric suppliers
in these areas will not be able to meet an RPS requirement through their own generation. They will be required to purchase
higher-cost renewable energy from other suppliers or purchase renewable energy credits.
Thus a nationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers in states with little or no
renewable resources to the federal government or states where renewables happen to be more abundant.
A federal RPS would also mean higher costs due to the need to build high-voltage electric transmission lines. Renewable
energy facilities, especially wind farms, are usually located in remote areas. To deliver their electricity to the populated areas
where it is needed, transmission lines would need to be built. To do so will cost approximately $1 million to $3 million per
mile.
Most renewable energy sources are intermittent, meaning they do not generate power all the time. Consequently,
conventional power plants (most likely fueled by natural gas) need to be built to support them, which accounts for costs in
addition to the cost of building the renewable energy facilities.
RPS Aff & Neg 63
States CP – Modeled by the USFG

( ) The counterplan will be modeled by the federal government
Kammen, 8 – professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley
(Daniel M., San Francisco Chronicle, “Dan Kammen: Clean energy and America's future,” 5-18-2008,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/IN3R10MGSK.DTL) // JMP
The central challenge of the 21st century will be to replace the vast fossil-fuel infrastructure with a new economy based on
low-carbon technologies. The issue on the table is the need to finance clean energy research programs and to build markets
where low-carbon technologies are rewarded. In other words, we must begin to price pollution.
Courageous experiments can form the basis of needed federal legislation and leadership. The Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006 (AB32) here in California is an example. The Midwest is developing what promises to be an aggressive policy in a
region with exceptional wind and biofuel resources.
RPS Aff & Neg 64
States CP – States Solve Better than National RPS

( ) States are better suited to expand renewable – a federal one-size-fits-all RPS will fail
Ralls, 6 – Senior Regulatory Counsel at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(Mary Ann, Energy Law Journal, “Congress Got it Right: There’s No Need to Mandate Renewable Portfolio Standards,” Vol.
27, no. 2, p.451, Proquest) // JMP
Proponents of S. Amdt. 791 argued that the non-federal piecemeal approach would not support the renewables market. They
contended that the current approach to RPS is haphazard in that each state adopts its own and a strong national standard
would enable the industry to focus on meeting one standard.36 But would a federal RPS really result in a strong national
renewable market? States, opponents asserted, were much better positioned to determine appropriate fuels, associated costs,
consumer protections, and requirements to meet environmental regulations, all of which could be achieved without a highly
intrusive mandate from the Federal Government into areas that typically are left to the states.37 Moreover, the economic
reality of a national RPS militates against a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Utilities located in states without sufficient eligible
renewables would have to purchase credits or be penalized monies that would go via the SREAP into the coffers of the states
with substantial renewable resources and technologies.38
( ) States solve best – they are better situated to implement effective RPSs
Finally, many opponents of a national RPS argue that it is unnecessary n83 to have a national plan because state and regional
initiatives are already handling the issue in regions where it is appropriate and the states, individually or regionally, are better
situated to implement plans that account for regional differences. n84 For example, in the case of the Proposed RPS, a major
complaint is that a "one-size-fits-all Federal mandate does not take into account the specific energy and economic needs of
individual States by requiring that 15 percent of retail electricity sales be generated from specific renewable resources which
are not prevalent" in all regions. n85 Although there are arguably benefits that a national plan can achieve that individual
state plans cannot, n86 as discussed in Part II.B, many state plans are already well established and effective.
( ) States are best – they can incorporate design elements from other regions
F. Flexibility in Learning from Others

States, municipalities, and utilities that are considering adopting a renewable program are best served if they have the ability
to incorporate elements of others' designs that will work for their regions, their citizens, and their consumers. One such
example of this process is a report published in 2001 by the Maryland Public Service Commission, assessing the feasibility of
a Maryland RPS, which examined design elements and how existing state programs managed them.122 Similarly, in 2002,
the Florida Public Service Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection held a series of workshops and
issued a report on the use of renewable resources within Florida.123 The Florida Report also examined existing state
initiatives that Florida could adopt.124 Incorporating best practices is essential in crafting a program that promotes renewable
energy in a cost-effective and reliable manner. In addition to addressing costs and transmission constraints, states,
municipalities, and utilities designing renewable programs should consider the down-side of carve-outs for more expensive
technologies.125 Likewise, purchasing out-of-state renewable generation (as is permitted under Connecticut's plan) or RECs
when they cost less than in-state resources are ways to support the environmental benefits of renewable energy while keeping
costs to consumers down.126
RPS Aff & Neg 65
States CP – A2: Federal RPS Key

( ) A federal RPS lacks the necessary flexibility to effectively expand renewables
IV. FLEXIBLE RENEWABLE PROGRAMS ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO REALIZE THE BENEFITS FROM RENEWABLES THAN A MANDATED RPS
Congressional efforts to impose a mandated RPS contained little opportunity for local variances, or for the flexibility or
reconsideration that are essential components in furthering renewable goals while meeting the country's power supply needs
in a cost-effective and reliable manner. As discussed supra at Part II, the debates surrounding S. Amdt. 791 highlighted this shortcoming in that RPS proposal.
Fortunately, the amendments Congress enacted to Title I of PURPA respecting fuel diversity did not suffer from the same problem.82
Flexibility means that elements of a renewable program can be revised if necessary. Renewable programs should be designed to be flexible in
order to balance conservation and environmental benefits against associated costs and reliability concerns. Flexibility is important because programs
oftentimes need to be revised to maintain this balance and offer workable solutions for consumers. A RPS or any renewable program
should promote energy efficiency and conservation in the context of obtaining affordable and reliable power. Flexibility at the state, local, and utility levels is
essential in establishing RPSs or renewable programs that foster these same goals. Those who are implementing the programs must be able to
review or reconsider elements as a means of fulfilling the purpose of renewables while safeguarding the need for safe, reliable, and affordable power.
Renewable advocates have been urging flexibility in designing renewable programs for years. In 2001, the Texas RPS was touted as a success in that it demonstrated that a RPS, if
designed properly, can deliver a "low-cost, flexible, and effective support mechanism for renewable energy."83 Moreover, an analysis of state programs undertaken in 2001
concluded that state experiences showed that "an RPS can be ineffective unless careful attention is given to the details of the RPS design."84 It
is essential to design a
renewable standard or goal that incorporates many separate elements including structure, size, administration, policy goals,
resource eligibility, production targets, and coordination with other policies such as financial incentives, and most
importantly, the flexibility to reassess and refine all of the above.85 The congressional debate of S. Amdt. 791 focused on whether or not elements of
the proposed RPS would prove too intractable concerning factors such as reliability, costs, and eligible renewable sources to ensure its own effectiveness. It is often said "the devil
is in the details," which is precisely the reason why renewable programs should be left to those who understand the mechanics of obtaining cleaner power that is also reliable and
cost-effective.
( ) A federal RPS will fail – it tries to create a market for too few renewables that are not available in all regions.
This makes individual State RPSs comparatively better
D. Flexibility in Choosing Eligible Renewable Sources
Eligible fuel sources constituted a third bone of contention in the debate of S. Amdt. 791. As discussed supra at Part II, advocates of a broader list argued that since
no one
resource/fuel is prevalent and available in every single region, state, or utility service area, a successful renewable program
would encompass whatever was there, including hydroelectric, nuclear, and municipal waste.103 Proponents of a narrow list
asserted that the purpose of a federal RPS was to incentivize a market for new renewables, which would succeed only if eligibility were
limited to less prevalent technologies such as photovoltaics, solar, and wind.104 What these proponents either failed or refused to grasp is that, with this
significant range of natural resource diversity, a federal market (even with congressional support) is not practicable. A federal
market is not practicable because utilities in regions with less abundant eligible resources would only pay into the market and
would never benefit from the market financially. Market circumstances vary as much as the available renewable fuel sources do, since one is dependent upon
the other. In the Texas Study, Wiser and Langniss conclude that one of the most important problems in RPS design is "[i]nadequate attention to the relationship between the
renewable energy purchase requirement and eligible renewable energy sources."105
States and local programs have been structured to take advantage of Mother Nature as well as man-made and animal-
generated products. In Maryland's case, that includes poultry-litter incineration, which uses a byproduct from a long-standing Maryland industry.106 Pennsylvania includes
IGCC-coal and coal bed methane and California includes wave energy.107 Recently, the Florida Public Service Commission voted to order utilities to offer a variety of contractual
pricing options for purchases from generating facilities using solid waste and "vegetable matter," among other renewable sources.108 Fort Collins, Colorado has a goal that does
not specify renewable fuel types.109
Ultimately, what the states, utilities, and local municipalities know, and incorporate into their assessments of "eligible"
renewables, is that in some areas, certain renewable resources will not be feasible. As a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
noted, even taking into account all available federal and state incentives, improvements in technology and rising natural gas costs, "wind power will continue to be too expensive to
compete with fossil-fuel generation in parts of the country with poor wind resources."110
RPS Aff & Neg 66
States CP – A2: Uniformity Necessary

( ) Forcing uniformity is counterproductive – it overlooks resources and institutions unique to each state.

Regarding the first rationale, RPSs may be generically inefficient institutions, but some can be more efficient than others. An
RPS whose provisions recognize resources and institutions unique to a state may be superior to one that disregards them for
the sake of uniformity. A state with abundant gas-fired generation will be better able to integrate intermittent renewables than
one that is more dependent on coal or nuclear resources. One whose system is administered by a Regional Transmission
Operator may have lower costs than one containing a number of separate control areas. Differences can also reflect
preferences of electorates or elected officials. Arizona and Nevada have solar power setasides that reflect opportunities
inherent in their climates, but New Jersey's similar requirement is more likely symbolic of local attitudes.
There are two broadly differing scholarly attitudes on state vs. federal regulation, which may of course depend on the activity
being regulated. On one side are those who see the content of desirable regulation as clear from the outset, with little
uncertainty about the markets to be regulated and the efficacy of a proposed regulatory mechanism. On this view,
heterogeneous state regulatory provisions reflect either unimportant differences or errors that a uniform standard can rectify.
The differences might even be evidence of a "race to the bottom" in which governments compete for the support of interest
groups by producing regulations of low quality that fail to satisfy the public interest. The other attitude sees pervasive
uncertainty in the regulatory process, where even with well-defined objectives the form and content of regulation are likely to
[*108] be unknown in advance. n120 If so, competition among the states may improve regulation as they learn from each
others' successes and failures. n121 This learning process is particularly valuable if policy must (for some reason) take such a
hitherto untried form as an RPS. Some renewables advocates view the evolution of state RPS programs as evidence of a "race
to the top," fostering innovations that facilitate efficiency and growth. n122 Allegations that the evolution of state RPS
programs demonstrates a race to the bottom have yet to surface.
*****Note – this evidence also answers the “race-to-the-bottom” argument

RPS Aff & Neg 67
States CP – A2: Federal Government Key to REC

( ) State consortiums can effectively organize renewable energy credits – federal action aren’t needed

The second rationale for centralization is currently being proven unnecessary. Wholesale transactions in both conventional
and renewable energy take place in growing regional markets under FERC jurisdiction. These markets can easily distinguish
resources with different characteristics (e.g. intermittency) and already do allow contracts that price them efficiently.
Proposals for a national RPS generally include design of a mechanism to trade and register credits, but existing markets and
regional organizations are already taking on this job. A consortium of western states (both with and without RPS) has formed
the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS), administered at the headquarters of the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council. n123 The WREGIS has been formed "to provide a single institution in the West that will
issue, register and track renewable energy certificates for use in verification of compliance with state regulatory and
voluntary market programs." n124
( ) Interstate differences in RPS don’t undermine REC transactions

It is hard to substantiate various claims that state RPS differences foreclose renewable and REC transactions that would have
occurred under a national standard. n125 Even if a transaction between a particular buyer and seller is foreclosed, both may
well have alternative counterparties in other states. Losing [*109] the best transaction cuts the benefits of exchange, but only
by the difference between the lost exchange and the next best one. The only barriers cited in Cooper and Sovacool's work
favoring a federal standard involve differences in protocols among the three northeastern Regional Transmission Operators
that would still exist under a national RPS. They reflect continuing problems at the "seams" between RTOs, differing
technical standards, and differences in market institutions that cannot easily be harmonized. They are not the creations of
state regulators. Interstate differences in defining renewables and RECs can appear formidable, but estimates of their actual
effects have yet to be produced. n126
RPS Aff & Neg 68
Clean Coal DA – 1NC

( ) Clean coal technology is being accelerated to reduce emissions and boost the economy
Johnson, 8 – has spent the past decade reporting from Europe, increasingly on energy issues
(Keith, “Clean Coal: Hype or Hard Slog?” 5-28-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/28/clean-coal-
hype-or-hard-slog/?mod=googlenews_wsj) // JMP
More and more companies are starting to dabble with “clean-coal” technology. Whether that’ll make a difference for the
economy or the environment remains an open question.
General Electric and oil-field services firm Schlumberger announced Wednesday a deal to work together to develop clean-
coal technology. The two would match GE’s experience with a new generation of power plants that can capture carbon
dioxide, and Schlumberger’s experience with pumping the stuff underground to goose reluctant oil wells.
After the U.S. government pulled the plug on its big clean-coal demonstration project earlier this year, private industry is
trying to fill the gap to make clean coal a viable power solution. As we’ve noted before, that’s crucial to curbing emissions
and keeping the economy functioning—even though many environmentalists see clean coal as an expensive oxymoron.
The GE/Schlumberger deal follows the latest industry pattern: pairing power experts and oilfield veterans. Italy’s big power
company Enel announced a deal in February with oil and gas company Eni to study how to store carbon dioxide underground
in Italy and off its coast. For Italy, the problem is especially acute. The lack of nuclear power leaves the country with few
scaleable, low-carbon options to keep the lights on, unless it develops clean coal in a hurry.
( ) A national RPS will undermine investment in clean coal technology
Another significant issue facing investment decisions is what a national RPS would mean for decisions related to other types
of generation that utilities have considered. Some utilities, for example, have been considering building new nuclear
generation facilities. n113 A national RPS would seem to make that less appealing, although it is not entirely clear that new
nuclear facilities were that likely, or the best option, anyway. Nonetheless, a national RPS, at least absent a corresponding
greenhouse gas emissions' cap, would add another hurdle for nuclear investment. Clean coal technologies, another major
generation source in development, n114 would face similar hurdles, unless, of course, the national RPS were to include clean
coal as a renewable source. And, of course, what constitutes "clean" is never an easy answer. n115
RPS Aff & Neg 69
Clean Coal DA – 1NC

( ) Strong coal production is critical to sustain global economic and political stability
Burke, 4 – Vice President, Research & Development of CONSOL Energy, Inc

(Dr. Francis P. Burke, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 4-27-2004, “Sustainable Electricity Generation,” Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP
The United States is not unique in its dependence on coal, and it is vital to our national interest to promote the increased use
of coal not only domestically, but worldwide as a key component of our energy and economic security. The most compelling
evidence of this is China. This year, the Chinese will mine and consume 1.5 billion tons of coal. In 15 years, they will
consume 2.5 billion tons; China's increase alone will equal our current consumption. They expect to double their coal-fueled
electricity generating capacity to 600 GW by 2020. By 2040, the Chinese expect to use 4 billion tons of coal annually.
Throughout the world, economic growth and political stability are tied to electrification, and electricity is tied to coal.
Therefore, the desire and, in fact, the necessity of the world to utilize its abundant coal resources will not be denied. Energy
availability and energy quality are key to meeting all three aspects of sustainable development: economic, societal and
environmental. The question is not whether we need or will use coal for human development, but how we will use it.
( ) Economic collapse turns the aff and causes extinction
Nyquist, 5 [J.R. renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributing editor, “The Political
Consequences of a Financial Crash,” February 4, www.financialsense.com/stormw...2005/0204.html]
Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President Bush, the American
people will likely support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our market economy – guaranteeing
its strangulation and the steady pauperization of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the
economic dogmas listed above. It is easy to see, therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of
massive credit expansion, will have serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the Democrats).
Furthermore, an economic contraction will encourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from the
free market system.
The danger here is not merely economic. The political left openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad.
The withdrawal of the United States from the Middle East, the Far East and Europe would catastrophically impact an
international system that presently allows 6 billion people to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace. Should anti-
capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and trading system that evolved under American leadership, the planet’s
economy would contract and untold millions would die of starvation. Nationalistic totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of
blame, would once again bring war to Asia and Europe. But this time the war would be waged with mass destruction
weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the center of global capitalism. Furthermore, if the anti-
capitalist party gains power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament enacted.
American appeasement and disarmament, in this context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of world opinion.
Russia and China, above all, would exploit this admission to justify aggressive wars, invasions and mass destruction
attacks. A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs. But we cannot do this. As one observer
recently lamented, “We drank the poison and now we must die.”
RPS Aff & Neg 70
Clean Coal DA – Clean Coal / Coal Industry Increasing

( ) Clean coal tech continues to advance
The News-Herald, 8 (“Invest in technology for cleaner coal plants,” 5-28-2008,

www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19724560&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=220548&rfi=6) // JMP
We must invest in this energy option to ensure the air we breathe is clean. We shouldn't even have to think about it.
We never give it a thought. When we flip a switch, want to microwave popcorn or shred that sensitive document, we never
consider how it's done.
If you looked into it, however, you'd realize it takes 876 kilowatts of power to illuminate a 100-watt light bulb for one year.
That takes a lot of coal from the FirstEnergy power plant in Eastlake.
Coal attracts attention in this area because discharges of such items as sulfur, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and
fly ash cause environmentalists concern.
But officials insist FirstEnergy's coal plants are retrofitted with technology that keeps them cleaner than they were even 10
years ago.
Meanwhile, clean coal technology, which reduces the harmful fossil fuel emissions from coal plants, continues to advance.
We must invest in this energy option to ensure the air we breathe is clean. We shouldn't even have to think about it.
( ) The coal industry continues to increase
Despite environmental concerns and the development of alternative energy sources, the coal industry (and coal consumption)
is on the rise, with no signs of slowing in the next few decades. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates
that U.S. coal production in 2005 increased 1.9% to 1133.3 million short tons. This is the second straight year of increased
production after significant declines from 2001-2003. This trend is expected to continue. The EIA predicts that U.S. coal
production will continue to increase by an average of 1.1% each year until 2015, when total production will equal 1272
million short tons. Coal production growth should be even stronger between 2015 and 2030, averaging 2% per year, as
electricity demand continues to increase. This demand will likely be met with new or expanded coal-fired power plants.
( ) Coal is abundant and cheap to use
Coal, although a finite resource, is an abundant source of energy. Coal is widely distributed around the world – with mining
activities in over 50 countries. Coal is easy and safe to transport, ensuring supplies are readily available. In addition to being
abundant, coal is relatively cheap. Coal can provide usable energy at a cost of between $1 to $2 per MMBtu compared to $6
to $12 per MMBtu for oil and natural gas. Moreover, coal resources are distributed in regions of the world other than the
Persian Gulf. In contrast, oil and gas reserves are mainly concentrated in regions that are prone to political unrest and
economic uncertainty. In particular, the United States, China and India, three of the world’s largest energy consumers, have
immense coal reserves that are secure and readily accessible.
RPS Aff & Neg 71
Clean Coal DA – RPS Links

( ) RPS will reduce natural gas and coal use
A National RPS Better Conserves Water, Air and Land

• A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.
In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS, the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS
would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like
Michigan, New York, Virginia, and Texas. // pg. 11
( ) A national RPS picks renewables as the winning technology at the expense of nuclear power and clean coal
Josten, 07 - Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Bruce, Letter to Rep. John
Dingell and Rick Boucher, 6/15,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf)
One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy
sources are “renewable.” Clean, safe, and reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and clean coal
technology have typically been excluded from this definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy
legislation should not do: it picks winners and losers. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable
portfolio standard—which, again, the Chamber does not consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as
possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage energy production, there is no legitimate reason why certain clean,
safe energy producers are left standing at the door while others benefit.
( ) A federal RPS will destroy clean coal investment
Montgomery, 07 - CRA International (David, AEI Transcript, “California’s Climate Law: Boon or Boondoggle?”, 6/28,
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1516/transcript.asp)
So it is a little hard to see what the policy problem is that the Renewable Portfolio Standard is trying to address other than
creating a market for people who produce wind, solar, and a couple of other kinds of energy. The difficulty is that, when that
Renewable Portfolio Standard is binding and forces, for example, a lot of wind in the market and there is also an emission
cap, the Renewable Portfolio Standard drives out in our modeling coal with carbon capture and sequestration. So something
that costs 50 percent more is forced into the market and replaces what would otherwise have been chosen under the
motivation of the emission cap, which is a much cheaper way of getting to exactly the same result for greenhouse gas
emissions. And I would be more broad about it; I would say, “We have sulfur regulations, we have mercury regulations, we
have NOx regulations.” And all of those set up the incentive to choose the cost minimizing fuel and the RPS as kind of
looking for a problem to solve, but forcing a particular way of meeting all of our environmental aspirations.
RPS Aff & Neg 72
Clean Coal DA – Environment Impact

( ) Coal use is inevitable in the short term – clean technology is necessary to protect the environment and economy
Times West Virginian, 8 (Jessica Legge, “Cleaner Coal; W.Va. Tech unveils new process for getting job done,” 6-1-2008,
www.timeswv.com/business/local_story_153003149.html) // JMP
The Clean Air Act deals with specific levels of emissions controls, including for mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
To comply with these rules, utilities that burn coal will be installing equipment that will remove certain chemicals from
emissions, Staggers said. For example, Allegheny Power has a large construction site at the Fort Martin Power Station near
Morgantown to install scrubbers to remove sulfur dioxide from its emissions.
“Cleaning the environment and burning coal more cleanly is a very important part of our business and will continue to be a
very important part of our business,” he said. “Anything that makes the coal more clean before it’s burned certainly has the
potential to be very beneficial to use coal to generate energy or use coal for any other purpose as well.”
Lara Ramsburg, spokeswoman for Gov. Joe Manchin, said it’s important to focus on clean coal technology, and there is a
need for more research and funding.
“(Manchin) believes it should be a priority for the entire United States, because clean coal technology can truly play a
significant part in our efforts to become energy independent,” she said. “As everybody’s seen with the rising gas prices, that
time can’t come soon enough.”
Although research is being done on alternative sources of energy, coal is “a resource we know we have” right now, Ramsburg
said. A number of colleges, universities and institutions in the state are doing tremendous research and will continue this
work in the future, she said.
“Until we can get to the point where we don’t need coal anymore, which is decades from now, we need to do all we can to
invest and encourage clean coal technology,” Ramsburg said. “The governor continues to fight that battle on the national
front.”
( ) Clean coal technology is reducing the environmental impact of coal
Without question, there are significant environmental impacts that accompany the mining, transportation and combustion of
coal. That said, coal in not going away, but it is getting cleaner. Technology, innovation and awareness have created
increasing opportunities for coal to reduce its environmental impacts across all aspects of the industry – most importantly,
reducing the impact at the point of primary use, which is combustion for generation of electricity. Broader global deployment
of generally-accepted industry practice, along with the implementation of proven and developing pollution-reduction
technologies, is key. Energy and technology must be used as tools for global development while achieving environmentally-
sound, worldwide sustainability in energy supply, delivery and efficient utilization. To ensure the availability of affordable,
secure and reliable energy, the United States and the world must include coal as a major component of its energy portfolio.
Therefore, support for the development of new energy technologies must include significant research into and development
of clean coal technologies along with improving the competitiveness of alternative energy sources.
RPS Aff & Neg 73
Clean Coal DA – Competitiveness Impact

( ) Clean coal technology will boost U.S. competitiveness and prevent climate change
Roberts, 4 [Paul, Contributor to Harper's Magazine, The End of Oil: on the Edge of a Perilous New World, pg. 232-4]
Even as U.S. policies were undermining the existing energy order, they would be encouraging the development of a
more sustainable one. A U.S. initiative to develop clean-coal technology, for example, would dramatically change the
significance of the Asian economy powered by coal. American companies can bring down the costs of IGCC and carbon
capture technology sufficiently, China and India might find themselves able to burn their coal without dooming the climate to
catastrophic warming.
In fact, many experts believe that the United States should not wait until the Chinese and indians can afford clean-
coal technology but should offer the technology as soon as it becomes available and should even subsidize the purchase,
simply to avoid the catastrophe of an Asian energy economy based on dirty coal. Such energy Charity would not be cheap,
by one estimate, subsidies of that kind could run the United States at least ten billion dollars for the first hundred plants - a
cost that conservative policymakers would oppose. But advocates of such clean-technology exports counter with three
points. First, because China and India have little choice but to burn coal, if the United States hopes to avoid climate change it
has little choice but to help the Chinese and Indians adopt clean-coal technology. As one climate expert put it: "America is
going to pay for climate, one way or another. It can either pay now to try to mitigate some of the effects, or it can pay later,
when droughts and floods start to decimate the developing world."
Second, advocates say that the United States could attach strings to technology, making the offer contingent, for
example, on a promise from Beijing to stop undercutting U.S. currency or dumping products on the U.S. market. Third,
China and India will not only be the only market for U.S. built clean-coal technology: many experts believe that the
technology once costs have been driven down, could give rise to a lucrative American export business - and reverse a
depressing trend in which the United States lost the lead in wind technology to the Danes and in solar technology to Japanese.
"We have to start looking at this less as a climate policy than as an economic stimulus for the U.S. industrial sector," argues
Detchon. "We should be approaching this at scale, not as one-off R&D projects, but in a way that will make these units
competitive overseas, where the bulk of the growth is. This is going to be a growth market, and the United States needs to
build up a real manufacturing strength."
( ) The global market for clean coal technology is expanding
Wicks, 4 – Chairman, World Coal Institute, London

(Roger, Financial Times, “Developing Better Ways to Get Energy From Coal,” 8-19-2005, p.16)
Sir, It was pleasing to see the FT paying serious attention to coal (Comment & Analysis, August 17), and your coverage of
the US situation was well informed.
What Dan Roberts identifies is the continuing renaissance of coal, not just in the US, and the otherwise ignored advances in
coal-burning technologies. Coal is by far the planet's most abundant fossil fuel, with a reserve life twice that of oil and gas
combined. Its challenge is in its efficient and environmentally responsible use, not in its eradication.
Most economies, and especially the fast-growing economies of Asia, will need all the energy sources at their disposal to meet
the growth in energy demand. However, it is wrong to assume, as the article does, that the attraction to coal in Asia is because
environmental standards are lower there. In fact, clean coal technology has made substantial advances and many Asian
countries are building newer, cleaner plant. China, for instance, is installing mainly "supercritical" plant, with higher
efficiencies and lower emissions than typical power stations in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
countries.
All fuels face environmental challenges but there are ways of responding to these challenges without abandoning the
traditional energy objectives of diversity and security of supply. The further development and deployment of clean coal
technology, including more efficient plant, cleaner combustion technologies, the combined use of coal and renewables
(biomass) and the future capture and sequestration of large volumes of CO are key ways forward.
RPS Aff & Neg 74
Clean Coal DA – Pollution / Economy Impact

( ) Clean coal technology significantly reduces pollution and is comparatively better for the economy than other
energy sources
Sargent, 8 (Sara Sargent, “Duke Energy Corp.’s new plant will allow coal to remain king in Indiana but keep emissions low,”
6-3-2008, http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=92169) // JMP
Illinois coal waits for Springfield to energize gasification plants As the rest of America wrestles with how to meet spiking energy demand while keeping costs and greenhouse gas emissions low, energy provider
Duke Energy Corp. and the residents of Knox County, Ind., are at ease.
These southwestern Hoosiers are looking forward to the construction of Duke Energy Indiana’s $2.35 billion coal gasification plant in the White River town of Edwardsport, Ind. It's a new-technology venture
that will use local Illinois Basin coal to succor the growing energy needs of a state reliant on its fuel-guzzling agricultural and manufacturing industries.
Duke’s
Although it's the most abundant fossil fuel in the country—and therefore the cheapest—coal is notoriously dirty when burned, producing emissions with high levels of carbon dioxide and sulfur.
new integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) electric power plant will capitalize on Indiana’s vast coal reserves without
exacting so high a toll on the environment.
According to Jack Stultz, the future manager of the Edwardsport IGCC plant, coal costs $2.15 per million Btu, or British thermal units, a measure of energy, versus $12 per million Btu for natural gas.
Coal gasification, according to the Gasification Technologies Council based in Arlington, Va., converts fuels such as coal and petroleum coke into a synthetic gas; the so-called syngas is then treated to remove
pollutants including sulfur, mercury and carbon dioxide.
“This particular plant is going to be much cleaner than the current Edwardsport plant,” said Knox County Councilman Bob Lechner. “We’re improving our community—not only
economically but also environmentally. It was a natural win-win situation for the county.” The state legislature also applauds the plan.
Despite the 18 percent energy rate hike that will result from the plant’s costly construction, and despite the common distrust of any energy production involving coal, local residents and most local
environmentalists are strongly supportive of the IGCC plant.
“On the side of the environmental issue, certainly we’re vitally concerned about that,” Knox County Development Corp. President Gary Gentry said. “It’s our home, it’s where we live. The foundation of our
economy is built on our agricultural capabilities and we certainly don’t want to do anything that would erode that foundation.”
According to the State Utility Forecasting Group, an organization that predicts statewide electricity consumption, prices and resource requirements, an additional 1,290 megawatts of base load resources will be
needed by 2012; one megawatt is enough to power 330 average-sized houses at any one time. This requirement greatly influenced Duke's decision to build a new plant, particularly given that, with 800,000
customers, Duke Energy Indiana is the state's largest energy provider.
The IGCC, which will replace Duke’s current 60-year-old, 160-megawatt coal-fired Edwardsport plant, will be a 632-megawatt plant, which is adequate capacity to power approximately 200,000 houses.
Once completed, the Edwardsport IGCC will be the largest of its kind, although two first-generation IGCCs have been operating commercially in Terre Haute, Ind. and Polk County, Fla. for more than a decade.
The Terre Haute site includes the 260-megawatt Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project, owned by Wabash Valley Power Association, a cooperative Indiana energy provider. The U.S. Department
of Energy contributed $219 million to the project to help develop the coal gasification technology, Duke’s Web site reports.
At Terre Haute, sgSolutions LLC runs the gasification facility while Duke Energy Indiana and the Wabash Valley Power Association use the synthetic gas in their energy production.
an IGCC provides for
An IGCC plant uses the gas, in combination with traditional steam turbines, to produce electricity more cleanly than older generation coal-fired plants. To that end,
sulfur reduction 10 times greater than the level required by the federal government, and the level of particulate emissions is
four to five times lower than federal standards, Stultz reported.
The current 160-megawatt Edwardsport plant runs approximately 30 percent of the time and produces 11, 000 tons of emissions—sulfur dioxide, particulate, mercury and nitrogen oxide—per year.
The 632-megawatt IGCC plant, which will run approximately 85 percent of the time, will produce 2,900 tons of air pollutants per year. And although the new plant will produce more carbon dioxide emissions
the IGCC will produce 45 percent less carbon emissions than the current plant on a megawatt-hour basis.
overall,
the roadblocks involved with other energy
Duke’s decision to build an IGCC took into consideration these environmental benefits as well as what the company believed to be
sources: the significantly higher cost associated with natural gas and the unreliability of alternative energy sources such as wind
and solar power were contributing factors, Stultz explained.
“Indiana is a coal state,” Stultz affirmed. “Coal is a cheaper fuel than some of the other options and Indiana has a vast reserve of readily available, reasonably priced fuel.”
Indiana has become a “coal state,” as Stultz puts it, because a large chunk of southwestern Indiana sits on the Illinois Basin, a structural depression in the earth filled with sedimentary rock that stretches under
parts of Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri and Iowa as well.
In fact, Illinois is positioned to follow suit. According to an e-mail from Marcelyn Love, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Secure Energy Inc. is developing a
$500 million gasification plant in Decatur and Christian County Generation LLC is working on a 630-megawatt IGCC southeast of Springfield.
In Indiana, organized development of the state’s coal resources began in the 1830s, and by 1918 production exceeded 30 million short tons, according to the Indiana Geological Survey. Indiana has
approximately 57 billion tons of un-mined coal, of which nearly 17 billion tons is recoverable using current technology, the Survey reports.
“That coal enables the residents of the Midwest to have available to them the most economically affordable electricity source
in the U.S.,” said Gentry. “And that’s why the manufacturing industry is clustered in the Midwest. The dynamics of the economics
of coal is so interlaced. You see it everywhere, all about you; it makes us who we are economically.”
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management has issued a permit for the Edwardsville IGCC, indicating the plant’s compliance with all state and federal air pollution requirements.
This plant will be a showcase for new clean coal technology,
“IDEM permitted the Duke Energy Edwardsport facility based on these environmental regulations ....
assisting our nation in producing electricity in a more environmentally sensitive manner,” IDEM spokesman Robert Elstro said in an e-mail.
RPS Aff & Neg 75
Clean Coal DA – Economy Impact

( ) Coal powered generation is key to the U.S. economy
Bowles, 98 – President of Charolais Corporation

(Donald E., Federal News Service, “Energy Security and the Future of Energy in the United States,” 10-2-1998, Lexis-Nexis
Universe) // JMP
A. Coal Power Generation Is Our Nation's Primary Source of Electric Energy.

Coal power generation has been and continues to be an integral part of this nation's development. "The fuel that enabled the
United States to become the wealthiest industrialized nation in the world is still responsible for over half the nation's electrical
power." Kentucky Coal Marketing and Export Council & Kentucky Coal Association, Kentucky_ Coal Facts 1 (1997-98 Pocket Guide) (hereinafter "Kentucky_ Coal Facts").
In fact, 56 percent of our nation's electric energy generation still comes from coal. Id..
According to data compiled by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. coal production totaled 1.09 billion tons in 1997, a 2.8 percent
increase from the 1.06 billion tons produced in 1996 and a record high. The increase in 1997 coal production levels was driven by: (I) the"lower cost of generating electricity with
coal compared to oil; (ii) decreased reliance on nuclear powered generation; (iii) volatile natural gas prices; and (iv) strong economic growth. See also Kentucky_ Coal Facts 7
(indicating that the United States coal production was 1.06 billion tons in 1996); Kentucky Coal Marketing and Export Council (indicating that coal production increased 25
million tons from 1996 to 1997, reaching a new record output). The amount of coal produced in the United States has grown astronomically in recent years, as the nation produced
only 602.9 million tons in 1970. Kentucky_ Coal Facts 7.
Total U.S. coal consumption reached 1.06 billion tons in 1997, a 2.1 percent increase from 1996. The largest user of U.S. coal is the electric utility market,
which accounted for 81.3 percent of the nation's 1996 consumption and more than 87 percent of the nation's 1997 domestic coalconsumption. Kentucky Coal Facts 20 (citing U.S.
Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration reports); Kentucky Coal Marketing and Export Council. The amount shipped to the nation's electric utility market
increased from 375 million tons in 1973 to 863 million tons in 1996. Kentucky Coal Facts 26 (citing U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration information).
Coal continues to be the principal energy source for U.S. utilities, with its share of total electricity generation being 57 percent in 1997, as compared with 20.1 percent from
nuclear, 10.8 percent from hydroelectric, and 9.1 percent from gas-fired facilities.
B. Coal Power Generation Is Essential to Our Nation's Economy.
In addition to serving as the nation's primary electric power source, coal
provides a tremendous boost to the U.S. economy. As with any mining industry,
coal mining provides direct and indirect economic benefits far outweighing the mere value of the mineral itself. According to a
National Mining Association study, the U.S. mining industries in 1995 provided an economic benefit of almost nine times the value of
the minerals obtained -- $523.6 billion, including nearly $300 billion in business income and over $80 billion in government revenues. Kentucky Coal Facts 18 (citing
National Mining Association, Mining and the American Economy - Everything Beans with Mining (July 1997)). For example, in 1996, the coal industry in Kentucky created
economic activity within the state totaling $8.338 billion. Kentucky Coal Facts 17.
Moreover, the United States exports much more coal than it imports. For example, in 1996, the United States exported over 92 million tons of coal while importing only 7.1 million
tons. Kentucky Coal Facts 27. Thus, the coal market enables the United States to enjoy an all-too uncommon position -- that of having an export surplus.
C. CoalPower Generation Is Essential to Our Nation's Security. Coal is one of our nation's most abundant natural resources.
At current levels of production and consumption, the United States has between 200 and 250 years of coal reserves. Kentucky
Coal Marketing and Export Council.
Moreover, the federal government is the largest owner of coal reserves in the nation.
The nation's dependency on coal power generation provides an important means of self reliance and security. Reliance upon
this form of energy does not subject the United States to the risks attendant to other energy sources. The Arab oil embargo
demonstrated the dangers of being dependent upon other countries to supply our nation's energy needs.
( ) Coal key to the economy
In addition to the benefits provided as a source of energy, the coal industry is an important component in both Utah’s and the
national economy. Based on the National Mining Association statistics, the average number of miners working daily in this
country is approximately 123,000. The Utah Geological Survey estimates that coal industry in Utah employed approximately
2,000 people in 2006. Employment totals could increase by another 200 to 300 people in 2007 and 2008 as demand for
higher production continues and proposed coal operations commence production. Revenues from coal produced in Utah
increased substantially in recent years, reaching an estimated $474.9 million in 2005, 23.0% higher than in 2004. Increases in
production and prices are expected in 2006, pushing the estimated revenue up an additional 26.2% to $599.5 million, the
highest amount ever recorded in nominal dollars.
RPS Aff & Neg 76
Obama DA – 1NC
( ) Obama has a slight lead
The Ottawa Citizen, June 19th (“Obama has narrow lead,” 6-19-2008,
www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/newsbriefs/story.html?id=64d1da95-92b8-49c3-a0cc-ddac357421cd) // JMP
Democrat Barack Obama has a narrow five-point lead on Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential race, according to
a Reuters/Zogby poll released yesterday.
Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain by 47 per cent to 42 per cent, down slightly from his eight-point lead in May.
( ) There is massive bipartisan support among potential voters for a national RPS
AWEA, 7 (American Wind Energy Association, “New Poll Shows Overwhelming Bipartisan Support for National Renewable Electricity
Standard,” 11-13-2007, www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Poll_Shows_Bipartisan_Support_111207.html) // JMP
A new poll of potential 2008 voters by Zogby International found that Americans across the political spectrum support a new
national standard for renewable electricity like those already in place in more than 20 states. The poll, commissioned by the American Wind
Energy Association, documents growing support for renewable energy and growing concern about energy independence as top
domestic priorities for potential 2008 voters.
Highlights of the survey include:
93 percent of conservatives agreed that energy independence “should be the government’s top priority”;
77 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Southerners, 83 percent of those in military families, 77 percent of self-identified
conservatives, 81 percent of rural voters, 85 percent of independent voters and 92 percent of Democrats agreed that the
Federal government should follow the lead of a number of states that now require at least some of their electricity come from
renewable sources such as wind and solar; and
64 percent of those polled disagree with the proposition that the federal government is doing enough to promote clean renewable energy.
“This demonstrates the tremendous level of bipartisan support across our nation for a renewable electricity standard” commented
Representative Tom Udall (D-NM), who authored the renewable electricity standard provision approved by the House of Representatives earlier this year. “It is crystal clear the public
wants Congressional action to increase the role of clean domestic energy, like wind and solar power, in meeting America’s electricity needs. The House took an
important step towards that goal in August, and it is critical that a renewable electricity standard be included in any final energy package that comes to the floor.”
( ) If Bush can change the political climate with a popular policy like the plan it will pull away moderate voters from
the Democrats and win the election for McCain
Goldberg, 7 – editor for the National Review

(Jonah, USA Today, "Political exit strategy for Bush; Targeted investments might be the best way to provide dividends for the
USA -- and the GOP." 9-4-2007, accessed lexis 4/29/08)
While the stakes are higher than normal, Bush's predicament isn't that unusual. Lame-duck
presidents often place all of their chips on foreign policy.
According to many observers, Clinton worked feverishly at the end of his administration to win an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal in
order to burnish his legacy. The problem for Bush is that at this point, there's not a whole lot he can do to improve things in Iraq, save to hold off the Democratic pull-
out chorus long enough for the surge to succeed, which is hardly an assured outcome.
At home, Bush's options are far more constrained. But again, Clinton might be the model. The Democratic Congress is -- astonishingly -- even more unpopular than President
Bush. If Bush can pick some well-chosen fights with Congress, ideally over spending, he might at least bring back disheartened members of his own political base. Bush
might also borrow from Clinton's post-1994 playbook of proposing a lot of small, very popular (and mostly insipid) programs and initiatives.
Clinton had his school uniforms and V-chips. Surely the authors of compassionate conservatism could conjure similar treacle. Ideally, such proposals would unite a
majority of Americans but divide moderate Democrats from the party's left-wing base (spare me the rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth
over the cruelty of "wedge issues"). A goal: Just change the climate. For example, paying inner-city students to get good grades -- a proposal backed by New York
Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich alike -- might be a good idea with the added benefit of possibly annoying teacher's unions. Such ideas
are hard to come up with, never mind sell, particularly given Bush's liabilities and the media climate generally. But the president needn't get such ideas passed,
he need only get them discussed in order to recalibrate the political climate more in his favor. It wouldn't be easy, but he still has the
biggest megaphone in the country. He also holds the veto pen. Bush seemed to have lost it in the Oval Office couch cushions for much of his presidency, but the
Democratic takeover inspired him to find it. Given the Democrats' need to placate their own base in order to prove all that effort in '06 was worth it, Bush could have
some fat opportunities to rally the majority of Americans, or at least his own base, to the GOP side.
RPS Aff & Neg 77
Obama DA – 1NC
( ) Obama is key to the economy, Middle East peace and restoring U.S. leadership
Shearer, 8 – Professor of Diplomacy and World Affairs at Occidental College in Los Angeles
(Derek, The Huffington Post, “Waiting For Obama: The First Global Election,” 6-19-2008, www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-
shearer/waiting-for-obama-the-fir_b_107955.html) // JMP
Nothing could be more accurate today than the political chant from Chicago in 1968: "The Whole World is Watching." The level of interest in the upcoming U.S. presidential contest is incredibly high, greater than at any time in post-Cold War history.
This is due to the rapid decline of America's reputation abroad during the Bush administration and to the hope that Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama will restore America's image not with public relations,
but with new internationalist policies.
In the past month, I have seen this phenomenon first hand. I have traveled to Syria, Peru and Bolivia as a speaker in the State Department's public diplomacy program. In each country, I heard from US embassy staff about how a record number of
foreign journalists have requested travel to the US to cover the elections. I met with some of these reporters during my trips. I also encountered the same interest among students who attended my university lectures -- and of course, business and
government leaders wanted to know in detail what an Obama presidency might mean.
In Syria, for example, students at the elite public policy school at Damascus University were fascinated to learn that Obama's middle name is Hussein, and that his mother's second husband was a Muslim who took young Barack to live for years in
Indonesia. These young Syrians seemed amazed that the United States which many in the region see as the Great Satan would actually nominate such a person to be president -- and the thought that he might be the next president of the US was almost
Almost every Syrian

beyond belief. Of course, I got the not unexpected questions about whether Obama too would would be under the thumb of the Jewish lobby -- but overall, a sense of hope and optimism seemed to prevail.
whom I met felt that Obama might bring a new beginning to US-Syrian relations, and perhaps usher in a genuine and wider
Middle East peace.
In Peru and Bolivia, students not surprisingly were focused on their own region. They wanted to know if Obama would pay greater attention to Latin America -- perhaps rekindling the spirit of JFK and the Alliance for Progress. Government officials
asked tougher questions about Obama and the Democratic Party's commitment to the global trading system, and whether US special interests might force Obama to close US markets to foreign goods. They also wanted to know what a President Obama
might do about about drugs in Latin America, and about the danger that some states, perhaps even Bolivia, might come to be dominated by narco politics and anti-democratic groups. Of course, they were curious about Obama's offer to meet with
Venezuela's populist leader Hugo Chavez, and about how US-Cuban relations might change under Obama.
As a Democrat and former US ambassador, I made it clear that I did not speak for the Obama campaign (I supported Senator Clinton in the primary), but that I knew and respected him, that he had studied at Occidental College where I hold a chair in
diplomacy, and that many of my friends serve on his foreign policy team. I told audiences that my students at Occidental, inspired by Obama's success, recently completed a memo for the next president entitled Rebranding America (available online at:
www.oxyworldwide.com) and that copies were sent to Obama and his team, as well as to McCain and his. Many students seemed intrigued about how they could "rebrand" their own nations.
In every talk and interview abroad, I made these basic points:
There are significant differences between Senator McCain and Senator Obama on the two most important issues of the campaign: the economy and the war in Iraq. In the past two decades, US foreign policy has become highly partisan and emotionally
Obama becomes president, he will first focus on

charged -- politics no longer stops at the water's edge as it largely did during the Cold War -- and it will matter a great deal, depending on which candidate is elected. If
responsibly removing American troops from Iraq -- one of his key campaign promises and a signature commitment of his political career. He will also have to manage
and ameliorate the economic distress of the American people. On both these key issues, Obama and McCain are light years apart.
The world beyond Iraq will not (and cannot) be ignored. Obama will be able to multi-task because he will have a reservoir of talent
on call. All of his foreign policy advisors -- notably Anthony Lake, Susan Rice, and Greg Craig -- are experienced hands from the Bill Clinton administration. As I told foreign audiences and journalists, one of the secrets of the campaign is that
all of Obama's people are Clinton people -- and this is a good thing. Under the leadership of Tony Lake, the Obama campaign has a assembled a top notch group of professionals. On the Middle East, there are pros such as Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk,
and Robert Malley, among others, to call on. They are among our most experienced negotiators. On Latin America, there are not only the usual advisors from the Council on Foreign Relations, but also younger scholars such as Russell Crandall from
Davidson College, a leading expert on drug wars in the region. As President, Obama would have an impressive stable of very senior officials whose services he can engage. For Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, think Senators Biden, Kerry,
Dodd or Mitchell, and former General Wesley Clark. Think former President Bill Clinton as special envoy to the Middle East (perhaps in tandem with former British PM Tony Blair). Think Nobel Prize winner Al Gore as special envoy to renewed
global warming talks. Think former Senator Sam Nunn as special emissary to Putin's Russia, or former Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon as special emissary to Iran. And still on the bench to be deployed would be Richard Holbrooke,
Obama would have a wealth of talented and experienced Americans at his disposal -- an
Madeleine Albright, and Strobe Talbott. The point is that President
arsenal of "smart power", the envy of any nation and any leader.
Globalization is not Americanization -- but it does require American leadership to work more fairly and effectively. Democrats are not
economic nationalists or isolationists -- but they understand that a sustainable globalization requires activist government
inside each nation, as well as greater international cooperation. In my lectures at foreign business schools, I started off by explaining the good news and the bad news. The good news is that
contrary to the beliefs of some anti-American voices, there is no American Ruling Class Committee in charge of pushing globalization on an unwilling world. The bad news, of course, is that no one is in charge of the global economy. We still live
It is vital for the

inside national borders, but the post-Cold War economy is global and is not constrained by international borders, nor are the environmental and social consequences. This is the central political problem of our age.
US to lead, but not dominate in making globalization more equitable and more environmentally friendly -- both within our
borders and for the entire world. Senator Obama seems to understand this challenge, although his economic advisors are less diverse than I would expect. He has some talented
younger economists such as Austan Goolsbee from the University of Chicago, and he has brought in the predictable Clinton pros like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. He still needs to reach out to other international economists who combine
progressive views with practical experience -- experts such as Sebastian Edwards at UCLA, Martin Carnoy at Stanford, Dani Rodik at Harvard. Manuel Pastor at USC, and Jamie Galbraith at Texas. I also tell foreign business students and foreign
business leaders that it is not simply a matter of waiting for Obama to come to power. They can start working for better economic and social policies in their own countries, and arguing for new regional initiatives in the Middle East and Latin America.
If Obama comes to power, they will be ready with home grown initiatives to present to him and his team.
I have no idea if my public diplomacy -- I also spoke last year in Kazakhstan, Chile and New Zealand, and I go to Australia his fall -- is having much impact, but my message is always clear and simple: I come in peace and bring fraternal greetings
Obama seems to embody this message, and to carry with him in the upcoming presidential contest the hopes not only of Americans, but of citizens
from progressive Americans. Barack
in almost every country of the world. It is a heavy responsibility, and not to be taken lightly. If Obama can prevail, and can govern with strength, compassion and political wisdom, then he might
turn out to be the first truly global president.
The whole world will be watching.
( ) Middle East conflicts will go global
Steinbach, 2 – Analyst, Center for Research on Globalization

(John, “Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace” - Center for Research on Globalization, 2002,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html)
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and
disarmament negotiations, and eventhe threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against
Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability." and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining
momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional." Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to
furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously
complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In
the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could
trigger a world conflagration."
RPS Aff & Neg 78
Obama DA – Obama Winning Now

( ) Obama is leading McCain in key swing states
Digital Journal, June 18th (“Obama Leads Over McCain In Crucial Swing States, According To New Poll,” 6-18-2008,
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/256299) // JMP
A new poll result has been revealed giving favor to presumed Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama of Illinois rather than presumed GOP nominee Senator John McCain of
Arizona.
Not long ago at a Washington DC fundraiser for presumed Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, it was David Plouffe, the manager for the Obama Campaign that
had outlined a new electoral map. Under this electoral map, victory for Obama would not be dependent on one state or two. In this case, this electoral map would not be dependent
on either Ohio or Florida, which are two major battleground states.
In short, one cannot play all the poker chips on one state or two states. However, Plouffe said it does not mean Obama is going to let presumed GOP nominee Senator John McCain
of Arizona take Ohio and Florida. Though the new electoral map shows that Obama does not necessary need Ohio and Florida, he will
work hard to win those two states nonetheless.
A recent Quinnipiac University poll released today on Wednesday, June 18, it shows that Obama is leading McCain in the very vital swing states.
So far, Plouffe has said that victories in Florida and Ohio are not necessarily required for victory this November. However, Plouffe said that
wins in Ohio and Florida would definitely guarantee victory for Obama.
During the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, Obama had lost to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York by 9 points. But, Obama has a 12-point lead over McCain. In
Pennsylvania, it is 52 to 40 points.
Obama and also lost to Clinton in Ohio. Clinton had beat Obama in Ohio by 12 points. The poll shows that Obama leads McCain in Ohio by six points with the results of being 48
to 42 points.
On another interesting note, Obama leads McCain in Florida by 47 to 43 points. Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates back in January for having their primaries
too early. Obama did not campaign in Florida. Clinton won Florida. Clinton had tried to get the votes in Florida and Michigan counted.
The results from this poll are a complete 180-degree turn. Back then, it was McCain that led Obama in those states. Now, the recent poll results show that Obama now leads over
McCain.
Between 1,300 and 1,500 voters were interviewed for this poll from those three states.
While Plouffe says that victories in Florida and Ohio are not necessarily required for victory, the polls show that Obama leads McCain in those two states
as of this moment.
( ) Obama leads in key swing states
WSJ, June 18th (Susan David, “Obama Leads Nationally and in Key Swing States,” 6-18-2008,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/18/obama-leads-nationally-and-in-key-swing-states/?mod=googlenews_wsj) // JMP
Sen. Barack Obama has not received a notable bounce in polling since he secured the nomination earlier this month, but recent
polls find the Illinois Democrat
with a narrow lead against rival Republican John McCain both nationally and in three batteground states.
A Reuters/Zogby poll out today gives Obama a 47%-42% lead with a 3% margin of error. Those results have been mirrored in recent days in the ABC/Washington Post poll giving
Obama a 49%-45% lead, and in The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll with a 47%-41% edge.
In the three general election states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, Obama also holds a narrow lead, according to the latest
Quinnipiac University poll out today. Obama leads 48%-42% in Ohio, 52%-40% in Pennsylvania, and 47%-43% in Florida.
Among key voting blocs, women and independents, Obama also has an edge. The Quinnipiac poll gives Obama double-digit leads among women voters in the three states, with
men too close to call. The Reuters poll likewise gives Obama a double-digit lead among women, but McCain has a six point edge with men. Among independents, Reuters gives
Obama a notable 22 percentage point advantage.
( ) Obama has a 3 point lead
The Age, June 20th (“Obama beats McCain in Fox poll,” 6-20-2008, http://news.theage.com.au/world/obama-beats-mccain-
in-fox-poll-20080620-2trh.html) // JMP
Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama has a three-point lead over Republican John McCain, and is winning over
disaffected supporters of Hillary Clinton, a Fox News poll says.
In the poll, which had a three-point margin of error, Obama led McCain by 42 per cent to 39 in a field including minor
candidates such as consumer champion Ralph Nader and libertarian Bob Barr.
In a head-to-head fight, Obama had a four-point edge - 45 per cent to McCain's 41. That was in line with Obama's lead in
other recent polls by Zogby, Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post.
RPS Aff & Neg 79
Obama DA – Public Supports RPS / Renewables

( ) Public support is growing for a national RPS
Public opinion polls, growing support from utilities, and continually increasing state RPS legislation indicate that support for
a renewable energy mandate is stronger than ever. However, opposition remains strong. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of
Americans appear ready to take a calculated risk to find out if renewable energy can fulfill its promise. The question remains:
Is Congress?
( ) RPS is popular with the public
Despite failure of similar legislation in the past, the prospects for approval look good this year, said Barry Rabe, professor in
the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.
"These policies have proven popular in a number of states," he said. "The majority of American citizens already live in
Congressional districts with an RPS."
( ) Public supports federal incentives to expand renewables
AWEA, 8 (American Wind Energy Association, “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Federal Incentives for
Renewable Energy: Zogby Poll,” 1-22-2008, www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/poll_renewable_energy_012208.html) // JMP
By a 7-1 margin, Americans agree that the federal government should extend incentives that
Washington, DC (January 22, 2008) –
encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies, according to a national poll released today by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
2007 was a record-breaking year for renewable electricity generation in the United States, with almost 6,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy coming on line, infusing some $20 billion in new
investment into the economy. But the federal production tax credit (PTC) and tax incentives for other renewable energy sources are now in danger of lapsing at the end of this year.
85% of Americans
The survey research firm Zogby International surveyed Americans on existing federal incentives for renewable energy, in a poll commissioned by AWEA. The survey found that
agree with the statement, “The federal government should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of renewable
energy technologies such as wind and solar power.” Just 12% disagree.
“The results confirm that Americans, by an overwhelming majority, want their government to support renewable energy,” said
AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. “In 2007, tax incentives for renewable energy created tens of thousands of jobs for Americans. We call upon Congress to help sustain this remarkable growth by
extending these incentives.”
Zogby International conducted an online survey of 7,106 adults from January 18 to January 21, 2008. A sampling of Zogby’s online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited
to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender to more accurately reflect the population. The margin of error is +/- 1.2 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in
sub-groups.
( ) An energy policy to boost alternative energy has strong bipartisan support with voters
Friedman, 7 (Thomas L., “Turning the Election Green,” 4-25-2007, p.A27) // JMP
A new survey released last week by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, conducted for the
Center for American Progress, underscores that large majorities of independents (59 percent) and Democrats (76 percent)
support action now to stop global warming and make the U.S. energy-independent, along with a significant bloc of
Republicans (41 percent).
''Only 27 percent of people feel that our energy policy is headed in the right direction, while 65 percent say our energy policy
is seriously off on the wrong track,'' the Greenberg firm said. ''Moreover, a majority of Americans (52 percent) believes the
U.S. is either falling or has fallen far behind other countries in developing clean, alternative energy. Only 14 percent of
people believe we lead the world in developing these technologies.''
They're right. The biggest energy deficit we have right now in America is the energy to lead on this issue -- to overcome all
the entrenched interests that have tied us in knots and have left our country with what the energy expert Gal Luft calls ''the
sum of all lobbies'' instead of the sum of the best energy practices.
RPS Aff & Neg 80
Obama DA – Internal Links / A2: McCain Will Keep Distance from Bush
( ) McCain is distancing himself from Bush now because of difference over the environment and unpopularity – the
plan rectifies both of these
NYT, 8 (Elisabeth Bumiller, “How Close McCain Is to Bush Depends on the Issue,” 6-17-2008,
www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/us/politics/17policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) // JMP
WASHINGTON — The Democrats like to say that electing Senator John McCain would usher in the third term of George W. Bush, and they do not mean it as a compliment. The
Republicans counter that calling the senator “McBush” is political spin and that Mr. McCain is his own man.
A look at Mr. McCain’s 25-year record in the House and Senate, his 2008 campaign positions and his major speeches over the last three months indicates that on big-ticket issues
— the economy, support for continuing the Iraq war, health care — his stances are indeed similar to Mr. Bush’s brand of conservatism. Mr. McCain’s positions are nearly identical
to the president’s on abortion and the types of judges he says he would appoint to the courts.
On the environment, American diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, Mr. McCain has strikingly different views from Mr. Bush,
and while he shares the president’s goals in Iraq, he was at times an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.
The disparities between the two are murkier on other issues. On immigration, Mr. McCain started out with Mr. Bush — at odds with the Republican mainstream — by favoring a
path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, then backed off and emphasized the border-security-first approach favored by a majority of his party.
When it comes to dealing with terrorism suspects, Mr. McCain has supported imposing tighter rules than favored by the administration on the use of harsh interrogation techniques,
but has consistently been with the president on limiting the legal rights of Guantánamo detainees. In one indicator that his view of executive power is moving closer to that of Mr.
Bush, his campaign has recently signaled that he believes it was constitutional for the president to authorize wiretaps without warrants to monitor Americans’ international phone
calls and e-mail.
Mr. McCain has reversed himself on some issues — most notably, embracing the Bush tax cuts now after deriding them initially as fiscally risky and excessively skewed to the
wealthy — and continues to adjust his positions on others. On Monday, he said he continued to oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, leaving him at
odds with the White House and most of his party, but said he favored giving states more flexibility to decide whether to explore for oil off their coasts.
On balance, the
McCain campaign has sought to emphasize the differences between Mr. McCain and the unpopular Mr. Bush
rather than the similarities.
The article continues that…
Perhaps Mr. McCain’s biggest departure from the president is on climate change. Mr. McCain has called for mandatory limits
on greenhouse gas emissions, unlike Mr. Bush, who says such limits would be bad for the economy. Mr. McCain also supports a “cap
and trade” system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide by either reducing emissions on their own or by buying
credits from more efficient producers.
( ) A lack of action on the environment by Bush is forcing McCain to distance himself from the president – the plan
reverses the tables on this key election issue
NYT, 8 (Elisabeth Bumiller, “Stumping On Climate, McCain Faults Bush,” 5-14-2008, p.A16, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP
Senator John McCain intensified his criticism of President Bush and the administration's environmental polices on Tuesday,
taking a walk in the cold, rain-drenched foothills of the Cascade Mountains and asserting that in the effort to stem climate
change, ''America can lead and not obstruct.''
At an outdoor news conference in the Cedar River Watershed east of Seattle, Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican
presidential nominee, declared that ''the president and I have disagreed on this issue for many years -- it isn't a recent
disagreement.'' He added, ''There is a longstanding, significant, deep, strong difference on this issue between myself and the
administration.''
Mr. McCain was on his second day of a trip to the Pacific Northwest, a potential swing region in the November election, to
promote his plan to slow global warming and appeal to the region's many independent voters who view the environment as an
election issue of critical concern. Mr. Bush, who questioned the scientific basis for global warming in his first term, is deeply
unpopular, and Mr. McCain, whom the president endorsed at the White House in March, has been sprinting away from him
this week.
The senator has proposed mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States -- Mr. Bush is opposed -- but
Mr. McCain's Democratic competitors, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, have offered plans to reduce
emissions more quickly.
RPS Aff & Neg 81
Obama DA – Energy Issues Key to the Election

( ) Energy issues will drive the election
Victor, 8 – professor at Stanford Law School and directs the Freeman Spogli Institute's Program on Energy & Sustainable Development
(David G., “The Energy Trap, Why the United States is doomed to be an energy outlaw,” 3-3-2008,
www.newsweek.com/id/118087/output/print)
Democrats voting in Ohio and Texas may well decide the shape of the U.S. presidential election. Regardless of who they
choose to run against Sen. John McCain, the all but certain Republican candidate, it is likely that energy issues will figure
more prominently in the election than at any time in the last generation. High prices are sapping economic growth, the No. 1
concern across most of the country. Gasoline is now approaching $4 a gallon; natural gas and electricity are also more costly
than a few years ago. Global warming has become a bipartisan worry, and solving that problem will require radical new
energy technologies as well. All this is good news in the rest of the world, which is hoping that a new regime in Washington
will put the United States on a more sustainable energy path.
( ) Energy issues dominating the presidential election
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 7 (November 25, 2007)
Oil prices flirting with $100 a barrel, warnings of climate change and holiday road trips fueled by gas topping $3 a gallon are
combining to give energy issues unprecedented prominence in the presidential campaign.
RPS Aff & Neg 82
Obama DA – A2: Economy is Key Issue

( ) Energy independence is linked to the economy – it is a key issue in the election
Al-Ahram Weekly, 8 (Anayat Durrani, “Middle East takes a backseat,” June 12-18, 2008,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/901/in1.htm) // JMP
The economy is the real issue in the presidential campaigns, though just maybe the Iraq debacle has a silver lining for
Obama, analyses Anayat Durrani
With the primaries and Hillary Clinton behind them, the race between senators Barack Obama and John McCain is officially
on. Both candidates are wasting no time as their bid for the presidency gains momentum. On their dash to the White House,
the presidential hopefuls have already made their usual stops before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
But with a voter base concerned with rising gas prices and a weakened economy, how the issues of Jerusalem and Iraq will
play out in the candidate's political campaigns remains to be seen.
"Iraq is important and the Middle East peace process and the status of Jerusalem are important, but the peace process and the
status of Jerusalem are not as 'front and centre' as the war in Iraq," said David McCuan, associate professor of political
science at Sonoma State University.
However, McCuan said the key issues in the race which are likely to continue to dominate are the economic slowdown and
the rise of gas prices. McCuan said election 2008 is shaping up to be one that is more about domestic politics and economics
at home rather than what is occurring abroad.
"The top issue in November 2008 is likely to be the state of the American economy, and the price of oil and the need for
energy independence will be a big part of that discussion," said Bill Boettcher, associate professor at the School of Public and
International Affairs of North Carolina State University.
RPS Aff & Neg 83
Obama DA – 2NC Soft Power Impact

( ) Obama victory key to restore U.S. soft power
Nye, 8 – Professor of IR at Harvard

(Joseph, Huffington Post, “Barack Obama and Soft Power,” 6-12-2008, www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-obama-
and-soft-pow_b_106717.html)
I have spent the past month lecturing in Oxford and traveling in Europe where Barack Obama could be elected in a landslide.
I suspect that this fascination with Obama is true in many parts of the world. In fact, as I have said before, it is difficult to
think of any single act that would do more to restore America's soft power than the election of Obama to the presidency.
Soft power is the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than using the carrots and sticks of
payment or coercion. As I describe in my new book The Powers to Lead, in individuals soft power rests on the skills of
emotional intelligence, vision, and communication that Obama possesses in abundance. In nations, it rests upon culture
(where it is attractive to others), values (when they are applied without hypocrisy), and policies (when they are inclusive and
seen as legitimate in the eyes of others.)
Polls show that American soft power has declined quite dramatically in much of the world over the past eight years. Some
say this is structural, and resentment is the price we pay for being the biggest kid on the block. But it matters greatly whether
the big kid is seen as a friend or a bully. In much of the world we have been seen as a bully as a result of the Bush
Administration policies.
( ) U.S. soft power prevents 30 regional conflicts from going nuclear
Nye, 96 – Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government

(Joe, Washington Quarterly, "Conflicts after the Cold War,” 19.1)
As a result of such disjunctions between borders and peoples, there

have been some 30 communal conflicts since the end of the Cold War, many
of them still ongoing. Communal conflicts, particularly those involving wars of secession, are very difficult to manage through the UN and
other institutions built to address interstate conflicts. The UN, regional organizations, alliances, and individual states cannot provide a universal answer to the dilemma of self-
determination versus the inviolability of established borders, particularly when so many states face potential communal conflicts of their own. In a world of identity crises on many
levels of analysis, it is not clear which selves deserve sovereignty: nationalities, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, or religious groups. Similarly, uses
of force for
deterrence, compellence, and reassurance are much harder to carry out when both those using force and those on the
receiving end are disparate coalitions of international organizations, states, and sub national groups. Moreover, although few communal
conflicts by themselves threaten security beyond their regions, some impose risks of "horizontal" escalation, or the spread to other states within
their respective regions. This can happen through the involvement of affiliated ethnic groups that spread across borders, the sudden flood of refugees into neighboring
states, or the use of neighboring territories to ship weapons to combatants. The use of ethnic propaganda also raises the risk of "vertical" escalation
to more intense violence, more sophisticated and destructive weapons, and harsher attacks on civilian populations as well as military personnel.
There is also the danger that communal conflicts could become more numerous if the UN and regional security organizations lose the credibility, willingness, and capabilities
necessary to deal with such conflicts.
Preventing and Addressing Conflicts: The Pivotal U.S. Role
Leadership by the United States, as the world's leading economy, its most powerful military force,, and a leading democracy, is a key factor in
limiting the frequency and destructiveness of great power, regional, and communal conflicts. The paradox of the post-cold war role of
the United States is that it is the most powerful state in terms of both "hard" power resources (its economy and military forces) and "soft" ones (the appeal of its political system
and culture), yet it is not so powerful that it can achieve all its international goals by acting alone. The United States lacks both the international and domestic prerequisites to
resolve every conflict, and in each case its role must be proportionate to its interests at stake and the costs of pursuing them. Yet the United States can
continue to
enable and mobilize international coalitions to pursue shared security interests, whether or not the United States itself supplies large military
forces. The U.S. role will thus not be that of a lone global policeman; rather, the United States can frequently serve as the sheriff of the posse, leading
shifting coalitions of friends and allies to address shared security concerns within the legitimizing framework of international
organizations. This requires sustained attention to the infrastructure and institutional mechanisms that make U.S. leadership effective and joint action possible: forward
stationing and preventive deployments of U.S. and allied forces, prepositioning of U.S. and allied equipment, advance planning and joint training to ensure interoperability with
allied forces, and steady improvement in the conflict resolution abilities of an interlocking set of bilateral alliances, regional security organizations and alliances, and global
institutions.
RPS Aff & Neg 84
Obama DA – Solves the Case

( ) Obama supports an RPS
Kammen, 8 – professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley
(Daniel M., San Francisco Chronicle, “Dan Kammen: Clean energy and America's future,” 5-18-2008,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/IN3R10MGSK.DTL) // JMP
The Democratic presidential candidates have each committed to a national energy portfolio of at least 25 percent of
electricity from clean energy sources by 2025, and all three candidates are in favor of cap-and-trade systems to build
greenhouse gas markets. It is vital, but politically challenging, to make sure that all emissions credits are auctioned, not given
away to large polluters. We are now in a moment - perhaps a first - where a growing view exists that energy and climate
could be front-burner issues for candidates and voters. The time is right to focus on the energy system we want, not on the
one we had, and sadly, still have.
( ) Obama will expand renewables
IHT, 8 (Carey Gillam, International Herald Tribune, “Wind power gains adherents in United States,” 5-19-2008,
www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.php) // JMP
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has proposed investing $150
billion over the next decade for investments in alternative energy, including wind, solar and biodiesel. His rival for the
nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, is also proposing a $150 billion 10-year investment in a "new energy
future."
RPS Aff & Neg 85
Obama DA – A2: Appeasement Turn

( ) Turn – diplomacy is key to solve terrorism and prevent proliferation
Al-Ahram Weekly, 8 (Dina Ezzat, “If Obama wins; Promises of a friendlier US position towards Egypt, and the rest of the
region, were voiced by a supporter of the Democratic Party candidate,” June 19-25, 2008,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/902/eg1.htm) // JMP
Meanwhile, while in Cairo, Richardson argued that a Middle East peace would not just be about Israel and the Palestinians but would have to include all the other parties, especially Syria. Indeed, according to
Richardson's statements on Monday, Syria must be engaged not just to promote a comprehensive peace deal between Arabs and Israelis but also to promote regional stability in general.
To serve the same purpose Richardson also proposed that the US needs to "talk to Iran" despite the positions of its president. Arguing that it would be a security threat to the
the way to win Iran was to talk with it rather than to go to war against it.
region and beyond, he still thought that The US, he said, could press Russia to exercise
more influence on Iran in view of the close ties and cooperation, including nuclear, between Moscow and Tehran. Sanctions, he added, if adhered to at the international level, could also be an option.
Richardson was arguing the case for Washington to be more dependant on the apparatus of multilateralism, especially the UN and
Overall,
He added that this leadership should
international law, and including the International Court of Justice, to promote its policies. "It is time that the US provides new leadership," he said.
be inspired by "an ethical new realism that is based less on military and more on diplomacy."
Through diplomacy, Richardson argued, the US could combat terrorism, prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons among states and
non-state actors and secure its interests. But, he added, it would also have to make commitments to participate in the containment of global warming and in putting a human face to
globalisation.
[Note – Bill Richardson is the governor of New Mexico, a former US presidential candidate and a current key figure in
the campaign backing Barack Obama]
( ) Obama’s willingness to engage “enemies” is key to solve terrorism and promote global peace
Khalil, 8 – Egyptian researcher and journalist

(Yasser, Christian Science Monitor, “Obama's appeal in the Muslim world,” 6-13-2008,
www.csmonitor.com/2008/0613/p09s02-coop.html) // JMP
Cairo - U.S. Senator Barack Obama represents a phenomenon that has drawn global attention and captivated the minds of Muslims around the world as he wages a spirited
campaign to become the next president of the United States.
In spite of the campaign's heated debate and some controversial rhetoric regarding Islam, large segments of the Muslim population here remain fascinated with the election and
have become big fans of Senator Obama.
This level of support for an American presidential candidate is unprecedented in the Muslim world. That it comes amid an almost unanimous feeling of indignation and rage
toward US foreign policy – particularly in Iraq and the Palestinian territories – makes it even more noteworthy.
The simple explanation is that many Muslims see new reason for hope in the political approach of Obama and his advisers. His
apparent eagerness to rally more
international support for US policy, and even talk to America's "enemies," is cause for optimism. Imagine what global politics might look
like in Iraq, or Sudan, or Afghanistan, if Obama-like vision had influenced US leadership earlier.
As an Arab Muslim in Egypt who is affected by US foreign policy, I believe an
Obama approach may help solve the accumulated problems between
Muslims and the US that have become more aggravated since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. New and more creative techniques
for dealing with extremists instead of the controversial methods used by the current US administration could also stop giving Al Qaeda and other
such groups the pretext for recruiting new members. Then, perhaps, extremists would lose the arguments that fuel their criminal
machine and lead them to destroy innocent people.
There are, of course, those in the Muslim world who oppose Barack Obama. They argue that US policy will not change with a new president. To them I say that Obama has already
proved there's room to rock the boat; he opposed the decision to invade Iraq and is making concrete, logical recommendations for withdrawing US troops there.
Muslim cynics argue that all American politicians, including Obama, are biased toward Israel at the expense of Arabs. But we must differentiate between a candidate's support for a
Jewish state and an inherent bias toward it. The US friendship with Israel doesn't have to be a threat, especially if he takes a more active stance on creating just and fair policies for
the rest of the Arab world.
And then there was the apostate debate. When Obama was described as a potential Muslim apostate, many Muslims reacted with bewilderment and curiosity. Obama has said he
was never a Muslim in the first place, yet some people considered him to be one through his father. To me, it's clear that Islam is a free choice, not hereditary.
Other Internet campaigns exploited Obama's alleged Muslim links by portraying America as a "racist country" whose citizens and politicians would never permit Obama to win
because he is black and has Muslim roots. The effort was misleading, but nonetheless garnered the candidate even more sympathy in the Muslim world.
Obama's denial of being a Muslim does not mean that he sees it as an accusation, instead, he could be distancing himself from charges of deceit and hypocrisy. It's time to move on
from these unnecessary debates and judge this promising presidential candidate on his political visions and ability to balance global Muslim interests with those of his
constituencies and friends.
By embracing dialogue with Muslim populated countries such as Syria and Iran, and jump-starting US diplomatic efforts,
Obama will open doors that have been shut – and bolted – in recent years. It is in the interest of all Muslim countries that the US president have such a
constructive approach, even while maintaining a high degree of friendship with Israel and powers supporting it in the US and abroad.
In pursuing rational, inclusive, and creative politics, Obama can remain effective while still overcoming obstacles that
impede the path of global peace and coexistence.
RPS Aff & Neg 86
Topicality – Incentives Exclude Regulations – 1NC

A. Incentive are positive inducements – this excludes requirements
Turnbull et al, 01 - professor of Special Education and Courtesy Professor of Law, Co-Director of the Beach Center on
Families and Disability, University of Kansas (Ann, 30 J.L. & Educ. 445 (2001), “IDEA, Positive Behavioral Supports, and
School Safety,” Hein Online)
The term "incentive" is different from the term "requirement." An incentive is a positive reason for acting; a requirement is a
legal duty to act. The differ-ence in meaning is consistent with our argument above that the PBS provisions do create a
presumption in favor of that technology.
B. Violation – the plan is a regulatory mandate, not solely a positive inducement
C. This is a voting issue –
1. Limits – there are already dozens of positive inducements across dozens of potential types of alternative energy, they
make the topic too broad by including an entire new class of plan mechanisms
2. Negative ground – they make the topic bidirectional, including “disincentives” means we need an entire new category of
negative arguments because the stick approach is radically distinct from the carrot
Harris, 89 – professor of law at the University of Illinois (Fred, 49 La. L. Rev. 1315 (1988-1989) “Automobile Emissions
Control Inspection and Maintenance Program: Making It More Palatable to Coerced Participants”, Hein Online)
53. The term "incentives," for purposes of this Article, means those devices that induce one into doing something because of
the prospect of reward and, therefore, engender a positive feeling within the actor. An example of incentives in this sense
would be tax incentives like credits and/or deductions. But it appears that Congress, some courts and a few commentators
have taken a broader view of incentives and have categorized items such as extensions to compliance deadlines and, most
notably, sanctions in the Act-denials of federal grants and bans on construction in the event of noncompliance-as incentives
to compliance. To be sure, these latter items may induce compliance but surely not because of the extension of a "carrot."
Instead,they epitomize the "stick" or "disincentive" approach to behavioral modification.
3. Potential abuse is a voting issue – it overstretches our research burdens and undermines preparedness for all debates
RPS Aff & Neg 87
Topicality – Incentives are Positive

Incentives – even broadly defined – must be positive – they exclude negative penalties
Knowler, 99 - UN Food and Agricultural Organization (D., “Incentive Systems for Natural Resource Management: The Role
of Indirect Incentives”, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/x2247e/x2247e00.pdf)
1.8 Incentives may be broadly defined, as in “everything that motivates or stimulates people to act” (Giger 1996). What is
important about such a broad definition is that it allows for incentives to be of either a passive or an active nature. In the
former case, we can think of incentives as signals in the producer’s environment which influence decision-making about
farming practices, whether intended or otherwise. Many macroeconomic policies, being remote from the producer and
targeted at objectives other than promoting sustainable farming practices, would fit into this category. In contrast, the notion
of ‘active’ refers to a government’s ability to actually design or modify policies with a desire to bring about certain
conservation outcomes. McNeely (1988), for example, refers to this concept of incentive when he defines incentives as “any
inducement which is specifically intended to incite or motivate governments, local people, and international organizations”
(p.38-39). We draw this distinction because of the need to consider both active and passive aspects when assessing the
importance of incentives for NRM. While governments may be most concerned with the design of good policies aimed at
improving NRM, they need to be cognizant of the sometimes counterproductive influence exerted by a poor incentive
structure, in the passive sense.
1.9 McNeely (1988) also makes the useful distinction between incentives, disincentives and perverse incentives.In contrast to
incentives, which we have described above, disincentives are purposely designed to discourage particular behaviours and can
include taxes, fines and various other penalties or moral suasion. For purposes of this study, we will not consider
disincentives as distinct from incentives per se, but it is useful to be aware of the distinction. In contrast, perverse incentives
incite resource users to damage or deplete the resources in question in a socially inefficient manner and are closely related to
the concept of policy failure, which is discussed in Chapter 2.
Incentives are an offer of value meant to alter a course of action

Grant, 02 - professor of political science at Duke University (Ruth, “THE ETHICS OF INCENTIVES: HISTORICAL
ORIGINS AND CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDINGS,” Economics and Philosophy, 18 (2002) 111, proquest)
Increasingly in the modern world, incentives are becoming the tool we reach for when we wish to bring about change. In
government, in education, in health care, between and within institutions of all sorts, incentives are offered to steer people's
choices in certain directions. But despite the increasing interest in ethics and economics, the ethics of the use of incentives
has raised very little concern. From a certain point of view, this is not surprising. When incentives are viewed from the
perspective of market economics, they appear to be entirely unproble-matic. An incentive is an offer of something of value,
sometimes with a cash equivalent and sometimes not, meant to influence the payoff structure of a utility calculation so as to
alter a person's course of action. In other words, the person offering the incentive means to make one choice more attractive
to the person responding to the incentive than any other alternative. Both parties stand to gain from the resulting choice. In
effect, it is a form of trade, and as such, it meets certain ethical requirements by definition. A trade involves voluntary action
by all parties concerned to bring about a result that is beneficial to all parties concerned. If these conditions were not met, the
trade would simply not occur. And as inducements in a voluntary transaction, incentives certainly have the moral high
ground over coercion as an alternative.
Incentives are subsidies and financial assistance

Energy Information Administration, 01 (US Department of Energy, “Renewable Energy 2000: Issues and Trends”,
February, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/renewables/06282000.pdf)
The term “incentive” is used instead of “subsidy.” Incentives include subsidies in addition to other Government actions where
the Government’s financial assistance is indirect. A subsidy is, generally, financial assistance granted by the Government to
firms and individuals.

Starter Set

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Starter Set

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RPS Aff & Neg 1

Michigan Debate Institutes 2008

RPS 1AC – Contention 1 & Plan

Thus we present the plan:

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted

RPS 1AC – Fossil Fuels Adv

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

Sawin, 2 – Research Associate at the Worldwatch Institute

Evidence continues on the next page – no text deleted

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

Segal, 4 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations

The result is global nuclear exchange

Khalilzad, 95 – Rand Corportation

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

RPS 1AC – Competitiveness Adv

C. A National RPS Improves Manufacturing Efficiency

RPS 1AC – Terrorism Adv

Busby, 3 – doctoral candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University

( ) European nations support a 20% mandatory target for renewables

RPS 1AC – Terrorism Adv

Terrorism outweighs on timeframe and probability

Environment Ext – RPS Reduces Coal Use

A National RPS Better Conserves Water, Air and Land

6. Environment: A National RPS Conserves Water, Air & Land

Competitiveness Ext – Competitiveness Key to Heg / Heg Impact

Khalilzad, 95 – Rand Corportation

( ) This causes several scenarios for nuclear war

Ferguson, 4 – History Professor, Harvard

Terrorism Ext – Concessions on Climate Key to Coop & Heg

Busby, 7 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin

Busby, 6 – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs at UT Austin

Does it Matter if States are Unreliable?

( ) Investment in energy technology is declining – lack of a federal lead

( ) The U.S. under invests in clean energy development

A2: RPS Bad Arguments ***

( ) Existing organizations can help facilitate compliance

( ) State and federal regulators would enforce a national RPS

IV. Impact on State and Federal Regulators

A2: No Transmission / Infrastructure

3. Transmission: A National RPS Speeds Infrastructure Investment

( ) A national RPS will lead to critical upgrades in electricity infrastructure

Moving to Federal Action – A Green Jobs/Renewable Energy Portfolio

( ) A federal RPS benefits utilities – comparatively better than state-based approaches

B A national RPS benefits utilities

( ) State implementation varied – no uniformity

Bryner, 2 – Dept Political Science @ Brigham Young

( ) Fiating uniformity takes out their competition and experimentation arguments

Kansas Law Review ‘99 (November, p. 1322)

( ) The federal modeling argument is empirically denied

A2: Clean Coal DA ***

A2: Clean Coal DA – Support Decreasing

( ) Clean coal is stalling

A2: Clean Coal DA – Doesn’t Solve Environment

Hitt, 8 – executive director of Appalachian Voices, an environmental organization