RPS Aff-Neg

Wildcat Debate Workshop <Renewable Portfolio Standards>
RPS Affirmative
RPS Affirmative.................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1AC....................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Inherency- Strong government support needed...............................................................................................................................................13
Inherency- RPS promotes many different REs................................................................................................................................................14
Inherency- RPS doesn’t include Nuclear.........................................................................................................................................................15
Solvency- RPS should include geothermal, biomass, wind and solar.............................................................................................................16
Solvency- Empirically Proven.........................................................................................................................................................................17
Solvency- Public wants renewables................................................................................................................................................................19
Solvency- RPS should sunset..........................................................................................................................................................................20
Solvency- RPS ensures cheap Renewables.....................................................................................................................................................21
Solvency- RPS ensures shift to Renewables...................................................................................................................................................22
Solvency- ONLY RPS provides renewable.....................................................................................................................................................23
Solvency- Companies will comply..................................................................................................................................................................25
Solvency- RPS  LFG, Wind, Solar, and Geothermal...................................................................................................................................26
Solvency- RPS  Wind, Solar, geothermal and lower biomass.....................................................................................................................27
Solvency- AT: Renewable cant fill in for FF...................................................................................................................................................28
Solvency- AT: renewables provide sporadic power.........................................................................................................................................29
Blackouts ADD ON.........................................................................................................................................................................................30
Warming- Renewables solve warming............................................................................................................................................................32
Warming- RPS solves CO2 & prevents future FF...........................................................................................................................................33
Warming- RPS solves Warming and meets Kyoto..........................................................................................................................................34
Warming- RPS reduces CO2 & Enviro Toxins ..............................................................................................................................................35
Economy- RPS Improves economy ................................................................................................................................................................36
Economy- Competitiveness - US can be Competitive....................................................................................................................................37
Economy- Consumer Confidence -Lowers Electric Prices.............................................................................................................................38
Economy- AT: consumers will have to pay more for electricity ....................................................................................................................41
Economy- Consumer Confidence RPS creates jobs........................................................................................................................................42
Economy- Jobs Key to Economy....................................................................................................................................................................43
Economy- Consumer Confidence – Biz Con I/L.............................................................................................................................................44
Economy- RPS prevents LNG use..................................................................................................................................................................45
Economy- LNG Terrorist attacks likely...........................................................................................................................................................46
Solar- RPS  Solar.........................................................................................................................................................................................47
Solar- Space Add ON.......................................................................................................................................................................................48
Solar- Key to Econ...........................................................................................................................................................................................49
Solar- Solar Space key to exploration.............................................................................................................................................................50
Solar- Space Impacts.......................................................................................................................................................................................51
Solar- AT: Too expensive.................................................................................................................................................................................52
Wind- RPS promotes Windpower....................................................................................................................................................................53
Wind- RPS  Offshore Wind.........................................................................................................................................................................54
Wind- Ag Econ Add On...................................................................................................................................................................................55
Wind- Helps Rural Farmers.............................................................................................................................................................................56
Wind- Farms key to econ.................................................................................................................................................................................57
Wind- Industrial agriculture Impact................................................................................................................................................................58
LFG- RPS Promotes LFG................................................................................................................................................................................59
LFG- Acid Rain Add on...................................................................................................................................................................................60
LFG- Acid Rain Kills Bio D............................................................................................................................................................................61
LFG- Bio D Impact- Hunger...........................................................................................................................................................................62
LFG- Bio D Impact- Health.............................................................................................................................................................................63
LFG- Warming ADD On.................................................................................................................................................................................64
LFG- Solves warming.....................................................................................................................................................................................65
LFG- Solves Water Pollution ..........................................................................................................................................................................66
LFG- Odors......................................................................................................................................................................................................67
LFG- Creates Livable communities.................................................................................................................................................................68
LFG- Solves Lower Property values...............................................................................................................................................................69
LFG- AT: Not enough landfills........................................................................................................................................................................70
1
Geothermal- can power millions of homes......................................................................................................................................................71
Geothermal- available nationwide...................................................................................................................................................................72
Geothermal- Uninterrupted Electricity............................................................................................................................................................73
Geothermal- ensures economic growth...........................................................................................................................................................74
Geothermal –Earthquakes ADD ON...............................................................................................................................................................75
Geothermal- Prevents Earthquakes..................................................................................................................................................................76
Geothermal- Earthquakes  Volcanoes..........................................................................................................................................................77
Geothermal- Volcano to Super volcano I/L.....................................................................................................................................................78
Geothermal- Volcanoes Impacts......................................................................................................................................................................79
Geothermal- Lowers CO2 emissions...............................................................................................................................................................82
Nuclear power- RPS Prevents/Shuts down......................................................................................................................................................83
Disads- AT: Oil Disad......................................................................................................................................................................................84
Counterplans- AT: States.................................................................................................................................................................................85
Counterplans- AT; XO.....................................................................................................................................................................................89
Counterplans- AT: Alternative mechanisms ...................................................................................................................................................90
Counterplans- AT: Feed-in laws CP- ..............................................................................................................................................................91
Counterplans- AT: Tendering policy CP- ........................................................................................................................................................92
Counterplans- AT: Voluntary ..........................................................................................................................................................................93
Kritiks- AT: Libertarianism / Coercion ...........................................................................................................................................................94
Politics- RPS bipartisan ..................................................................................................................................................................................95
Politics- Solar Bipartisan ................................................................................................................................................................................96
Politics- GOP Dislikes Solar............................................................................................................................................................................97
Politics- Plan Popular......................................................................................................................................................................................98
Politics- Green Tech Unpopular......................................................................................................................................................................99
Politics- Senate Support.................................................................................................................................................................................100
Politics- Solar Popular...................................................................................................................................................................................101
EIA Indicts.....................................................................................................................................................................................................102
Electric Power Research Institute Indicts......................................................................................................................................................103
Random- RPS spreading Internationally.......................................................................................................................................................105
Random- Random Electric Bad.....................................................................................................................................................................106
Neg- States solvency/Federalism UQ............................................................................................................................................................108
Neg- States C/P for Solar...............................................................................................................................................................................109
NEG- LNG Protected.....................................................................................................................................................................................110
Neg- Geothermal BAD..................................................................................................................................................................................111
Neg- Geothermal Bad – Earthquake Turn.....................................................................................................................................................113
Neg- LFG bad................................................................................................................................................................................................115
Neg- AT: LFG solves methane warming........................................................................................................................................................116
Neg- AT: Solar...............................................................................................................................................................................................117
Neg- Biomass  Pollution............................................................................................................................................................................119
Neg- Wind Bad..............................................................................................................................................................................................120
2
1AC
Observation 1- Inherency
No Federal RPS now
Barkenbus, Research Scientist at ISSE, October 2006.
Environment Mag., Putting Energy Efficiency in a Sustainability Context, accessed 7/7/08, Vol. 48, p. 11
More than 20 states now have opted for renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that require a certain percentage of electricity to be
generated from renewable resources. The U.S. Senate has passed a federal RPS in recent past sessions but has had no support from either
the House of Representatives or the executive branch. With a federal RPS containing a renewable target of at least 10 percent of electricity
generation by 2020. the nation would be making a feasible and significant commitment toward sustainability
Plan- The United States Federal Government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in
the United States by implementing a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard starting at nine percent and
increasing by one percent per year until sunset requirements of equal market competitiveness emerge; until
then the renewable requirements must be met in terms of electricity production from one or more of the
following: wind, solar, geothermal or landfill gas sources, with an non compliance fee of three times the price
of renewable energy credits. Funding and enforcement guaranteed.
Observation 2- Solvency
A RPS non compliance penalty of 3 times the price of Renewable energy credits would ensure compliance—
empirically proven
Nancy Rader, Policy Advisor American Wind Energy Association. The Mechanics of a Renewables Portfolio Standard Applied at the
Federal Level, American Wind Energy Association. 1997 http://www.awea.org/policy/rpsmechfed.html accessed July 08, 2008
For generators that fall short of the required number of credits at the end of the reporting period, an automatic penalty for non-compliance
is assessed. The amount of the penalty is three times what it would have cost to purchase each REC that the generator should have
acquired. This penalty is estimated to be about 3¢ to 5cents¢ per RE--C—high enough to encourage full compliance, yet not so high as to
encourage litigation. The high penalty level is intended to make the policy self-enforcing by avoiding the need to resort to costly
administrative and enforcement measures. It is modeled after the federal SO2 allowance trading program, under which an automatic
$2,000/ton penalty (indexed to inflation) is imposed for each excess ton of SO2 produced. SO2 credits are trading currently at about $100
each, though costs were originally projected to fall between $500 and $1500. Because of the high penalty associated with noncompliance
under the SO2 allowance program, which took effect in 1995, the EPA did not take a single enforcement action in the policy's first
effective year. Another similar program is NEPOOL's capacity reserve requirement, under which each participant is fined $105/kW-year
for capacity shortfalls. This is well in excess of compliance costs, and has successfully deterred non- compliance (though the fine has
been assessed and paid on several occasions).
RPS should require a slow gradual increase in percentage requirements—this is the only way to stabilize the
renewable market
An RPS is best designed to preserve the existing level of renewable energy serving the nation and then to gradually increase the
percentage requirement to achieve greater diversity over time. A yearly increase in the standard would create the best conditions for
renewable energy suppliers since it would prevent "boom and bust" cycles that might be caused by large percentage increases that occur
every five years or so. A constant, predictable market will also foster lower costs since renewable energy industries will not have to go
through cycles of layoffs and rehiring, losing human resources and institutional memory along the way. If the RPS is set to take effect
within a short time after its adoption, it should begin at a level that is slightly less than the amount of energy which can be delivered by
the existing renewable energy generators in order to create competition among those generators at the outset. If the policy becomes
effective far enough in the future to allow new renewable facilities to come on line, giving generators the ability to bargain effectively for
3
REC purchases from existing facilities and/or to obtain RECs from new facilities, the standard can be set at existing or higher levels.
Given the relatively short lead-time required for renewable energy facility development, two years would provide plenty of advance time.
The US is the only country that can ensure that the world gets on board the renewable revolution
The Japan Times, Renewable energy sources offer global chance to shed fossil fuels. July 8, 2004 L/N
As the leading national consumer of fossil fuels, the United States churns out almost a quarter of all the industrial carbon dioxide
worldwide. Apologists say this is the price that must be paid in exchange for driving the global economy. Realists see such hubris as
eventually undermining human viability on Earth through pollution and climate change. U.S. inaction on its oil dependency is doubly
frustrating because there are now "renewable" energy sources that offer practical alternatives to coal and oil. If the U.S. were to begin the
switch to renewables now, there is every reason to expect a global win-win situation within decades, economically and environmentally.
America's passive acceptance of fossil-fuel dependence is also particularly disheartening because it is the only nation with the wealth,
technological expertise and international leverage needed to lead a global energy revolution. If the U.S. does not bring its own energy
juggernaut under control, then unprecedented international cooperation will be required for the world community to set a new and saner
course.
4
Advantage 1- Warming
First, burning fossil fuels is causing Climate Change, Multiple factors prove.
Spaulding 3
(Raci Oriona, J.D. @ the U of Iowa College of Law, “Fuel From Vegetables? A Modern Approach to Global Climate Change”, 13
Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 277, Spring, accessed online p. L/N) DMZ
Perhaps the most serious consequence of the ever-increasing global reliance on the products of industrialized economies is the problem of
global climate change. This change in global climate has been largely attributed to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - carbon emissions
caused by burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal. n21 Most available evidence suggests that there [*281] is a detectable human
influence on the global climate. n22 For instance, the U.S. Climate Action Report of 2002, written by the Environmental Protection Agency,
indicated that "greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface
air temperature and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." n23 Additionally, Christopher Flavin, President of Worldwatch Institute, has
noted that: From the ice cap at the North Pole, which has lost 40 percent of its thickness in the last decade, to the coral reefs near the
Equator, one-quarter of which have been killed by rising ocean temperatures and other stresses, the Earth is telling us that we are entering
an era of dangerous climate change that is already threatening populations around the world. Already, economic damages from natural
disasters has reached $ 608 billion over the last decade - as much as in the previous four decades combined. n24 Humans magnify these
effects by increasing the global economy's dependence on fossil fuels. As more fossil fuel is demanded by automobiles, factories, and
power plants, more fossil fuel is burned, thus emitting more carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere and exacerbating global warming.
The effects of global warming, while still somewhat uncertain, are expected to do damage around the globe by causing excessive droughts
in some areas while increasing rainfall in others, exacerbating coastal damage like erosion, and increasing instances of heat stress and
respiratory illness in many nations. n25 Statistics from nations around the world demonstrate the truth of this statement. For instance:
Dramatic examples of the human health impacts from severe flooding can be found in China. In 1996, official national statistics showed
200 million people affected by flooding. There were more than 3,000 deaths and 363,800 injuries; 3.7 million residences were destroyed,
with 18 million damaged. Direct economic loses exceeded U.S. $ 12 billion. n26Chinese statistics have further shown that "200 million
people [were] affected by flooding, more than 3,000 [were killed], and 4 million homes [were] damaged; direct economic losses exceeded
U.S. $ 20 billion." n27 While Chinese scientists could not prove [*282]
that all of these impacts are directly attributable to human-induced climate change, [they could] say that the heating of the planet that has
already occurred is likely to be at least partially responsible for the severity of these human health impacts. Moreover, [they could say
that] future heating will make such adverse impacts more probable. n28
Second, There is a scientific consensus that CO2 is causing warming

Doughton 4
(Sandi, Seattle Times staff reporter, “The truth about global warming”, October 11, accessed online June 12, 2008, p. L/N) DMZ
"With each passing year the evidence has gotten stronger — and is getting stronger still." 1995 was the hottest year on record until it was
eclipsed by 1997 — then 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Melting ice has driven Alaska Natives from seal-hunting areas used for
generations. Glaciers around the globe are shrinking so rapidly many could disappear before the middle of the century. As one study after
another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious community of
science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where
attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion:
The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.
5
Third, Studies disprove sun as the source of warming

Johansen 2
(Prof of Comm @ UNO, “The Global Warming Desk Reference”, p. 87, NetLibrary) DMZ
G L O B A L - W A R M I N G S K E P T I C S A N D T H E S U N S P O T C Y C L E Many global-warming skeptics argue that the

sunspot cycle is causing a significant part of the warming that has been measured by surface thermometers during the twentieth century's
final two decades. Accurate measurements of the sun's energy output have been taken only since about 1980, however, so their archival
value for comparative purposes is severely limited. Michaels, editor of the World Climate Report, cites a study of sunspot-related solar
brightness conducted by Judith Lean and Peter Foukal, who contend that roughly half of the 0.55 degree C. of warming observed since
1850 is a result of changes in the sun's radiative output. "That would leave," says Michaels, "at best, 0.28 degree C. [due] to the
greenhouse effect" (Michaels 1996). J.J. Lean and her associates also estimate that approximately one-half of the warming of the last 130
years has resulted from variations in the sun's delivery of radiant energy to the earth (Lean, Beer, and Bradley 1995). While solar
variability has a role in climate change, Martin I. Hoffert and associates (writing in Nature) believe that those who make it the primary
variable are overplaying their hand: "Although solar effects on this century's climate may not be negligible, quantitative considerations
imply that they are small relative to the anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide" (Hoffert et al. 1999, 764
Fourth, 20% by 2020 RPS would remove 50 percent of CO2 emissions

ALAN NOGEE, 05
Alan Nogee, DIRECTOR, CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS. 2005
http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=RPS+questions&page=2. #11 comments and testimony. Accessed 7/8/08.
http://www.ucsusa.org/. p.10
Electricity use has a significant impact on the environment. Electricity accounts for less than 3 percent of US economic activity. Yet, it
accounts for more than 26 percent of smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, one-third of toxic mercury emissions, some 40 percent of
climate changing carbon dioxide emissions, and 64 percent of acid rain-causing sulfur-dioxide emissions. Renewable energy can reduce
these emissions, thereby reducing the cost of hitting any emission caps. Our analysis found that a 20 percent renewable electricity
standard could reduce the projected growth in power plant carbon dioxide emissions by more than 50 percent by 2025. Because the 20
percent renewable standard would save money for electricity and gas consumers, these are free (or negative cost) carbon reductions. They
represent free insurance against the risk that power plants— the largest source of carbon emissions in the U.S. economy—may have to
reduce those emissions someday. Even most utility executives believe that they will have to implement carbon reductions eventually. Yet
in response to the increase in natural gas prices, more than 100 new coal-fired power plants have been proposed. These plants will expose
their owners, power purchasers, and customers to the risk of future price increases that could be avoided by investing in renewable energy
instead. 11 Indeed, under an economy-wide cap-and-trade approach, the carbon reductions from increasing renewable energy will save
money for every sector of the economy. Whether you think that the risk of climate change is great or small, increasing renewable energy
can reduce the risk of responding to it. And renewable energy reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and
mercury, reducing the cost of complying with emission reduction requirements for these pollutants as well.
6
Fifth, Global Warming turns the planet into a fiery Mars – all life will end
Dr. Brandenberg, Physicist (Ph.D.) and Paxson a science writer ’99 – John and Monica, Dead Mars Dying Earth p. 232-3
The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere,
but this affects the far north and south and not the major nations’ heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but the media networks no
longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon desert. Oxygen levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in
bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fail.
Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event occurs—a major volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift
in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents do not occur have paid little attention to life or Mars),
or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and Russia . . . Suddenly the gradual climb in global
temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm and release large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths
into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down precipitously as oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then
double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which
further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which
release more carbon dioxide, and the oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a
runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to Venus eons ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, “See!
I told you the missing sink was in the ocean!” Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen
disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and are lost and the dead Earth loses its ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the
Sun for it to be the second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is slowly lost—as is its water—because of ultraviolet bombardment breaking up
all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth becomes colder. For a short while temperatures
are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The carbon dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with
a few wispy clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars—red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy microbes surviving.
7
Advantage 2- Economics
Scenario 1- LNG
A) Terrorist are going to target LNG sources
Cindy Hurst, political-military research analyst with the Foreign Military Studies Office. She is also a Lieutenant Commander in the
United States Navy Reserve. Terrorist Threats to Liquefied Natural Gas: Fact or Fiction?, The cutting Edge. June 2, 2008.
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=529 accessed July 8, 2008
On 14 February 2007, the Saudi Arabian arm of al-Qaeda put out a call to all religious militants to attack oil and natural gas sources
around the world. Through such attacks, according to the call, al-Qaeda hopes to “strangle” the U.S. economy. Such proclamations give
fodder to those who highlight the possibilities that liquefied natural gas (LNG) could be used as a lethal weapon of mass destruction.
Industry officials on the other hand point out the improved security measures in place as a result of 9/11.
While the U.S. continues to pursue LNG as a way to diversify its natural gas resources, in order to meet anticipated future shortfalls and
increase energy security, the opponents and proponents of LNG have been locked in a bitter debate with no solid conclusion.
Proponents are correct in that both safety and security measures currently in place make LNG terminals and ships extremely hard targets
for terrorists. However, it would be imprudent to believe that terrorists are either incapable or unwilling to attack such targets.
B) Renewable energy set at 20 percent of electrical outputs would ensure reliability of electricity and
prevent the need for massive amount of fossil fuels, including natural gas
Union of Concerned Scientists, Energy and Security. June 19, 2008 http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/energy-and-
security.html accessed July 08, 2008
Renewable energy would go even further toward improving the reliability and resilience of the electricity system. Wind farms and solar
arrays carry none of the vulnerability of nuclear or fossil fuel plants. They are small and geographically dispersed, making them difficult
to target. Moreover, they have no fuel supply that can be disrupted or volatile fuel stocks that can burn. Expanding energy efficiency and
increasing renewable energy to 20 percent of the total energy supply would reduce natural gas use by 31 percent compared to business as
usual project-ions. We would eliminate the need for 975 new power plants of 300 megawatts each, as well as avoiding many miles of new
gas pipelines and power lines. We could retire 14 existing nuclear power plants of 1,000 megawatts each and reduce coal generation by 60
percent, closing 180 coal plants of 500 megawatts each.
C) LNG transport attacks are likely cause other countries don’t worry about security—and an attack in
SE Asia which is highly likely would crush the global economy
The rest of the world does not seem to share the same security and safety concerns as Americans regarding LNG. This could be a potential
problem. Acting on these concerns, the U.S. has strict security measures in place. Meanwhile, in other areas of the world security is
severely lacking, leaving massive tankers floating as easy targets. An attack could occur anywhere. One key location would be in
Southeast Asia. Since 9/11, analysts have often pointed to the vulnerabilities of the Strait of Malacca. The Strait of Malacca is
approximately 600 miles long, but only 1.5 miles across at its narrowest point. Furthermore, it is the busiest chokepoint in the world. In
2006, more than 65,600 ships passed through it. An attack on an LNG tanker in the narrowest part of the strait would put a serious delay
on the traffic traversing through. This could have a significant impact on the world’s economy, which is heavily dependent on commerce
traversing the strait. At least a dozen LNG tankers pass through the Strait every day. Catherine Zara Raymond, of the Jamestown
Foundation, described a number of potential scenarios that could occur in Southeast Asia involving maritime terrorism. Citing concern by
Singapore’s Foreign Minister George Yeo in a speech to the ASEAN Regional Forum in July 2005, Raymond suggested that terrorists
could highjack an LNG tanker and blow it up in Singapore harbor.
8
Scenario 2- Competitiveness
A) Germany, Japan and China are the world leaders in Renewables now—plan is needed to ensure our
development of renewables
Richard Barr is an NASD general securities principal and registered investment advisor specializing in Socially Responsible Investing
with First Affirmative Financial Network. THE CONSCIOUS INVESTOR: RENEWABLE ENERGY IS INEVITABLE, The Santa Fe
New Mexican. July 20, 2004 L/N
In all cases around the world, the advancement of renewable energy has been spurred by strong government policies designed to nurture
nascent energy industries and to create demand for these technologies, often in markets dominated by mature, heavily subsidized fossil
fuels and nuclear power. Since the early 1990s, Germany and Japan have achieved dramatic successes with renewable energy and today
lead the world in the use of wind and solar power, respectively. The common elements to their stories are long-term commitments to
advancing renewable energy, effective and consistent policies, the use of gradually declining subsidies, and an emphasis not only on
government R&D but also on market penetration. And, while George Bush is turning back the clock on environmental protection, it
should be acknowledged that Bill Clinton paid scant attention to the development of renewables during his eight years in office. But with
cheap gas, no one pays attention to these problems. Now that gas is hovering around $2 a gallon, still the cheapest gas in the developed
world, short-sighted Americans are dropping their SUVs like hot potatoes, as well they should. Even China has finally hopped on the
bandwagon. China is preparing a law to promote the use of renewable energy as an alternative to more highly polluting fuels, in the hope
this sector's share of total energy supplies will rise from negligible now to 10 percent of the total by 2020. In fact, developing renewable
energy is the only way for China to sustain its energy development. It is difficult to claim that something is impossible once it has already
occurred, which is what the powers that be would have us believe. This is why it is globally significant that two of the world's largest
economies transformed themselves from laggards to leaders in renewable technologies in less than a decade. What Germany and Japan
have accomplished can be replicated here with the right mix of policies, and John Kerry is making more than just noise on these issues.
B) Renewables are critical to our economic competitiveness

Herzog et al. 2001
Antonia V. Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman are postdoctoral researchers and Jennifer L. Edwards is a research assistant at the Renewable
and Appropriate Energy Lab (RAEL), Energy and Resources Group (ERG), at the University of California at Berkeley. Daniel M.
Kammen is a professor of Energy and Society with ERG and a professor of Public Policy with the Goldman School of Public Policy.
RENEWABLE ENERGY: A VIABLE CHOICE, Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10 (December 2001).
The United States has lagged in its commitment to maintain leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of which are
related to the energy sector. 6 The United States has fallen behind Japan and Germany in the production of photovoltaic systems, behind
Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and behind Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of fuel-cell systems.
Developing these industries within the United States is vital to the country’s international competitiveness, commercial strength, and
ability to provide for its own energy needs.
C) Competitiveness is critical to hegemony

Zalmay Khalilzad. Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War, The Washington Quarterly. 1995
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.
9
D) US Hegemony prevents nuclear war

Zalmay Khalilzad. Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War, The Washington Quarterly. 1995
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.
Scenario 3- Consumer Confidence

A) US consumer confidence is down now and it directly effects the world economy
The Nielsen Company, a global information and media company with leading market positions in marketing information (ACNielsen),
media information (Nielsen Media Research), online intelligence (NetRatings and BuzzMetrics), mobile measure- ment, trade shows and
business publications (Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, Adweek). The privately held company is active in more than 100 countries,
with headquarters in Haarlem, the Netherlands, and New York, USA. Consumer Confidence, Concerns, Spending and Attitudes to
Recession. June 2008
ttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:XHfYTyDrG98J:www.nielsen.com/solutions/GCC_LR_200608.pdf+%22unemployment+rates%22
+%22Consumer+confidence%22+%22United+States%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a accessed July 9, 2008
“The last six months have been the most turbulent period for the global economy in several decades. When the USA sneezed at the outset
of the sub prime disaster nearly a year ago, the rest of the world quickly caught a cold. No region or country has been spared the domino
effect of the US sub-prime and credit crisis”, observed David Parma, global head of Customized Research, The Nielsen Company.
“Consumers around the world are struggling with the same global issues that are impacting their daily lives. It’s an unfortunate pendulum.
On the one hand we are seeing soaring global oil prices, rising commodity prices which are impacting grocery prices, rising interest rates
and increasing inflation. This is happening in tandem with falling property prices, weakening labour markets, decreasing industrial output
levels and growing unemployment rates which have all resulted in less spending power for the average person. Overall, it’s not a good
picture,” commented Parma.
B) US consumer confidence is down now because of concerns over jobs and energy concerns—And low
consumer confidence devastates business confidence
The Nielsen Company, a global information and media company with leading market positions in marketing information (ACNielsen),
media information (Nielsen Media Research), online intelligence (NetRatings and BuzzMetrics), mobile measure- ment, trade shows and
business publications (Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, Adweek). The privately held company is active in more than 100 countries,
with headquarters in Haarlem, the Netherlands, and New York, USA. Consumer Confidence, Concerns, Spending and Attitudes to
Recession. June 2008
ttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:XHfYTyDrG98J:www.nielsen.com/solutions/GCC_LR_200608.pdf+%22unemployment+rates%22
+%22Consumer+confidence%22+%22United+States%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a accessed July 9, 2008
Consumers in three of the world’s most developed economies – the United States, Japan and New Zealand, have taken a serious turn in
the last few months. Not surprisingly, consumer confidence has fared badly In the United States, the world’s largest economy, epicentre of
the sub-prime housing and credit crises. Consumer confidence in the US plummeted 17 points in the last six months, a drop second only
in magnitude to New Zealand’s. “With high gas prices, falling property values, food inflation and other economic pressures, it’s not a
surprise that the economy is a top concern for many Americans,” said Parma. “Manufacturers and retailers take note – because clearly,
value for money is more important than ever.” The majority of United States consumers have a bleak view of the economy. Sixty-six
percent of U.S. respondents have a pessimistic view of their local job prospects over next 12 months, with 50 percent saying they’re not
so good, and 16 percent calling them downright bad. Only three percent of United States consumers consider their job prospects excellent.
10
C) National RPS would increase consumer confidence by saving people money, generate new jobs AND
it would reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent
Christopher E. Cotter, staff writer University of Dayton Law Review, 2007 University of Dayton Law Review,
Wind Power and the RPS, Accessed July 07, 2008, Accessed on Lexis Law
Most proponents of a federal RPS promote a 20% quota by 2020 ("RPS 20") and claim that all benefits of an RPS 10 would be increased
with an RPS 20. n258 Studies have shown that an RPS 10 "would have virtually no effect on consumer electricity prices." n259 However, an
RPS 20 would actually save consumers $ 27 billion by 2025. n260 Analysis by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory indicates that
more renewable energy in the marketplace reduces use of natural gas and places downward pressure on natural gas prices. n261 The
analysis also found that an RPS 20 could reduce the projected growth in power plant carbon dioxide emissions by more than 50% by
2025. n262 Thus, increasing renewable energy at a national level can reduce the risks of climate change, whether such a risk is great or
small. n263 A federal RPS could also benefit the national economy. n264 Analysis by UCS found that an RPS 20 would create an increase of
approximately 157,500 new jobs by 2020, $ 72.6 billion in new capital investment, $ 5 billion in new property tax revenues for local
communities, and $ 1.2 billion in wind power land-lease payments to farmers, ranchers, and other rural landowners. n265 While a federal
RPS would particularly benefit states with manufacturing or rural economies, renewable resources are available in every state and are
much more broadly dispersed than fossil fuel resources. n266
D) Without business confidence the economy will collapse

John Braithwaite, Australian Research Council Federation fellow, Australian National University, and is the chair of the Regulatory
Institutions Network. HOPE, POWER, AND GOVERNANCE: SECTION ONE: BUILDING INSTITUTIONS OF HOPE: Emancipation
and Hope, The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science. March, 2004
The challenge of designing institutions that simultaneously engender emancipation and hope is addressed within the assumption of
economic institutions that are fundamentally capitalist. This contemporary global context gives more force to the hope nexus because we
know capitalism thrives on hope. When business confidence collapses, capitalist economies head for recession. This dependence on hope
is of quite general import; business leaders must have hope for the future before they will build new factories; consumers need confidence
before they will buy what the factories make; investors need confidence before they will buy shares in the company that builds the
factory; bankers need confidence to lend money to build the factory; scientists need confidence to innovate with new technologies in the
hope that a capitalist will come along and market their invention. Keynes's ([1936]1981) General Theory of Employment, Interest and
Money lamented the theoretical neglect of "animal spirits" of hope ("spontaneous optimism rather than . . . mathematical expectation" (p.
161) in the discipline of economics, a neglect that continues to this day (see also Barbalet 1993).
Scenario 4- Digital Economy

A) The plan provides the clean reliable energy that is needed to ensure a strong digital economy
Business Wire, Global Green USA Responds to Energy Crisis; Organization Joined by Cities in Advocating an Environmentally and
Economically Sound Blueprint for Energy Reliability. Jan 11, 2001.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_Jan_11/ai_69029130 accesssed July 9, 2008
US Industry today, 2001 Governor Gray Davis and the state legislature are considering several proposals now, many of which are
intriguing, including Treasurer Phil Angiledes's proposed public power authority. Regardless of the final solution, California's energy
policy must provide the reliability the digital economy needs while not jeopardizing the environment. "The framework and actions we
have proposed would help protect California's economy from the volatility of energy prices and financial losses suffered by businesses
due to power outages," continued Petersen. "At the same time, this strategy will allow California to take seriously its role -- as the sixth
largest economy in the world -- in stemming climate change, preventing air pollution, and ensuring protection of public health." As
reported recently by the Los Angeles Times, local cities are considering how they can pursue these strategies on their own. "Now is the
time for communities throughout California to beat back the electricity profiteers and take greater control of our energy destiny," said
Craig Perkins, city of Santa Monica. "We can accomplish this through simple, cost-effective and locally run energy efficiency programs
that benefit small customers. "In addition, we must aggressively implement distributed generation projects using renewable energy
technologies and operating for the benefit of end users, not mega utilities," Perkins continued. "We agree with Global Green USA that we
need a new coalition of voices to call for this blueprint."
11
B) The digital economy is the most important part of the economy – it outweighs your turns
GREGORY L. ROHDE. PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY L. ROHDE BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION, Federal News Service. SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 p. L/N
I am nothing less than thrilled about the opportunity to serve in NTIA. Who wouldn't be? Telecommunications and information
technologies and services are evolving and growing at an unrivaled pace, creating new avenues of opportunity in so many aspects of our
lives. At the turn of the century, natural resources such as oil fueled the engine of our economy. Today, telecommunications and
information technologies have our economy roaring. This is a growth industry like no other, even in our booming economy. The
opportunities flowing from telecommunications and information technologies are bounded only by our collective imagination. According
to the recent Commerce Department report The Emerging Digital Economy II, information technologies have accounted for more than
one-third of our nation's economic growth during this period of unprecedented expansion. Telecommunications and information industries
are creating jobs, cutting inflation, and bringing new efficiencies to the American economy. This revolution, however, is not just about the
creation of wealth, but about enhancing the social well being of all citizens. It is about improving the way we teach and learn in schools. It
is about extending the reach of health care. And, it is about fostering public safetyand bringing people together. The information
revolution is by no means limited to the great expanse between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans - it is worldwide. America is once again
leading the way by championing a competitive marketplace that is a magnet for capital investment. The economic challenge the
telecommunications revolution poses for policy makers today is how to foster innovation and investment in the U.S. telecommunications
and information industries using a competitive model and assert our leadership in the new global digital economy. The social challenge is
how to ensure privacy and universal access.
AND FINALLY THE IMPACT ALL OF THESE SCENARIOS IS EXTINCTION

Tom Bearden, PhD. in nuclear engineering, April 25, 2000, THE TOM BEARDEN WEBSITE, p.
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm accessed 5-20-06.
Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of the
[wmd] weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then---as all the old strategic
studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When
the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived
enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological
warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is
certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the great Armageddon
we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that
scenario or some modified version of it, resulting
12
Inherency- Strong government support needed

Success of an energy policy relies on political perception
Wiser, Ryan (Center for Renewable Energy Development). June 2002. “Renewable Energy Policy Options for China: A Comparison of
Renewable Portfolio Standards, Feed-in Tariffs, and Tendering Policies.” Center for Resource Solutions. Google Scholar. <
http://www.resource-solutions.org/lib/librarypdfs/IntPolicy-Feed-in_LawsandRPS.pdf> accessed July 7, 2008.
The political sustainability of the market is the most complicated sustainability issue. The political sustainability depends upon the
‘perceived’ costs and benefits of the policy, the underlying economic health of the electricity sector, the stability of government policies in
general, public support for renewables, and the relative political influence of developers of competing technologies not included in the
mandated policy. Finally, if the financial community perceives that political support is not sustainable, that the policies are likely to
change or are not being enforced, they may be reluctant to finance new renewable energy projects and market sustainability will dissolve.
13
Inherency- RPS promotes many different REs

RPS include many types of energy currently
Sanya Carleyolsen, M.S. Energy Analysis from the University of Wisconsin, 2006
Natural Resource Journal, Tangled in the Wires, Accessed July 7, 2008, Accessed on Lexis Law
One of the most common state RE policies is the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Program. n85 An RPS is a percentage mix of RE --
including PV, wind, biomass, geothermal, tidal, and hydropower -- that every electricity company in the state must include in the total fuel
batch. n86 An RPS is a method to facilitate RE integration into the energy market, eventually driving down the cost of RE by making
technologies more dependable and predictable and promoting competition. Each state that opts for an RPS program must decide an
appropriate RE percentage to enforce based on a number of factors including the availability of RE fuels, the structure of the electricity
market and the stage of deregulation, and the environmental goals of the given state; this percentage is gradually increased over time. n87
The portfolio standards are tradable in the sense that one electricity company that operates above percentage can accredit another
company for financial compensation. n88 Leading RE policy analysts contend that a federal RPS is needed as a measure to mandate the
diversification of fuel sources with the integration of RE. n89
14
Inherency- RPS doesn’t include Nuclear

RPS does not include nuclear power
Robert K Huffman and Jonathon M Weisgall, Georgetown Law, 2008
American University Law and Policy, Climate Change and the States, Accessed July 7, 2008, Accessed on Lexis Law
A renewable portfolio standard ("RPS") is a state-level mandate requiring electric utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their power
from renewable resources. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia currently have RPSs, while four other states have non-binding
goals for adopting renewable energy. n31 A typical RPS might call for having twenty percent of energy produced from renewable resources
by 2020. Currently, Minnesota and Oregon have the highest standards calling for twenty-five percent renewable energy production by
2025. n32 The renewable resources that qualify for state RPS programs generally include wind, solar (concentrated and photovoltaic),
geothermal, and biomass. Nuclear power does not satisfy RPS requirements and cannot be used to meet the renewable standards.
15
Solvency- RPS should include geothermal, biomass,

wind and solar
RPS system should define renewable as biomass, geothermal, wind and solar
This term refers to natural energy resources that are inexhaustible: wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower.[3] However, for the
purpose of qualifying for benefits under the RPS, "renewable energy" can be defined in the policy process to include only those renewable
resources that the nation wishes to particularly encourage. Encouragement is most appropriate for those resources and technologies that
currently produce an insignificant amount of total U.S. electricity generation, but which have great potential to provide a significant share
of the nation's power within the next decade and beyond. Fitting that description would be wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.
16
Solvency- Empirically Proven

Almost Half of America has attempted Renewable Portfolio Standards, with vast success.
Gregory A. Keoleian, Ph D in Chemical Engineer and a Professor at U-Mich, et.al, 2007, (Center for Sustainable Systems-University of
Michigan, “Michigan at a Climate Crossroads: Strategies for Guiding the State in a Carbon-Constrained World,” Accessed on July 7,
2008, css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS07-02_ExecSum.pdf )
As of Forum I, RPS measures had been enacted by 22 states and the District of Columbia.5 Shortly after Forum II, in November 2006,
voters in Washington State approved Initiative 937, requiring the state’s largest utilities to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from new
renewable sources, including wind and solar, by 2020. I-937 also requires utilities to pursue low-cost opportunities for energy
conservation.6 (See Appendix F.1 for a list of states that enacted an RPS and the specific fuels that qualify as renewable.) The growth of
renewable energy attributable to state RPSs has exceeded the expectations of policymakers, resulting in several states, most prominently
Texas and Nevada, increasing their RPS targets over time.
RPS has worked so well in States, some are revising the policies for lofty goals.
Ryan Wiser, Environmental Energy Technology Division, et al, 2007, (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Renewable Portfolio
Standards in the United States,” Accessed on July 7, 2008, eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-154e.pdf)
Figure 2 illustrates the growing tendency for states to revise existing RPS policies. Eleven states made substantial modifications to their
RPS programs in 2007, as described further in Table A-2 in the Appendix.7 These changes have generally been to strengthen pre-existing
RPS requirements, often by increasing renewable energy targets, removing supplier exemptions, or adding resourcespecific set-asides.
RPS have worked in past and would be good on a national level

Brad Sherman, University of Kansas, 2006
William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Changing Electrical Energy Market, Accessed 07/07/08, Lexis Law
First, renewable portfolio standards, also known as renewable electricity standards, "require[] electric utilities to gradually increase their
use of renewable energy resources." n140 Renewable portfolio standards have shown success on the state level in reducing harmful
greenhouse gas emissions. n141 In all, twenty states have enacted renewable portfolio standards. n142 By 2017 these standards should reduce
CO2 emissions by almost 75 million metric tons, an amount equivalent to the emissions produced by 11.1 million cars. n143 Enacted on a
national level, renewable portfolio standards could greatly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the United States in the
relatively near future. n144
RPS work – empirically proven

Jonathan Hibshman, Drake University Law School, 2007
Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Utilizing wind power, Accessed July 7, 2008, Accessed on Lexis Law
One such program encompasses renewable energy initiatives. A state's renewable energy initiative generally varies to the extent the state
has public policy committed to renewable energy. Renewable Electricity Standards, also known as Renewable Portfolio Standards
("RPSs"), are among the most effective [*485] policies aimed at the promotion of renewable energy. n84 Under these standards, state
legislatures set minimum levels of electricity to be provided by renewable sources. n85 Most state RPS standards increase the amount of
renewable energy provided by states from between ten and twenty percent of the state's current energy sources. n86 Utilizing these
standards, state legislatures are able to determine which technologies will provide the most cost-effective alternative. n87 As of 2003,
fifteen states had implemented RPS programs, which resulted in 2,004 of the 2,335 MW of new renewable energy generated. n88 Wind was
by far the largest contributor, with approximately 2,183 MW of the new generating capacity coming from wind power facilities. n89 It is
clear that state renewable portfolio standards are leading the renewable energy effort in the United States. These programs have the
benefit of providing flexibility to various regions and states, which allows for refining and restructuring based on state or local factors.
This, in turn, makes the programs more efficient.
17
RPS work – Texas and California show

Cory Stephen Shook, Fordham University School of Law, 2007
Fordham University Journal, Blowing in the Wind, Accessed on July 7, 2008, Accessed on Lexis Law
A modern approach to legislatively ensuring a renewables market was needed. By the early 1990s, the electricity-regulatory paradigm had
shifted toward the promotion of competition inside the energy industry. n324 The renewable portfolio standard ("RPS") emerged as an
option to sustain renewable energy's progress in a changing electricity [*1050] marketplace. n325 The RPS's flexibility is part of its
strength, as it can be implemented in a variety of ways to suit the policy ends of the legislature. n326 The common denominator is that a
quota of electricity within a state or nation must be produced, sold, or consumed by a specified time in the future. n327 In all, twenty-two
states and the District of Columbia have instituted some form of RPS. n328 California requires that the state's investor-owned utilities
obtain and distribute 33% of their power from renewable energy sources by 2020. n329 Texas, by contrast, eschews a proportional standard
and instead dictates that its renewable energy capacity reach 5,880 megawatts by 2015. n330 Interestingly, the development of the Texas
RPS was derived in part through "deliberative polling," where utilities and regulators estimated the potential demand for renewable
energy through customer polling data. n331 New York has perhaps the most ambitious RPS, mandating that a full 25% of the state's energy
be derived from renewable sources by 2013. n332 By 2020, 40,000 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity are projected to come
online because of state standards mandating renewable energy. n333 According to NREL, the RPS is the most effective "policy driver" at
the state level to encourage wind power development. n334 Between 2001 and 2004, about half of the nation's 4,300 megawatts of newly
installed wind energy capacity results from RPS policies. n335 If "set-asides" for solar energy are included, by 2020 an additional 1,000
megawatts of photovoltaic power could be [*1051] contributed. n336 For example, Texas raised its RPS target of 1,280 megawatts for
2003 to 2,880 megawatts in renewable capacity by 2009 and saw 1,332 megawatts of wind power alone come online by the middle of
2005, n337 prompting the eventual 3,000 megawatt expansion to the RPS for 2015. n338 The EIA found that in incrementally raising the RPS
bar by 2.5% every few years until it reached 10% between 2020 and 2030, the effects would be dramatic. n339 By 2025, without a national
RPS, wind power generation is expected to be 32.0 billion kilowatt-hours. n340 With the 10% RPS, wind power generation rises to 140.7
billion kilowatt-hours.
18
Solvency- Public wants renewables

The public will want the purchasing of renewals—they are publically popular
David Morris. Republicans Support Fossil Fuels, Not Renewable Energy, Institute for Local Self Reliance. October 11, 1995
http://www.ilsr.org/columns/1995/11Oct95.html accessed July 08, 2008
The Republican national energy policy flies in the face of the popular will. Polls consistently show that Americans far prefer renewables
and efficiency over nuclear power and fossil fuels. In part this preference stems from environmental concerns. But a more important
reason for the popularity of renewables is that they lend themselves to household or farm or community level power plants and refineries.
They allow more and more of us to become producers as well as consumers. Oil, gas and coal are found in only a few locations. But
sunlight and wind and plant matter are available everywhere. Rooftop solar electric devices can transform houses into tiny power plants.
Wind and plant matter derived energy promise an economic renaissance to rural America. That is what the American people want.
19
Solvency- RPS should sunset

RPS should sunset, this allows renewable to become competitive in the market—otherwise companies will
think the lack of stability is too costly financially
When renewables become competitive with conventional electricity sources on a direct-cost basis, the RPS self-sunsets. That is, as the
cost of conventionally fueled power rises and the cost of renewable power declines, RECs will have less and less value. When the value
stabilizes at virtually nothing, the RPS will no longer be needed. It is important not to sunset the program before this point, since costs can
be reduced substantially if the standard is expected to be in place until renewables are fully competitive. A stable RPS will enable long-
term contracts and lower-cost financing. Without long-term policy stability, the cost of renewable energy projects could increase by 25-
50% as a result of increased financing costs
20
Solvency- RPS ensures cheap Renewables

RPS will Foster Strong Economic Development
Union of Concerned Scientist, 02
Union of Concerned Scientist. Real Energy Solutions: The Renewable Energy Standard. 9/4/02.
http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=RPS+domestic. Union of Concerned Scientist. Accessed 7/7/08. URL http://www.ucsusa.org/
This RPS will stimulate domestic investment in new renewable energy throughout the nation, creating jobs and income in rural areas as
well as in the high tech and manufacturing sectors. Wind energy could provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers and rural
landowners by 2020 and 80,000 new jobs, according to the US Department of Energy. Tripling US use of biomass energy could provide
as much as $20 billion in new income for farmers and rural communities. With a strong domestic renewable energy industry, the US
economy would benefit from the large export potential of this industry.
RPS would use market forces to ensure wind, solar, biomass and geothermal electricity at the lowest prices
possible
American Wind Energy Association, The Renewables Portfolio Standard: How It Works and Why It's Needed. October 1997
http://www.awea.org/policy/rpsbrief.html accessed July 8, 2008
The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) is a flexible, market-driven policy that can ensure that the public benefits of wind, solar,
biomass, and geothermal energy continue to be recognized as electricity markets become more competitive. The policy ensures that a
minimum amount of renewable energy is included in the portfolio of electricity resources serving a state or country, and -- by increasing
the required amount over time -- the RPS can put the electricity industry on a path toward increasing sustainability. Because it is a market
standard, the RPS relies almost entirely on the private market for its implementation. Market implementation will result in competition,
efficiency and innovation that will deliver renewable energy at the lowest possible cost.
RPS is a free market way of creating renewable—it won’t play favorites but will ensure results at the lowest
possible price
The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) is market-based policy for increasing the amount of renewable energy serving our country. It
requires all generators or retail sellers of power[2] to demonstrate, through ownership of tradable "renewable energy credits," that they
have supported the generation of a certain amount of renewable power. Because the RPS applies equally to all competing electricity
providers, it is competitively-neutral. The regulatory role is limited to certifying credits, verifying that generators possess the required
number of credits at the end of each year, and imposing a significant penalty for non-compliance on those that fall short. This penalty is
sufficiently large to ensure full compliance. A primary advantage of the RPS as compared to the "system benefits charge" method for
promoting the commercial development of renewables is that it does not require the centralized collection and dissemination of funds or
require state agencies to make decisions about winners and losers. The market makes all decisions regarding which renewable plants to
build, where, and for what price. The bottom line is results: the generation of renewable power by a date certain. We can expect the
market to deliver these results at the lowest possible cost.
21
Solvency- RPS ensures shift to Renewables

Renewables Portfolio Standards Are Increasingly Motivating Renewable Energy Development
Ryan Wiser, Environmental Energy Technology Division, et al, 2007, (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Renewable Portfolio
Standards in the United States,” Accessed on July 7, 2008, eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-154e.pdf)
Though experience remains somewhat limited, state RPS policies are already beginning to have a sizable impact on the amount and
location of renewable project development. These policies are one of a number of drivers for renewable energy. Other significant factors
include Federal tax incentives, state renewable energy funds, voluntary green power markets, the specter of future greenhouse gas
regulations, and the economic fundamentals of certain forms of renewable energy relative to conventional generation. Disentangling these
various drivers is – to put it mildly – challenging. As one indicator of the role of state RPS programs in renewable resource development,
over 50% of non-hydro renewable capacity additions in the U.S. from 1998 through 2007 occurred in states with active, mandatory RPS
policies, totaling roughly 8,900 MW (see Figure 5). Since 2002, this percentage rises to over 60%. In 2007 alone, approximately 76% of
all non-hydro renewable capacity additions came from states with active RPS programs. By this metric at least, it appears that state RPS
policies are already playing a major role in renewable resource development in the United States.
RPS creates a market for renewable energy producers

Twelve U.S. states have now adopted an RPS. What is evident from experience in Maine, Texas, Arizona, and Wisconsin is that the design
is critical to the success of the policy. Where designed appropriately, as in Texas, an RPS can create a large and vibrant market for
renewable energy and integrate renewable energy supply into the overall competitive electricity system. An RPS can provide support for
the least-cost eligible renewable energy sources and ensure the maximum degree of competition among renewable generators. Overall
diversity among renewable energy sources will be limited, because of the intense competition between project developers. This
competition will tend to favor the most experienced industry participants, including foreign companies.
22
Solvency- ONLY RPS provides renewable

Renewable energy won’t be able to compete because of government support for fossil fuels, only RPS can
provide the necessary initiatives for renewable to compete.
ALAN NOGEE, 05
http://www.ucsusa.org/. p11-15
If increasing renewable energy would save consumers money, why aren’t utilities switching to renewables? In fact, a few are beginning to
invest in wind energy as a purely economic proposition. Others are financing renewable energy development by allowing customers to
volunteer to pay a little more for renewable energy. But the reality is that about three-quarters of the renewable energy developed in recent
years, and projected to be developed in the next decade, is the result of state renewable electricity standards. Renewable energy has made
great strides in reducing costs, thanks to research and development and growth in domestic and global capacity. The cost for wind and
solar electricity has come down by 80-90 percent over the past two decades. However, like all emerging technologies, renewable
resources face commercialization barriers. They must compete at a disadvantage against the entrenched industries. They lack
infrastructure, and their costs are high because of a lack of economies of scale. Renewable energy technologies face distortions in tax and
spending policy. Studies have established that federal and state tax and spending policies tend to favor fossil-fuel technologies over
renewable energy. A 2003 study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project showed that between 1943 and 1999, the nuclear industry
received over $145 billion in federal subsidies vs. $4.4 billion for solar energy and $1.3 billion for wind energy. Another study by the non-
partisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the oil and gas industries would receive an estimated $11 billion in tax
incentives for exploration and production activities between 1999 and 2003. In addition to these subsidies, conventional generating
technologies enjoy a lower tax burden. Fuel expenditures can be deducted from taxable income, but few renewable technologies benefit
from this deduction, since most do not use market-supplied fuels. Income and property taxes are higher for renewable energy, which
require large capital investments but have low fuel and operating expenses. Many of the benefits of renewable resources, such as reduced
pollution and greater energy diversity, are not reflected in market prices, thus eliminating much of the incentive for consumers to switch to
these technologies. Other important market barriers to renewable resources include: lack of information by customers, institutional
barriers, the small size and high transaction costs of many renewable technologies, high financing costs, split incentives among those who
make energy decisions and those who bear the costs, and high transmission costs. Some have called for future support of renewable
energy through “green marketing,” selling portfolios with a higher renewable energy content (and lower emissions) to customers who are
willing to pay more for them. We strongly support green marketing as a means to increase the use of renewable energy and reduce the
environmental impacts of energy use. Surveys show that many customers are willing to pay more for renewable energy, and pilot
programs have shown promising, but not overwhelming results. Green marketing is not a substitute for sound public policy, however.
There are many barriers to customers switching to green power, not the least of which is inertia. More than fifteen years after deregulation
of long-distance telephone service, half of telephone customers still had not switched suppliers, even though they could get much lower
prices by doing so. A 2003 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory projects that in an optimistic scenario, green marketing
could increase the percentage of renewable energy in our electricity mix from about 2 percent today to only about 3 percent in ten years.
With green electricity, the benefits of any individual customer’s choice accrue to everyone, not the individual customer. Green customers
gets the same undifferentiated electrons and breathe the same air as their neighbors choosing to buy power from cheap, dirty coal plants,
creating a strong incentive for people to be “free riders” rather than pay higher costs for renewable resources. People recognize this public
benefits aspect of green power. While they consistently say they are willing to pay more for electricity that is cleaner and includes more
renewable energy, they overwhelmingly prefer everyone paying for these benefits to relying on volunteers. A deliberative poll by Texas
utilities found that 79 percent of participants favored everyone paying a small amount to support renewable energy, versus 17 percent
favoring relying only on green marketing. Fortunately, 18 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted renewable portfolio standards.
The RPS is a market-based mechanism that requires utilities to gradually increase the portion of electricity produced from renewable
resources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar energy. It is akin to building codes, or efficiency standards for buildings,
appliances, or vehicles, and is designed to integrate renewable resources into the marketplace in the most cost-effective fashion. By using
tradable "renewable energy credits" to achieve compliance at the lowest cost, the RPS would function much like the Clean Air Act credit-
trading system, which permits lower-cost, market-based compliance with air pollution regulations. Electricity suppliers can generate
renewable electricity themselves, purchase renewable electricity and credits from generators, or buy credits in a secondary trading market.
This market-based approach creates competition among renewable generators, providing the greatest amount of clean power for the
lowest price, and creates an ongoing incentive to drive down costs. The states have proven that renewable electricity standards are popular
and can be effective. We project that state RPS laws and regulations will provide support for more than 25,550 megawatts (MW) of new
renewable power by 2017 – an increase of 192 percent over total 1997 US levels (excluding hydro). This represents enough clean power
to meet the electricity needs of 17.2 million typical homes. We estimate that by 2017 these state RPS programs will also reduce carbon
dioxide emissions – the heat-trapping gas primarily responsible for global warming – by 65.2 million metric tons annually. This is
23
equivalent to taking 9.7 million cars off the road or planting more than 15.6 million acres of trees – an area approximately the size of West
Virginia. As encouraging as these state developments have been, they are not enough to capture renewable energy’s potential benefits to
the national economy. Under a 10 percent RPS, we would have approximately 100,000 MW of non-hydro renewables. Under a 20 percent
RPS, we would have nearly 200,000 MW of non-hydro renewables—and save consumers money. Many people forget that we have given
voluntary measures and incentives more than a fair try. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 called for increasing our renewable energy
supplies by 75 percent, and enacted the production tax credit. Unfortunately, these measures have not been successful at stimulating more
than very limited renewable energy development outside of states that have implemented renewable portfolio standards. It is time for a
national minimum standard, on which states and volunteer efforts can continue to build. Energy production creates national economic and
environmental problems that need national solutions. A national renewables standard would establish uniform rules for the most efficient
trading of renewable energy credits. This uniformity would reduce renewable energy technology costs by creating economies of scale and
a national market for the most cost-effective resources. The RPS enjoys widespread bipartisan political support. In 2002, 143 members of
the House, including 21 Republicans called for including a Renewable Portfolio Standard in an energy bill. In a September 2003 letter to
the conferees, 53 Senators supported including a strong RPS in the energy bill conference report. The U.S. Senate has twice passed an
RPS and the majority of Senators on the energy bill conference supported the Bingaman RPS amendment.
24
Solvency- Companies will comply

RPS would ensure that penalties are high enough to make compliance would occur—empirically proven
with SO2 programs
Government involvement would be limited to certifying Credits, monitoring compliance, and imposing penalties if necessary. The Credit
certification process would apply to renewable producers who wish to certify their renewables output. Monitoring compliance would
require each generator to demonstrate ownership of a sufficient number of Credits relative to electricity sales. For generators that are not
in full compliance with the RPS at the end of the year, the administrative agency would assess an automatic penalty for each Credit that
the generator fails to produce as required. The amount of the penalty should be several times what it would have cost to purchase the
Credits. A high penalty level makes the policy self-enforcing by avoiding the need to resort to costly administrative and enforcement
measures. It is modeled after the federal SO2 allowance trading program, under which an automatic $2,000/ton penalty (indexed to
inflation) is imposed for each excess ton of SO2 produced. Because of the high penalty associated with noncompliance, the EPA has not
had to take any enforcement actions -- it is far more economic for power plants to comply than not.
RPS must have penalties for non-compliance to ensure solvency

Wiser, Ryan, Kevin Porter, Robert Grace. (Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
2005. “EVALUATING EXPERIENCE WITH RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARDS IN THE UNITED STATES.” Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Google scholar. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/v53920r96726341q/fulltext.pdf>
accessed July 7, 2008.
Insufficient Enforcement: We find that some states have inadequate enforcement of their RPS policies. Arizona perhaps provides the best
example. With no penalties for non-compliance, and with specified ratepayer surcharges being collected to help fund the RPS, the utilities
appear to have largely opted to comply with the policy only up to the amount of funds that have specifically been collected for that
purpose; full compliance has not been achieved. In other cases, the implications of non-compliance are left vague or unspecified: this is
the case in Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. In electricity markets that remain tightly regulated,
such as Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin, we find that such vague enforcement standards may be sufficient: as long as obligated
utilities know that the regulator is serious, they will comply. In restructured markets, however, a more clear non-compliance penalty such
as that used in Texas may be preferred (Texas applies a penalty of as much as 5 cents/kWh for any shortfall in compliance).
Noncompliance penalties key to enforce RPS and ensure renewable development

Wiser, Ryan, Kevin Porter, Robert Grace. (Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
)2005. “EVALUATING EXPERIENCE WITH RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARDS IN THE UNITED STATES.” Mitigation
and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Google scholar. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/v53920r96726341q/fulltext.pdf>
accessed July 7, 2008.
Principle #5: Enforceable. An effective RPS will also be enforceable, ensuring that the policy’s renewable energy targets and broader
goals are achieved. To realize this result, the most critical design element is to establish clear rules for enforcement in cases of
noncompliance, thereby providing confidence to renewable energy developers that LSEs will make their required purchases. For
competitive electricity providers, enforcement might include automatic financial penalties, suspension of the ability to sign up new
customers, and supplier license revocation. For regulated providers of last resort in competitive markets, on the other hand, the latter
options are not available; instead, financial penalties can be combined with requirements to file renewable energy procurement plans and
with authorized rate recovery only for prudently incurred costs. Consideration might also be given to cost caps, in which suppliers are
given the opportunity to pay a set price into a renewable energy fund in lieu of procuring renewables, to offer a less punitive approach to
enforcement. In vertically integrated, still-regulated markets, the need for automatic financial penalties is lessened. Instead, strong
oversight by regulators with control over renewable energy procurement practices and rate recovery may be sufficient. Nonetheless, even
in these markets, establishing clear implications for noncompliance will ensure that LSEs take their renewable energy requirements
seriously.
25
Solvency- RPS  LFG, Wind, Solar, and Geothermal

RPS ensures a diversity of renewable including LFG, Wind, Solar, and Geothermal
The RPS in its simplest form is a strategy for diversifying the electric supply with the lowest-cost renewable power available, as judged
through market competition. Its primary purpose is not aimed directly at technology commercialization, though it will certainly encourage
private investment in technology advancement. A diversity of renewable resources will be encouraged because generators and investors
are likely to seek out the most cost-effective technologies and technology applications, thereby taking advantage of the most cost-effective
applications of each resource (i.e., the low-cost end of the supply curve for each resource). Because the cost of many renewable
technologies, e.g., wind, geothermal, landfill gas and some solid-fuel biomass and some solar thermal facilities, are in the same
competitive range, the market is likely to result in a diversity of resources and technologies. The market can also be expected to seek out
cost-effective niche applications of renewables, such as distributed applications of photovoltaics. Higher-cost technologies can be
encouraged through commercialization programs (e.g., those funded by system benefits charges), which can work along side the RPS.
Because the RPS creates a market for renewables, it will help to close the gap between the cost of pre-commercial technologies and the
renewables-market price. As a result, technology commercialization program dollars can go farther as a result of the RPS.
26
Solvency- RPS  Wind, Solar, geothermal and lower

biomass
RPS stimulates geothermal, biomass and solar growth—biomass will be decreased—studies prove
Adrienne Ohler, PhD Canidate and MA in Economics, 2007 (Washington State University, “The Effects of Renewable Portfolio Standards
on Renewable Energy Sources,” Accessed on July 8, 2008, ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/9869/1/sp07oh01.pdf)
Since RPS programs have grown in popularity, I examine the impact they have on 13 renewable generation. These programs intend to
stimulate renewable energy through competitive markets, and this study examines how well RPS programs have performed. From 2000 to
2004, total geothermal generation increased by 1.86%, while solar generation increased by 17.36% and biomass generation decreased
1.13%. However, wind generation increased by 153%. This paper considers only the effects of RPS programs on wind generation.
27
Solvency- AT: Renewable cant fill in for FF

The U.S. has plenty of resources needed for renewable energy to be effective
The Union of Concerned Scientist, 01.
The Union of Concerned Scientist. RPS Questions and Answers. 11.8.01.

http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=RPS. Union of Concerned Scientist. Accessed 7/7/08. URL http://www.ucsusa.org/
The United States is blessed by an abundance of renewable energy resources from the sun, wind, and earth. The technical potential of
good wind areas, covering only 6% of the lower 48 state land area, could theoretically supply more than one and a third times the total
current national demand for electricity. An area 100 miles square in Nevada could produce enough electricity from the sun to meet annual
national demand. We have large untapped geothermal and biomass (energy crops and plant waste) resources. Of course, there are limits to
how much of this potential can be used economically, because of competing land uses, competing costs from other energy sources, and
limits to the transmission system. The important question is how much it would cost to supply 20% of our electricity from renewable
energy sources other than hydroelectric power.
28
Solvency- AT: renewables provide sporadic power

There won’t be a drop off the current system can handle it
ALAN NOGEE, 05
http://www.ucsusa.org/. p. 17
Some people have also expressed concerns about the variable output of renewable sources like solar and wind, and believe that an RPS
would affect the reliability of our energy system. However, the electric system is designed to handle unexpected swings in energy supply
and demand, such as significant changes in consumer demand or even the failure of a large power plant or transmission line. Solar energy
is also generally most plentiful when it is most needed—when air-conditioners are causing high electricity demand. There are several
areas in Europe, including parts of Spain, Germany, and Denmark, where wind power already supplies over 20 percent of the electricity
with no adverse effects on the reliability of the system. In addition, several important renewable energy sources, such as geothermal,
biomass, and landfill gas systems can operate around the clock. Studies by the EIA and the Union of Concerned Scientists show these
nonintermittent, dispatchable renewable energy plants would generate about half of the nation’s nonhydro renewable energy under a 10
percent RPS in 2020. Renewable energy can increase the reliability of the overall system, by diversifying our resource base and using
supplies that are not vulnerable to periodic shortages or other supply interruptions.
29
Blackouts ADD ON
RPS prevents blackouts because of the distributed electricity generation that occurs
Sam Schoofs, Calvin College 2004 WISE Intern . A Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard:
Policy Analysis and Proposal, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. August 2004
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:RJrczicWNyYJ:www.wise-intern.org/journal/2004/WISE2004-
SamSchoofsFinalPaper.pdf+A+Federal+Renewable+Portfolio+Standard,+%E2%80%9Cincreasing+national+concerns%E2%80%9D&hl
=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a accessed July 9, 2008
Increasing national concerns about the United States’ energy portfolio, electric reliability, and the environmental hazards of current
electricity generation technologies, among other issues, have led many to believe that a policy change should be adopted to increase
reliance on renewable energy. Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) have been implemented in 13 states and have met with varied
success. Several proposals have been made to implement an RPS on a national level. This paper will investigate the successes and failures
of state RPS, and reasons attributed. The pros and cons of these state RPS policies, will be examined as evidence for whether a federal
program could combine the best elements of current RPS policies and encourage long-term renewable energy competitiveness in the
market. There are many reasons why proponents of renewable energy seek to encourage its use as an energy source in the future. These
reasons will be mentioned briefly in order to establish a background for the topic of this paper. Each of these reasons has numerous facets
and counterarguments that have been explored on an in-depth level in other sources; for this paper, these arguments will be given in a
simplistic form for the purpose of brevity. The first reason renewable energy is promoted is the potential for distributed generation. This
would allow power to be generated at various points throughout the grid. The benefits of this are two-fold: first, there would be lower
transmission losses if this distributed energy were used at or near the point of production. Second, spreading out the distribution of power
allows for greater national security since power is being generated at multiple sources, rather than at centralized locations, which could be
prone to debilitating attacks. These two benefits combine to alleviate strain on the electricity grid, and could help prevent blackouts, such
as the one from August 2003, from reoccurring.
Blackouts cause nuclear reactor meltdown and will exacerbate the blackout
Earth Island Journal, Y2K Could Hit Nuclear Plants. Winter 2000 Vol. 14, No. 4
http://www.earthislandprojects.org/eijournal/win2000/wr_win2000y2k.html accessed July 8, 2008
Y2K failures could affect a nuclear reactor in multiple ways. First, a digital component failure might trigger a reactor failure directly.
(This is a big problem for Japan - the only country that no longer has manual back-up control for its reactor systems.) More indirectly, bad
data might cause a reactor operator to take inappropriate actions, which could cause an accident. The third type could happen if the
electricity fails. Reactors depend on off-site electric power to run cooling systems and control rooms, with emergency diesel generators
for automatic backup. Unfortunately, according to Olsen, even in the US these generators are "not even 90 percent reliable." In the US,
most local emergency officials are planning for three weeks without power. But diesel generators often overheat and usually are not
operated for weeks at a time. Many generators also have digital components that may be subject to Y2K failure. "It takes only two hours
without the cooling system functioning for reactor fuel to melt," Olsen says. Power failures also could cause "a meltdown of nuclear fuel
storage pools .... These pools must be cooled for at least five years." Loss of off-site electrical power poses the most prominent risk to
nuclear powerplant safety. Reliable back-up power is needed immediately at each nuclear site. Fuel cells and gas turbines are more
reliable than diesel generators. There are well over 1,000 private utilities, non-utility generators, public utilities, and rural electric
cooperatives in the US and Canada operating more than 15,000 generating units. Many will reach the millennium with Y2K issues
unresolved. The US electric power grid is fragile. In 1996, two disruptions in one five-week period caused 190 generating stations
(including several nuclear reactors) to shut down. On August 10, 1996, a sagging tree limb in Oregon caused a short that caused a
blackout in California, Arizona and New Mexico. Millions of people were left without power. In some regions, the blackout lasted several
weeks. NIRS notes that increasingly severe winter storms have caused power outages in the eastern US in recent years. Such wintertime
power failures "could lead to extended blackouts and resultant nuclear catastrophes." The NIRS has petitioned the NRC to require all
nuclear power stations to stockpile a 20-day supply of fuel for diesel generators. Batteries charged by solar cells, windmills, hydroelectric
or geothermal energy would give the greatest assurance of long-term stability.
30
Conservative estimates conclude a reactor meltdown would kill thousands of people and cause trillions of
dollars of property damage
Karl S. Coplan, Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law. THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF
NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY, Fordham
Environmental Law Review. Symposium, 2006 L/N
Every operating nuclear power plant poses some risk of a severe accident, including an uncontrolled nuclear reaction that leads to core
meltdown and potentially huge releases of radioactivity into the environment. The nuclear industry estimates the chances of a severe
reactor accident to be about one out of every 10,000 reactor years of operation. n98 While this may sound like a small risk, it means that
with 100 operating nuclear power plants in the United States, we can expect one severe accident every 100 years. If these 100 plants keep
operating indefinitely into the future, or are replaced in kind to mitigate global carbon emissions, a severe reactor accident is virtually
certain in this country in the future. Moreover, if we were to construct the 200 additional nuclear power plants in this country necessary to
meet the Phase I carbon [*244] reductions contemplated by the Kyoto Protocol, n99 that same one-in-ten thousand chance of a severe
reactor accident would turn into an expectation of one severe reactor accident every thirty years. Combined with all the other nuclear
reactors around the world - and assuming that all such reactors are at least as safe and well operated as those in the United States - severe
nuclear reactor accidents would be expected to occur ever few years. The consequences of a severe nuclear reactor accident can be hard to
predict. However, using the most recent models and making optimistic assumptions about the success of evacuation efforts and evacuation
travel times, the Riverkeeper organization has estimated that a reactor meltdown at one of the Indian Point nuclear power units fifty miles
north of New York City would result in as many as 44,000 short term fatalities from radiation exposure, 518,000 latent cancer fatalities, $
2 trillion in property damage, and the relocation of eleven million people. n100 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 1982 report
estimates the consequences of a severe reactor accident at Indian Point as 46,000 Peak Early Fatalities, 141,000 Peak Early Injuries, and
13,000 Peak Deaths from cancer, along with $ 274 billion (1982 dollars) in property damage.
31
Warming- Renewables solve warming

Renewable energy would significantly prevent global warming
Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Energy. September 7th, 2005. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/ accessed
07/08/2008
Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are America's primary source of energy, accounting for more than 70 percent of current U.S.
electricity generation. However, the extraction and burning of these fuels contributes to global warming, causes cancer and other chronic
health problems, and degrades valuable land and water resources. In fact, fossil fuel-fired electricity generation is the single greatest
source of air pollution in the United States, and power plants are the leading U.S. source of carbon dioxide emissions—a primary
contributor to global warming. Fossil fuels also produce nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, dust, soot, smoke, and other
suspended matter. To decrease our dependence on fossil fuels while improving human health and environmental sustainability, UCS
engages in analysis and advocacy that encourages the implementation of energy efficiency measures and increased use of renewable
energy technologies.
32
Warming- RPS solves CO2 & prevents future FF

33% RPS will reduce CO2 emissions significantly, prevent new fossil fuel power plants and signal a change
towards renewable in the market.
Union of Concerned Scientist April, 08
Union of Concerned Scientist. 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Will Provide Energy for California’s Future. 4/10/08
http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=RPS+wind&submit=Search. Union of Concerned Scientist. Accessed 7/7/08. URL
http://www.ucsusa.org/
A 33% Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Will Provide Significant Benefits to Californians: Result in 13 million metric tons of global
warming emission reductions in 2020—equivalent to removing almost three million cars from the road, or enough to avoid 10 new large
fossil fuel power plants. Stimulate clean technology investment and innovation and grow the ‘green jobs’ economy by sending a clear
market signal that new renewables will be developed in our state.
33
Warming- RPS solves Warming and meets Kyoto

Reducing CO2 emissions through renewable energy works and is cost effective.
Union of Concerned Scientist. Powerful Opportunity Chapter 4. 1/20/99.

Our analysis clearly shows that renewables can reduce CO2 emissions at a much lower cost than indicated in some recent studies funded
by the fossil-fuel and electric power industries, government and nongovernmental energy research organizations. These studies predict
that reducing CO2 emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels, as specified in the Kyoto Protocol, will cost between $60 and $95 per ton of
CO2 reduced through domestic actions only. Our analysis, which indicates that the United States could achieve a renewables target of 20
percent in 2020 at a cost of $18 per ton of CO2 reduced, shows that an RPS is a relatively inexpensive domestic policy for helping the
United States meet the Kyoto targets. Furthermore, these cost projections do not take into account the considerable cobenefits society
would reap from lowering emissions that cause acid rain, smog and respiratory problems.
Renewable Portfolio Standards will decrease emissions, Texas Proves.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, July 3, 2008 (The Pew Center, “Renewable Portfolio Standards,” Accessed on July 8,
2008, http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/rps.cfm)
These states have set standards specifying that electric utilities generate a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources. Most of
these requirements take the form of “renewable portfolio standards,” or RPS’s, which require a certain percentage of a utility’s power
plant capacity or generation to come from renewable sources by a given date. The standards range from modest to ambitious, and
definitions of renewable energy vary. Though climate change may not be the prime motivation behind some of these standards, the use of
renewable energy does deliver significant GHG reductions. For instance, Texas is expected to avoid 3.3 million tons of CO2 emissions
annually with its RPS, which requires 2,000 megawatts of new renewable generation by 2009. Increasing a state’s use of renewable
energy brings other benefits as well, including job creation, energy security, and cleaner air.
34
Warming- RPS reduces CO2 & Enviro Toxins

RPS brings CO2 emissions below 2000 levels and prevents other environmental toxins
Adopting a national Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 20 percent by 2020 can stabilize US carbon dioxide emissions—the primary
greenhouse gas—from electricity generation at year 2000 levels. Combined with energy efficiency improvements, power plant carbon
emissions can be significantly reduced. Electricity generation accounts is the leading source of US carbon emissions, accounting for over
40 percent of the total. An RPS will also significantly reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury, which are linked
to acid rain, smog, respiratory illness, and water contamination. A recent study by the Energy Information Administration shows that the
RPS can reduce the cost of controlling power plant emissions by reducing pressure on natural gas prices. An RPS would reduce the need
to drill for natural gas, build new pipelines and power lines, and reduce the need to mine, transport and burn coal. Energy efficiency and
renewable energy can be increased faster than developing new fossil and nuclear energy supplies.
35
Economy- RPS Improves economy

RPS will Foster Strong Economic Development
This RPS will stimulate domestic investment in new renewable energy throughout the nation, creating jobs and income in rural areas as
well as in the high tech and manufacturing sectors. Wind energy could provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers and rural
landowners by 2020 and 80,000 new jobs, according to the US Department of Energy. Tripling US use of biomass energy could provide
as much as $20 billion in new income for farmers and rural communities. With a strong domestic renewable energy industry, the US
economy would benefit from the large export potential of this industry.
Renewable Portfolio Standards will incite economic development and save consumers billions.
Green Progress, 2007, (Green Progress, “Presidential Candidates and Congress Challenged to Support a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard,” Accessed on July 7, 2008, http://www.greenprogress.com/alternative_energy_article.php?id=1378)
The national effort would create thousands of high-quality manufacturing jobs, save consumers approximately $100 billion in energy
costs, create billions of dollars in economic development and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. "By committing to a renewable
energy economy, our next president could address American energy security, job security and environmental security all at the same
time," said Governor Culver. "I call on all of the 2008 presidential candidates of both parties, as well as our leaders in congress, to support
the new American renewable energy economy and a clean, more secure future for our children. If we are to effectively address energy
security, job creation and climate change issues in the United States, a national approach with federal leadership is critical." A national
RPS goal would spur economic development, especially in rural areas. It is estimated that approximately $1.5 million in economic activity
is generated for every utility-scale wind turbine installed. This includes roughly $100,000 in lease payments to each landowner, per
turbine, over a 20-year period. Many of the beneficiaries of these lease payments are farmers, ranchers, and other rural landowners.
Renewable Portfolio Standards spurs economic development three ways.

Jamie Steve, Director Legislative Affairs, Aaron Severn, Energy Legislative Manager, and Bree Raum Grassroots Advocacy and
WindPAC Manager, January 31, 2008, (American Wind Energy Association, “Renewable Portfolio Standards,” Accessed on July 7, 2008,
www.awea.org/legislative/pdf/RPS%20factsheet%20Dec%202007.pdf)
A national RPS will create jobs and increase income across the country, especially in economically hard-pressed rural areas. Each large
utility-scale wind turbine that goes on line generates over $1.5 million in economic activity. Jobs: Wind energy is an important source of
new manufacturing jobs. The wind energy industry contributes directly to the economies of 46 states with power plants and
manufacturing facilities. Overall, more than 36,000 American jobs contribute to the wind industry’s continuing growth. The CEO of GE
Energy, John Krenicki, Jr., recently testified that “We believe wind and solar energy are likely to be among the largest sources of new
manufacturing jobs worldwide during the 21st Century.” A Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) study found that a 20% RPS by 2020
would create over 350,000 jobs. Income: Each turbine provides about $5,000 in lease payments per year for 20 years or more to farmers,
ranchers or other landowners. According to the UCS, a 20% national RPS would result in approximately $1.2 billion in lease payments to
farmers and rural landowners by 2020 (from Renewing America’s Economy, January 2007, Union of Concerned Scientists). Tax Base:
Wind projects in rural areas also significantly contribute to the local tax base. One large (108- turbine, 162-MW) project in rural Prowers
County, Colorado, increased the county’s tax base by 29% (From Snack Bars to Rebar, March 2004,
http://www.state.co.us/oemc/events/cwade/2004/presentations/cox.pdf).
36
Economy- Competitiveness - US can be Competitive

Renewables could become a world leading producer in the United States
Herzog et al. 2001
Antonia V. Herzog and Timothy E. Lipman are postdoctoral researchers and Jennifer L. Edwards is a research assistant at the Renewable
and Appropriate Energy Lab (RAEL), Energy and Resources Group (ERG), at the University of California at Berkeley. Daniel M.
Kammen is a professor of Energy and Society with ERG and a professor of Public Policy with the Goldman School of Public Policy.
RENEWABLE ENERGY: A VIABLE CHOICE, Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10 (December 2001).
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.
37
Economy- Consumer Confidence -Lowers Electric

Prices
Benefits of RPS Saves Consumers and Businesses Money on energy costs
Union of Concerned Scientist. RPS Primer. 1/16/04.

http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=success+RPS&submit=Search. Union of Concerned Scientist. Accessed 7/7/08. URL
http://www.ucsusa.org/
Diversifying the power supply by developing America’s homegrown renewable energy resources creates a more competitive market,
which can reduce natural gas prices and save consumers money on their energy bills. Renewable energy is not subject to the price
volatility that plagues natural gas power plants. Two recent studies by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), using high
renewable energy cost estimates, found that a national RES to provide 10 percent of U.S. electricity from renewables by 2020 would
lower natural gas prices, have virtually no impact on electricity prices, and could save energy consumers as much as $13.2 billion. A
recent UCS report, Renewing Where We Live, also found that a 10 percent by 2020 national RES could significantly reduce consumer
energy bills. In addition, the UCS report looked at what would happen if the national RES was doubled to 20 percent by 2020. In this
case, the RES would achieve greater diversity, economic development, and environmental benefits, while still saving consumers $4.5
billion on their energy bills between 2002 and 2020.
RPS reduces consumer and business bills and diversify the fuel sources in our energy portfolio in the long
run.
Alan Nogee, 05
Alan Nogee Director, Clean Energy Program, Union of Concerned Scientists. March 25, 2005.
http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=RPS+questions. Comments Letter Testimony. Accessed 7/8/08. http://www.ucsusa.org/. p.1
Over the long-term, however, the most important economic benefit of the RPS is that it would diversify the fuel sources in our energy
portfolio, reducing consumer and industrial energy bills by creating new competitors to the coal, gas and nuclear resources that currently
constitute about 90 percent of our fuel sources for electricity. Developing advanced technologies that use existing fuels is also important,
but does not contribute to the objective of diversifying energy sources.
38
Renewable energy can reduce natural gas and electricity prices.

ALAN NOGEE, 05
Energy is critical to our economy. Stephen Brown, director of energy economics at the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, notes that “nine of
the 10 last recessions have been preceded by sharply higher energy prices.” Today’s high natural gas prices, caused in part by a boom in
natural gas power plant construction, are causing economic harm. In the February 11, 2005 release on the Short-Term Energy Outlook, the
Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that the average Henry Hub natural gas spot price was $6.32 per Mcf in January. EIA
estimates spot prices at Henry Hub will average $5.45 4 per Mcf in 2005 and $5.77 in 2006. These natural gas prices today are more than
double their 1990’s levels. Because natural gas accounts for about 90 percent of the costs of fertilizer, escalating prices have put farmers
under a severe economic hardship. Some manufacturing facilities and industrial users that rely heavily on natural gas have already had to
reduce operation or move their factories overseas. On February 17, 2004, The Wall Street Journal reported that the US petrochemical
industry, which is heavily dependent on natural gas for a primary feedstock as well as for fuel, has lost approximately 78,000 jobs to
foreign plants where the natural gas is much cheaper. Natural gas prices show no signs of returning to historic levels. EIA has raised its
forecast of longterm natural gas prices for each of the last seven years. Moreover, a recent Lawrence Berkeley Lab study has found that
EIA’s gas forecasts have been and continue to be at least 50 cents/mmBTU lower than market forecasts, based on gas futures contracts.
Renewable energy can help reduce the demand for natural gas and lower gas prices. On January 5, 2005, the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (LBL) released a review of 13 studies and 20 specific analyses using different computer models and different assumptions.
The analyses all confirmed that renewable energy (and energy efficiency) can reduce gas demand and put downward pressure on natural
gas prices and bills by displacing gas-fired electricity generation. They found that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration,
the more gas is saved, and the more gas prices are reduced. The LBL study also shows how these results are broadly consistent with
economic theory, with results from other energy models, and with limited empirical evidence. Many of the analyses LBL reviewed were
conducted by EIA and by UCS. 5 Even in 2002, when gas prices and price projections were considerably lower than they are today, an
EIA analysis conducted at the request of Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK) showed that a 10 percent renewable electricity standard like
the one that subsequently passed the Senate would have a negligible impact on electricity prices. EIA found only a one mill (one tenth of
one cent) per kWh increase in 2020 with a 10 percent RPS, and no impact in most years. When gas savings were considered, total
electricity and gas bills were found to be as much as $13.2 billion lower with the 10 percent RPS (2000 dollars, 8 percent discount rate).
39
Renewable Energy is Key to Solve for Recession that is caused by high energy prices
David Parkinson, Staff Writer Globe and Mail, 2001
The Globe and Mail, Electricity Markets Are Changing Rapidly, Accessed July 8, 2008, Accessed on Lexis Nexis
The energy crunch that has hit North America in the past several months can best be viewed as a cautionary tale of the folly of short-
sightedness, of bad planning, of the volatility inherent in even the most efficient open markets. Experts tell us there's no need to panic,
that the markets have a way of correcting themselves, of bringing supply and demand back into balance and bringing prices for oil, natural
gas and electricity back down to more affordable levels. However, underneath these assurances lies the inescapable reality that energy
markets, not just in Canada and the United States, but throughout the world, are undergoing radical changes that are fundamentally
altering the flows and economics of our energy supplies. Increasing reliance on natural gas to fuel electrical generation. The rapid
expansion of the technology-intensive New Economy, with its heavy demand for electrical power. Robust economic growth in the
developed and the developing world. Globalization, trade liberalization and the deregulation of energy markets to promote increased
competition. Untimely energy policies in North America and abroad that discouraged development of new energy sources. The
convergence of these factors contributed to the current crunch, which caused California to be nearly crippled by high electricity prices and
dangerously low supplies, consumers to be pummeled by skyrocketing home heating costs, and angry motorists to protest prices. High
energy prices are jamming the brakes on the U.S. economy, threatening to trigger a recession that could spread globally. An economic
slowdown should take the pressure off energy demand and ease prices over the next year. Nevertheless, the mess in the energy markets
should serve as a distant early-warning to policy makers that energy issues will demand a lot of attention in the first part of the new
millennium. Experts say the next decade will see a showdown between a continued surge in energy demand on the one hand, and
financial constraints, infrastructure limitations, domestic politics and environmental pressures on the other. "The overall picture is that we
expect global demand for energy to keep rising substantially," said Robert Priddle, executive director of the International Energy Agency
(IEA), an arm of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, in Paris. He said that barring "policy interventions,"
energy demand will climb roughly 60 per cent from current levels by 2020. The bulk of that growth will come from developing countries,
as they further industrialize and their consumers acquire more energy-intensive luxury goods. The biggest growth area will be in
electricity consumption. "That's going to take an enormous investment in infrastructure," Mr. Priddle said. He estimated it would cost
"something like $3-trillion" (U.S.) to meet electricty demand in the developing world by 2020. "It's beyond the capacity of government
investment," he said. "But it's not beyond the capacity of private enterprise." This anticipated heavy growth in demand has led to a push
in many countries to deregulate energy industries. The aim is to provide increased competition and a shift to market pricing, which should
encourage private-sector infrastructure investment. But the debacle of deregulation in California's electricity industry has made many
policy makers nervous about going ahead with their own changes. "I think people are quite alarmed," said Marjorie Griffin Cohen, a
political science professor at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. "They have seen deregulation cause problems. There are big risks
involved." Canada will soon come under increased international pressure, especially from the United States, to accelerate the
deregulation of its energy industries. New U.S. President George W. Bush recently met with Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, making it clear
that a continent-wide energy policy is a priority in his new administration. The United States also issued a position paper in December to
the World Trade Organization calling for increased competition and market access in the energy sector, as part of its proposals for the
recently started negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). "Basically, what they want is access to Canadian
energy," Ms. Griffin Cohen said. André Plourde, energy economist and associate dean of business at the University of Alberta in
Edmonton, said Canadian leaders will face resistance from the public to opening up electricity and natural gas utilities to foreign
competition, and in fact are beginning to hear calls for reregulation. There's going to be some pressure," he said. But Mr. Priddle of the
IEA said reregulation and government-imposed price protection for consumers would do more harm than good. "There's a risk some
people will take the lesson that competition doesn't work. That would be wrong," he said. "It's not in the consumer's best interest to keep
prices down in the short term, at the expense of security of supply in the long term." Indeed, the high prices in recent months have kick-
started a raft of projects to bring fresh energy supplies to market, particularly natural gas. "The structure of the gas market has been
fundamentally changed by the switch to gas-fired electric power generation," said Tom Adams, director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based
energy watchdog. "This electricity-driven demand is not going away." However, the high cost of natural gas is prompting some electricity
producers to look at other, less-clean fuels, such as coal, to power their generators and there is also increasing talk of a resurgence of
nuclear power overseas. Gerry Scott, climate-change campaign director for the David Suzuki Foundation, a Vancouver-based
environmental group, said governments are losing sight of key environmental goals in the race to secure new energy supplies. "Where is
the Kyoto consciousness?" Mr. Scott said, referring to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which calls for a 6-per-cent global reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions, from 1990 levels, by 2010. Mr. Plourde of the University of Alberta said the tug-of-war between affordable
energy supplies and environmental concerns will be "the big issue" in the energy sector over the next several years. "People are going to
be talking about how much they're willing to pay to protect the environment." Analysts said that while high energy prices have sparked
renewed interest in developing alternative and renewable energy sources, governments will have to become much more active in
promoting these alternatives if they hope to make a dent in the energy market. The IEA predicts renewables will make up just 3 per cent
of the global energy supply by 2020, up from 2 per cent now.
40
Economy- AT: consumers will have to pay more for

electricity
Retail Price impacts of Renewable Portfolio Standards are minuscule.
Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting of the Energy Information Administration, 2003 (Energy Information Administration,
“Analysis of a 10-percent RenewablePortfolio Standard,” Accessed on July 8, 2008,
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/rps2/pdf/sroiaf(2003)01.pdf)
The retail electricity price impacts of the RPS are projected to be small because the price impact of buying renewable credits and building
the required renewables is projected to be relatively small when compared with total electricity costs; also higher renewable costs are
somewhat offset by lower natural gas prices that result from reduced natural gas use.
41
Economy- Consumer Confidence RPS creates jobs

Pennsylvania’s RPS proves that local jobs are created
Gov. Rendell D-Pa, April 06
US Fed News Service, Including US State News, accessed 7/7/08,
His "American Energy Harvest" initiative harnesses the power of renewable energy and strengthens economies by reducing dependence
on foreign energy imports. The Governor has launched some major plans to build a clean energy future in Pennsylvania. The
commonwealth is home to one of the nation's most progressive alternative energy portfolio standards and ensures that 18 percent of all
energy generated comes from clean, efficient sources by 2020. Benefits of the policy include $10 billion in increased output for the
commonwealth, $3 billion in additional earnings and as many as 4,000 news jobs for residents over the next 20 years. Brought back to life
by Governor Rendell after years of inactivity, the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority has awarded $15 million in grants and
loans for 41 clean energy projects that will leverage another $200 million in private investment. The projects will create 1,558 permanent
and construction jobs. In addition, the research projects, if successful, could net as many as 327 full-time jobs. The Pennsylvania Energy
Harvest Grant Program funds advanced and renewable energy projects that use biomass, wind, solar, small-scale hydroelectric, landfill
methane, energy efficiency, coal-bed methane and waste coal. Launched by Governor Rendell in the very first months of his
administration, Energy Harvest has awarded $15.9 million and leveraged another $43.7 million in private funds since its inception in May
2003.
New Jobs are created with RPS stimulating the U.S. growth in the economy.
Alan Nogee, 05
http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=RPS+questions. Comments Letter Testimony. Accessed 7/8/08. http://www.ucsusa.org/. 24.
New jobs are created by investment in renewable energy in several ways. First, there are direct jobs in manufacturing renewable energy
technologies, as well as in installing and operating them. The Renewable Energy Policy Project has performed a number of analyses
breaking down the specific types of jobs created by renewable energy investments and where they will likely be located.16 Secondly, jobs
are created when the renewable energy workers spend their additional income, supplying them with goods and services. Third, jobs are
created when energy bill savings are spent in the economy. Our jobs analysis calculates the net jobs created by all three such types of
spending. Renewable energy technologies tend to create more jobs than fossil fuel technologies because they are capital-intensive. Almost
all the money for renewable energy is spent on manufacturing equipment, installing it and maintaining it. With biomass, money is spent
on fuel, but usually from sources that are within 50 miles of a biomass plant, because it is too expensive to transport biomass electricity
fuels for long distances. Renewables thus avoid the need to export cash to import fuel from other states, regions, or countries, keeping the
money circulating in the local economy, creating more local jobs. A renewable standard saves consumers money in several ways. First,
some renewable sources, especially wind energy at good sites, is now less expensive than natural gas or coal-fired power plants over the
expected lifetimes of the plants. But in an increasingly competitive industry, utilities are reluctant to invest in capital-intensive renewable
energy facilities that have long payback periods, even if they eventually pay for themselves. Second, by reducing the demand for fossil
fuels, and creating new competitors for the dominant fuel sources, renewables help reduce the price of fossil fuels and restrain the ability
of fossil fuel prices to increase in the future. Natural gas therefore costs less for electricity generation, as well as for other purposes, thus
benefiting both electricity and natural gas customers. Third, renewable standards will reduce the cost of renewable energy technologies,
by creating competition among renewable sources and projects to meet the standard, and by creating economies of scale in manufacturing,
installation, operation and maintenance. As small manufactured technologies, renewables are much more susceptible to such economies
than are large power plant construction projects.
People of all aspects of life will find new jobs in the RPS.
ALAN NOGEE, 05
Renewable energy can help improve our national economy. Investments in indigenous renewable energy sources keep money circulating
and creating jobs in regional economies. Renewable energy can greatly benefit struggling rural economies, by providing new income for
farmers and rural communities. It can also benefit manufacturing states, even those with less abundant renewable resources, by providing
them the opportunity manufacture and assemble components for renewable energy facilities. And renewable energy can create enormous
export opportunities, given the growing commitment of the rest of the world to expand use of renewable energy
42
Economy- Jobs Key to Economy

Jobs are key to the economy
JUDITH SCHOOLMAN, DAILY NEWS BUSINESS WRITER. STOCKS WHIPSAWED Massive job losses, Osama report lead to wild
ride. Daily News (New York). March 8, 2003
The key to the economy is jobs, said Richard Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research.
"Employment has always been, and will always be, the single most important determinant in consumer attitudes and spending," he said.
"The notion consumers aren't willing to spend because of a military skirmish with Iraq is simply ludicrous."
43
Economy- Consumer Confidence – Biz Con I/L

Business confidence is key to sustained economic growth
USA TODAY, What's worrying business?. September 14, 2004,
Business investment and hiring are key to sustained economic growth, as consumer spending growth slows from its heady pace. While
corporate profits and spending have ramped up, economists are nervous about one key element -- confidence. Business confidence
has eroded since spring, according to several surveys. On Monday, economic consulting firm Economy.com said its weekly survey of
business owners showed declines were widespread, both geographically and across industries. The U.S. index is off 25% from its peak
earlier this summer. How business executives see the world is key for the economy because it can influence decisions on hiring and
investing. Nervousness is likely one reason hiring has been patchy this year, spiking in March but growing less rapidly since then
44
Economy- RPS prevents LNG use

Renewable Portfolio Standards will increase renewable capacity, in turn saving money by avoiding the use
of natural gas
Utah Division of Public Utilities, 2007 (State Government of Utah, “Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard Will Reduce Power and
Natural Gas Costs, But Not Have a Significant Impact on GHG Emission Levels,” Accessed on July 8, 2008,
publicutilities.utah.gov/archive/federalrenewableenergyportfoliostandard.pdf)
According to the report, the adoption of a 15% Federal RPS will require a flood of new wind and other renewable projects well beyond
current proposed projects, leading to a 500-percent increase in renewable capacity from current levels by 2026. This increase translates
into an incremental construction cost of $134 billion (2006 dollars) between 2006 and 2026. The report also shows the switch to
renewable energy will drive down demand and price of natural gas. "The lower fuel costs and fossil fuel consumption will lead to lower
electricity costs," continued Sannicandro. "Over the next 20 years, the Federal RPS case leads to a savings of $240 billion (2006 dollars)
in wholesale power costs, outweighing the higher capital investment to build the additional capacity."
Renewable energy is good for our national security it prevents LNG use
ALAN NOGEE, 05
In response to rising gas prices, and the declining productivity of North American gas wells, imports of LNG are projected to increase by
sixteen fold over the next 20 years. This trend— assuming that the LNG infrastructure can be expanded sufficiently—threatens to push
America down the same troubled road of rising dependence on imported gas that we have followed for oil. By reducing the demand for
natural gas, renewable energy can reduce the pressure for increasing imports. Energy from the wind, sun, and heat of the earth are
America’s most abundant resources. They can never be depleted. Renewable energy can increase energy and national security in other
ways as well. Lacking long fuel supply chains, renewable energy facilities are not vulnerable to supply disruptions, and the price shocks
they can cause. Because they do not use volatile fuel or produce dangerous wastes, renewable energy facilities (except large hydropower
dams) do not present inviting targets for sabotage or attack.
45
Economy- LNG Terrorist attacks likely

LNG terrorist attacks are most likely – multiple studies prove
However, recent studies run counter to Clarke’s alleged conclusion. One of the best ways to study al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist group,
is through an analysis of historical trends. In early 2007, Rand Corporation released a lengthy analytical report on terrorist targeting
preferences for the Department of Homeland Security. The paper focused on 14 terrorist attacks in which al-Qaeda was believed to have
been somehow involved, either through association, sponsorship, or direction. According to the study, 10 out of the 14 attacks analyzed
had either a medium or high casualty potential. In other words, these attacks were meant to kill people—a lot of people. However, the
other four attacks had a low casualty potential. The study further showed a desire to damage the economy, with 10 of the 14 attacks
indicating a medium or high potential to damage the economy and the other four with a low potential. Based simply on the Rand study,
Clarke’s statement that the proposed terminal location would pose “no threat,” is a dangerous assumption which leaves no room for
error. Al-Qaeda and its associates, through propagations distributed via the Internet, have already expressed an interest in crippling the
U.S. economy. To further compound the argument against Clarke’s conclusion, energy experts expect LNG imports into the U.S. to
increase dramatically through 2030. This shift could potentially make LNG an even more desirable target as the U.S. becomes
increasingly dependent on LNG to satisfy its growing natural gas consumption habits. The final argument against Clarke’s claim, and
perhaps the most compelling one, lies within a study released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in February 2007 on the
public safety consequences of a terrorist attack on LNG. In its analysis, the GAO scrutinized six completed studies on the potential
hazards of an LNG spill. The GAO then drew a series of conclusions from the studies and polled a panel of 19 experts to see whether or
not they agreed with the findings. Not all experts agreed on the heat/hazard zone of an LNG spill. One quarter of the experts polled during
the study believed that 1 to 1.25 miles was not a sufficiently conservative estimate to describe the heat hazard zone of an LNG-related
fire. If the experts who disagreed with this distance happen to be correct, it would put members of the general population located at the
questionable threshold of 1.2 or 1.3 miles away from the site in a risky location
Tactics and history prove LNG attack is likely from Al Qaeda
Few groups are capable of implementing an attack on LNG. However, an attack on LNG would fit well with al-Qaeda’s tactics,
techniques, and procedures. Al-Qaeda is a radical Sunni Muslim organization with approximately 50,000 members, located at various
bases of operations in 45 countries. In addition to its own members, al-Qaeda’s network includes groups operating in up to 65 countries.
Al-Qaeda’s objective is to serve as a “defensive jihad” fighting against anyone or anything it perceives as attacking Muslims across the
world. As a result, the group’s aim is to overthrow non-Islamic (or insufficiently Islamic) regimes that seem to oppress their Muslim
citizens. In 32 incidents traced back to al-Qaeda, there were 3,464 deaths and 8,864 injuries. Although there has never been an attack
against either an LNG terminal or tanker, maritime terrorism has been a core part of al-Qaeda and its affiliates’ historical strategy. In 2000,
suicide bombers rammed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 sailors. In 2002, terrorists rammed the Limburg, a French oil tanker carrying
400,000 barrels of crude oil. There reportedly have been indications of terrorists planning to hit LNG tankers. In November 2002, the
capture of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, al-Qaeda’s operational commander in the Gulf region, brought to light the idea that terrorists were
already planning to go after such targets. Nashiri, allegedly a specialist in maritime operations, had already played a key role in the attack
on the USS Cole and the Limburg. According to a Western counterterrorism official during an interrogation, Nashiri indicated that al-
Qaeda had information on the vulnerability of supertankers to suicide attacks and the economic impacts they would have. The official
informed The Daily Star that al-Qaeda had a naval manual describing “the best places on the vessels to hit, how to employ limpet mines,
fire rockets or rocket-propelled grenades from high-speed craft, and [how to] turn LNG tankers into floating bombs. They (terrorists) are
also shown how to use fast craft packed with explosives, and the use of trawlers, or ships like that, that can be turned into bombs and
detonated beside bigger ships, or in ports where petroleum or gas storage areas could go up as well. They (manuals) even talk of using
underwater scooters for suicide attacks.”
46
Solar- RPS  Solar

RPS is an Incentive for Solar Power
BushEnergy 2007
<BushEnergy, 7-8-08, http://www.bushenergy.com/solarpower.html>
While the government has not fully embraced solar power and other forms of green energy (after all, it is difficult to give up that favorite
son, oil), but it has allotted ways of encouraging alternative energy on a local, state, and federal level. Such “encouragement” comes in the
form of Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), tax incentives and rebates, and net metering.
47
Solar- Space Add ON

A. Solar Power is key to the Development of Space Based Solar Power
Landis NASA John Glenn Research Center 2004
<Glenn Research Center, 7-8-08, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:VaClXGQpaeYJ:gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-
212743.pdf+%22Analyses+of+space+solar+power+often+assume+that+ground+solar+power+is+a+competing+technology&hl=en&ct=c
lnk&cd=1&gl=us>
Analyses of space solar power often assume that ground solar power is a competing technology, and show that space solar power is a
preferable technology on a rate of return basis. In fact, however, space solar power and ground solar power are complementary
technologies, not competing technologies. These considerations were initially discussed in 1990 [4]. Low-cost ground solar power is a
necessary precursor to space solar power: Space solar power requires low cost, high production and high efficiency solar arrays, and
these technologies will make ground solar attractive for many markets. The ground solar
power market, in turn, will serve develop technology and the high-volume production readiness for space solar power.
B. Space Solar Power is Key to Space Exploration

Gartner Staff Writer Wired, 2004
<Wired, 7-8-08, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/63913>
Brandhorst said that beaming solar power from space is essential for space exploration, which according to President Bush is now
NASA's priority. Brandhorst said that it is not feasible to carry enough fuel into space to develop settlements on the moon, so solar energy
is the best alternative.
C. And, there are multiple other scenarios for extinction if we do not get off the rock:
Sylvia Hui, AP, June 13, 2006,
<The Associated Press, information from Stephen Hawking, a world renowned scientist,
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html>
The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a
disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday. The British astrophysicist told a news
conference in Hong Kong that humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years.
"We won't find anywhere as nice as Earth unless we go to another star system," added Hawking, who arrived to a rock star's welcome
Monday. Tickets for his lecture planned for Wednesday were sold out. He added that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next
100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth. "It is important for the human race to spread
out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster,
such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of." The 64-year-
old scientist - author of the global best seller "A Brief History of Time" - is wheelchair-bound and communicates with the help of a
computer because he suffers from a neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. Hawking said he's teaming up with
his daughter to write a children's book about the universe, aimed at the same age range as the Harry Potter books. "It is a story for
children, which explains the wonders of the universe," his daughter, Lucy, added. They didn't provide other details.
48
Solar- Key to Econ

Solar Power Boosts the Economy
Ross Vote Solar Initiative January 2008
<Center for American Progress, 7-8-08, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/solar_report.html>
Solar photovoltaic energy is an established technology that has proven its ability to improve our national security and boost the economy.
Photovoltaics produce energy that is both domestic and emission-free, making it key to weaning the United States of our dependence on
polluting fossil fuels and helping to curb the effects of global warming. Solar PV also bolsters our economic security by creating more
new jobs than any other energy technology
49
Solar- Solar Space key to exploration

Space Solar Power is absolutely key to space exploration including missions to mars
Mankins Former NASA Manager 1997
<SpaceFuture, 7-8-08,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml>
Of these, the concept of using multi-megawatt-class space solar power systems to achieve very low cost Mars mission concepts appears to
have particular leverage. By using systems that are amenable to low-cost, multi-unit, modular manufacturing, even though the overall
system masses are not lower, the cost appears to be significantly lower. Example: The "SolarClipper". An especially intriguing
opportunity is that of using affordable megawatt-class space power for interplanetary space missions. It appears to be possible to reduce
the cost for Earth surface-to-Mars orbit transportation dramatically through the use of very advanced, large-scale space solar power in a
solar electric propulsion system (SEPS) approach. The basic architectural strategies of the SolarClipper concept are straightforward:
50
Solar- Space Impacts

Exploring other planets is Key to human species survival
Sagan Was a Professor of Astronomy and Space Science at Cornell 1994
<spaext.com, 7-8-08, http://www.spaext.com/info/sagan/index.html>
If we were up there among the planets, if there were self-sufficient human communities on many worlds, our species would be insulated
from catastrophe. The depletion of the ultraviolet-absorbing shield on one world would, if anything, be a warning to take special care of
the shield on another. A cataclysmic impact on one world would likely leave all the others untouched. The more of us beyond the Earth,
the greater the diversity of worlds we inhabit, the more varied the planetary engineering, the greater the range of societal standards and
values—then the safer the human species will be.
Finally, expansion into space outweighs all other concerns: failure to do so will doom the universe to
perpetual lifelessness.
SAVAGE 93
(Marshall T. Savage, president of the First Millenial Foundation, THE MILLENIAL PROJECT, 1993, p. 1)
Now is the watershed of Cosmic history. We stand at the threshold of the New Millennium. Behind us yawn the chasms of the primordial
past, when this universe was a dead and silent place; before us rise the broad sunlit uplands of a living cosmos. In the next few galactic
seconds, the fate of the universe will be decided. Life the ultimate experiment will either explode into space and engulf the star_clouds in
a fire storm of children, trees, and butterfly wings; or Life will fail, fizzle, and gutter out, leaving the universe shrouded forever in
impenetrable blankness, devoid of hope. Teetering here on the fulcrum of destiny stands our own bemused species. The future of the
universe hinges on what we do next. If we take up the sacred fire, and stride forth into space as the torchbearers of Life, this universe will
be aborning. If we carry the green fire_brand from star to star, and ignite around each a conflagration of vitality, we can trigger a
Universal metamorphosis. Because of us, the barren dusts of a million billion worlds will coil up into the pulsing magic forms of animate
matter. Because of us, landscapes of radiation blasted waste, will be miraculously transmuted: Slag will become soil, grass will sprout,
flowers will bloom, and forests will spring up in once sterile places. Ice, hard as iron, will melt and trickle into pools where starfish,
anemones, and seashells dwell__a whole frozen universe will thaw and transmogrify, from howling desolation to blossoming paradise.
Dust into Life; the very alchemy of God. If we deny our awesome challenge; turn our backs on the living universe, and forsake our
cosmic destiny, we will commit a crime of unutterable magnitude. (Hu)mankind alone has the power to carry out this fundamental change
in the universe. Our failure would lead to consequences unthinkable. This is perhaps the first and only chance the universe will ever have
to awaken from its long night and live. We are the caretakers of this delicate spark of Life. To let it flicker and die through ignorance,
neglect, or lack of imagination is a horror too great to contemplate.
51
Solar- AT: Too expensive

RPS would ensure cheap solar power
EnergyJustice No Date Given
<Energy Justice, 7-8-08, http://www.energyjustice.net/rps/>
Local campaigns for wind and solar energy purchasing are important in two ways. Since the wind and solar energy industries are still
quite small, anything that builds demand for new wind and solar photovoltaic generation helps bring the price down further. The cost of
wind is starting to come within the range of conventional fuels. In some parts of the country (like Texas), it's recently been cheaper to
build new wind turbines than an equal amount of new power from natural gas. Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels are still about 5 times more
expensive than most other forms of electricity, but the costs have been dropping over time, just like the cost of wind has. As we build the
market and as wind turbines and solar PV start to be mass produced, the cost will drop, making it more likely that power companies and
consumers can opt to support clean energy without paying a premium for it.
Solar Power has become Competitive with nonrenewable energy

Energy for Missouri No Date Given
<Energy for Missouri Educator’s Guide, 7-9-08, http://www.dnr.mo.gov/teachers/energy/solarpower.pdf>
While early solar panels installed on the roofs of buildings tended to have a large visual impact, new solar panel designs have been
incorporated into roof shingles. This system looks similar to the roof of a home using a conventional power system. The cost of capturing
solar energy has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years. Solar energy is becoming competitive with other nonrenewable energy
systems currently used to generate electrical power, such as coal or natural gas. Currently, over 200,000 homes worldwide depend on
photovoltaic solar systems to provide all of their electricity.
Solar Power is Beginning to Reach the Prices of Regular Energy Sources

Plumb Staff Writer for Washing Business Journal June 17, 2008
<Washington Business Journal, 7-9-08, http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/06/16/daily26.html?ana=from_rss>
For the first time, solar power is beginning to reach cost parity with conventional energy sources, says the study. As solar prices decline
and the capital and fuel costs for coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants rise, the U.S. will reach a crossover point by around 2015. "One of
the big takeaways from this report is that, in many ways, the future of solar is in the hands of utilities," said Ron Pernick, co-founder of
Clean Edge. "Reaching 10 percent of our electricity from solar sources by 2025 will require the active participation of utilities along with
the support and participation of regulators and solar technology companies." Some utilities and solar companies unveiled large-scale solar
power projects this year, including Duke Energy's stated goal of investing $100 million in rooftop solar and Pacific Gas & Electric's
announcements to invest in thousands of megawatts of concentrating solar power in California's deserts.
52
Wind- RPS promotes Windpower

RPS promotes wind power – Canada proves
Kamaal R. Zaidi, University of Tulsa, 2007
Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal, Renewable Energy in Canada, Accessed July 07, 2008, Accessed on Lexis Law
The concept of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires electricity producers to purchase a specified percentage of their power
from renewable sources of energy. n120 From here, retailers can match this percentage by choosing different types of renewable energy to
purchase, thereby encouraging cost-effective renewable energy generation. n121 This is where wind energy purchase plans become a
hallmark of consumer interest for renewable energy. n122 These purchase plans include a number of organizations that sell "green power"
for home residents, businesses, and communities. Groups like the Canadian Wind Energy Association support RPS initiatives across
Canada to steer energy producers towards the purchase of renewable energy, while providing consumers, particularly new home buyers,
with more reasonable energy costs for electricity consumption. n123
RPS empirically leads to the development of wind power

The Pembina Institute, 2007 (The Pembina institute, “Supportive Policies,” Accessed on July 8, 2008,
http://re.pembina.org/global/support)
An RPS sets an escalating set of green power goals and places responsibility for meeting those goals on the electric retailers, with
significant penalties for non-compliance. An RPS is often supported by renewable energy certificate (REC) trading that allows utilities
with legal commitments to purchase green power from third parties if it is cheaper to do so. Because of the focus on low-cost green
power, the RPS approach has been most successful in stimulating wind power development. To support other green power resources, an
RPS has to assign distinct targets for each green power source.
RPS encourages wind, and the occasional other source.

Adrienne Ohler, PhD Canidate and MA in Economics, 2007 (Washington State University, “The Effects of Renewable Portfolio
Standards on Renewable Energy Sources,” Accessed on July 8, 2008, ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/9869/1/sp07oh01.pdf)
RPS programs are an effective method to increasing generation and reliance on wind energy. However, RPS programs may encourage the
use of other renewable sources, while discouraging the use of solar and photovoltaic energy. These results indicate that having a RPS
program induces an annual increase in wind generation of over 25,000 megawatt hours. Results for Price of Coal, Price of Natural Gas,
and EPACT are not statistically significant. Thus, no conclusions are drawn from these parameters. The estimated coefficient for Total
Capacity is positive and statistically significant as predicted. As market size increases the amount of wind generated increases, all else
constant.
53
Wind- RPS  Offshore Wind

RPS can pay for offshore or remote wind power.
Alan Nogee, 05
http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=RPS+questions. Comments Letter Testimony. Accessed 7/8/08. http://www.ucsusa.org/. p. 21
While new transmission lines and upgrades would be needed to deliver wind power from remote locations to load centers under a national
renewable portfolio standard, this situation is not unique to renewable energy or the RPS. Other resources, particularly new coal plants
and many natural gas plants, will also need new transmission lines and upgrades. As discussed above, our national RPS analysis increased
the capital cost of wind by up to 50 percent as the penetration of wind increases to 30 percent of regional electricity use to account for the
costs of new transmission lines and upgrades and for integrating wind into the electricity system. An additional cost is also applied to
interconnect wind to the existing electricity system. These costs are applied on top of a generic cost that EIA applies to all new generation
for expanding the transmission system. Our analysis conservatively allocates 100 percent of the additional capital costs for new bulk
transmission lines and upgrades to wind. In reality, other resources (both new and existing power plants) will likely use these lines to
transmit power to electricity consumers and should therefore share in the cost of paying for them.
54
Wind- Ag Econ Add On

Wind Farms Economically Benefit Small Farmers
US DOE(Department of Energy), 2008
US DOE, Wind and Hydropower Technologies, Accessed July 10, 2008 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html
Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour,
depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the particular project. Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus
benefiting the economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found. Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land
because the wind turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners make rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the
use of the land.
Agriculture Has Always Played Key Role in US Economy

US Info, 2008
US Information, American Agriculture, Accessed July 10, 2008, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap8.htm
From the nation's earliest days, farming has held a crucial place in the American economy and culture. Farmers play an important role in
any society, of course, since they feed people. But farming has been particularly valued in the United States. Early in the nation's life,
farmers were seen as exemplifying economic virtues such as hard work, initiative, and self-sufficiency. Moreover, many Americans --
particularly immigrants who may have never held any land and did not have ownership over their own labor or products -- found that
owning a farm was a ticket into the American economic system. Even people who moved out of farming often used land as a commodity
that could easily be bought and sold, opening another avenue for profit
55
Wind- Helps Rural Farmers

Significant standards would provide tremendous boost to rural farmers.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/UCS_Comments_to_Senate_Energy_Committee_Natural_Gas_Conference.pdf.
Clean Energy Blueprint. Accessed 7/9/08. www.ucsusa.org
A 20 percent RES would also provide a tremendous boost to rural economies. Many of the jobs identified above—including 30,000 new
jobs in agriculture—would be created in rural areas where most of the renewable resources and facilities would be located. By 2020, a 20
percent national RES would provide $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $15 billion in payments to farmers and rural areas for
producing biomass energy, $5 billion in new property tax revenues for local communities, and $1.2 billion in wind power land lease
payments to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners.
RPS use of wind energy would provide rural farmers and landowners $1.2 billion.
Jeff Deyette, energy analyst of UCS, 01.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/fact_rps.pdf. Real Energy Solutions Fact Sheet. Accessed 7/09/08. www.ucsusa.org
This RPS will stimulate domestic investment in new renewable energy throughout the nation, creating
jobs and income in rural areas as well as in the high tech and manufacturing sectors. Wind energy
could provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers and rural landowners by 2020 and 80,000 new
jobs, according to the US Department of Energy.
Wind Energy brings income to rural communities without taking up land and makes the U.S. more secure.
U.S. Department of Energy, 3/20/08
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/ag_sector.asp. Wind Powering America. Accessed 7/9/08.
The agricultural community can benefit from wind's many economic, energy, and environmental attributes. Wind energy provides an
additional source of income for rural communities, benefiting county and local services including schools, health care facilities, and roads.
Landowners with wind development on their property receive $2,000 to $5,000 per turbine per year. Wind energy uses less water than
fossil fuel plants. Turbines do not take up much land. Crops can be grown and livestock grazed right up to the base of the machine.
Turbines do not interfere with daily operations. Homegrown energy makes the U.S. more secure.
Leasing Land to Wind Producers Provides Good Capitol to Farmers

SECO (State Energy Conservation Office), 2008
SECO, Wind Power’s Cash Crop, Accessed July 10, 2008, http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind-cashcrop.htm
Farmers lease their lands to wind developers for either a set rental per turbine or for a small percentage of gross annual revenue from the
project. They generally find leasing their land for wind power projects is more economical than owning the turbines because the wind
power industry can better address the costs, technical issues, tax advantages and risks of wind projects. Although leasing arrangements
vary widely, the U.S. Government Accountability Office report to the U.S. Senate in 2004 stated that a farmer who leases land to a wind
project developer can generally expect to obtain royalties of $3,000 to $15,000 per turbine per year in lease payments, depending on
factors such as the size of the project, the capacity of the turbines, and the amount of electricity produced. Considering that the term of a
lease is approximately 25 years, farmers and ranches who make lease arrangements can rely on a stable, automatic income stream for
many years, despite the swings in commodity prices. Wind farms cover many acres, but the wind turbines take up a comparatively small
space of one or two acres each, with plenty of room between them to avoid air turbulence that can impede airflow. When placing and
spacing the turbines, wind developers take into account the terrain, and the direction of the prevailing winds. We often see turbines lined
up along hilltops and mountain ridges because the higher the turbine can reach, the stronger is the wind current that is available to
generate increased power. Windy areas are also found in wide-open areas such as open plains and shorelines
56
Wind- Farms key to econ

Small farms aid economic development and growth
Peter M. Rosset. Ph.D. Executive director of The Institute for Food and Development Policy. September 1999. Food First. “The Multiple
Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture”. Accessed July 10, 2008.
Throughout this paper I have examined the multiple functions played by small farms, and the myriad benefits they provide for society
and for the biosphere. If we are concerned about food production, small farms are more productive. If our concern is efficiency, they are
more efficient. If our concern is poverty, land reform to create a small farm economy offers a clear solution. The small farm model is also
the surest route to broadbased economic development. If the loss of biodiversity or the sustainability of agriculture concern us, small
farms offer a crucial part of the solution.
Agriculture Makes Up 20%of GDP and Helps Stabilize World Economy

Jeff Nunley, executive director of South Texas Cotton and Grain Association, 2007
Farm Policy Facts, A Safety Net For All Americans, Accessed July 10, 2008,
http://www.farmpolicyfacts.org/mm_safety_net_for_americans.cfm
Most people won't do the math. Farm subsidies amount to about 0.3% of the federal budget. That means if you're paying $5,000 per year
in federal income taxes (payroll taxes don't count), the portion of your tax bill to provide food security for this country would be about
$15. The return on investment of that fifteen dollars is pretty good. You get a cheap, safe, and affordable food supply. We keep a
domestic agriculture sector (so we don't have to commit military troops in other countries to ensure our food supply, like we do with oil).
We provide an underpinning for our entire agriculture sector which represents 20% of our GDP. We contribute to the balance of foreign
trade. Agriculture exports are a significant factor in lowering our trade deficit. This helps support the value of our currency, which
increases our consumers' buying power for imported goods and improves our standard of living. Since most payments are capitalized into
the value of land, we support rural, urban, and school taxing entities that rely on ad valorem taxes for funding. Figure out what school
districts and other taxing entities would lose if row crop farm land went out of production and back into pasture. To fill that hole, the
increase in your property taxes would probably cost more than three-tenths of 1% of your federal income taxes. Food prices in the U.S.
are very stable and have been declining gradually over time. When I was in college in the mid 1980's, Americans spent about 17% of their
disposable income on food. Today that number is around 9.5%. This is even more impressive when you consider we buy more expensive
ready-to-eat products now than we did 20 years ago. According to Farm Bureau, Americans work about 5 weeks to pay for their annual
food expenses. In France it would take more than 9 weeks, in Japan more than 13 weeks and in Mexico more than 17 weeks. I don't know
about you, but an additional four weeks of work to buy groceries is more than three-tenths of 1% of my federal income taxes. Stable food
prices stabilize the entire economy. Without a farm program, food prices would still probably average around 10%. However, because
food prices would be much more volatile from one year to the next, it would be difficult for consumers to know exactly how much to
budget. One year, food costs might be 25% of disposable income and the next they could be 5%. In the years when food costs were high,
consumers would curtail other spending to ensure they meet their primary need of food. The entire economy would feel the shocks of
volatile food prices. People at the lowest end of the economic ladder would suffer most from sudden spikes in food prices
57
Wind- Industrial agriculture Impact

Industrial Agriculture causes global warming, loss of nutrition and hunger
Vallianatos, E G. (former analyst with the US Environmental Protection Agency and a former visiting college professor, is the author of
This Land Is Their Land: How Corporate Farms Threaten the World) 2006. "Humanity's Ecological Footprint." Mediterranean Quarterly.
June 2, 2008. Project Muse. <http://muse.jhu.edu.er.lib.ksu.edu/journals/mediterranean_quarterly/v017/17.3vallianatos.html>
Crops and other plants use carbon from CO2 to build the bulk of their dry weight. A doubling of CO2 would speed up photosynthesis and
plant growth, boosting some increases in yields. However, higher levels of CO2 in brown rice fields changes the chemical composition of
rice. Nitrogen declines in rice by about 14 percent, zinc by 28 percent, and iron by 17 percent. So, in general, higher concentrations of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be responsible for a decrease in food crops of essential elements like iron, zinc, iodine, and
selenium, which, because of the tremendous poverty and very inadequate diets in the South, are already causing the hidden hunger of
about half of the people of the world. This hunger is hidden because its deleterious effects manifest themselves very slowly. Very poor
people, especially in the rural South, rely for their survival on only one or two crops, thus failing to replenish the crucial elements in their
food that come by eating a variety of foods. This potential—that higher CO2 in the atmosphere can increase the hunger of those already
hungry—is very explosive, especially those eating rice, the most important crop in the world. We can expect that the global environment,
loaded with more carbon dioxide than ever before, will affect the quality of our food. For this reason, says Princeton biologist Irakli
Loladze, "it is imperative to recognize and quantify at the early stage how the changing environment shifts the stoichiometry [the
measured amounts of the elements] of plants—the foundation of human nutrition and the base of virtually all food webs in nature."23
However, I don't think it's enough to simply measure the coming danger. We need to put a brake on the release of more carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which cause the warming of the earth, and to reform or abandon industrial activities like
chlorine production; the manufacture of pesticides; the burning of petroleum, coal, and natural gas; and factory-like agriculture, all of
which exacerbate and complement the deleterious warming of the planet. Factory farming, for example, is responsible for the drastic
reduction of the types of food crops and animals we eat. Nine crops make up more than three-quarters of the plants in our diet. About 97
percent of the fruits and vegetables Americans ate in early 1900s no longer exist. This diminished variety in what we eat also diminishes
the essential micronutrients in our food.24 Hidden hunger is global.
58
LFG- RPS Promotes LFG

RPS positivity influences the use of LFG.
Katherine Casey Delhotal, PhD, 2007 (University of Maryland, “DID STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS INDUCE
TECHNICAL CHANGE IN METHANE MITIGATION IN THE U.S. LANDFILL SECTOR?” Accessed on july 8, 2008,
https://drum.umd.edu/dspace/bitstream/1903/7740/1/umi-umd-5021.pdf)
Landfill gas (LFG) projects use the gas created from decomposing waste, which is approximately 49% methane, and substitute it for
natural gas in engines, boilers, turbines, and other technologies to produce energy or heat. The projects are beneficial in terms of increased
safety at the landfill, production of a cost-effective source of energy or heat, reduced odor, reduced air pollution emissions, and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions. However, landfills sometimes face conflicting policy incentives. The theory of technical change shows that the
diffusion of a technology or groups of technologies increases slowly in the beginning and then picks up speed as knowledge and better
understanding of using the technology diffuses among potential users. Using duration analysis, data on energy prices, State and Federal
policies related to landfill gas, renewable energy, and air pollution, as well as control data on landfill characteristics, I estimate the
influence and direction of influence of renewable portfolio standards (RPS). The analysis found that RPS positively influences the
diffusion of landfill gas technologies, encouraging landfills to consider electricity generation projects over direct sales of LFG to another
facility. Energy price increases or increased revenues for a project are also critical. Barriers to diffusion include air emission permits in
non-attainment areas and policies, such as net metering, which promote other renewables over LFG projects. Using the estimates from the
diffusion equations, I analyze the potential influence of a Federal RPS as well as the potential interaction with a Federal, market based
climate change policy, which will increase the revenue of a project through higher energy sale prices. My analysis shows that a market
based climate change policy such as a cap-and-trade or carbon tax scheme would increase the number of landfill gas projects significantly
more than a Federal RPS.
RPS creates a market for LFG.

TECHNICAL CHANGE IN METHANE MITIGATION IN THE U.S. LANDFILL SECTOR?” Accessed on july 8, 2008,
The overall results of the technology models complement the results of the interviews and literature search, and further clarify the
contradictory nature of the experts’ view s of RPS with the view of the literature. Developers generally felt that RPS did not encourage
LFG projects, noting that RPS projects would have been developed even without the RPS. What the analysis of technical choice shows is
that RPS may have provided the developer with an incentive to develop an electricity project over a direct use project. At landfills with
large amounts of gas available over several decades, the economics of a project looks good on paper but is useless unless a buyer can be
found. RPS creates a market for electricity sales, a critical factor in the decision to develop a project, particularly if there is not a nearby
industrial park or institution nearby to buy the landfill gas directly.
59
LFG- Acid Rain Add on

Collecting Landfill Gas is key in preventing Acid Rain and other health concerns.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 21, 2008 (EPA, “Benefits of LFG Energy,” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://www.epa.gov/lmop/benefits.htm)
Producing energy from LFG avoids the need to use non-renewable resources such as coal, oil, or natural gas to produce the same amount
of energy. This can avoid gas end-user and power plant emissions of CO2 and criteria pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (which is a major
contributor to acid rain), particulate matter (a respiratory health concern), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and trace hazardous air pollutants.
And, Acid rain hurts the ecosystem and causes species extinction, which is a loss of biodiversity.
Thinkquest Library, 1999 (Oracle Foundation, “Acid Rain-Effects,” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Environmental_Problems/acid_rain_-_effects.html)
Acid rain is having harmful effects both on people and on the natural ecosystems of the world. Scientists today are convinced that acid
rain is severe in many areas, and that it is having an adverse effect on the environments of those locations. The problem of acid rain is
rapidly spreading. Because it is mainly caused by industrial processes, automobiles, and power plants, those countries that are developed
have the most severe acid rain problems. However, as the undeveloped nations begin to industrialize, acid rain will increase greatly.
Determining just how much the planet is being hurt by acid rain is very difficult because the ecosystems that it affects are so diverse and
complex. Many ecosystems are affected by acid rain. Bodies of water, such as lakes and rivers, see many of their inhabitants die off due
to rising acidity levels. Acidic water also ruins plant nutrients, hurting plants' ability to survive and to give life to other organisms.
Human-made products are also experiencing degradation from acid rain. Cars can lose their finishes, and outdoor statues are beginning to
rust. Acid rain's effects are destructive and long lasting. Though scientists have studied lakes, streams, and many other natural
ecosystems to prove its negative effects, acid rain continues to be produced and is increasing in many parts of the world.
And, loss of biodiversity leads to extinction.

David Diner, Major US Army, 1993 (The Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, “THE ARMY AND THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:WHO' S ENDANGERING WHOM?” Accessed on July 9, 2008, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA456541&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
It may be difficult to accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew, 74 could save mankind. Many, if
not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their
extirpation could negatively affect a directly useful species. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of each species affects other
species dependent upon it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the affect of each new extinction on the remaining * species
increases dramatically 76 4. BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than
simplicity.77 As the current mass extinction progresses, there has been a general decrease in the world's biological diversity. This trend
occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry
serious future implications. 78 Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow
ecological niches. These ecosystems are inherently more stable than less diverse systems: "'The more complex the ecosystem, the more
successfully it can resist a stress...[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist
collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threadswhich if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.", 79 By causing widespread
extinctions humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity rises, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The
spreading Sahara desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the U.S. are relatively mild examples of what might be
expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects,
could cause total ecosystem collapse, and human extinction. Certainly, each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic
removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
60
LFG- Acid Rain Kills Bio D

Acid Rain causes loss of biodiversity
United States Department of Energy, 2004 (DOE, “Environmental Disaster Hype,” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01491.htm)
When you burn coal and oil, you get, in addition to carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, lead and mercury in the air. Since the
prevailing winds move west to east in the Northern Hemisphere, whatever occurs to the west ends up falling on the more easterly
neighbors. Here in the United Sates, most of the coal & oil-fired power plants are in the Mid-West. As a consequence, the forests of the
East Coast are dying from the acid rain that falls on them. These gases are highly soluble in water and form sulfuric acid and nitric acid
when they dissolve in water. Thus, when it rains, it rains acid. The destruction of the statuary and cathedrals all over Europe is because
acid rain reacts with calcium carbonate (limestone) to produce carbon dioxide, eating away the stone. The destruction of the Black Forest
in Germany and the forests in Scandinavia is because acid rain destroys the protective waxy layer on pine needles and leaves, making the
trees susceptible to all kinds of problems. Acid rain also has caused lakes and stream to become to acidic to support aquatic life. When a
lake reaches a pH of 5, almost all life dies. In summary (I know this is long, but it is so important to understand!), all of these problems
contribute to one thing - loss of biodiversity. When animals and plants that we do not even know exist become extinct, we may have lost a
cure for cancer, or a miracle drug. We cannot bring these species back again. At this time, it is estimated that one-fifth of all organisms
currently living will be extinct in 30 years. This is entirely due to human activities from refrigerants to industry to agriculture to the sheer
number of people. If you want to read more, this is an excellent link and has links to other sites.
61
LFG- Bio D Impact- Hunger

maintaining biodiversity is key to ending world hunger.
Jacques Diouf, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Director, 2004 (United Nations, “Maintaining biodiversity is key
to ending world hunger, UN official says,” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12244&Cr=food&Cr1=)
Biodiversity is vital to the productive use of the world's marginal land, but agricultural production has lost about three-quarters of its
genetic diversity in the past century, leaving the world dependent on a dozen crops and a barely larger number of animal species, the
Director-General of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) said today. In a speech at a World Food Day ceremony
in Rome, Mr. Diouf said FAO was raising the alarm about the situation in which "just 12 crops and 14 animal species now provide most
of the world's food." "For many rural families, the sustainable use of local biodiversity is their key to survival. It allows them to exploit
marginal lands and ensure a minimum level of food production even when faced with extremely harsh conditions," he said. "Global food
security depends not just on protecting the world's genetic resources, but also on ensuring that these resources remain available to all."
Preserving biodiversity should be a joint effort involving farmers, commercial plant breeders and the scientific community, he said.
62
LFG- Bio D Impact- Health

Biodiversity is key to finding cures to health problems, such as cancer.
China Daily, April 24, 2008 (China Daily, “Biodiversity Loss Leads to a Sicker World: Experts,” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-04/24/content_6640091.htm)
The world risks wiping out a new generation of antibiotics and cures for diseases if it fails to reverse the extinction of thousands of plant
and animal species, experts warned Wednesday. Biodiversity loss has reached alarming levels, and disappearing with it are the secrets to
finding treatments for pain, infections and a wide array of ailments such as cancer, they said, citing the findings of a coming book. Achim
Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said more than 16,000 known species are threatened
with extinction, but the number could be more. "We must do something about what is happening to biodiversity," he said at a news
conference on the sidelines of the UN-backed Business for the Environment conference.
63
LFG- Warming ADD On

Landfills are feeding tubes to Global Warming.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 9, 2008 (EPA, “Landfill Rules tightened,” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/Epalib/nwlet.nsf/5bfac9471e9909f685256c2c0057e066/6422179d25e7e87e852564d800092f41!OpenDocumen
t)
EPA's regulations will also significantly reduce emissions of methane, an explosive and potent greenhouse gas by 37 million metric tons
of carbon equivalent (about six million tons of methane). Landfills are the largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions in the
country, contributing about 40 percent of all emissions. Methane accounts for approximately 18 percent of all global warming emissions.
It is about 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas) with respect to trapping heat in the earth's
atmosphere. The controls can capture enough reusable methane to power 2.3 million homes.
Reducing methane escaping to the atmosphere from landfills is one of the best ways beneficially impact
global climate change.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 21, 2008 (EPA, “Benefits of LFG Energy,” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://www.epa.gov/lmop/benefits.htm)
Municipal solid waste landfills are the second largest human-generated source of methane emissions in the United States, releasing an
estimated 30 MMTCE to the atmosphere in 2006 alone. Given that all landfills generate methane, it makes sense to use the gas for the
beneficial purpose of energy generation rather than emitting it to the atmosphere. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas that is a key
contributor to global climate change (over 21 times stronger than CO2). Methane also has a short (10-year) atmospheric life. Because
methane is both potent and short-lived, reducing methane emissions from MSW landfills is one of the best ways to achieve a near-term
beneficial impact in mitigating global climate change. It is estimated that a LFG project will capture roughly 60-90% of the methane
emitted from the landfill, depending on system design and effectiveness. The captured methane is destroyed (converted to water and the
much less potent CO2) when the gas is burned to produce electricity. The LFGE Benefits Calculator can be used to estimate greenhouse
gas reductions from LFG recovery projects.
64
LFG- Solves warming

Landfill are key for climate change, also they are cheap.
TECHNICAL CHANGE IN METHANE MITIGATION IN THE U.S. LANDFILL SECTOR?” Accessed on July 8, 2008,
Landfill gas is a key sector for any climate change policy, whether the focus is increasing energy from renewable sources or reducing
direct emissions of a greenhouse gas. Landfills are the largest emitter of methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than carbon
dioxide (CO2) in trapping heat in the atmosphere. It is also a sector where reduction technologies are a known quantity. The capture-and
use of methane can generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the reductions, making reductions in the sector significantly cheaper than
reductions in CO2. Landfills also provide a cheaper source of renewable energy than wind farms or solar installations.
Landfill Gas is a horrible Greenhouse Gas, but on the plus side, it will pay for itself.
Landfill gas is a key sector for any climate change policy, whether the focus is increasing energy from renewable sources or reducing
direct emissions of a greenhouse gas. Landfills are the largest emitter of methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than carbon
dioxide (CO2) in trapping heat in the atmosphere. It is also a sector where reduction technologies are a known quantity. The capture-
anduse of methane can generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the reductions, making reductions in the sector significantly cheaper
than reductions in CO2. Landfills also provide a cheaper source of renewable energy than wind farms or solar Installations.
Methane is bad
Each greenhouse gas has a different impact on global warming, based on its effectiveness in absorbing radiation and its lifetime in the
atmosphere. Methane traps 23 times more radiation than CO2. The potencies of greenhouse gases are compared using a global warming
potential (GWP) index. The GWP of a gas is an index relative to CO2 , comparing the warming contribution of a kg of CO2 compared to
a kg of the indexed gas. The GWPs of greenhouse gases vary widely, ranging from 23 times to 22,200 times more potent than CO2
65
LFG- Solves Water Pollution

Gas from landfills cause pollution of water
Lee, G. Fred (PhD Environmental Engineering and Environmental Sciences Harvard University), R. Anne Jones (Environmental Sciences
the University of Texas at Dallas). May 15, 1991. “MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: Long-Term Public Health and
Environmental Protection.” Google Scholar.
< http://www.members.aol.com/GFLEnviroQual/MSWMANAGT.pdf> accessed July 9, 2008.
Landfill gas migration can cause significant pollution of groundwaters in aquifer systems that contain limestone. The carbon dioxide in
the landfill gas can dissolve the calcium and magnesium carbonates increasing the total dissolved solids and hardness of the water. This
process can take place to a sufficient degree to render the groundwater unusable for domestic purposes without treatment. Further, the
landfill gas typically contains a variety of highly hazardous chemicals such as vinyl chloride (a known human carcinogen) which is
derived from the conversion of TCE to vinyl chloride which occurs in anaerobic situations within landfills or groundwaters impacted by
landfill gas or leachate. Vinyl chloride is a common constituent of concern of both landfill gas migration to release to the atmosphere and
in groundwater pollution by landfill leachate. As noted elsewhere, the US EPA (1988b) has determined that vinyl chloride is such a
common constituent of landfill leachate as to allow it to be used as a chemical of principal concern and one that should be monitored for
in groundwaters near landfills.
Water pollution creates "dead zones" destroying marine life

Duda, Alfred M (senior advisor for International Waters at the Global Environment Facility). Fall 2005. "CONTRIBUTING TO
OCEAN SECURITY: GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY SUPPORT FOR INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF LAND-
SEA INTERACTIONS." Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 59.1. Proquest.
<http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=977249771&sid=8&Fmt=4&clientId=48067&RQT=309&VName=PQD> accessed July 10, 2008.
Increased pollution loading from sewage, mud and nutrients (e.g., phosphorus and nitrogen) represents a third form of increased risk for
coastal communities. Land-based pollution loading, which contributes to 80 percent of marine pollution, continues to degrade marine
ecosystems to the point that benefits are also lost to local economies and coastal communities.13 Enclosed and semi-enclosed seas are at
the greatest risk. Notable examples of the "dead zones" of oxygen depletion in the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea,
the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea reflect the continued pollution-loading of rivers that degrade coastal and marine ecosystems.14 The
renowned Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, funded by the GEF, highlights that coasts are the most highly degraded ecosystems on our
planet. Nearly two-thirds of the perhaps trillions of dollars of annual services provided to the global economy by natural ecosystems are in
decline; short-term economic benefits have been generated by running down the stock of natural capital assets, and this situation cannot
continue without further detriments to security.15
Oceans health is key to survival

Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law. Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection?
Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii, McGeorge Law Review. Winter, 2003. L/N
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than [seventy
percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells,
aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and
quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the
ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary
biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and
coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition, many people
assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively
intact to future generations.
66
LFG- Odors
Landfill Gas must be used to reduce hazards and odors, especially from the methane.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 2, 2008 (EPA, “Landfill Methane Outreach Program,” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://www.epa.gov/lmop/overview.htm)
Instead of allowing LFG to escape into the air, it can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source. Using LFG helps to reduce
odors and other hazards associated with LFG emissions, and it helps prevent methane from migrating into the atmosphere and
contributing to local smog and global climate change.
67
LFG- Creates Livable communities

LFG as energy is a win/win opportunity, it creates livable communities.
Using LFG for energy is a win/win opportunity. Landfill gas utilization projects involve citizens, non-profit organizations, local
governments, and industry in sustainable community planning and create partnerships. These projects go hand-in-hand with community
and corporate commitments to cleaner air, renewable energy, economic development, improved public welfare and safety, and reductions
in greenhouse (global warming) gases. By linking communities with innovative ways to deal with their LFG, LMOP contributes to the
creation of livable communities that enjoy increased environmental protection, better waste management, and responsible community
planning. See Landfill Gas: Creating Green Energy in Your Community for more information on the benefits of LFG energy, or see the
Benefits of LFG Energy section of this site.
68
LFG- Solves Lower Property values

Gas from landfills cause explosions, loss of vegetation, and loss of property value
Lee, G. Fred (PhD Environmental Engineering and Environmental Sciences Harvard University), R. Anne Jones (Environmental Sciences
the University of Texas at Dallas). May 15, 1991. “MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: Long-Term Public Health and
Environmental Protection.” Google Scholar.
< http://www.members.aol.com/GFLEnviroQual/MSWMANAGT.pdf> accessed July 9, 2008.
The anaerobic fermentation of wastes leads to the formation of methane and carbon dioxide in about equal amounts. It is important to
emphasize that a significant part of municipal solid wastes are not fermentable. Further, as discussed below, this fermentation is dependent
on having moisture present which provides a suitable environment for the bacteria that carry out this process to develop. Landfill gas is of
concern from several points of view. First and foremost is explosions. Gas migrating from municipal landfills has caused explosions in
buildings many thousands of feet from the landfill.
Another problem with gas migration is the impact of the carbon dioxide on vegetation. When the roots of plants are in the presence of
high concentrations of carbon dioxide the plants will show distress and may die. There is also a problem of odors associated with landfill
gas migration which can cause property value reduction. Also, gas production can cause disruption of the landfill cover such as by build
up under an FML.
69
LFG- AT: Not enough landfills

There are tons of landfills to implement LFG collection.
As of December 2007, there are approximately 445 operational LFG energy projects in the United States and 535 landfills that are good
candidates for projects.
There are many different opportunities to turn LFG into energy.

There are several opportunities for converting LFG to energy. Below are descriptions of some of the typical project types. Electricity
Generation:The generation of electricity from LFG makes up about two-thirds of the currently operational projects in the U.S. Electricity
for on-site use or sale to the grid can be generated using a variety of different technologies, including internal combustion engines,
turbines, microturbines, Stirling engines (external combustion engine), Organic Rankine Cycle engines, and fuel cells. The vast majority
of projects use internal combustion (reciprocating) engines or turbines, with microturbine technology being used at smaller landfills and
in niche applications. Certain technologies such as the Stirling and Organic Rankine Cycle engines and fuel cells are still in the
development phase. Distribution of electricity generating technologies (PDF, 1 p., 57 KB) Generating technologies (PDF, 1 p., 103 KB)
Direct-Use: Directly using LFG to offset the use of another fuel (natural gas, coal, fuel oil) is occurring in about one-third of the currently
operational projects. This direct use of LFG can be in a boiler, dryer, kiln, greenhouse, or other thermal applications. It can also be used
directly to evaporate leachate. Innovative direct uses include firing pottery and glass blowing kilns; powering and heating greenhouses
and an ice rink; and heating water for an aquaculture (fish farming) operation. Current industries using LFG include auto manufacturing,
chemical production, food processing, pharmaceutical, cement and brick manufacturing, wastewater treatment, consumer electronics and
products, paper and steel production, and prisons and hospitals, just to name a few. Distribution of direct-use technologies (PDF, 1 p., 58
KB) Direct uses (PDF, 1 p., 57 KB) Cogeneration: Cogeneration(also known as combined heat and power or CHP) projects using LFG
generate both electricity and thermal energy, usually in the form of steam or hot water. Several cogeneration projects have been installed
at industrial operations, using both engines and turbines. The efficiency gains of capturing the thermal energy in addition to electricity
generation can make these projects very attractive. Video of the cogeneration project at the BMW manufacturing plant in Greer, SC
Graphical representation of the planned SC Johnson cogeneration project in Racine, WI Alternate Fuels Production of alternate fuels
from LFG is an emerging area. Landfill gas has been successfully delivered to the natural gas pipeline system as both a high-Btu and
medium-Btu fuel. Landfill gas has also been converted to vehicle fuel in the form of compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural
gas (LNG). Projects to convert LFG to methanol are in the planning stages.
70
Geothermal- can power millions of homes

Geothermal energy could power millions of homes
Herro, June 2007
World Watch, Geothermal could power millions of U.S. homes, Study Says, accessed 7/8/08, Vol 20, Issue 3 p. 7
Geothermal power, a renewable energy source that has been largely ignored in the United States, could supply a significant share of the
country's future energy needs, according to a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study. The study notes that by investing
some $1 billion over 15 years-less than the cost of building a single clean-coal power plant-geothermal energy could power an
estimated 25 million U.S. homes by 2050.
71
Geothermal- available nationwide

Geothermal Energy could be created across the United States
Herro, June 2007
Most commercial geothermal production in the United States today occurs in isolated reaches of the West, where higher-grade heat
sources lie closer to the surface. But the report notes that subsurface "hot rocks" (areas of the Earth's hard rock crust that store thermal
energy) are present across the nation, offering the potential for more widespread use of the renewable resource. By drilling wells into hot
rock regions and connecting them to water, geothermal developers would be able to generate large amounts of steam that could be used
to power electric generators on the surface.
72
Geothermal- Uninterrupted Electricity

Only Geothermal can provide uninterrupted power generation
Gov. Ritter, D-CO, Feb. 2007
US Fed News Service and US State News
Geothermal energy could be a key player in helping ease pressure on traditional fossil fuel sources. Unlike other renewables, which
depend upon specific conditions to generate electricity, geothermal power plants can provide consistent base load power similar to coal
power plants. Geothermal power is also virtually non-polluting, emitting very low or no greenhouse gases.
Geothermal offers uninterrupted supply of power to consumers

Herro, June 2007
Because geothermal power is derived from underground heat and steam, the environmental impacts of its development are much lower
than those from conventional coal-fired and nuclear power plants, the report notes. Geothermal also offers an uninterrupted power
supply, unlike renewable energy sources like solar and wind that are affected by weather and time of day.
73
Geothermal- ensures economic growth

Geothermal Energy Would Make U.S. Money
Alyssa Kagel, Geothermal Energy Association, 2007
Geothermal Energy Association, Socieoeconomics and Geothermal Energy, Accessed July 8, 2008
www.geo-energy.org/publications/power%20points/SocioeconomicsKagel.ppt
For every dollar invested in geothermal energy, the resulting growth of output to the economy is $2.50. This means that the investment
required for a 50 MW power plant would result in a growth of output of $350 million to the U.S. economy. If 1000 megawatts of new
geothermal power comes online within the next three years as projected, the associated $2.8 billion investment will result in a total
economic output of $7 billion nationwide.
74
Geothermal –Earthquakes ADD ON

Geothermal Energy Prevents Earthquakes
Rev. Jermano, 2008
Now Public, Geothermal Energy A Link To Averting Earthquakes, Accessed July 8, 2008,
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/geothermal-energy-link-averting-earthquakes-opinion-0
The issue with Geothermal is to not make a radical change to the inner core temperature, or lose gases from inside the earth. Of course
some is beneficial in my opinion to avert and diminish earthquake activity. Earthquakes happen because of pressure built-up inside the
earth from the heat inside that eventually shifts the earth rock plates underground. If some of that pressure is controlled released no
earthquakes occur. Essentially throughout the world there are massive earthquakes that occur, and thousands are killed. We just
experienced one here in Sichuan China yesterday with a report of nearly 8,000 people killed. There are not enough Geothermal Energy
sites produced to help control pressure releases to avert the earthquakes.
Earthquakes Cause New Volcanoes and Reactivate Old Ones

Stefan Anatei, Science Editor, 2007
SoftPedia, Whats a Mud Volcano, Accessed July 9, 2008 http://news.softpedia.com/news/What-039-s-a-Mud-Volcano-62855.shtml
The landscape of the muddy volcanoes plateaus constantly changes, as periodically new cones emerge, while old ones stop their activity,
because of the changes in the pressure and circulation of the gases along the crevices and the amount of available water to be drained to
the surface. The rainfalls also constantly carve a muddy volcano plateau. Earthquakes, too, can inflict important changes in the structure
of a muddy volcano, as they perturb the disposition of the underground layers, accompanied by the modification of the crevices. In some
cases, earthquakes even activate new volcanoes or reactivate old ones.
Volcanoes Will Lead to Extinction
Robert Roy Britt, Senior Science Writer, 2001

SPACE.com, Super Volcanoes: Satellites eye deadly hot spots, Accessed July 9, 2008
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/volcano_monitor_010807-1.html
Likewise, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 was a volcanic sneeze compared to what scientists say America will experience one day.
And a mysterious four-inch-high bulge in the ground of central Oregon is, so far, little more than a conversation piece. Sooner or later,
geologists warn, a "super volcano" will strike. The eruption of pent-up energy will cover half the United States in ash, in some places up
to 3 feet (1 meter) deep. Earth will be plunged into a perpetual winter that would last years. Some plant and animal species will disappear
forever. Even humans could be pushed to the edge of extinction.
75
Geothermal- Prevents Earthquakes

Geothermal Plants can prevent Earthquakes
Ashford, editor at Science Line, May 14 2008
Science Line, The Heat Beneath your feet, accessed 7/9/08, http://scienceline.org/2008/05/14/env-ashford-geothermal/
A major quake requires a several-kilometer-long fault, argues Ernest Majer, a seismologist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Engineers know not to put EGS sites near large or dangerous faults, and the small cracks created by the system itself are not dangerous.
“We can’t make faults as big as Mother Nature does … and there has never been a damaging geothermal earthquake anywhere in the
world,” he adds. At Geysers in California, there are about 3,000 earthquakes per month, according to Majer. The largest, however, reached
only 4.6 magnitude – big enough to be noticeable, but not dangerous. Majer is enthusiastic about how education and community
involvement can help to allay earthquake fears. The quakes at EGS plants can be controlled and monitored for safety, and better research
will help scientists and engineers understand how to make EGS plants even safer, he says.
Drilling geothermal wells can prevent earthquakes and provide a steady source of energy.
Rev. Jermano, May 12, 2008
Now Public, China Geothermal Energy Earthquake Detterant Project, accessed 7/9/08, http://www.nowpublic.com/world/china-
geothermal-energy-earthquake-deterrent-project-news-opinion
The idea is that we go deeper than the water tables, to be able to allow heat to escape and other gases that need to be relieved to
accomplish the task. I am not saying to just let it constantly vent, but to have controlled levels of escape. Even if pressure is allowed to
come from below, and then to reroute the pressure back to another level would be beneficial to removing pressure build ups. Gas can be
captured to analyze what type of gas it is, and then deal with it. Certainly killing the entire population from earthquakes by doing nothing
is far worse than drilling wells that would prevent earthquakes and also provide energy in the long term.
76
Geothermal- Earthquakes  Volcanoes

Earthquakes can develop Volcanoes
Voight, B., R. S. J. Sparks, A. D. Miller, R. C. Stewart, R. P. Hoblitt, A. Clarke, J. Ewart, W. P. Aspinall, B. Baptie, E. S. Calder, P.
Cole, T. H. Druitt, C. Hartford, R. A. Herd, P. Jackson, A. M. Lejeune, A. B. Lockhart, S. C. Loughlin, R. Luckett, L. Lynch, G. E.
Norton, R. Robertson, I. M. Watson, R. Watts, and S. R. Young. "Magma Flow Instability and Cyclic Activity at Soufriere Hills Volcano,
Montserrat, British West Indies." Science 283.5405 (Feb 19, 1999): 1138. Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Kansas State University
Libraries. 9 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Dome growth at the Soufriere Hills volcano (1996 to 1998) was frequently accompanied by repetitive cycles of earthquakes, ground
deformation, degassing, and explosive eruptions. The cycles reflected unsteady conduit flow of volatile-charged magma resulting from
gas exsolution, rheological stiffening, and pressurization. The cycles, over hours to days, initiated when degassed stiff magma retarded
flow in the upper conduit. Conduit pressure built with gas exsolution, causing shallow seismicity and edifice inflation. Magma and gas
were then expelled and the edifice deflated. The repeat time-scale is controlled by magma ascent rates, degassing, and microlite
crystallization kinetics. Cyclic behavior allows short-term forecasting of timing, and of eruption style related to explosivity potential.
77
Geothermal- Volcano to Super volcano I/L

Volcanoes can grow and become Super Volcanoes
Del Moral, R., 1981, Life returns to Mount St. Helens, Natural History, v. 90, no. 5, p. 36-46.
<http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/top_101/Effects/Effects3.html>
According to the Smithsonian Institute, there are more than 1500 active volcanoes, but many more dormant ones could reinvigorate
themselves. Furthermore, one in ten people in the world lives within danger range of volcanoes. Volcanoes can call damage to houses,
buildings, and roads but also have beneficial effects. Volcanoes erupt and eject ash from its vents which cover buildings, roads, and fields.
Houses often collapse from the massive weight of an ash fall and roads become hard to travel. When the ash fall becomes really heavy it
can suffocate people – in fact, ash fall and gas suffocation are the leading cause of death from a volcano. Exposure to ash can be deadly,
and the danger is especially great to infants, elderly people, and those with respiratory conditions. The ash is gritty, abrasive, and even
corrosive sometimes. A phenomena called super-volcanoes are formed by magma rising to create boiling chambers in the Earth's crust.
These reservoirs build up to humongous sizes and finally erupt as the pressures become too great. The last super-volcanic eruption was
74,000 years ago in Sumatra – ten thousand times bigger than Mount St. Helens. The ensuring global catastrophe greatly implicated plant
and animal life. A current dormant super-volcano is in Yellowstone National Park, which erupted 640,000 years ago.
78
Geothermal- Volcanoes Impacts

Super Volcanoes Are Kinda Bad
Armageddon Online, No Date
Armageddon Online, Super Volcanoes, Accessed July 9, 2008, http://armageddononline.tripod.com/volcano.htm
Immediately before the eruption, there would be large earthquakes in the Yellowstone region. The ground would swell further with most
of Yellowstone being uplifted. One earthquake would finally break the layer of rock that holds the magma in - and all the pressure the
Earth can build up in 640,000 years would be unleashed in a cataclysmic event. Magma would be flung 50 kilometres into the
atmosphere. Within a thousand kilometres virtually all life would be killed by falling ash, lava flows and the sheer explosive force of the
eruption. Volcanic ash would coat places as far away as Iowa and the Gulf of Mexico. One thousand cubic kilometres of lava would pour
out of the volcano, enough to coat the whole of the USA with a layer 5 inches thick. The explosion would have a force 2,500 times that of
Mount St. Helens. It would be the loudest noise heard by man for 75,000 years, the time of the last super volcano eruption. Within
minutes of the eruption tens of thousands would be dead. The long-term effects would be even more devastating. The thousands of cubic
kilometres of ash that would shoot into the atmosphere could block out light from the sun, making global temperatures plummet. This is
called a nuclear winter. As during the Sumatra eruption a large percentage of the world's plant life would be killed by the ash and drop in
temperature. Also, virtually the entire of the grain harvest of the Great Plains would disappear in hours, as it would be coated in ash.
Similar effects around the world would cause massive food shortages. If the temperatures plummet by the 21 degrees they did after the
Sumatra eruption the Yellowstone super volcano eruption could truly be an extinction level event.
Volcanoes Eruptions Contributed to Extinction of Dinosaurs

Charles Q. Choi, Staff Writer Live Science, 2007
MSNBC, Volcanoes Could Have Caused Dinosaur Deaths, Accessed July 9, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21755313/
Another leading culprit is a series of colossal volcanic eruptions that occurred between 63 million to 67 million years ago. These created
the gigantic Deccan Traps lava beds in India, whose original extent may have covered as much as 580,000 square miles (1.5 million
square kilometers), or more than twice the area of Texas. Arguments over which disaster killed the dinosaurs often revolve around when
each happened and whether extinctions followed. Previous work had only narrowed the timing of the Deccan eruptions to within 300,000
to 500,000 years of the extinction event. Now research suggests the mass extinction happened at or just after the biggest phase of the
Deccan eruptions, which spewed 80 percent of the lava found at the Deccan Traps.
Super Volcano Almost Caused Human Extinction with Last Ice Age
Bernard Harrison, Principal Partner, Bernard Harrison & Friends, May 2005
Joint SEAZA/ARAZP, Shifting, Volcanoes, and Asteroids, Accessed July 9, 2008 www.metafilter.com/26474/When-humans-faced-
extinction
The last glacial period was apparently caused by the eruption of the super volcano Toba 70,000ya. The six year long volcanic winter and
1000-year-long Ice Age that followed may have decimated Modern Man's entire population. Man’s population size fell to about 10,000
adults between 50 and 100 thousand years ago. The survivors from this global catastrophy would have found refuge in isolated tropical
pockets, mainly in Equatorial Africa. Populations living in Europe and northern China would have been completely eliminated by the
effects of the 1,000 km³ of ash which was thrown into the atmosphere - so much which it blocked out light from the sun all over the
world. Global temperatures plummeted by 12ºC
Super Volcano Could Push Humans to the Limit

LiveScience, Super Volcano Will Challenge Civilization, Accessed July 9, 2008
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050308_super_volcano.html
Several volcanoes around the world are capable of gigantic eruptions unlike anything witnessed in recorded history, based on geologic
evidence of past events, the scientists said. Such eruptions would dwarf those of Mount St. Helens, Krakatoa, Pinatubo and anything else
going back dozens of millennia. "Super-eruptions are up to hundreds of times larger than these," said Stephen Self of the United
Kingdom's (U.K.) Open University. "An area the size of North America can be devastated, and pronounced deterioration of global climate
79
would be expected for a few years following the eruption," Self said. "They could result in the devastation of world agriculture, severe
disruption of food supplies, and mass starvation. These effects could be sufficiently severe to threaten the fabric of civilization."
80
A Super Volcano could create devastation for hundreds of miles and global crop failures.
McGill University, May 30 2008
Science Daily, Big Bangs: Stirring Secrets of Super Volcanoes Uncovered, accessed 7/9/08,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080529131034.htm
The eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 – the only known supervolcano eruption in modern history – was 10 times more
powerful than Krakatoa and more than 100 times more powerful than Vesuvius or Mount St. Helens. It caused more than 100,000 deaths
in Indonesia alone, and blew a column of ash about 70 kilometres into the atmosphere. The resulting disruptions of the planet’s climate
led 1816 to be christened “the year without summer.” “And this was a small supervolcano,” said Stix. “A really big one could create the
equivalent of a global nuclear winter. There would be devastation for many hundreds of kilometres near the eruption and there would be
would be global crop failures because of the ash falling from the sky, and even more important, because of the rapid cooling of the
climate.”
A Super Volcano could destroy the human race

Robert Britt, Senior Science Writer, August 2001
Space, Super Volcanoes: Satellites Eye Deadly Hot Spots, accessed 7/9/08,
forever. Even humans could be pushed to the edge of extinction. Anthropologists suggest it won't be the first time.
81
Geothermal- Lowers CO2 emissions

Average geothermal levels can have a 30% carbon emissions cut
Golombok, Principal Scientist of Shell Exploration and Production, Feb 11 2008
Oil & Gas Journal, Study theorizes use of geothermic sources for energy in refineries, accessed 7/8/08, Vol 106 Issue 6 p.48
Geothermal heating to 340° C. therefore obviates the need for combustion heat (100% CO2 emissions avoided) in the crude distillation
unit and geothermal temperatures less than 130° C. are not required (corresponding to no savings in combustion CO2). Because 2% of
the fuel intake is burned, this immediately indicates the amount of CO2 produced. Accordingly, we can calculate the reduction in CO2
emissions as a function of the geothermal heat source temperature. A geothermal source at 190° C. would therefore cut CO2 emissions
by about 30%. This was the initial target of this study; however, a cursory examination shows that much larger financial savings come
from significant reductions in fuel combustion for providing process heat. We therefore considered the relative values of CO2 saved and
the mass of fuel burned and their associated values.
82
Nuclear power- RPS Prevents/Shuts down

Renewable energy set at 20 percent of electrical outputs would ensure reliability of electricity and prevent
nuclear power
Union of Concerned Scientists, Energy and Security. June 19, 2008 http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/energy-and-
security.html accessed July 08, 2008
Renewable energy would go even further toward improving the reliability and resilience of the electricity system. Wind farms and solar
arrays carry none of the vulnerability of nuclear or fossil fuel plants. They are small and geographically dispersed, making them difficult
to target. Moreover, they have no fuel supply that can be disrupted or volatile fuel stocks that can burn. Expanding energy efficiency and
increasing renewable energy to 20 percent of the total energy supply would reduce natural gas use by 31 percent compared to business as
usual project-ions. We would eliminate the need for 975 new power plants of 300 megawatts each, as well as avoiding many miles of new
gas pipelines and power lines. We could retire 14 existing nuclear power plants of 1,000 megawatts each and reduce coal generation by 60
percent, closing 180 coal plants of 500 megawatts each.
83
Disads- AT: Oil Disad

Oil Prices have very little if nothing to do with RPS outcome as electricity rarely uses oil.
Alan Nogee, 05
We have not examined alternative oil price forecasts, because outside of a few regions, very little oil is used for electricity generation any
more. Oil prices tend to be correlated with natural gas prices, however. As illustrated below, EIA has increased its 20-year natural gas
price projection, as published in Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), each of the last nine years to conform to new data. EIA and other state
and federal agencies regularly use these forecasts to evaluate the costs and benefits of proposed energy policies. Companies also use EIA
projections to evaluate long-term investment and technology decisions. Low natural gas prices make investments in energy efficiency and
renewable energy appear more expensive than they really are. For example, a 2001 EIA analysis projected that a national renewable
electricity standard of 20 percent by 2020 consumers would cost consumers $14 billion on their energy bills by 2020. By comparison, a
2004 UCS analysis of a 20 percent standard using EIA’s assumptions and model projected that consumers would save nearly $27 billion
on total energy bills by 2020. EIA has changed a number of its assumptions between 2001 and 2004, however, most of the difference in
energy bill savings is due to changes in natural gas prices. EIA now projects that natural gas prices will come down to the $3.50 range
over the next five years or so, before gradually increasing again. However, it is also possible that gas prices will remain at current levels.
The mid-term price declines are in part premised on opening new sources of supply, like LNG terminals. New LNG terminals could be
delayed or canceled however, as a result of public opposition or other factors, which would tend to keep gas prices high. While EIA has
steadily increased its long-term gas forecasts, it’s most recent projection in Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (released in December 2004) is
still well below where NYMEX natural gas futures contracts were trading at the time EIA finalized its gas price forecast. According to a
recent analysis by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, NYMEX futures prices are $1.11 per million Btu higher than the AEO 2005
reference case over the next six years.17 This is the largest spread between EIA and the futures market that LBL has seen over the past
five years. They go on to say that one would have to pay this premium “in order to lock in natural gas prices over the coming six years to
replicate the price stability provided intrinsically by fixed-price renewable generation. Fixed-price renewables obviously need not bear
this added cost, and moreover can provide price stability for terms well in excess of six years.” Finally, almost all fuel forecasts project
relatively smooth average price trajectories for all fuels, while in reality, gas and oil prices are subject to large short-term fluctuations as a
result of many factors, such as weather, storage conditions, temporary supply disruptions, price manipulation and other factors. These
conditions have led to many periodic, temporary spikes in gas prices that will certainly continue in the future. By locking in fixed prices
over an extended period of time, renewables avoid excess costs imposed by short-term volatility and price spikes, which are not reflected
in either our or EIA analyses.
84
Counterplans- AT: States

Many States have implemented RPS, but a Federal RPS plan is needed to meet the real goals
Jennifer Runyon, ME from Boston University and former Managing Editor of Innovate Forum and Desktop Engineering magazine, April
22, 2008, (Renewable Energy World, “Report: Update on State Renewable Portfolio Standards,” Accessed on July 7, 2008,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52240)
According to a new report, "Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status Report with Data through 2007," released by
the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a growing number of states are supporting renewable electricity through the creation of
renewable portfolio standards (RPS). The report provides a comprehensive overview of early experience with these state-level RPS
policies. "These [RPS] programs have emerged as one of the most important drivers of renewable energy deployment in the U.S.," notes
report author Ryan Wiser, of Berkeley Lab. "But, as the popularity and importance of these RPS' has increased, so too has the need to
keep up with the design, early experience and projected impacts of these programs." Collectively, the RPS policies that are in place today
in 25 states and Washington D.C. apply to nearly 50% of the U.S. electricity load, and four new states joined the RPS roster in 2007.
"Many of these policies have been established recently and each is designed differently," says co-author Galen Barbose, "As a result,
experience is decidedly mixed." The design of an RPS can and does vary; in fact no two policies are exactly alike. But at its heart an RPS
simply requires retail electricity suppliers (also called load-serving entities, or LSEs) to procure a certain minimum quantity of eligible
renewable energy. An RPS establishes numeric targets for renewable energy supply, applies those targets to retail electricity suppliers and
seeks to encourage competition among renewable developers to meet the targets in a least-cost fashion. RPS purchase obligations
generally increase over time, and retail suppliers typically must demonstrate compliance on an annual basis. Mandatory RPS policies are
backed by various types of compliance enforcement mechanisms, and many — but not all — such policies include the trading of
renewable energy certificates (REC). The study reports numerous key findings, some of which include: Over 50% of non-hydro
renewable capacity additions in the U.S. from 1998 through 2007 occurred in states with RPS policies, and 93% of these additions came
from wind power. Existing state RPS policies, if fully achieved, would require roughly 60 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable capacity by
2025, equivalent to 15% of projected electricity demand growth from 2000 through 2025. Solar set-asides in state RPS policies are
becoming more common, and these policies have supported over 165 megawatts (MW) of new solar capacity so far; a total of roughly
6,700 MW of solar capacity would be needed by 2025 to fully meet these set-asides. The early-year renewable energy purchase targets in
the majority of state RPS policies have been fully or almost-fully achieved, with overall average compliance at 94% in 2006. Nonetheless,
a number of states have struggled to meet even their early-year RPS targets, and many states have been reluctant to penalize non-
compliance. Renewable energy certificate (REC) tracking systems continue to expand, and all but four states allow unbundled RECs to
count towards RPS compliance. The cost of RPS policies varies by state, but in most states, these programs have, so far, increased
electricity rates by 1% or less; in several states, the renewable electricity required by RPS policies appears competitive with fossil
generation. Report author, Ryan Wiser, says that since no two state policies are identical, one can always point to state-level RPS
experiences that are both positive and negative. But that overall, "the proof is in the pudding — renewable energy development in the U.S.
is primarily being spurred by attractive federal tax incentives and state-level RPS policies," he says. The report is in large part a state-level
look at RPS policies; however, the authors note that different versions of a federal RPS have passed both the house and the senate at
different times. Since the two houses have yet to agree on specifics, nothing has reached the President's desk yet. Wiser thinks more
action at the federal level will probably be necessary. "State RPS policies, while impressive, are still modest in scope if the goal is to
significantly diversify the nation's electricity supplies, and to significantly drive down carbon emissions," he says. "If those are our goals,
then federal action appears necessary, whether through a federal RPS, a long-term extension of renewable energy tax incentives, or
through federal climate-change policy."
85
Congress should pass a national RPS—ensures Research and development in new technologies, and cheaper
renewable energy
Elizabeth Burleson, London School of Economics and political Science, 2008
Vermont Law Review, A Climate of Extremes, Accessed July 7, 2008, Accessed on Lexis Law
Deployment of renewable energy technology is crucial over the next decade. n52 Solar PV energy generation costs have fallen by sixty to
seventy-five percent since 1980. n53 National Renewable Portfolio Standards would enable renewable energy generators to locate in
environmentally optimal settings rather than being constrained to states with favorable legislation. n54 While the federal production tax
credit has helped the wind power industry, the fact that it has been extended for such short durations has created boom-and-bust
conditions for the wind sector. n55 Two-year extensions are too short for investing in energy producing infrastructure. n56 Congress has
exacerbated uncertainty by allowing the credits to expire. n57 Government can be instrumental in facilitating the deployment of the
renewable technology that can help prevent severe climate change. n58 Enacting efficiency standards can push new technologies into the
marketplace. n59 In addition to R&D and technology standards, governments should augment pushing strategies with pulling renewable
technologies across the threshold of cost- effectiveness into mass production. The latter can be accomplished via a carbon tax or emission
regulation. Private public partnerships can occur throughout the process of basic R&D, applied R&D, demonstration, commercialization,
and technology diffusion. n60 Just as larger carbon markets are better than smaller trading regimes, economies of scale will bring down the
price of renewable technology. [*487] Mass production of solar panels and batteries will make these carbon mitigation approaches more
cost effective.
A National RPS is needed to keep renewable costs down

Alan Nogee, 05
The reasons that all regions can benefit from a national RPS are that a) all regions would see lower natural gas prices for electricity
generation as well as for other direct gas consumers b) all regions have some renewable resources, and would likely see an increase in
using local resources for generation, c) the national credit trading market created by a national RPS means that all regions can buy
renewable energy credits for the same price, and give utilities negotiating leverage over local renewable generators; and d) by achieving
economies of scale, the national RPS will reduce the cost of renewable energy technologies throughout the country. Additionally, while
the Southeast may not have as rich a renewable resource base as some other regions, the dearth of renewable resources in that region has
sometimes been exaggerated. For example, Mr. Bower’s testimony for the Southern Company neglected to mention the potential for off-
shore wind energy resources. Recent research has found commercially significant wind resources—including the very strongest class 7
winds—off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic.3 The Southeast also has significant existing hydropower resources.
According to the National Hydro Association, the Southeast as the potential to add 2,941 MW of incremental hydropower at existing
dams—second only to the Northwest/Rocky Mountain region.4 Mr. Bower’s testimony also neglected other ocean resources, such as
wave and tidal power, which are proving to be increasingly promising.5 Since incremental hydro, as well as off-shore wind, tidal and
wave resources are not included in EIA’s NEMS data bases, they are not included in either EIA or UCS analyses. Were these resources
included, the analyses would show even greater benefits for the Southeast region. Mr. Bower’s testimony included a map of solar
resources intended to demonstrate that such resources in the Southeast pale in comparison to the Southwest. In determining the value of
solar energy, however, the effective load carrying capability (ELCC)—which reflects the match between solar output and peak electricity
demand—can be more important than the measure of direct solar radiation in a region. The ELCC in most of the Southeast is very high,
and in some areas of the Southeast is among the highest in the country.6 Southeast states currently import fossil fuels from other states
and countries. Is it more of a problem for Georgia to import some wind energy from, say, the Midwest or Texas than to continue importing
coal from Kentucky, Virginia, Wyoming, and Venezuela? Is it more of a problem for Florida to import some renewable energy from
neighboring states than to continue importing coal from nine states plus Columbia, Poland, Venezuela and South Africa?7 A national RPS
will have other benefits for the Southeast and other regions. By giving utilities the option of buying locally produced renewable resources
or importing renewable credits from other states, utilities have more leverage over local producers to help keep costs to a minimum. By
creating a national market for renewable energy credits, and encouraging development of each renewable technology where it is most
cost-effective, a national RPS maximizes learning effects and economies of scale, driving down renewable energy costs. By improving
technology faster, the national RPS makes renewable resources in every region cost-effective sooner than they would be without the RPS.
As noted in my oral testimony, the Southeast, and every region of the U.S., has more renewable electricity potential than most regions
have renewable fuels potential. Anyone who likes a national renewable fuels standard should love a national renewable electricity
standard.
86
We need federal leadership on RPS or inequality exists.

Christopher Cooper, Senior Policy Director for Network for New Energy Choices and Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Research Fellow
for Network for New Energy Choices, 2007 (Network for New Energy Choices, “Renewing America The Case for Federal Leadership on
a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS),” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf)
The vacuum of federal leadership on renewable portfolio standards is not without consequence. 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. Indeed, the most compelling argument for federal action may be that a national RPS
would help correct many of the market distortions brought about by a patchwork of inconsistent state actions.
We need federal leadership on RPS, otherwise some states get a free ride.
In economics, those consuming more than their fair share of a resource while shouldering less than their share of the costs of producing it
are called “free riders”.171 Relying on states alone to adopt RPS programs creates a classic free rider problem because environmental
damage from conventional power plants does not stop at state borders. SO2 and NOx emissions from coal-fired plants in Midwestern
states drift across borders and cause acid rain to damage watersheds in the Northeast.172 Mercury from power plants in the Ohio Valley is
deposited in Maine’s forests and New Hampshire’s lakes.173 The resulting environmental problems provide powerful incentives for
affected states to adopt more aggressive renewable energy policies while non-affected states (that are often the source of the pollution) get
a “free ride”.
We need federal leadership on RPS, to prevent unjustice

Currently, [many] states have some sort of renewable energy portfolio requirement. The standards for what counts as “renewable” varies
among them. The difference in those standards, and between states with energy quotas and those without, increases the likelihood that
states will shift energy around to meet targets in states with renewable portfolios. In short, states without energy portfolios will sell their
high-cost renewable energy to Washington State and will receive, in exchange, low-cost hydro or other energy for their own purposes.
This amounts to a subsidy of energy prices in other states. That subsidy would be paid by all Washington residents, meaning that low- and
middle-class families in Washington would pay to reduce energy costs for wealthier families in other states.17
We need federal leadership RPS, so all states could benefit.

Using conservative economic assumptions, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has consistently found that all regions of the United
States would benefit from a national RPS because commercially viable renewable resources are located in every state. In a 2007 economic
impact analysis, UCS concluded that “all regions do have some renewable energy resources, and would likely see an increase in using
local resources for generation that would often displace the need for importing fossil fuels.”
87
We need federal leadership on RPS, to develop new resources.

The argument that a national RPS would hurt states without abundant renewable resources misunderstands the modern electricity market.
Since its inception nearly a century ago, the electricity sector has become increasingly interstate in nature. And now that Congress has
lifted regulatory restrictions on electricity holdings companies, utilities that would be subject to a national RPS are not limited to
developing renewable resources within the states they are headquartered.
Without federal leadership on RPS, consolidated utilities increasingly will find themselves caught in the
middle of conflicts between state commissions.
In January 2007, for example, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission rejected plans by PacifiCorp (a utility serving customers in
multiple states in the Pacific Northwest) to build one coal-fired power plant in Utah by 2012 and another in Wyoming by 2013. Oregon
regulators claimed that the utility had exaggerated projected demand by not properly considering conservation efforts and renewable
resources when calculating future capacity needs. The decision to reject the plants was heralded by the Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, a
consumer group that argued that Oregon ratepayers should not have to pay for “Utah’s dirty power.”207 But in Utah, where 95 percent of
the state’s electricity is already generated by coal, the state’s largest electricity consumers strongly supported PacifiCorp’s new plants. So
much so that Utah’s Commissioners accused PacifiCorp of not moving fast enough and warned that delaying the construction of new
coal-fired plants could leave Utah ratepayers exposed to high prices for short-term purchases needed to make up for demand shortfalls.
The specter of Oregon regulators deciding the fate of electricity generation in Utah and Wyoming 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. Federal leadership in establishing a national RPS would create uniform regulations on utilities and signal a national
commitment to renewable energy generation. By leveling the playing field between states (and between utilities operating across states) a
national RPS protects the interests of ratepayers while ensuring a level of regulatory predictability that benefits all utilities.
88
Counterplans- AT; XO
No dice – only congress has the power to mandate incentives to decrease emissisons.
Spaulding 3
(Raci Oriona, J.D. @ the U of Iowa College of Law, “Fuel From Vegetables? A Modern Approach to Global Climate Change”, 13
Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 277, Spring, accessed online p. L/N) DMZ
Although President Bush has done little to advance environmental causes, he correctly decided that the United States should not ratify the
Kyoto Protocol. n99 While the agreement may have outwardly appeared to be an environmental masterpiece, the presence of the flexibility
mechanisms would have enabled the United States to continue polluting at its current levels while meeting its obligations under the
Protocol. Instead of Kyoto, the United States needs domestic legislation to produce a tangible reduction in domestic emissions. Although
it is true that this type of domestic legislation could have helped the United States meet its Kyoto obligations, the problem is that the
flexibility mechanisms would leave it with little incentive to do so. Given the fact that the United States emits more harmful gases than
any other country, it is imperative that it works domestically to reduce them. Further, it is bound by the UNFCC to do so. The United
States Congress has the ability to draft legislation that could enable the United States to meet its UNFCCC obligations while
simultaneously advancing environmental, energy, and economic concerns.
89
Counterplans- AT: Alternative mechanisms

Only RPS creates the competitive market that will make renewable the lowest possible prices
Third, the certainty and stability of the renewables market created by a properly-designed RPS will enable long-term contracts and
financing for the renewable power industry, which will, in turn, lower renewable power costs. Fourth, least-cost compliance is encouraged
through the flexibility provided to generators who are subject to the standard: they can compare the cost of owning a renewables facility
to the cost of a Credit/renewable power purchase package and to secondary-market Credits. Those who are most efficient at generating
renewable power will end up producing it, and those who cannot efficiently produce it will purchase Credits on the competitive market.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, since large generation companies will be looking to improve their competitive position in the
market, they will have an interest in driving down the cost of renewables to reduce their RPS compliance costs. They may do this by
lending their own financial resources to a renewables project, by seeking out least-cost renewables applications, or by entering into long-
term purchasing commitments. This fosters a "competitive dynamic" that is not achieved with policies that involve direct subsidies to
renewable generators without involving the rest of the electric industry.
90
Counterplans- AT: Feed-in laws CP-

RPS more cost effective
Because a feed-in law usually stimulates the development of a local renewable industry as well as generating a large number of projects,
this experience can have an effective cost reduction effect for local development. However, unless carefully constructed, it will not reduce
market prices because the specific feed-in tariff is often fixed. Fixed feed-in tariffs therefore do not generally ensure least cost
development. They are generally unable to react flexibly and quickly to renewable energy cost reductions and the cost reductions are not
made transparent in a fixed-price market. If the power sales price is modified frequently to reflect presumed declining costs in renewable
energy supply, a lower cost program may result, but there may be added administrative costs to doing this and the uncertainty could
jeopardize project financing. Even then, one cannot expect the same degree of competition and cost minimization as under an RPS or
tendering approach. Moreover, once established, it may be difficult politically to reduce the tariff level to reflect renewable energy cost
reductions.
success dependent on an attractive tariff

Feed-in laws are dependent on the level of the fixed price to determine the amount of new renewable capacity that will actually be
brought on-line. If the feed-in tariff is highly attractive compared to renewable energy costs, substantial amounts of renewable energy
might be developed. However, the level of the fixed price must be carefully set to ensure the costs of the overall policy do not exceed the
benefits. If the feed-in tariff is not attractive, however, little development might occur.
Feed in tarrrif won’t solve like the RPS will—energy companies will thwart renewable chances
Under any of these three policies, if there is no incentive for the utility to reduce the institutional barriers to the development of renewable
energy, barriers will remain. In fact, there may be an incentive to raise institutional barriers to thwart renewable energy development and
thereby lower the cost burden of paying the feed-in tariff, for example, or to show the government that the policy just won’t work as could
be the case with an RPS-based policy.
91
Counterplans- AT: Tendering policy CP-

high administrative costs that push up taxes
A second factor influencing political viability is the cost to implement the policy or to achieve goals. Feed-in tariffs and RPS policies
generally have lower administrative costs than tendering policies, largely because with the latter, there are ongoing costs to the
government of adjusting the policy, overseeing each offer, raising the money to pay for the incremental costs of renewables and
administering the funds. Usually, the funds for tendering policies are paid through a tax or fee on electricity. The addition of new taxes
and fees can be politically sensitive and can reduce the political viability of tendering policies. RPS and feed-in laws also have costs,
except in these two cases, the incremental costs of the renewable generation is a direct part of the electricity rates, which may be more
politically viable from the government’s perspective. In terms of the ability of each policy to bring renewable energy on-line at the least
cost, RPS is generally considered most effective, followed by tendering and feed-in policies.
unable to spur local development of renewable energy

Because tendering provides strong and continuous incentives for cost minimization, absent additional policies or an already established
renewable industry, it can be difficult for such policies to increase local renewable energy supply infrastructure in order to gain the local
economic development and employment benefits of renewable energy. With a continuous incentive to reduce costs, as under the U.K.
NFFO, established equipment suppliers and developers are likely to dominate the market, at least initially. Therefore it is important to
already have local suppliers established so they can compete. By contrast, a feed-in tariff creates incentives for local economic and
industry development is part of the policy effects, as demonstrated by experience in Germany, Denmark, Spain and the U.S. In a nascent
market, a feed-in tariff can minimize contracting, development, financing and interconnection hassles. Such ease of market entry is
especially important at the initial stages of renewable industry development for less well-financed and smaller players in the renewable
energy business.
PERM do both, RPS has the infrastructure necessary for a tendering policy to have success
Tendering is usually associated with restructured wholesale markets and can be a good policy to help establish a renewable generation
base in newly restructured wholesale markets. Tendering can also be used in conjunction with an RPS to help subsidize new renewable
energy generation to satisfy the RPS and can also be used in a conventional monopoly market. The primary issue for tendering is
infrastructure development.
92
Counterplans- AT: Voluntary

RPS is More Effective than Volunteer Plans
EnergyJustice No Date Given
<Energy Justice, 7-8-08, http://www.energyjustice.net/rps/>
There are serious limitations to the volunteer purchasing ('free market') approach to supporting clean energy. Just as we cannot expect that
people who pay more for organic food will cause all food production to become organic, we cannot expect that voluntary approaches will
be sufficient to clean up our energy supply, since only a tiny percentage of the energy supply can be affected by volunteer purchasing. We
advocate strong public policies, such as tax credits and Renewable Portfolio Standards for wind and solar development.
93
Kritiks- AT: Libertarianism / Coercion

RPS would avoid bureaucratic messes and ensure the renewable market is still driven by market forces and
not government
First, the RPS avoids the administrative dissemination of funds by government agencies, which can be bureaucratic and inefficient. In
addition, government-administered programs almost always impose artificial constraints of various types, which increases costs. Second,
under the RPS, no renewable energy project is guaranteed a place in the market. Unlike a one-time competition for funds, each project
must continually compete to keep its place in the market created by the standard. For example, existing projects and technologies must
compete with new ones, and project enhancements must compete with greenfield projects.
Free Markets will cause a decline in renewable in the market

Even "perfectly competitive" markets have inherent imperfections that are well-established in economic theory. The combination of the
following market barriers will serve as powerful hindrances to renewables: Externalities: Fossil fuel generators pollute the air but do not
have to pay for the local, regional, and global damage caused by their emissions. Renewable energy does not pollute but, in unregulated
markets, will receive no credit for the damages they prevent. Public Goods: The price stability, environmental, and economic benefits of
renewable energy resources are ones that accrue to the public at large, not directly to the purchasing consumer. This "free rider"
phenomenon can be expected to deter consumers from volunteering to pay a little more for renewables since their purchase will benefit
other, non-contributing consumers as much as it will them. Thus, while a "green market" of some size may develop, it is likely to be far
smaller than what is required to significantly diversify the nation's electricity supply and than what might be expected given the strong
public support that renewables enjoy. Transactions Costs: Under retail competition, there will be high transactions costs associated with
reaching consumers who are willing to pay for the public benefits of renewables. In addition, the market reality will be that -- absent the
long-term contracts that have supported virtually all existing renewable energy projects, but which will be very rare in competitive
markets -- investors will have very short investment horizons. In markets that will be characterized by short-term energy sales and price
volatility, investors will prefer low-capital-cost technologies with short payback times. Financing for capital-intensive renewable energy
projects will be expensive and difficult to obtain, even if they produce more cost-effective power over their lifetimes. Without a strong,
long-term renewable energy policy, it is quite possible that the amount of renewable energy serving the U.S. could decline from current
levels, rather than increase as it should. The risk of such a possibility is too great to take, given the importance of achieving a more
diverse, economically and environmentally sound electricity supply.
94
Politics- RPS bipartisan

The U.S. is ready for a nationwide RPS, lawmakers from both sides of the house agree.
Union of Concerned Scientist. Executive Summary. 1/20/02.

Congress has a powerful opportunity for making renewable electricity the standard in the United States as it considers deregulating the
electricity industry. Lawmakers from both houses and both parties have introduced proposals specifying that a gradually increasing
percentage of the nation’s electricity be generated from renewable resources. These proposed renewable portfolio standards (RPS) range
from 4 percent in 2010 to 20 percent in 2020.
95
Politics- Solar Bipartisan

Solar Power has Bipartisan support
M2 Presswire 2006
<M2 Presswire, 7-9-08, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-17434666_ITM>
Solar EnerTech Corp. Acclaims Passing of California Million Solar Roofs Bill SB1 Monday August 28, 9:00 am ET MENLO PARK,
CA----Aug 28, 2006 –
Solar EnerTech Corp. (OTC BB:SOEN.OB - News) (the Company) will celebrate this week with the news that California's Million Solar
Roofs bill, SB1 authored by Senator Kevin Murray, has finally passed on the Senate Floor by a vote of 36 to 4, and that the solar industry
has at last gained bipartisan support for the nation's largest and most comprehensive solar program in the United States. The bill was
signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger at a ceremony held at the new solar powered CalTrans building in downtown Los Angeles
last week. Throughout the past months after the original Million Solar Roofs bill was defeated by legislature, Solar EnerTech Corp., a
California-based company, kept busy building its solar cell production plant in Shanghai, with the firm belief that the bill, or a similar act
would someday become law and that the Company would become a supplier for the million solar roofs in its home state.
96
Politics- GOP Dislikes Solar

Republicans vote down Solar Power
Edwards Reporter JournalReview June 18, 2008
<JournalReview, 7-9-08, http://www.lvrj.com/business/20282614.html>
The solar energy industry is poised to pump billions of dollars into the Nevada economy and create thousands of jobs - but advocates say
the Senate on Tuesday shot down a bill needed to give the sun power industry a jump-start. Republicans for the second time in a week
prevented the Senate from taking up a tax bill providing more than $50 billion in renewable-energy credits and tax breaks for families and
businesses. The vote Tuesday to move to the legislation was 52-44, eight short of the 60 votes needed. Only five Republicans voted to end
the filibuster against action on the bill; others objected to the Democratic plan to pay for the tax relief by making some hedge fund
managers and multinational corporations pay more taxes.
97
Politics- Plan Popular

Plan is popular with the public -- 70% of voters support RPS.
ALAN NOGEE, 05
Survey after survey has shown that Americans want cleaner and renewable energy sources, and that they are willing to pay more for them.
A survey conducted in 2002 by Mellman Associates found that when presented with arguments for and against a 20 percent RPS
requirement, 70 percent of voters support an RPS, while only 21 percent oppose it.
Green Technology is Popular

Rubino Writer CFA Magazine February 2008
<CFA Magazine, 7-9-08, www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/cfm.v19.n1.6 >
Governments around the world now see clean tech as the perfect win-win issue: It’s politically popular and addresses real needs. So, they
are implementing a mosaic of subsidies and mandates designed to speed the transition. Germany pioneered the “feed-in tariff,” which
allows businesses and homeowners to install solar panels and sell the resulting power back to the grid at very favorable prices. “These
incentives are so large that it’s actually cheaper to go green,” says Lyndon Rive, CEO of solar-system installer Solar City of Foster City,
CA. The state of Colorado is requiring that electric utilities derive at least 20 percent of their power from renewable sources such as wind
and solar by 2020. Known as a “renewable portfolio standard,” this type of mandate is becoming common in the United States. Even
Kenya is going green. “With roughly 30,000 small systems sold per year, it has the world’s highest household solar ownership rate,” says
Daniel Kammen.
98
Politics- Green Tech Unpopular

Green Technology is Unpopular
Goodwin, Nelson, and Harris Co-Director of the Global Development And Environment Institute 2007
<Encyclopedia of Earth, 7-9-08, http://www.eoearth.org/article/Macroeconomics_and_ecological_sustainability>
Green taxes are strongly supported by economic theory as a means to internalize negative externalities such as pollution. When there
exists a negative externality like pollution, an unregulated market will result in an inefficient allocation. Two common objections arise to
green taxes. First, green taxes would likely fall disproportionately on lower-income households. A rebate or credit to these households
could be implemented to avoid making a green tax regressive. The other criticism is that green taxes are politically unpopular – no one
particularly wants higher taxes. Increases in green taxes can be offset by decreases in other taxes, such as income taxes, so that the tax
burden on a typical household remains unchanged. And unlike income-based taxes, households would have options to lower the amount
of green taxes they pay by undertaking energy conservation measures and other environmentally-friendly practices.
99
Politics- Senate Support

RPS is supported by the senate
Union of Concerned Scientist June 2005.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/renewing-americas-economy.html. Renewing America's Economy. Access
7/8/08. http://www.ucsusa.org/
A national renewable electricity standard1 would require electric utilities to supply a minimum percentage of their electricity from
renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and bioenergy. Similar policies have already been enacted in 21 states and the District
of Columbia. The U.S. Senate has voiced its support for a 10 percent by 2020 national standard three times since 2002—most recently in
June 2005. Congress has also considered a national standard of 20 percent by 2020. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
used the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) National Energy Modeling System computer model to examine the costs and benefits
of a 20 percent by 2020 national standard. We modified the model using more optimistic assumptions for renewable energy technology
costs and performance that are more in line with projections by the Department of Energy’s national laboratories. Our analysis found that
a 20 percent standard would reduce electricity and natural gas prices and provide significant economic and environmental benefits for
America.
100
Politics- Solar Popular

Solar Power is Extremely Popular Across all Parties
Solar Energy Industries Association June 10, 2008
<SEIA, 7-9-08, http://www.seia.org/solarnews.php?id=184>
June 10, 2008 (Washington, D.C.) - A vast majority of Americans, across all political parties, overwhelmingly support development and
funding of solar energy. Ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that
developing solar power is vital to the United States. These and other findings were reported today in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer(TM),
a nationally representative survey conducted by the independent polling firm, Kelton Research. The survey revealed that 77 percent of
Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal
government. Independent voters felt strongest about this, compared to voters in other political parties, with 86 percent of Independents
supporting the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were President, 41 percent of Americans
picked solar. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent).
Solar Power is Popular

Revkin and Wald Writers for the New York Times 2007
<New York Times, 7-9-08, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html”
The trade association for the nuclear power industry recently asked 1,000 Americans what energy source they thought would be used most
for generating electricity in 15 years. The top choice? Not nuclear plants, or coal or natural gas. The winner was the sun, cited by 27
percent of those polled. It is no wonder solar power has captured the public imagination. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are
winning supporters around the world — from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers’ fields, to Wall Street, where
stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Million Solar Roofs”
initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming.
Despite being Expensive it is Still Politically Popular

Jurgens Writer Contra Costa Times 2006
<SEIA, 7-9-08, http://www.seia.org/getpdf.php?iid=93>
SAN FRANCISCO - California's top energy panel on Thursday wrote a $2.85 billion check, payable over 11 years, to subsidize
development of up to 3,000 megawatts of politically popular but costly solar energy units. The Public Utilities Commission acted despite
uncertainty about the program's cost-effectiveness and prospects for reaching its goal of producing nearly half again as much power as
comes from the huge Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. “This is the time to be bold”; said PUC President Mike Peevey, who described the
newly enacted California Solar Initiative as “the largest solar program of this kind in any state in this country.” The PUC will pump a
torrent of new money into existing programs where, since 1998, $800 million in subsidies have produced only 173 megawatts of solar
capacity. Backers of the latest push hope that expanding the scope of the program will cut costs and result in more bang for each buck of
utility customers' money spent.
101
EIA Indicts
Arguments from the EIA are pessimistic towards the overall power that RPS provides.
Alan Nogee, 05
We discuss below thy most analysts believe that EIA’s projections for renewable energy costs and performance are pessimistic. Please
note, however, that the question in the header, whether EIA’s estimates of future use of renewables are too pessimistic, is a different
question, that is more difficult to answer. On the one hand, to the extent that EIA’s cost projections are pessimistic, EIA’s model will tend
to underforecast the use of renewables in the reference case. This problem is compounded by pessimistic forecasts of the likely result of
state RPS programs. On the other hand, the Nogee 3/25/05 Page 10 NEMS model “builds” the new capacity that is most cost-effective
over the life of that capacity. Since most utilities have much shorter planning horizons and payback criteria, particularly since
restructuring began, the model will tend to over forecast the extent to which utilities will invest in capital-intensive resources, like
renewables, under business as usual. It is very difficult to know how these tendencies offset each other, and the extent to which EIA’s
business as usual forecasts of the use of renewables are too high or too low. However, because they utilize pessimistic assumptions about
renewable energy costs, we believe that EIA significantly overstates the cost of achieving any given state or federal renewable electricity
standard, where the minimum level of renewable use is determined by the standard, not by modeling assumptions.
EIA= Energy Information Administration
The EIA is unfair and unreliable in its information of RPS.

Alan Nogee, 05
Analysts have also critiqued EIA’s model for applying unfair economic penalties to renewable energy technologies as their penetration
increases. For example, EIA increases the capital cost of wind power by up to 200 percent to reflect resource degradation, transmission
network upgrades, and competition with other uses (see figure). EIA’s applies the highest cost penalty (a 200 percent increase) to over 90
percent of the total class 4-6 wind potential in the U.S. We do not believe there is any empirical support for this severe of an increase. In
contrast, we assumed a maximum capital cost increase of 50 percent as the penetration of wind increases to 30 percent of a region’s
electricity. This includes a 20 percent cost increase for integrating wind into the broader electricity system based on a recent analysis for
PacifiCorp’s Integrated Resource Plan and a 30 percent increase for additional siting and transmission costs based on estimates from wind
developers, utilities, and other studies. PacifiCorp’s wind integration cost estimate is at the high end of the range of studies that have been
completed to date for several utilities.11 EIA also does not include several advanced renewable energy technologies that could be
economically viable over the next 20 years. Perhaps, most importantly, they do not include class 3 or offshore wind potential. DOE goal is
to develop a low wind speed turbine that is capable of producing electricity for 3 cents/kilowatt-hour by 2012 in class 4 wind areas,
without incentives or transmission costs. This low wind speed turbine would also increase the competitiveness of class 3 wind areas,
which are available in nearly every state in the US and are often located close to load centers. Wind development is already occurring in
class 3 areas in a few places in the Midwestern and Eastern US and in Europe countries like Germany and Denmark. Several European
countries are also aggressively pursuing offshore wind development. In addition, EIA does not include potential from enhanced
geothermal systems, wave and tidal power, and incremental hydropower expansion at existing dams, and advanced biomass crops that can
produce significantly greater yields than today. These resources and technologies could make a contribution to long-term U.S. electricity
needs.
EIA= Energy Information Administration
102
Electric Power Research Institute Indicts

The hypothetical results that the EPRI, and EIA are unrealistic and should be discounted when it comes to
RPS. This includes all aspects pertaining to RPS including what type of energy it uses to the estimates it
gives in the outcome.
Alan Nogee, 05
http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=RPS+questions. Comments Letter Testimony. Accessed 7/8/08. http://www.ucsusa.org/. p. 13- 17
Detailed studies by the EIA and by UCS show that a traditional national RPS would not impose costs, let alone excessive costs, on
utilities and their customers, but results in savings on both natural gas and electricity bills. With respect to the hypothetical EPRI example,
it is first important to note that a 20,000 MW utility would be a very large utility, equivalent to a utility covering the entire New England
region, or the entire state of California. While the EPRI assumptions might apply in an extreme case, EPRI uses conservative assumptions
that exaggerate the amount of wind development that would typically be required to meet the traditional RPS outlined in their example.
First, EPRI assumes that the 20,000 MW of capacity belonging to the utility would be operating at an 80 percent load factor. This load
factor is considerably higher than the average would likely be for a large utility that has a portfolio with both a mix of electric generation
technologies, and baseload and peaking plants. As a result, the overall amount of renewable generation required to meet the standard is
high. Second, the EPRI example assumes that the utility has no existing renewable energy resources that could be used to either meet its
requirement (wind, bioenergy, solar) or reduce its baseload (hydroelectric). And utilities in all regions would have the opportunity to
import renewable energy credits from other regions. Third, EPRI assumes that wind resources would be the only renewable energy
technology developed by the utility. However, our analyses and EIA find that wind would likely constitute 57 to 66 percent of the
renewables developed to meet a national 10 percent RPS, with the remaining development coming from bioenergy, geothermal, landfill
gas, and solar technologies. In regions with above-average wind resources, which would also mean having a large number of above-
average wind sites, the percentages would be higher. Fourth, EPRI assumes that the wind resources developed would have a capacity
factor ranging from just 23 percent to 32 percent. Both EIA and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory assume that wind capacity
factors, particularly in areas with class 4 to 6 wind speeds, would range from 35 percent to 45 percent. The more pessimistic capacity
factors assumed by EPRI result in greater amounts of wind development needed to meet the requirement. With more realistic
assumptions, UCS finds that a utility with a 20,000 MW portfolio would need 1,500 MW to 2,300 MW of wind, either in that utility's
territory or somewhere else in the US from which it would import credits, to meet a 10% national RPS. An additional 800 MW to 1,000
MW of other renewable energy sources would be needed to fulfill the utility's RPS requirement. This also conservatively assumes that the
utility has no existing renewable energy development that could be used to meet the RPS. The investment needed to meet these targets
depends greatly on projections of renewable technology costs. Using EIA projections, they would remain close to $1,000/kW. As
discussed in question 4, however, we believe those projections are very pessimistic. (EPRI itself, in its Technical Assessment Guide, uses
much more optimistic projections of future wind costs than EIA, however.) Some additional investment in transmission and control
facilities would be required. These investments are included in the EIA and UCS analyses that find that there would still be net consumer
savings from the RPS. Finally, after all is said and done, the EPRI publication quoted in the question recommends: “Consider Support of
Federal RPS: Proactively Develop Resource Definitions and Standards.” (p. 4-6) Public acceptance. Public acceptance is an issue that
affects all energy technologies, including coal fuel cycle and power plant siting; gas plants, pipelines, storage facilities and LNG
terminals; nuclear power plants and waste storage facilities, and renewables. In some regions, like the northeast, it is difficult to build any
type of energy facility. The public acceptance of wind has varied by region, state and specific locality. In general, areas that have been less
accepting of other energy facilities, like the northeast, have been less accepting of wind as well. If the public in the hypothetical utility
territory did not accept the full amount of wind needed to meet the full requirement in the in the hypothetical utility territory, the utility
would have the choice of either utilizing other locally available renewable resources or of importing wind or other renewable energy
credits from regions where public acceptance is higher. Land use. In a recent analysis, UCS examined the amount and types of renewable
energy resources that would be developed under both a 10 percent and 20 percent by 2020 national RPS. We used the National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS), developed and maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), and
examined the range of costs and benefits for each RPS proposal using EIA projections of renewable energy costs and performance, and
using UCS projections for renewable energy costs and performance. The UCS assumptions are close to (but somewhat more conservative
than) projections from the Department of Energy’s national labs. In all four scenarios, wind power plays a dominant role in the renewable
energy mix. Table 1 lists the total wind power capacity by 2020 under both the 10 percent and 20 percent RPS for each set of assumptions.
Table 1 also lists the estimated number of wind turbines needed to reach these capacity levels, the amount of land needed to build these
turbines, and the actual footprint (including turbines, transmission line tie-ins, and access roads) of the wind development. Only a small
fraction of the contiguous United State’s land area—ranging between approximately 0.11 percent and 0.26 percent—would be required
for the level of wind development that could occur as a result of a national RPS. The actual footprint would be far less based on current
experience, with more than 98 percent of the land area required for a wind facility still available for other uses such as farming and
ranching. Figure 1 (see Appendix) illustrates the land area requirements for wind power development under a national RPS compared to
103
the land area of the 48 contiguous states. The results presented above do not account for the potential of offshore wind power
development in the United States, as EIA does not currently include offshore wind resources in NEMS. The U.S. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates the total offshore wind resource potential to be 908,000 MW (excluding the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska
and Hawaii, and Great Lakes).12 To the extent that offshore wind resources can be developed, the amount of land-based area required for
wind development under a national RPS would be reduced. Additionally, the land use area of fossil plants are often underestimated when
the entire fuel cycle, including extraction, refining, transport, generation and waste disposal. At least one study calculates the lifetime fuel-
cycle land-use impacts of a coal plant as exceeding the land use of the comparable generation from wind turbines.13 Because almost the
entire fuel cycle impacts (except manufacturing) for a wind plant are in one location, however, whereas the fuel cycle impacts of a fossil
fuel plant are spread over a number of different locations far from each other, the apparent impact of wind energy can be higher. Also,
because the wind resource also tends to be higher on ridgelines, the overall visual impact of wind can be higher. Those impacts need to be
balanced against the overall impacts of other energy sources, of course. Avian impacts. There have been significant impacts on raptors at
the Altamont, CA wind facility, and unexpected impacts with bats at a few Mid-Atlantic wind farms. Extensive research and mitigation
efforts are underway at these sites. The avian impacts of wind energy facilities at most sites, and overall in the industry are very small,
especially in comparison with other human sources of bird mortality, such as vehicle collisions, tall buildings, cell phone towers,
transmission lines, and house cats. On average, there are 2.3 bird deaths per turbine per year, and that number has been decreasing with
more experience and larger turbines. Overall, wind facilities today are responsible for approximately one of every 30,000 bird fatalities
from human causes. The fossil fuel cycle also cause enormous impacts on wildlife.
EPRI= Electric Power Research Institute
104
Random- RPS spreading Internationally

Countries across the world are starting up RPS programs.
Barry Rabe, PhD and received the EPA Climate Protection Award, 2006 (The Pew Center, “Race to the Top: The Expanding Role of U.S.
State Renewable Portfolio Standards,” Accessed on July 8, 2008, www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/RPSReportFinal.pdf)
Just as RPSs are increasingly common among U.S. states, they have also continued to emerge internationally, both at the national and
subnational levels. In the European Union, the movement toward ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has not resulted in a uniform policy
across the member nations on renewable energy (Rowlands 2005). Thus far, nations such as Italy, Poland, Sweden and the United
Kingdom have authorized “tradeable certificate” programs that bear a striking resemblance to state RPSs and two regions within Belgium
have followed suit (van der Linden, et al. 2005). Japan has also established its own version of an RPS and the Australian province of
South Australia has approved a standard that is scheduled to reach 15 percent of total electricity supply from renewables by 2014 (Biello
2005). In Canada, Prince Edward Island has also set a 15 percent renewable standard, to be attained by 2010 (Marshall 2005). Like their
American counterparts, these policies remain in fairly early stages of development but underscore the fact that American state policy
formation runs parallel with international patterns.
The EU is starting RPS.

The Pembina Institute, 2007 (The Pembina institute, “Supportive Policies,” Accessed on July 8, 2008,
http://re.pembina.org/global/support)
Another successful approach is to allow grid operators to use their own means to meet legal green power targets or a Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS). The state of Texas in the U.S. has become a leader in using the RPS approach. At the end of 2005, Texas had an installed
wind generation capacity of 1,995 MW. As of 2006, a total of 21 U.S. states have RPS regulations. Several members of the European
Union have RPS or Renewable Obligations including the United Kingdom and France.
EU, Canada, US, RPS is spreading!

Douglas Bradley, President of Climate Change Solutions, 2005 (Climate Change Solutions, “Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)& Other
Incentives,” Accessed on July 8, 2008, www.canbio.ca/documents/publications/Renewable_Harmonize_Final_Feb_16_2005.pdf)
Several provinces have RPS including BC, Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia, though Quebec has mandatory targets for specific sources.
RPS is anticipated in New Brunswick and PEI. Some RPS are mandatory, others are voluntary. The EU mandated renewable targets for
each member country, but only 6 of 25 member countries have established an RPS as a national policy. It is still early days, and there is
no track record of success for RPS. RPS has been implemented in the US, successfully in some States, unsuccessfully in others.
Experience shows that it is critical to set RPS correctly, to be demanding yet achievable, otherwise RPS has either no effect or it becomes
too costly to achieve. RPS is most effective if accompanied by complementary policies, in particular feed-in-tariffs and capital grants. In
many foreign jurisdictions, for example Texas and the UK, a combination of RPS and other incentives have led to considerable
development in renewable energy, however it was almost all in wind power, already evident in Canada.
105
Random- Random Electric Bad

Hydropower would ruin the RPS system and is mature enough to survive without RPS system
It is necessary to exclude large hydropower from the RPS for several reasons. Though hydro brings public benefits in terms of avoiding
the air emissions and wastes associated with conventional power plants, hydro is technologically mature, is fully commercialized
(representing a significant share of the electricity market), and has limited development potential. Most importantly, including hydro in
the RPS would create several intractable practical problems: (a) output from the large base of Canadian hydro projects could potentially
be rerouted into the U.S. market and "flood" that market, depressing prices to levels too low to support non-hydro renewables; (b) the
large year-to-year fluctuations in hydro output would make it difficult to meet a fixed standard each year and at the same time provide a
predictable market for renewables; and (c) many hydro facilities have more than one use and have been built with the aid of large
government subsidies. Therefore, it may be difficult to avoid cross-subsidizing irrigation, recreation, flood control, etc., through payments
to hydro via the RPS. Including hydro projects under some size limit (no more than 30 MW) may help to keep in operation those projects
that will have difficulty competing in the market (especially those with high environmental mitigation costs).
Hydropower Can Damage Ecology and Is Very Expensive to Start Up

NCPA (National Center for Policy and Analysis), 2008
NCPA, Idea House: Renewable Energy, Accessed July 9, 2008, http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/primer.html
Hydropower does have several drawbacks. Among them, damming a river can change the ecology of the region, and reduce other
ecological services that the river in its undammed condition provided. For example, the water below the dam is often colder than what
would normally flow down the river, so fish sometimes die. Entire species of fish, for instance some salmon subspecies can be
endangered due either to reduced water flow below dams or due to the fact that they are unable to reach their former breeding grounds due
to a dam's blocking their path. In addition, the water level of the river below the dam can be higher or lower than its natural state, which
affects the plants that grow along the riverbanks. Another problem with hydropower is that while it is inexpensive to produce energy from
a hydropower plant once it is built, building the plants is very expensive, requiring an enormous capital outlay and a relatively long time
to build - which means that it will usually take a longer time to start seeing a profit from a hydropower plant than from other types of
power plants. Also, there are a limited number of rivers on which dams are viable and almost all rivers and streams are publicly owned.
All of these reasons have meant that most hydropower projects have been and will likely continue to be in the future, government built
and publicly financed.
Nuclear Power Plants have a High Capitol Cost and Have Limited Storage Space
Though nuclear energy use produces no air or water pollution or greenhouse gases - it is among the cleanest of all fuels in this regard -
there are serious waste and cost problems associated with nuclear energy use. Exposure to radiation from nuclear plants would be deadly
without protective measures. In the U.S. no deaths have ever been successfully attributed to nuclear energy use. Even the worst nuclear
accident in U.S. history at the "Three Mile Island" nuclear reactor caused no deaths due radiation poisoning. This safety record is in part
the result of the high safety standards and technological safeguards in place at nuclear reactors. These safeguards come at a high price,
however, making the cost of a new nuclear plant prohibitively expensive to build. The capital cost of a nuclear plant are only exceeded by
large hydroelectric projects. So while the marginal cost of energy production at nuclear plants is among the lowest in the industry, the
price of nuclear energy is quite high. In addition, nuclear energy produces radioactive wastes. There are two types of waste: high-level
and low-level. Low-level waste can be safely incinerated. By contrast, high-level waste must be stored for thousands of years. Improper
storage could be dangerous, and the storage process is proving to be quite costly. Nuclear plants are rapidly running out of storage space,
and the federal government had promised to find a permanent repository of spent nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, there are very few sites that
offer adequate protection for nuclear waste and of those sites available, no locality or government wants the nuclear waste stored in its
area. Finding a location to safely store used nuclear fuel is both a technological and political problem.
106
107
Neg- States solvency/Federalism UQ

12 states have RPS now
The RPS is a market-based mechanism that requires utilities to gradually increase the portion of electricity produced from renewable
resources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar energy. Twelve states—including Texas—have enacted minimum renewable
energy requirements. A recent UCS analysis found that the 10% national RPS and renewable energy tax credits passed by the US Senate
in April 2002 would save consumers nearly $3 billion on energy bills through 2020. A stronger national renewable standard, combined
with incentives and standards to improve energy efficiency, would significantly increase savings and other benefits even more.
108
Neg- States C/P for Solar

States are the Best Option for Solar
Ross Vote Solar Initiative January 2008
<Center for American Progress, 7-8-08, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/solar_report.html>
The federal government has shown support for solar energy in recent years with the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which
provides tax credits for investors in solar power systems. The Securing Energy Independence Act of 2007 (HR.550/S.590)would extend
the tax credits through the end of 2016, a necessary step for a rapid transition to solar energy. Yet federal action is not enough. Energy
policy is largely determined at the state level through state and local laws and utility regulation. States must therefore take the lead to
ensure that incentives are properly structured to keeps costs declining while regulatory processes become more easily navigable by
businesses and consumers. Solar photovoltaics must rival power from the utility grid in both cost and accessibility in order to make solar
power appealing to consumers.
109
NEG- LNG Protected

LNG tankers have protections from US already
Eben Kaplan, Associate Editor. Liquefied Natural Gas: A Potential Terrorist Target?, Council On Foreign Relations. Febuary 27, 2006.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9810/ accessed July 8, 2008
LNG tankers approaching U.S. waters must provide ninety-six hours' notice, allowing the Coast Guard to provide a small flotilla to safely
escort the boat to its destination. Added security detail includes local police boats, divers, firefighting tugboats, and a helicopter. Bridges
along the tanker's route are closed and nearby airports suspend flights. Any private vessels that drift too close are sternly turned away.
Tankers are inspected and screened for explosives before they are allowed to approach land, and tanker crews must pass a security check
before being allowed to board the vessels. At LNG terminals, there is also a heavy security presence; access to the terminals is controlled,
and security personnel perform regular threat-response drills.
110
Neg- Geothermal BAD

Geothermal Energy Contributes to Global Warming
H. Douglass Lightfoot, The Gazette(Montreal), 2008
The Gazette, Geothermal isn’t always the answer, Accessed July 8, 2008, Accessed on Lexis Nexis
Unfortunately, geothermal cannot be harvested without electricity to power the motors. If this electricity is generated by coal, as in
Alberta, then carbon emissions are produced outside the house. In a geothermal system, one unit of high-quality energy like electricity is
used to recover three to five units of low-quality energy at a temperature suitable for heating a home. This makes good sense under some
conditions. However, the situation looks much less favourable when you consider that each unit of electricity energy requires three units
of coal energy. Thus, three units of coal energy, with its carbon emissions, are used to produce three to five units of heat energy for
heating a house. This just illustrates that the value of geothermal energy and its contribution to reducing carbon emissions depend very
much on the local conditions.
Geothermal Energy Kills Ecosystems, is Unhealthy, and Goes Against Native Culture
What is geothermal energy? Geothermal energy is generated when water contacts hot rocks below the earth's surface. The rocks give off
hot steam which is used for electricity. This is geothermal energy. Geothermal means earth-heat. On the island of Hawai'i, geothermal
wells have been dug to test the use of geothermal energy for making electricity. There has been a big debate whether geothermal energy
does more harm than good. Geothermal energy costs less and is a relatively safe way to make electricity. It will also help free the islands
from importing oil and coal for energy. Although oil is cheaper than a few years ago, it is quickly being used up. People who are for the
use of geothermal energy say it is cleaner for the environment than energy from coal and oil. The people who are against geothermal say
that Hawaiian rain forests are cut down to make roads and buildings for the geothermal plants. If the Hawaiian rain forests are cut down,
many endangered native plants and animals may become extinct. Some of these plants and animals live only in this area. Furthermore,
steam from geothermal plants is full of sulfur and other chemicals. If you breathe too much of the gas, it may be toxic. It is also dangerous
to handle without the right equipment. Many people on the Big Island became afraid following leaks from a test well. The power plant
that was built afterwards and runs today is very quiet and is self-contained so the sulfurous steam is not released into the air. Many
Hawaiians today still practice their ancient religion and worship the volcano goddess, Pele. They do not like the idea that people are
digging into the earth to take energy away without Pele's permission They feel that this is disrespectful because the lands and volcanoes
are sacred.
Geothermal Energy is bad for the Environment

Science Clarified, 2006
Science Clarified, Geothermal Power, Accessed July 8, 2008, http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Energy-Alternatives/Geothermal-
Power.html
Geothermal power is considered a nonpolluting source of energy, but it does have some serious environmental drawbacks. Often, to
develop a geothermal site, fragile ecosystems must be disturbed. Roads must be built to the sites, which are usually remote because the
land around geothermal vents is usually too unstable for human habitation. Wells must often be dug, which disrupts the natural flow of
groundwater. These actions can impact the surrounding habitat if site development is not managed correctly. The steam used at
geothermal plants can also become a source of air pollution if it is released into the atmosphere. Frequently it is heavily laced with salts
and sulfur compounds that are leached from the earth's crust. If the steam is simply condensed and released into the natural waterways,
the high levels of salts and sulfurs can be toxic to aquatic wildlife. If released into the air, the toxins, in the form of acid rain, can still find
their way into surface water systems and kill aquatic animals. Geothermal plant operators often cool and condense the steam produced at
their plants and recycle it into their wells for these reasons. The sludge that is created by drilling wells for wet steam geothermal plants
can also be a source of environmental pollution. This sludge often contains minerals that contaminate water supplies of local residences if
it is not properly processed and disposed of. Aquatic wildlife can also be affected if this sludge is put into the water systems. Strict
regulations are in place for most geothermal plants so that both steam and sludge are properly disposed of. However, this often increases
the cost of producing geothermal power.
111
Geothermal Energy Can Increase Corrosive Pollutants and Decrease Tourist Attraction
While geothermal energy is considered a renewable source of power, geothermal reservoirs can be depleted by drawing energy out of
them at a faster rate than they are replenished. Another problem with geothermals is that water from geothermal reservoirs often contain
minerals that are corrosive and polluting. In addition, using a particular reservoir like a geyser may reduce its aesthetic appeal. For
instance, if tapping into Old Faithful reduced its water output, it could lessen it value as a tourist attraction.
112
Neg- Geothermal Bad – Earthquake Turn

Geothermal Energy Triggers Earthquakes – Switzerland Proves
Christine Lipisto, Business and Politics Writer in Berlin, 2007
Tree Hugger, Geothermal Power Plant Causes Earthquake In Switzerland, Accessed July 9, 2008
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php
Even environmentally friendly alternative technologies can have negative impacts which are difficult to predict. The citizens of Basel
learned this first-hand as they were shaken by an earthquake of magnitude 3.4 on the Richter scale, followed by 60 lesser aftershocks,
including a quake of magnitude 2.5 a week after the initial quake, and another tremor of 3.1 as recently as 6 January, attributed to changes
as underground pressures at the now discontinued project site return to normal. The engineers and officials of Geopower did inform the
authorities and the public that the proposed Deep Heat Mining project posed a risk of triggering small tremors. Quakes of the magnitude
actually experienced, however, were not anticipated. The public is also questioning whether the communication of this risk, by a brief
statement buried in a press release, was sufficient to prepare residents. The Geopower Deep Heat Mining project is the first commercial
application of the so-called hot fractured rock technique, which allows recovery of heat from dry rock. The Geopower engineers intended
to use the 200C temperatures at 5000 meters to heat injected water which is then pumped back to the surface for recovery. The technique
relies on the fracturation of existing pores and crevices by injection of cold water. The fracturation creates a path for water to cycle
through the hard granite, so that the heated water can be brought back to the surface through a separate borehole a distance away from the
injection hole. Most geothermal power projects tap into reservoirs of heated water rather than dry rock. However, recent reports suggest
that earthquakes caused by mankind are not uncommon. Christian D. Klose of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
in Palisades, New York, reports that over 200 quakes can be attributed to mankind's activity in National Geographic. The most severe
example was a quake of magnitude 5.6 in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, an area not prone to seismic activity. The quake hit on
December 28, 1989, killing 13 people, injuring 160, and causing US$3.5 billion in damages--more than the entire value of the coal mined
over the life of the Newcastle operation. Klose suggests that similar activity could be caused by CO2 sequestration, the process of
pumping CO2 into deep underground reservoirs. Unlike Newcastle, Basel experiences dozens of tremors every year, 3 or 4 of which may
hit the 3.4 magnitude similar to the Geopower triggered quake. Experts suggest that the recent quake was percieved as much worse
because it was triggered from only 5000 meters below the surface. Residents fears are also compounded by the fact that Basel sits directly
over a fault to which the worst earthquake ever to hit Europe is attributed. The quake, estimated to have been about a 6.5 on the Richter
scale, occurred in 1356, toppling medieval castles and church towers. Experts indicate that a similar quake today would bring down about
4% of existing buildings, cause SFf80 billion ($66.3 billion) in damages, and threaten public safety due to the chemical and nuclear
industries active in the area. Neighboring Germans could feel the quake and political reverberations have reached Berlin, where questions
are being raised about 70 to 80 geothermal projects which are seen as essential to Germany's planned exit from nuclear power generation.
A speaker for the German Environmental Agency indicated that the events in Basel are being watched closely, but that they see no
grounds for panic, and investment in geothermal power in Germany is anticipated to continue unabated. The President of the German
organization for geothermal energy, Horst Rüter, was quoted in the German daily Handelsblatt saying, "In principal, the residents of Basel
should be happy" because tensions have been released which could have triggered a more significant quake if left to build up. Swiss
earthquake researchers have vehemently denied the validity of Rüter's opinion. The firm Geopower was founded specifically to pursue the
geothermal power opportunity, hoping to warm 2700 homes and power 10,000. It includes two Swiss Cantons as well as 8 regional energy
providers amongst the stockholders. The question of whether Geopower will be allowed to return to drilling remains under evalution, with
US$50 million already invested at risk.
Earthquakes Cause New Volcanoes and Reactivate Old Ones

Stefan Anatei, Science Editor, 2007
SoftPedia, Whats a Mud Volcano, Accessed July 9, 2008 http://news.softpedia.com/news/What-039-s-a-Mud-Volcano-62855.shtml
The landscape of the muddy volcanoes plateaus constantly changes, as periodically new cones emerge, while old ones stop their activity,
because of the changes in the pressure and circulation of the gases along the crevices and the amount of available water to be drained to
the surface. The rainfalls also constantly carve a muddy volcano plateau. Earthquakes, too, can inflict important changes in the structure
of a muddy volcano, as they perturb the disposition of the underground layers, accompanied by the modification of the crevices. In some
cases, earthquakes even activate new volcanoes or reactivate old ones.
113
Volcanoes Will Lead to Extinction

SPACE.com, Super Volcanoes: Satellites eye deadly hot spots, Accessed July 9, 2008
forever. Even humans could be pushed to the edge of extinction.
114
Neg- LFG bad

Landfill Gas releases Dioxins, carbon monoxide and NOx
Mike Ewall, finder of Energy Justice Network, 2000 (Energy Justice Network, “Primer on Landfill Gas as "Green" Energy,” Accessed on
July 8, 2008, http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/)
There is limited data comparing emissions from landfill gas flares to energy producing combustion devices (which includes boilers,
turbines and internal combustion engines). According to very limited data in a 1995 EPA report, carbon monoxide and NOx emissions are
highest from internal combustion engines and lowest from boilers. Flares and gas turbines are in the middle.5 Dioxin emissions data is
also very sparse. EPA, in their 1998 dioxin inventory, looks at only a few tests and shows that, for the most part, flares produce more
dioxin than internal combustion engines or boiler mufflers.6 However, a more comprehensive review (by the County Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County in 1998) of about 20 studies involving 76 tests at 27 facilities shows that internal combustion engines on average
produce 44% more dioxin than shrouded flares. Since there is high variability in dioxin emissions from landfill gas burners (based on
composition of waste dumped and also on the combustion technology - internal combustion engines are much more variable), these
figures should not be applied to site-specific situations.7 Burning landfill gas is dirtier than burning natural gas. Whether using an internal
combustion engine or a gas turbine, burning landfill gas to produce energy emits more pollution per kilowatt hour than natural gas does.8
Why is it that natural gas (a non-renewable resource which is not considered "green energy") burns cleaner than landfill gas, yet energy
from landfill gas gets away with being considered renewable green power?
And, Dioxins are one of the worst pollutants ever.

World Health Organization, 2007 (WHO, “Dioxins and their effects on human heatlh,” Accessed on July 8, 2008,
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/index.html)
Dioxins are environmental pollutants. They have the dubious distinction of belonging to the “dirty dozen” - a group of dangerous
chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants. Dioxins are of concern because of their highly toxic potential. Experiments have shown
they affect a number of organs and systems. Once dioxins have entered the body, they endure a long time because of their chemical
stability and their ability to be absorbed by fat tissue, where they are then stored in the body. Their half-life in the body is estimated to be
seven to eleven years. In the environment, dioxins tend to accumulate in the food chain. The higher in the animal food chain one goes, the
higher is the concentration of dioxins.
LFG is not a green or renewable energy

Mike Ewall, finder of Energy Justice Network, 2000 (Energy Justice Network, “Primer on Landfill Gas as "Green" Energy,” Accessed on
July 8, 2008, http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/)
But the landfill gas is there anyway (usually being flared), so why not use it to make energy? This is a classic case of asking the wrong
question. It's a very different thing to ask "what is the best way to manage landfill gas?" than to ask "how should we produce green,
renewable energy?" Green energy marketers aren't in the business of managing landfill gas. If they want to be in the waste management
business, then that's a different story. In brief, if you ask what the best way to manage landfill gas is, the answer is along the lines of
"before you do anything with it, filter out the toxic contaminants and treat them with a non-burn technology." If the question is how to
produce green, renewable energy, the answer is "use technologies such as wind and solar that don't create pollution in the process of
making energy." Nothing that emits dioxins should be considered "green" or "renewable" energy. "Green" or "renewable" resources
shouldn't produce pollution in the process of making energy. Anything that has environmentally-damaging emissions you can measure per
kilowatt is not deserving of subsidies or preferential pricing afforded to "green power."
Not every state is blessed with access to geothermal energy.

Rep. Dingell, March 2008
US Fed News Service and US State News, Rep. Dingell addresses Edison Electrical Institute, accessed 7/8/08, Wire Feed
First of all, it's impractical. Not every region or State is equally blessed with access to wind or geothermal or other renewable forms of
energy. I was also troubled that the RPS provision we considered favored and disfavored certain sources. For example, it rejected the
production of electricity from municipal solid waste as a renewable resource. Perhaps most important, I felt that - had we included an RPS
last year - it would have forced industry to undertake a climate change effort separate from what we in Congress are doing. This would
have made it far more difficult to ensure a consistent and fair economy-wide climate change policy.
115
Neg- AT: LFG solves methane warming

Landfill Gas already is captured and burned preventing warming.
Modern landfills in the US are lined with plastic or bentonite clay to prevent toxic leachate from migrating into groundwater. To reduce
smells, health issues from rodents, and other health hazards, a layer of soil is spread over each layer of garbage, usually at the end of each
operating day. In addition, large landfills are regulated to safely collect landfill gas that is approximately 49% methane and highly
flammable. Combustion, or flaring, destroys the methane along with other organic compounds that can be hazardous or cause odor. The
gas also carries toxics and other air pollutants that can be destroyed through flaring or through combustion as an energy source.
The EPA already requires landfills to collect and either store or flare Landfill Gas.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 9, 2008 (EPA, “Landfill Rules tightened,” Accessed on July 9, 2008,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/Epalib/nwlet.nsf/5bfac9471e9909f685256c2c0057e066/6422179d25e7e87e852564d800092f41!OpenDocumen
t)
The EPA issued a rule on March 1st that is intended to reduce smog-causing emissions and toxic air pollutants from landfills by half. The
rule requires large landfills that emit volatile organic compounds in excess of 50 megagrams per year to control emissions by drilling
collection wells into the landfill and routing the gas to a suitable energy recovery or combustion device. In the April 1995 issue of
EDV&CBN we reported on the economics of such recovery systems. Large landfills will also be required to monitor surface methane on a
quarterly basis, and to expand their collection system if the concentration exceeds 50 parts per million. Only landfills which handle
everday household waste, not those handling hazardous materials, are subject to the rule. Only the largest four percent of existing landfills
(280) and five percent of new ones built in the next five years will be subject to the rule.
116
Neg- AT: Solar

It Costs too much
Sachs Brookings Institute 2005
<Brookings Institute, 7-8-08, http://www.allbusiness.com/government/879911-1.html>
There is thus no shortage of solar energy. The problem is cost. At present, solar energy is far too expensive to be more than a niche player
in the world’s energy infrastructure. The cost of solar energy is about $4 per peak watt installed;39 in a sunny climate this translates into
roughly $16 per average watt. The cost of a kilowatt-hour of electricity from solar is about 20 to 30 cents; the cost of storing this energy
roughly doubles that price. This compares with roughly 3 cents per kilowatt-hour in a coal-burning power plant.40 There is reason to
expect that the cost of solar energy will fall. Mass production and the exploitation of learning curves in other manufacturing activities
have led to even larger reductions in cost when the right economic drivers are in place. For example, the cost of a CD-ROM has come
down by about a factor of 100 since the technology was first introduced; a similar reduction in the cost of photovoltaic systems could
drive the price of solar energy below 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. The challenge is to develop the right incentives for such a transition to
occur.
Solar Power is 12 Times as expensive as regular Electricity

Moran Director of Deregulation unit at the Institute of Public Affairs May 14, 2008
<Business Day, 7-9-08, http://business.theage.com.au/why-a-solar-system-still-lacks-power-20080513-2dtw.html>
IN THE range of energy supply systems designed to reduce greenhouse gases, the most expensive is photovoltaic cells, or solar panels.
Engineering firm SKM has estimated that rooftop solar power is eight to 12 times more costly than regular electricity. The panels also cost
three to five times more than the inefficient wind turbines that, on the back of subsidies, are increasingly dotting the landscape.
Solar Power is the Most Expensive Alternative Energy Source

Cantor Times-Dispatch Guest Columnist June 23, 2008
<inrich.com, 7-9-08, http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/oped.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-06-23-0033.html>
GOVERNMENT must invest in promising alternatives such as wind power, solar power, geothermal power, liquid coal, and cellulosic
ethanol. But we also must recognize their shortcomings. Wind energy, for example, is hampered by capital-intensive equipment and
unreliable facilities. Liquid coal generates twice as many greenhouse gas emissions as gasoline. Solar power is the most expensive
alternative energy source. Geothermal power can be tapped only in certain areas.
We are at Least 10 Years away from being able to use Solar Power Economically Effective
Science Daily April 11 2008
<Science Daily, 7-9-08, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080407172717.htm>
The single biggest challenge, Gray said, is reducing costs so that a large-scale shift away from coal, natural gas and other non-renewable
sources of electricity makes economic sense. Gray estimated the average cost of photovoltaic energy at 35 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour.
By comparison, other sources are considerably less expensive, with coal and natural gas hovering around 5-6 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Because of its other advantages -- being clean and renewable, for instance -- solar energy need not match the cost of conventional energy
sources, Gray indicated. The breakthrough for solar energy probably will come when scientists reduce the costs of photovoltaic energy to
about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, he added. "Once it reaches that level, large numbers of consumers will start to buy in, driving the per-
kilowatt price down even further. I believe we are at least ten years away from photovoltaics being competitive with more traditional
forms of energy."
Solar Power is not Feasible on a Large Scale due to Cost, and Light Limitations
Like wind power, hydro power and nuclear energy, solar energy is touted by its advocates as a safe, non-polluting source of power of
unlimited potential. However, the widespread use of solar power has several limiting factors that its promoters have yet to overcome. The
production of solar panels, solar fuel cells and photovoltaic batteries creates pollution. Solar power is very expensive, due, in part, to the
fact that it is unreliable. Nightfall and cloudcover are among the factors that interupt solar power production - thus a second, usually
fossil-fuel-burning power supply is necessary to supplement solar power when necessary (dual or redundant facilities are rarely efficient).
117
In addition, solar power simply isn't feasible in many parts of the world due to space or daylight limitations. Large solar powered electric
projects are only feasible in desert locations, but there they disrupt desert ecosystems.
118
Neg- Biomass  Pollution

Biomass Can Pollute More Than Fossil Fuels
NCPA, Idea House: Renewable Energy, Accessed July 9, 2008, http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/primer.
Like any fuel, biomass creates some pollutants when it is burned or converted into energy. The amount of pollution varies based upon
biomass type and energy technology used. Some biomass uses produce worse pollution problems than fossil fuel use - for instance,
burning wood in a stove or fireplace for warmth produces unhealthy soot and burning methanol produces health-endangering toxic gases.
119
Neg- Wind Bad

Wind Farms Are Expensive and Are Placed In the Way of Protected Bird Migrations
In theory, wind systems can produce electricity 24 hours every day. However, even in the windiest places, the wind does not blow all the
time. So, while wind farms don't need batteries for backup storage of electricity, small wind systems do need backup batteries. Like solar
power, because of the inconsistent nature of wind power, power plants that rely on wind energy need redundant or additional power
supplies - usually generation systems that use fossil fuel. Wind farms are very expensive to build and maintain. Wind power, like almost
every other source of renewable energy is more expensive than non-renewable energy sources. Resources spent above and beyond what is
absolutely necessary to produce a needed amount of energy are wasted in the sense that they are unavailable for use in the pursuit of other
worthwhile and important social and private goals. Wind farms pose a number of environmental problems. They require a great deal of
land and many people see them as a blight on the landscape. In addition, they are very noisy (noise pollution is a nationally recognized
problem). The noise is so great that people find it difficult to live in the vicinity of a wind farm. From an environmentalist's point of view,
perhaps the worst environmental problem caused by wind power is the number of birds that wind turbines kill each year. The most viable
locations for wind farms are also critical flyways for many migratory bird species and prime habitat for several endangered raptor species.
Most of these birds are "protected" by treaties or laws. However, every year thousands of birds in Europe and America are killed when
they fly into the turning blades of wind turbines. Raptors are drawn to their deaths by prey species cowering at the bases of wind turbines.
On more than one occasion, the bodies of the killed birds have ignited and started fires on the wind farms, not only killing other animals,
but also interrupting the power supply.
Wind Power Kills Birds

The universal rationale for this massive public commitment to wind power is that it is environmentally benign. But wind power has at
least one major environmental problem -- the massive destruction of bird populations -- that has begun to draw serious concern from
mainstream environmentalists. Wind blades have killed thousands of birds in the United States and abroad in the last decade, including
endangered species, which is a federal offense subject to criminal prosecution.105 While bird kills are not considered a problem by
everyone, it is a problem for some environmental groups who lobbied to put the laws on the books, made cost assessments for dead birds
and other wildlife pursuant to the Valdez accident, and vilify petroleum extraction activity on the North Slope of Alaska as hazardous to
wildlife.106 While such groups as the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society have criticized wind power's effects on birds, many
eco-energy planners have ignored the problem in their devotion to wind power. There have been numerous mentions of the "avian
mortality" problem in the wind power literature (the Sierra Club labeled wind towers "the Cuisinarts of the air").107 An article in the March
29-April 4, 1995, issue of SF Weekly was particularly telling. The cover story in the San Francisco newspaper was no less than an expose,
written not by a free-market critic but by an author sympathetic with the environmentalist agenda.
120

RPS Aff-Neg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RPS Aff-Neg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wildcat Debate Workshop <Renewable Portfolio Standards>

Second, There is a scientific consensus that CO2 is causing warming

Third, Studies disprove sun as the source of warming

G L O B A L - W A R M I N G S K E P T I C S A N D T H E S U N S P O T C Y C L E Many global-warming skeptics argue that the

Fourth, 20% by 2020 RPS would remove 50 percent of CO2 emissions

B) Renewables are critical to our economic competitiveness

C) Competitiveness is critical to hegemony

D) US Hegemony prevents nuclear war

Scenario 3- Consumer Confidence

D) Without business confidence the economy will collapse

Scenario 4- Digital Economy

AND FINALLY THE IMPACT ALL OF THESE SCENARIOS IS EXTINCTION

Inherency- Strong government support needed

Inherency- RPS promotes many different REs

Inherency- RPS doesn’t include Nuclear

Solvency- RPS should include geothermal, biomass,

Solvency- Empirically Proven

RPS have worked in past and would be good on a national level

RPS work – empirically proven

RPS work – Texas and California show

Solvency- Public wants renewables

Solvency- RPS should sunset

Solvency- RPS ensures cheap Renewables

Solvency- RPS ensures shift to Renewables

RPS creates a market for renewable energy producers

Solvency- ONLY RPS provides renewable

Solvency- Companies will comply

RPS must have penalties for non-compliance to ensure solvency

Noncompliance penalties key to enforce RPS and ensure renewable development

Solvency- RPS  LFG, Wind, Solar, and Geothermal

Solvency- RPS  Wind, Solar, geothermal and lower

Solvency- AT: Renewable cant fill in for FF

The Union of Concerned Scientist. RPS Questions and Answers. 11.8.01.

Solvency- AT: renewables provide sporadic power

Warming- Renewables solve warming

Warming- RPS solves CO2 & prevents future FF

Warming- RPS solves Warming and meets Kyoto

Union of Concerned Scientist. Powerful Opportunity Chapter 4. 1/20/99.

Renewable Portfolio Standards will decrease emissions, Texas Proves.

Warming- RPS reduces CO2 & Enviro Toxins

Economy- RPS Improves economy

Renewable Portfolio Standards spurs economic development three ways.

Economy- Competitiveness - US can be Competitive

Economy- Consumer Confidence -Lowers Electric

Union of Concerned Scientist. RPS Primer. 1/16/04.

Renewable energy can reduce natural gas and electricity prices.

Economy- AT: consumers will have to pay more for

Economy- Consumer Confidence RPS creates jobs

Economy- Jobs Key to Economy

Economy- Consumer Confidence – Biz Con I/L

Economy- RPS prevents LNG use

Economy- LNG Terrorist attacks likely

Tactics and history prove LNG attack is likely from Al Qaeda

Solar- RPS  Solar

Solar- Space Add ON

B. Space Solar Power is Key to Space Exploration

Solar- Key to Econ

Solar- Solar Space key to exploration

Solar- Space Impacts

Solar- AT: Too expensive

Solar Power has become Competitive with nonrenewable energy

Solar Power is Beginning to Reach the Prices of Regular Energy Sources

Wind- RPS promotes Windpower