You are on page 1of 6

Dartmouth Debate Institute 08 Lonely Cards

Emma Serrano/Strange
A2 INCENTIVES NOW
The plan must be an unprecedented commitment to alternative energy -- existing incentives have no impact
David Kyler is executive director of the Center for a Sustainable Coast, based on St. Simons Island July 15, 2008
Savannah Morning News http://savannahnow.com/node/533160
Unless unprecedented alternative-energy policy improvements are achieved soon, by the time oil discovered now would
be available to consumers, U.S. demand will have increased so much that the added oil sources would be trivial in
comparison. There would be little if any net gain in available oil and added threat to environmental quality, while the
urgently needed transition to alternatives is further delayed.

Existing incentives are trivial -- even large increases in the current incentives would still be trivial totals
Gail Marks Jarvis Chicago Tribune February 3, 2006
http://www.wildershares.com/pdf/Chicago%20Tribune.02.3.06.pdf
But the decline is not surprising, said Matthew Patsky, who invests about 20 percent of his Winslow Green Growth mutual fund in
alternative-energy companies. "These companies are closer to being a real business than in the past, but they need both a
carrot and a stick to get there," he said. "And the president offered neither a carrot or a stick." The stocks of solar energy
companies, for example, took off in early January after California passed laws giving tax cuts to consumers who use solar panels. But
Patsky said instead of hearing about similar tax incentives nationally, investors simply heard the president promise increased
spending on alternative-energy technology--22 percent over current levels. That sounds large but isn't, he said. Michael
Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, estimates the increase at about $100 million. "That's
trivial," he said, adding that it's "nothing" compared with Exxon Mobil's $36.13 billion in 2005 profit.

1
Dartmouth Debate Institute 08 Lonely Cards
Emma Serrano/Strange
AE DEBATE NOW—CONGRESS
Bipartisan group is pushing alternative energy bill now.
Mike Hasten, Shreveport Times, 8/2/08 “Bipartisan Senate group pushes energy plan Landrieu part of 'Gang of 10'”
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/NEWS01/808020329 [ev]

Landrieu is a member of a bipartisan "Gang of 10" senators who Friday proposed what they call the New Energy Reform
Act of 2008. She said the proposal is aimed at breaking a stalemate on energy reform legislation that Democrats and
Republicans have taken turns opposing. "This is balanced between production and conservation," Louisiana's senior
senator said in a telephone interview. "This could be a real solution after 40 years of failing" to have an energy policy that
looks toward the future. Under GOP attacks because her party resists opening new areas to offshore drilling, Landrieu,
who brokered the deal that opened more Outer Continental Shelf drilling leases off Louisiana's coast, backs a plan that
would allow new drilling in restricted areas of the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of Georgia, Virginia and the
Carolinas. Fashioned after a similar group that tried to bridge partisan differences over judicial nominations, Landrieu and
four other Democrats and five Republicans are trying to end weeks of unproductive feuding in Congress over
skyrocketing energy prices. "After weeks of working on a bipartisan compromise, the 'Gang of 10' has produced a
framework that has the potential to become law and to move the country forward," Landrieu said at a news conference in
Washington, D.C. The proposal would provide $20 billion to help transition 85 percent of all new cars and trucks to non-
petroleum based fuels within 20 years and billions more for research and development of technology for alternative fuel
vehicles. The compromise plan also would include tax credits to promote conservation, fuel economy, the purchase of
hybrid cars and the creation of alternative fuel filling stations. It also would provide grants to help convert conventional
gasoline-fueled cars to alternative fuels.

“Green collar” bill guarantees energy debate.


Kansas City InfoZine 8/2/08 “EarthTalk: Finding a "Green Job"”
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/29692/

The Senate passed a similar bill earmarking $100 million for "green collar" job training in various sectors of the economy.
Both bills have been rolled into the larger Energy Bill recently passed by the House and now under consideration by the
Senate. If the bill passes, President Bush could still veto it, in which case its sponsors would likely reintroduce the green
jobs provisions once a new administration takes office.

2
Dartmouth Debate Institute 08 Lonely Cards
Emma Serrano/Strange
AE DEBATE NOW—CONGRESS
Senate JUST debated AE incentives.
The Daily Reflector 8/3/08 “Roll Call: House OKs bill to give Feds regulatory power over tobacco products”
http://www.reflector.com/local/content/news/stories/2008/08/03/2008/08/02/rollcall.html

Renewable-energy tax credits: Voting 51 for and 43 against, the Senate on July 30 failed to reach 60 votes needed to end
GOP blockage of a bill (S 3335) to extend renewable-energy tax credits due to expire at year's end. The bill also contained
a temporary fix of the Alternative Minimum Tax, renewed the research and development tax credit for businesses,
temporarily expanded the child tax credit, and extended college-tuition tax credits, among its hundreds of provisions. The
energy credits would promote fuel extraction from sources such as the sun, wind, earth and crops and promote the
manufacture of more energy-efficient homes, buildings and appliances.

3
Dartmouth Debate Institute 08 Lonely Cards
Emma Serrano/Strange
AE—ISSUE INEV
High energy prices make Congressional renewables debates inevitable.
Associated Press 8/2/08 “Analysis: Democrats exact price from Bush for war”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYmwCGxlASIEZMxmb0CI5QYdR9-wD92A6FQ80

When Congress returns in September from its five-week break, a few routine chores will dominate the agenda: renewing
some tax breaks and passing a bill to keep agencies on automatic pilot until there's a new president. A second economic
aid bill is a possibility; more partisan wrangling over what to do about gas prices a certainty. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-
Calif., called Congress' failure to bring troops home from Iraq "probably my biggest disappointment" of the year. Bush won $162 billion in war
money — without any restrictions — well into 2009; his term ends in January. He also got expanded powers for intelligence agencies to eavesdrop,
without warrants, on suspected terrorists. Still, Pelosi said, with the help of Republican defectors and fierce negotiating with Bush, "we did find some
areas where, although he initially resisted, he came around." That was true of an economic relief measure developed quickly by Pelosi, House
Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson that sent rebates of $600 to $1,200 to most wage-earners. The
checks are widely credited for having a positive effect on the economy. The $168 billion in economic aid was in essence a tax cut that omitted many
of Democrats' highest priorities, including jobless benefits and heating and food aid for the poor. But it did fulfill the Democrats' goal of sending
checks to low-income people. When it came time to pass Bush's war spending measure, Democrats insisted on the jobless aid, plus a $63 billion, 10-
year GI Bill, more than doubling the college aid for troops and veterans. "It was a classic strategy of giving the president things he doesn't want in
bills he has to have," said George C. Edwards III, a Texas A & M University political scientist. Bush also strongly resisted Democrats' foreclosure
rescue plan, calling it a burdensome bailout. But with foreclosures soaring and markets terrified about the financial health of the big mortgage
companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he relented in exchange for the power to rescue them and tighten oversight. The resulting compromise is
projected to help 400,000 homeowners avoid foreclosures beginning on Oct. 1. In the bargain, Bush had to swallow some $4 billion in grants for
devastated neighborhoods and a new affordable housing fund financed by the companies, which Democrats long had sought. "We were able to get
some things done," Pelosi said. Bush showed that even an unpopular, lame-duck president still has sway on national security issues, plus the
negotiating leverage that comes with the power to veto legislation. "In the eighth year of the presidency and in this environment, Bush's veto was
pretty strong," said Candi Wolff, his former top legislative aide. But this year, more than in the past, his accomplishments came with heavy measures
of concessions. "He had to compromise, and he had to do it in two ways: either they negotiated out a compromise or he was pushed into a
compromise politically because of where the votes were," Wolff said. The prospect of losing veto showdowns with Bush limited the Democrats'
ability to win as much domestic spending as they wanted and stopped them from restricting his ability to wage war or spy on suspected terrorists.
Partisan gridlock over energy blocked any relief on gas prices. Renewing Bush's No Child Left Behind education law fell victim to disputes over
money and flexibility. Bush's veto fell flat in a couple of instances when Republicans in Congress instead sided with Democrats. An election-year
farm bill featuring a $10 billion boost in nutrition programs such as food stamps was enacted over the president's veto. More surprising to the White
House, many Republicans also sided with Democrats on protecting doctors from Medicare fee cuts by instead reducing spending on private health
plans that serve the elderly and disabled. They abandoned Bush and joined Democrats to override his veto of that. "Who would be afraid of him?"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Democrats, however, did join with Bush this summer on one of his initiatives. He wanted to double U.S.
aid for fighting AIDS in Africa and other poor countries. Democrats instead tripled it, to $48 billion over five years. Bush went along. They also
forged a deal on a top Democratic goal, new rules to ban lead in toys. "The president doesn't get involved much with what goes on around here," Reid
said. "Once he does, we're able to accomplish a lot." For now, Bush is not even going near the idea of another economic aid package. "Talking about
a second stimulus package right now is premature," said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary. Democrats plan to advance a bill this fall that
could include more public works spending, doubling home heating and air-conditioning subsides for the poor, increasing food stamps, and providing
more aid to states. Lawmakers left for their summer vacation stalemated over energy, particularly on Republicans' desire to
open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil drilling. It is certain to crop up again — probably repeatedly — when they
return. They also are expected to pass a measure that has become an annual fixture to prevent millions of families from
being hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax, at an average cost of $2,000 to $2,500. Congress is under pressure, too, to
extend expiring tax breaks mainly to solar, wind, other renewable energy developers, but also for teachers and families.

4
Dartmouth Debate Institute 08 Lonely Cards
Emma Serrano/Strange
NUKE WAR T/ ENVIRO
Nuclear war would irreversibly destroy ecosystems.
Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University, et al, 1983, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 25 and 26 April 1983, Science, New Series,
Vol. 22, No. 4630, Dec. 23, 1983, pg 1293-1300 , “Biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological Consequences of
Nuclear War,” JSTOR

The 2 billion to 3 billion survivors of the immediate effects of the war would be forced to turn to natural ecosystems as
organized agriculture failed. Just at the time when these natural ecosystems would be asked to support a human population
well beyond their carrying capacities, the normal functioning of the ecosystems themselves would be severely curtailed by
the effects of nuclear war. Subjecting these ecosystems to low temperature, fire, radiation, storm, and other physical
stresses (many occurring simultaneously) would result in their increased vulnerability to disease and pest outbreaks,
which might be prolonged. Primary productivity would be dramatically reduced at the prevailing low light levels; and,
because of UV-B, smog, insects, radiation, and other damage to plants, it is unlikely that it would recover quickly to
normal levels, even after light and temperature values had recovered. At the same time that their plant foods were being
limited severely, most, if not all, of the vertebrates not killed outright by blast and ionizing radiation would either freeze or
face a dark world where they would starve or die of thirst because surface waters would be frozen and thus unavailable.
Many of the survivors would be widely scattered and often sick, leading to the slightly delayed extinction of many
additional species. Natural ecosystems provide civilization with a variety of crucial services in addition to food and
shelter. These include regulation of atmospheric composition, moderation of climate and weather, regulation of the
hydrologic cycle, generation and preservation of soils, degradation of wastes, and recycling of nutrients. From the human
perspective, among the most important roles of ecosystems are their direct role in providing food and their maintenance of
a vast library of species from which Homo sapiens has already drawn the basis of civilization (27). Accelerated loss of
these genetic resources through extinction would be one of the most serious potential consequences of nuclear war.
Wildfires would be an important effect in north temperate ecosystems, their scale and distribution depending on such
factors as the nuclear war scenario and the season. Another major uncertainty is the extent of fire storms, which might
heat the lower levels of the soil enough to damage or destroy seed banks, especially in vegetation types not adapted to
periodic fires. Multiple airbursts over seasonally dry areas such as California in the late summer or early fall could burn
off much of the state's forest and brush areas, leading to catastrophic flooding and erosion during the next rainy season.
Silting, toxic runoff, and rainout of radio- nuclides could kill much of the fauna of fresh and coastal waters, and
concentrated radioactivity levels in surviving filter-feeding shellfish populations could make them dangerous to consume
for long periods of time. Other major consequences for terrestrial ecosystems resulting from nuclear war would include:
(i) slower detoxification of air and water as a secondary result of damage to plants that now are important metabolic sinks
for toxins; (ii) reduced evapotranspiration by plants contributing to a lower rate of entry of water into the atmosphere,
especially over continental regions, and therefore a more sluggish hydrologic cycle; and (iii) great disturbance of the soil
surface, leading to accelerated erosion and, probably, major dust storms (28). Revegetation might superficially resemble
that which follows local fires. Stresses from radiation, smog, erosion, fugitive dust, and toxic rains, however, would be
superimposed on those of cold and darkness, thus delaying and modifying postwar succession in ways that would retard
the restoration of ecosystem services (29). It is likely that most ecosystem changes would be short term. Some structural
and functional changes, however, could be longer term, and perhaps irreversible, as ecosystems undergo qualitative
changes to alternative stable states (30). Soil losses from erosion would be serious in areas experiencing widespread fires,
plant death, and extremes of climate. Much would depend on the wind and precipitation patterns that would develop
during the first postwar year (4, 5). The diversity of many natural communities would almost certainly be substantially
reduced, and numerous species of plants, animals, and microorganisms would become extinct.

5
Dartmouth Debate Institute 08 Lonely Cards
Emma Serrano/Strange
NUKE WAR T/ ENVIRO
Nuclear war would destroy all hope of biosphere recovery.
Jennifer Leaning, Editor in Chief, PRS Quarterly: A Journal of Medicine and Global Survival, 1991, ““A Venture and a
New Beginning”, Volume 1, Issue 1, March, http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/PSRQV1N1LeaningEd.html

There are three key elements to this consensus. Nuclear war, once begun, whether by accident or intent, would not remain
"limited." The imponderables of command and control and the inextricably linked escalation strategies would entrain
many countries after the first use of nuclear weapons. Second, nuclear war cannot be described solely in terms of short-
term effects deriving from the physics of the weapons themselves. Because it would destroy our biological networks and
social relationships, nuclear war would inflict thorough and extensive devastation on all aspects of world existence for a
very long time. Third, nuclear war cannot be understood in conventional terms. It is neither a disaster we have seen, nor a
war we have fought. Unlike previous disasters, nuclear war, in its instantaneousness and totality, wipes out the potential
for outside response and social recovery. Past wars have been fought with the rational objective of winning. The notion of
winning included, as a minimum, the notion of surviving. After nuclear war, neither notion has much reality.