You are on page 1of 72

Miami Debate Institute 2008 ABJ

Politics & Elections /


Politics & Elections Disadvantages

POLITICS & ELECTIONS DISADVANTAGES..........................................................................................................................................1


1NC – OCS DRILLING BUSH BAD DA.........................................................................................................................................3
1NC – OCS DRILLING BUSH BAD DA.........................................................................................................................................4
1NC – OCS DRILLING BUSH BAD DA.........................................................................................................................................5
OCS UNIQUENESS – WON’T PASS.................................................................................................................................................6
OCS UNIQUENESS – WON’T PASS.................................................................................................................................................7
OCS UNIQUENESS – WON’T PASS.................................................................................................................................................8
OCS UNIQUENESS – BUSH PUSHING..............................................................................................................................................9
OCS UNIQUENESS – BUSH PUSHING............................................................................................................................................10
OCS INTERNAL LINK – POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY/AT: U OVERWHELMS............................................................................................11
OCS INTERNAL LINK – WINNERS WIN.........................................................................................................................................12
OCS IMPACT – OCEAN ECOSYSTEMS............................................................................................................................................13
OCS IMPACT – METHANE HYDRATES MODULE..............................................................................................................................14
OCS IMPACT – METHANE HYDRATES...........................................................................................................................................15
OCS IMPACT – OIL SPILLS.........................................................................................................................................................16
OCS IMPACT – AT: DRILLING DECREASES OIL PRICES...................................................................................................................17
1NC – ELECTIONS DA..............................................................................................................................................................18
1NC – ELECTIONS DA..............................................................................................................................................................19
1NC – ELECTIONS DA..............................................................................................................................................................20
1NC – ELECTIONS DA..............................................................................................................................................................21
ELECTIONS UNIQUENESS – OBAMA WILL WIN ..............................................................................................................................22
ELECTIONS UNIQUENESS – OBAMA WILL WIN...............................................................................................................................23
ELECTIONS UNIQUENESS – OBAMA WILL WIN...............................................................................................................................24
ELECTIONS INTERNAL LINK – BUSH POPULARITY KEY....................................................................................................................25
ELECTIONS INTERNAL LINK – BUSH POPULARITY KEY....................................................................................................................26
AT: MCCAIN DISTANCING HIMSELF FROM BUSH...........................................................................................................................27
ELECTIONS INTERNAL LINK – IRAQ DISTRACTION MODULE..............................................................................................................28
ELECTIONS INTERNAL LINK – IRAQ DISTRACTION EXT....................................................................................................................29
ELECTIONS INTERNAL LINK – IRAQ DISTRACTION EXT....................................................................................................................30
AT: IRAQ IS THE KEY ISSUE.......................................................................................................................................................31
ELECTIONS – DEFENDING THE ‘KEYS’ MODEL...............................................................................................................................32
ELECTIONS SOLVES THE CASE – ALTERNATIVE ENERGY...................................................................................................................33
ELECTIONS SOLVES THE CASE – CELLULOSIC ETHANOL..................................................................................................................34
ELECTIONS IMPACT – POLISH BMD MODULE................................................................................................................................35
ELECTIONS IMPACT – YUCCA MOUNTAIN MODULE..........................................................................................................................36
ELECTIONS IMPACT – IRAN STRIKES MODULE.................................................................................................................................37
ELECTIONS IMPACT – IRAN STRIKES EXT.......................................................................................................................................38
ELECTIONS IMPACT – TERRORISM MODULE....................................................................................................................................39
ELECTIONS IMPACT – OCS DRILLING MODULE..............................................................................................................................40
ELECTIONS IMPACT – OCS DRILLING EXT. ..................................................................................................................................41
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – POPULAR AMONG PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................42
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – POPULAR AMONG PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................43
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – POPULAR IN CONGRESS............................................................................................................................44
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – BUSH & GOP SUPPORTS.........................................................................................................................45
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – BUSH SUPPORTS......................................................................................................................................46
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – GOP OPPOSES.......................................................................................................................................47
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – DEMOCRATS SUPPORT..............................................................................................................................48
BIOFUELS – POPULAR IN CONGRESS..............................................................................................................................................49
BIOFUELS – POPULAR AMONG PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................50

1
Miami Debate Institute 2008 ABJ
Politics & Elections /
BIOFUELS – BUSH SUPPORTS........................................................................................................................................................51
BIOFUELS – DEMOCRATS SUPPORT................................................................................................................................................52
CAP & TRADE – REPUBLICANS OPPOSE........................................................................................................................................53
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL – LOBBIES SUPPORT....................................................................................................................................54
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL – BUSH SUPPORTS......................................................................................................................................55
CORN ETHANOL – UNPOPULAR AMONG PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................56
CORN ETHANOL – GOP OPPOSES................................................................................................................................................57
CORN ETHANOL – DEMOCRATS ARE SPLIT.....................................................................................................................................58
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY – BUSH OPPOSES.......................................................................................................................................59
HYDROGEN CARS – POPULAR AMONG PUBLIC................................................................................................................................60
NUCLEAR ENERGY – POPULAR AMONG PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................61
NUCLEAR ENERGY – GOP SUPPORTS...........................................................................................................................................62
RPS – CONTROVERSIAL IN CONGRESS..........................................................................................................................................63
RPS – POPULAR IN CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................64
RPS – POPULAR IN CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................65
RPS – DEMOCRATS SUPPORT.......................................................................................................................................................66
SOLAR ENERGY – POPULAR IN CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................67
SOLAR ENERGY – UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS.................................................................................................................................68
SOLAR ENERGY – POPULAR AMONG PUBLIC..................................................................................................................................69
SOLAR ENERGY – BUSH SUPPORTS...............................................................................................................................................70
WIND ENERGY – UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS..................................................................................................................................71
WIND ENERGY – DEMOCRATS SUPPORT.........................................................................................................................................72

2
1NC – OCS Drilling Bush Bad DA

A.) UNIQUENESS: THE BAN ON OCS DRILLING WILL NOT BE LIFTED NOW – DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION IS THE KEY STUMBLING BLOCK

Anderson, 6/19/2008 (Ericka, News Producer and Reporter for Human Events, “Bush Wants To Drill Offshore”, Human Events,
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27083)

President Bush -- almost sounding like former Speaker Newt Gingrich -- pushed for offshore oil drilling on America’s Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) yesterday, urging Congress to lift the legislative ban on exploration in that area. As the nation’s
gas prices skyrocketed again this week -- in some places up to $4.30/gallon -- Democrats’ opposition to in-country drilling faces
heavy criticism. Bush said his administration has “repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production” but
“Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal.” Offshore drilling, banned under a 1981 federal
moratorium, could produce years of sufficient oil production. But the practice is frowned on by environmentalists even though
recent technological advances make it possible to drill without harming the natural environments. “With these advances -- and a
dramatic increase in oil prices -- congressional restrictions on OCS exploration have become outdated and counterproductive,”
said Bush. Republicans in Congress have put forth several measures to lift the legislative ban on exploration but they need
Democratic support to move forward.

B.) LINK: THE PLAN BUILDS POLITICAL CAPITAL WITH DEMOCRATS

<INSERT PLAN POPULAR WITH CONGRESS OR DEMOCRATS>


1NC – OCS Drilling Bush Bad DA
AND – DEMOCRATS WON’T COMPROMISE ON OCS DRILLING BECAUSE BUSH HAS FAILED TO INVEST IN RENEWABLE ENERGY. THE PLAN WOULD
GIVE BUSH THE POLITICAL CAPITAL NEEDED TO LIFT CURRENT DRILLING BANS

Snow, 6/18/2008 (Nick, Washington Editor for Oil & Gas Journal, “Bush Urges Congress to Lift Ban on OCS Leasing”, Oil &
Gas Journal, Volume 106 Issue 24, http://www.ogj.com/display_article/332129/7/ONART/none/GenIn/1/Bush-urges-Congress-
to-lift-bans-on-OCS-leasing/)

US President George W. Bush urged Congress to lift oil and gas leasing bans on the Outer Continental Shelf as the first of
four steps to increase domestic supplies in response to soaring prices. "Experts believe that the OCS could produce about 18 billion bbl of oil.
That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost 10 years. The problem is that Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS
since the early 1980s," Bush said on June 18. "Since then, advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of
sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills. With these advances, and a dramatic increase in oil prices, congressional restrictions on
OCS exploration have become outdated and counter-productive," Bush said. Bush also asked Congress to authorize oil and gas leasing within the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, remove a moratorium on the development of a federal oil-shale leasing program, and expedite permitting for new US refineries or expansion of
existing ones. But Bush's call to end OCS drilling bans produced the strongest responses. Same old ideas Congressional
Democratic leaders weighed in immediately. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called Bush's OCS proposal
and a similar recommendation a day earlier by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumed 2008 Republican presidential
nominee, "nothing more than a cynical campaign ploy that will do nothing to lower energy prices and represents another big giveaway to oil
companies already making billions in profits." Reid said oil companies aren't even using half of the federal lands they have leased already, and domestic refined
product output actually has dropped despite incentives Bush and Republican Congresses provided to invest in new domestic refineries. "President Bush and
John McCain are not serious about addressing [gasoline] prices. If they were, they would stop offering the same old ideas
meant to pad the pockets of Big Oil and work with Democrats to reduce our dependence on oil, invest in the renewable energy
sources, crack down on excessive speculation and stand up to countries colluding to shake down American consumers," Reid
said. In a statement issued the night before Bush's speech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the president's proposal "sounds like another page from
the administration's energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry: give away more public resources to the very same oil companies that are sitting on
68 million acres of federal lands they've already leased." House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.) said 81% of estimated oil and
gas resources on federal lands, both onshore and offshore, are available for development, or will be pending completion of land-use planning or environmental
reviews. "If the oil industry would drill these areas now—areas that are available for them to drill in now, today—the amount of oil produced would represent
over 14 years of domestic consumption and 30 years of current domestic natural gas consumption," Rahall said in a statement posted June 18 at the committee's
web site. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) said Bush and McCain's calls to expand federal OCS leasing are "a gift to the oil companies that endangers the
economic and environmental health of the Jersey Shore and our entire state." He said, "The Bush-McCain drilling scheme chooses Big Oil over American
consumers and does nothing to immediately reduce [gasoline] prices. While we have offered real solutions to reduce prices at the pump, the Bush-McCain
Republicans have blocked our efforts at the behest of the oil companies." Move beyond rhetoric But at least one congressional Democrat,
Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), broke with most other House and Senate members in her party. She said, "President Bush's
attempt today to expand energy production off our coasts is very welcome, and is a wise position he should have taken earlier in the 7
years we've been pushing this White House to get engaged. She added that she plans to immediately reintroduce her bill to allow states to opt-in to offshore
production and share federal revenues. "I hope President Bush is prepared to move beyond rhetoric and work with me to build the
coalition we will need to get the job done," Landrieu said. In his speech, Bush said congressional Republicans have proposed
"several promising bills that would lift the legislative ban on oil exploration in the OCS." He said, "I call on the House and
Senate to pass good legislation as soon as possible." He acknowledged that there also is an executive prohibition against
OCS exploration which he will lift as soon as Congress lifts its moratoriums. The moratoriums have been part of the US Department of
Interior's annual budget for more than 25 years, initially renewed annually but recently made permanent. Rep. John E. Peterson (R-Pa.) tried to get them removed
on June 11 when the House Appropriations Committee's Interior and Environment Committee marked up DOI's fiscal 2009 budget, but his motion failed in a 9-6
vote along party lines. Peterson planned to try again when the full committee dealt with the DOI budget on June 18, but the hearing was postponed early that
morning. Other congressional Republicans immediately endorsed Bush's plan. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) said,
"With gasoline at $4.07/gal, the American people cannot afford to wait any longer for Congress to act to produce more American energy. When a state chooses to
allow environmentally sound deepsea exploration off its coast, they should not be blocked by a decades-old ban that makes no sense today." Rep. Joe Barton (R-
Tex.), ranking minority member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, "The president's proposal kills one of the Democratic Party's sacred cows
—the ban on offshore energy exploration—and is both overdue and very welcome. It must be clear to nearly everybody by now that Congress cannot tax or
conserve its way out of the $4/gal swamp that's stalling economic growth and forcing working people to pick between driving and eating. Using American
resources to help Americans out of this mess is a good idea, and I hope Speaker Pelosi will not simply reject it again because she's a Democrat and the president
is not." America demanding action Pete V. Domenici: (R-NM), ranking minority member of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, said, "Thus far, the other side has shown no willingness to work with us to increase production.
However, over the next several weeks, I will continue to push forward with all or some of these ideas because the American people are demanding action. For
instance, a new poll released just yesterday found that 67% of Americans support deepsea exploration offshore," said.The telephone survey by Rasmussen
Reports, an electronic publishing firm specializing in public opinion polling, also found that 18% of the respondents oppose more offshore US oil and gas
activity while 15% were undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly backed the idea but liberals were more evenly divided, with 46% in favor and
37% opposed, the company said on June 17. "Nearly all voters are worried about rising [gasoline] and energy prices, with 79% very concerned and 16%
somewhat concerned," it added. Rasmussen conducted its survey before McCain and Bush's announcements.
1NC – OCS Drilling Bush Bad DA

C.) IMPACT: OFFSHORE DRILLING DEVASTATES OCEAN ECOSYSTEMS

Clean Ocean Action, 2001 (Comments on the 2002-2007 OCS Plan,


http://www.cleanoceanaction.org/TakeAction/Oil&Gas/Oil&Gas.htm)

Negative impacts from offshore oil and gas exploration and development activities have been documented in domestic and
foreign waters, and on their coastlines. These impacts include but are not limited to the following: Release of toxic metals into
ocean waters from oil and gas activities. The drilling muds or fluids can contain significant quantities of toxic metals. For
example, by the 1980s more than 2 million pounds of toxic metals were being discharged into the Gulf each year as a result of
offshore oil and gas activities; Disturbance and destruction of the benthic environment from well drilling and production
activities, including smothering of benthic organisms; Release of "produced waters" from offshore activities. Water extracted
with oil from the oil-bearing formation contains very substantial amounts of oil and grease, as well as heavy metals, toxic
organics and a variety of highly toxic additives, which can create acute and chronic toxicity problems. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has documented the presence of 21 organic priority pollutants, along with metals and various
pesticides, biocides and chemical additives, in the Gulf of Mexico from offshore production;

AND - OCEAN DESTRUCTION ENSURES PLANETARY EXTINCTION

Craig, 2003 (Robin, Associate Professor at Indiana University School of Law, “Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness
Protection”, McGeorge Law Review, Lexis)

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have
thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs
provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food
production. Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. More generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks
of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements."
In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support
life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows
that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its
biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. Most
ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine
environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise
insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical
to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of
marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic
value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have
considerable force and merit." At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of
human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic
harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem.
Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are
doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory
relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do
know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost
dead, its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying
fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black
Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution,
wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy
should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea
were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear
with increasing frequency off the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that
cannot. Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning
marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.
OCS Uniqueness – Won’t Pass

OCS DRILLING WON’T BE APPROVED NOW

AFP, 6/18/2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwL5xfYWjLhKSvKBpKS4ZTIsMfZQ)

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday urged Congress to lift a decades-old ban on offshore oil drilling to reduce
dependence on foreign imports and offset sky-high energy prices. Calling the federal ban "outdated and counterproductive,"
Bush asked the Democratic-controlled Congress to take action to expand access to the nation's Outer Continental Shelf.
"Congress must face a hard reality. Unless members are willing to accept gas (gasoline) prices at today's painful levels or even
higher, our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now," Bush said in a news conference in the White House Rose
Garden. Faced with a public outcry over soaring gasoline prices, Bush said Congress should lift or modify its ban for the
entire outer continental shelf, then he would lift his executive directive. It would be up to individual states to decide whether to
allow offshore drilling. With global crude prices at nearly 140 dollars a barrel, US gasoline prices now average more than four
dollars a gallon (3.78 liters), a rise of one dollar from a year ago. Nearly 80 percent of respondents to a new Washington Post-
ABC News poll said soaring pump prices were causing them financial hardship, which the Post said was the highest figure in
surveys this decade. Bush chastised Congress for blocking his Republican administration's efforts to boost domestic oil
production, and called on lawmakers to increase access to the Outer Continental Shelf, citing experts who say access the
OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. "That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost
10 years," he said. Under the 1981 federal moratorium, states are prohibited from allowing offshore oil and gas drilling and
exploration, protecting virtually the entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines and sections of the Gulf of Mexico. Critics of lifting
the drilling moratorium say it would jeopardize the environment and that production would take years to get up and
running, and thus is not a realistic answer to the current supply crunch.
OCS Uniqueness – Won’t Pass

OCS DRILLING WILL NOT BE APPROVED NOW DUE TO DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION – BUSH NEEDS POLITICAL CAPITAL TO CONVINCE DEMOCRATS TO
GET ON BOARD

CNN News, 6/18/2008 (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/18/bush.offshore/)

President Bush asked Congress on Wednesday to permit drilling for oil in deep water off America's coasts to combat rising
oil and gas prices. If President Bush can persuade Congress, more oil rigs like this one off Canada could appear off U.S.
shores. "There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a Rose Garden statement. The proposal met opposition from governors from California, New
Jersey North Carolina, and New Mexico. "We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil," California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a statement, according to The Associated Press. "Our $35 billion economy is driven by tourism and the use of the shore,"
AP quoted New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, as saying. "It's a very bad idea. First of all, it will take 30 years before it affects gas prices -- lowering
them -- and it will take 10 years to start the drilling," New Mexico Governor and former U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, a Democrat, told CNN. "The
answer is a long-term policy that deals with -- substantial policies that promote -- conservation, fuel efficiency in vehicles, an emphasis on renewable energy."
Watch Richardson explain his position » "It's doesn't work for states to decide. If the state above or below you has a problem it affects your shores as well,"
North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley, a Democrat said, according to AP. "It's too much squeeze for the juice when you look at real estate on the coast, recreational
fishing and tourism that could be adversely affected by some problem." Virginia and South Carolina have largely supported lifting the moratorium, AP reported.
Oil production cost Here's what the price of a barrel of oil needs to be for different sources of petroleum to be profitably extracted: - Accessible land: $19 -
Shallow water: $20-60 - Deep water: $60 - Shale mining: $30-50 - Oil sands: $50-60 Current price per barrel: $134 Sources: U.S. Govt. CERA, Rand,
EnCana Bush also renewed his demand that Congress allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, clear the way for more refineries and encourage
efforts to recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Bush said that the basin potentially contains more than
three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves and that the high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it. Watch Bush make a case for
new drilling » "In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at home," Bush said,
adding that there is no more pressing issue for many Americans than gas prices. Map: See where drilling is and isn't allowed » Meanwhile, Wednesday at an
energy forum in Springfield, Missouri, Sen. John McCain continued his pitch for offshore drilling. "In the short term, this requires more domestic production,
especially in the Outer Continental Shelf. We need to encourage production in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And
in states that permit exploration, there must be a sharing of benefits between state and federal governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people,
we must assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production," the presumed Republican presidential nominee said. An ally of McCain, Florida
Gov. Charlie Crist, has reversed his opposition to oil exploration off the state's beaches, saying the issue is about local control, AP reported. "I think that not
having that moratorium, blanket moratorium, and letting states rights be recognized, if you will, certainly is appropriate," AP quoted Crist as saying. The White
House estimates that there are 18 billion barrels of oil offshore that have not been exploited because of state bans, 10 billion to 12 billion in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin. iReport.com: Is drilling the best option? However, much of the U.S. oil is
difficult or impossible to extract under current law. As for gas prices, resuming offshore exploration would not be a quick fix. "If we
were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three
years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves," said Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity
Capital Markets Division. But it almost certainly would be profitable. Candida Scott, an oil industry researcher at Cambridge
Research Associates, said oil needs to be priced at $60 a barrel or more to justify deep-shelf drilling. With oil now selling for
$134 a barrel, companies are almost assured of profiting from offshore drilling, Scott said. "For years, the president has
pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action,"
White House press secretary Dana Perino said before Bush spoke. She added, "As with several existing Republican
congressional proposals, he wants to work with states to determine where offshore drilling should occur, and also for the federal
government to share revenues with the states. The president believes Congress shouldn't waste any more time." Watch
interests compete over oil » Democrats were quick to reject Bush's proposal.
OCS Uniqueness – Won’t Pass

OCS DRILLING WON’T GET APPROVED NOW

Sydney Morning Herald, 6/19/2008 (http://news.smh.com.au/world/bush-calls-for-lift-on-home-drilling-ban-20080619-


2t1t.html)

US President George W Bush has urged Congress to lift a decades-old ban on offshore oil drilling to reduce dependence on imports
and offset sky-high energy prices. Calling the federal ban "outdated and counterproductive," Bush asked the Democratic-controlled Congress to take action to
expand access to the nation's Outer Continental Shelf. "Congress must face a hard reality. Unless members are willing to accept gas (petrol) prices at today's
painful levels or even higher, our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now," Bush said in a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. Faced
with a public outcry over soaring petrol prices, Bush said Congress should lift or modify its ban for the entire outer continental shelf, then he would lift his
executive directive. It would be up to individual states to decide whether to allow offshore drilling. Congressional Democrats were quick to reject the push for
lifting the drilling moratorium, saying oil companies already have 27.5 million hectares offshore waters under lease that are not being developed. The leader of
the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, called Bush's proposals "another page from (an)... energy policy that was
literally written by the oil industry - give away more public resources." Senator Barack Obama, the Democrats' probable presidential nominee,
rejected lifting the drilling moratorium that has been supported by a succession of presidents for nearly two decades. "This is not something that's going to give
consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular," said Obama. Bush's proposal
echoed a call by Republican presidential candidate John McCain to open the Continental Shelf for exploration Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, lumping
Bush with McCain, accused them of staging a "cynical campaign ploy" that will not help lower energy prices. "Despite what
President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid
said. "The math is simple: America has just three per cent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."
With global crude prices at nearly $US140 a barrel, US petrol prices now average more than $US4 a gallon (3.78 litres), a rise of
$US1 from a year ago. Bush chastised Congress for blocking his Republican administration's efforts to boost domestic oil
production, and called on members of congress to increase access to the Outer Continental Shelf, citing experts who say access the OCS could produce about
18 billion barrels of oil. "That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost 10 years," he said. Under the 1981 federal moratorium,
states are prohibited from allowing offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration, protecting virtually the entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines and sections of the
Gulf of Mexico. Critics of lifting the drilling moratorium say it would jeopardise the environment and that production
would take years to get up and running, and thus is not a realistic answer to the current supply crunch. Bush cited the nation's dramatic shift to
dependence on oil imports in recent decades as an economic and security risk. "Some of that energy comes from unstable regions and unfriendly regimes. This
makes us more vulnerable to supply shocks and price spikes beyond our control, and that puts both our economy and our security at risk," he said. The president
also urged Congress to allow exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which McCain, unlike most Republicans, opposes. Bush warned
Democrats that if Congress did not act quickly, "Americans will rightly ask how high oil - how high gas prices have to rise
before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it."
OCS Uniqueness – Bush Pushing

BUSH IS PUSHING CONGRESS TO LIFT THE OCS DRILLING BAN

ENS, 6/18/2008 (Environment News Service, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-18-01.asp)

President George W. Bush today called on Congress to expand domestic oil production to lower record high oil and gas
prices by lifting a ban on oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Drilling for oil
offshore is one of four measures the president proposed to increase U.S. oil production - all of them certain to meet resistance
from the Democratic Congressional leadership. Bush says America should develop oil shale in the Green River Basin of
Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; he again proposed drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and he also again
proposed increasing refinery capacity.

BUSH IS PUSHING OCS DRILLING

Tulsa Beacon, 6/26/2008 (http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=544)

Pointing a finger at Democrats in Congress, President Bush has called on lawmakers to remove barriers to production of
domestic oil and gas. “In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil,” Bush said. “And that means
we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand
domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal - and now Americans
are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. “Congress must face a hard reality: Unless Members are willing to accept
gas prices at today’s painful levels — or even higher — our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. So this
morning, I ask Democratic Congressional leaders to move forward with four steps to expand American oil and gasoline
production.” Continued…
Bush said Congress should: • Increase access to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

BUSH IS PUSHING FOR THE OCS DRILLING BAN TO BE LIFTED

AFP, 6/18/2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwL5xfYWjLhKSvKBpKS4ZTIsMfZQ)

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday urged Congress to lift a decades-old ban on offshore oil drilling to reduce
dependence on foreign imports and offset sky-high energy prices. Calling the federal ban "outdated and counterproductive,"
Bush asked the Democratic-controlled Congress to take action to expand access to the nation's Outer Continental Shelf.
"Congress must face a hard reality. Unless members are willing to accept gas (gasoline) prices at today's painful levels or even
higher, our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now," Bush said in a news conference in the White House Rose
Garden. Faced with a public outcry over soaring gasoline prices, Bush said Congress should lift or modify its ban for the
entire outer continental shelf, then he would lift his executive directive.
OCS Uniqueness – Bush Pushing

BUSH IS PUSHING TO LIFT THE CONGRESSIONAL BAN ON OCS DRILLING

Fox News, 6/19/2008

President Bush on Wednesday put his weight behind a move underfoot in Congress to lift a 27-year-old ban on oil
exploration off U.S. shores as gasoline prices reach ever higher, and he cast blame on Democrats for Americans' pain at the
pump in an election year that is focusing more heavily on economic issues. Democrats contend that oil interest-tied
Republicans are only seeking to expand oil companies' territory, and are ignoring land already available for oil
exploration.“For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. Truckers and farmers, small-
business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food or ships a product has felt
the effect, and families across the country are looking to Washington for a response," Bush said, speaking from the White House
Rose Garden. He took no questions. Mentioning $4-per gallon gasoline more than once, Bush said, "My administration has
repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected
virtually every proposal, and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction."Congress must face a hard
reality: Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels or even higher, our nation must produce more
oil and we must start now." Bush said gasoline prices could eventually be eased with a four-point plan, the main plank of which
is to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration.
OCS Internal Link – Political Capital Key/AT: U Overwhelms

OCS DRILLING WILL BE UP FOR A VOTE ON JULY NINTH – COMPROMISES ARE STILL POSSIBLE, POLITICAL CAPITAL IS KEY

Rogers, 6/26/2008 (David, Senior Congressional Reporter for Politico.com, “Tempers Flare Over Offshore Drilling”,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11375.html)

Tempers flared and the House Appropriations Committee abruptly adjourned Thursday morning after Republicans
sought to hijack the meeting agenda and force a vote on their hottest new political issue: easing restrictions on offshore
drilling for oil and gas. California Rep. Jerry Lewis, the panel’s ranking Republican, said he was forced to spring the
legislative trap when he couldn’t get a firm commitment from Democrats for a vote on the Interior Department budget
bill, which governs federal waters on the Outer Continental Shelf. But the ploy infuriated Chairman Dave Obey, who
threatened to shut down the entire appropriations process this summer and put the government on a stop spending bill after Oct.
1. “I think we probably had our last meeting for the year, and that this is going on a continuing resolution,” said the Wisconsin
Democrat. “We only have six weeks left of the session, and if they are going to spend it in partisan wrangling and posturing,
that’s not a productive use of time. There are too many real things that Congress can do.” Cooler heads may yet prevail — and
opposing staff were seeking one another out in the wake of the fray. But Lewis said he needed a real commitment to bring up the
Interior bill, which has been delayed by the Democrats for fear of losing on the OCS issue given the public outcry over
gasoline prices. Compromises are possible to peel back swing votes, but the whole environmental and energy debate is a
sensitive point for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and is now caught up in presidential politics — leaving less room for Obey
to maneuver. Thus far, the committee has scheduled it for a vote July 9 after the upcoming Fourth of July recess, but Obey
was reluctant Thursday to make a public promise.
OCS Internal Link – Winners Win

WINNERS WIN – THE PLAN BUILDS SUPPORT FOR OTHER ISSUES ON BUSH’S AGENDA

Ornstein, 1993 (Norman, American Enterprise Institute, Roll Call, May 27)

Winning comes to those who look like winners. This only sounds redundant or cliche'-ish. If power is the ability to make
people do something they otherwise would not do. Real power is having people do things they otherwise wouldn't do without
anybody making them - when they act in anticipation of what they think somebody would want them to do. If a president
develops a reputation as a winner. somebody who will pull out victories in Congress even when he is behind, somebody
who can say, "Do this!" and have it done, then Members of Congress will behave accordingly. They will want to cut their
deals with the president early, getting on the winning team when it looks the best and means the most.
OCS Impact – Ocean Ecosystems

OFFSHORE DRILLING CAUSES WATER POLLUTION, DECIMATING THE ENVIRONMENT

NRDC, 2001 (Natural Resources Defense Council, May 8, http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/offshore_drilling.html)

Water pollution: Drilling muds are used to lubricate drill bits, maintain downhole pressure and serve other functions. Drill
cuttings are pieces of rock ground by the bit and brought up from the well along with used mud. Massive amounts of waste
muds and cuttings are generated by drilling operations - an average of 180,000 gallons per well. Most of this waste is
dumped untreated into surrounding waters. Drilling muds contain toxic metals, including mercury, lead and cadmium.
Significant concentrations of these metals have been observed around drilling sites. A second major polluting discharge is
"produced water," the water brought up from a well along with oil and gas. The Minerals Management Service estimates that
each OCS platform discharges hundreds of thousands of gallons of produced water every day. Produced water typically
contains a variety of toxic pollutants, including benzene, arsenic, lead, naphthalene, zinc and toluene, and can contain varying
amounts of radioactive pollutants. All major field research programs investigating the fate and effects of produced water
discharges have detected petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic metals and radium in the water column downcurrent from the
discharge.

HEALTH OF OCEANS IS CRITICAL TO HUMAN SURVIVAL

Ocean Foundation, No Date Given (http://www.oceanfdn.org/index.php?tg=articles&topics=32)

We are connected to the coast and ocean. Whether or not we are among the over 50% of the population who live within 50
miles of the coast, we are all dependent on our coasts and ocean for our food, health, recreation and jobs. In the USA, more
than 180 million people visit the shore for recreation every year and tens of thousands of jobs in fishing, recreation, and tourism
depend on healthy, functioning coastal ecosystems. Planet Earth has one big beautiful ocean. This one ocean and humans are
inextricably linked. The ocean covers 71% of our planet and its powerful waves and water energy shape the features of
the land. The ocean provides us with many forms of recreation: fishing, diving, walking, surfing, paddling, beach bonfires,
sailing, swimming and beachcombing. And, for millennia, our ocean has served as the natural superhighway for trade,
transportation and communication. The health of the ocean is essential to human survival. The ocean is a major source of
food, medicine, and jobs. Fish from the ocean currently are the primary source of protein for one in six people on earth. And,
nearly a million people in the US have jobs that directly depend on the ocean and that add $12 billion to our GDP. However,
while the ocean supports the greatest diversity of life and ecosystems on our planet, it is largely unexplored. The ocean is a
major influence on weather and climate. In fact it is the ocean that makes our planet habitable. Without the ocean as a heat
sink, our days would be unbearably hot, and our nights would be freezing cold. The ocean naturally recycles our water
and our air, constantly cleaning it for us to use over and again 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In fact, 86% of the water we
drink comes from the ocean; and the ocean produces more oxygen than the rainforests. It even absorbs 48% of the carbon that
we humans put into the atmosphere. The ocean is the best protection we could hope for. We must be good stewards of this
part of our living world. The overarching threat to the ocean is of course climate change. We cannot stop climate change, but we
can reduce the amount by which the planet warms. Aside from the threat of climate change, the biggest direct threat to the ocean
is overexploitation of its resources. The public has not yet caught up with these realities and 87% view pollution, and oil spills in
particular, as the most challenging threats to the ocean. The ocean touches everyone and everything. It is essential to life and
human survival. We all have a strong, personal connection to the ocean (whether we realize it or not). Protecting the ocean
protects our health, our economy, and our children’s future.
OCS Impact – Methane Hydrates Module

OCEAN DRILLING CAUSES METHANE HYDRATE RELEASE

Industries in Transition, 2002 (September, Lexis)

Ocean drilling plays a critical role in addressing questions about hydrates because it provides the only means available of
directly sampling the material and the sediments that host them deep beneath the seafloor. In 1995, ODP researchers drilled
into gas hydrates in a relatively stable area off the U.S. East Coast. Scientists have estimated that area could contain enough
methane to supply U.S. energy needs for more than 100 yr. They also found evidence suggesting that hydrates are involved in
the global climate cycle, and that they can cause massive landslides.

METHAN HYDRATE RELEASE WILL FRY THE PLANET CAUSING EXTINCTION

Inside Energy, 2001 (November 5)

'If we begin as a civilization to exploit methane hydrates, and use technology experimentally, we may destabilize methane
hydrates and create a real big jump of methane hydrates release to the atmosphere,'' Charter said. ''If it could end the ice
age, what if it were induced by man on top of the current global warming change? ... We may not just say, 'oops, we ended
the ice age.' But, 'oops,' we fried the planet.' It's best to understand the implications before we go poking around the Earth.''
OCS Impact – Methane Hydrates

METHANE HYDRATE RELEASE AMPLIFIES GLOBAL WARMING – REJECT EVEN 1% RISK

Greenpeace, No Date Given (http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/database/records/zgpz0687.html)

Methane Hydrates Could Strongly Amplify Global Warming. One explanation of rapid climate change at the end of the last
glaciation, argues Dr Euan Nisbet of the University of Sakatchewan, is that it was initially driven by methane from natural gas
fields and gas hydrates during a period of extreme insolation. Methane hydrates are solids which lock methane gas up under
pressure in an ice-like lattice of water molecules. They are present under the oceans and permafrost in vast quantities. In the
offshore Arctic, the cold allows their formation at sufficiently shallow depths that warming can reach them and destabilize them.
Nisbet is one of a number of geologists who fear methane hydrates as a potentially major positive feedback. He wrote in a 1989
paper that "any slight warming of the Arctic water will release hydrate from the sea floor almost immediately. A temperature
change of a few degrees will liberate methane from the uppermost sea-floor sediments at this depth within a few years." The
worst- case analysis is grim indeed: "the danger of a thermal runaway caused by methane release from permafrost is minor,
but real ...even if there is only a 1 per cent chance that such events will occur, the social implications are profound."

OCEAN RELEASE OF METHANE HYDRATES WILL AMPLIFY GLOBAL WARMING

Dietrich, 1997 (Bill, Seattle Times Science Reporter, February 18)

A similar discovery has been made on Blake Ridge off South Carolina. Scientists from the University of Carolina at Chapel Hill
and the U.S. Geological Survey estimate Blake Ridge alone contains enough methane that, if tapped, could supply American
natural gas needs for a century. Globally, there may be twice as much energy in methane hydrates as in all the oil, gas and
coal deposits of the world. With that promise comes the danger that if the ocean floor's methane is released to the
atmosphere, it could create a runaway greenhouse effect and overheat the planet. That is an issue for future debate: Right
now the technology to economically extract the methane ice does not exist.

EVEN A SINGLE METHANE HYDRATE RELEASE CAN CAUSE OCEAN DEVASTATION

McKie, 1999 (Robin, Science Editor, The Observer, November 7)

Deep ocean deposits are more difficult to get at, however, though engineers say new techniques they have developed to recover
particularly dense, viscous deposits of petroleum, and which involve the pumping of steam down drill holes, could be used to
pump methane to the surface. And it is this prospect that has set alarm bells ringing for many researchers. Writing in the
latest issue of Scientific Amer1can, Professor Suess and his col-leagues point to evidence that explosive releases of methane
from a single reser-voir may have had devastating effects, on Earth's climate in the past. For example, the Californian
oceanographer James Kennett has argued that a methane release around 15,000 years ago brought an abrupt and rapid end
to the last Ice Age.
OCS Impact – Oil Spills

OFFSHORE DRILLING ENSURES OIL SPILLS

NRDC, 2001 (Natural Resources Defense Council, May 8, http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/offshore_drilling.html)

Oil spills: According to statistics compiled by the Department of the Interior, some 3 million gallons of oil spilled from OCS
oil and gas operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999. Oil is extremely toxic to a wide variety of marine species,
including marine birds, mammals and commercially important species of fish. Despite industry claims to the contrary, new
technology has not alleviated these risks. For instance, in one incident in April of this year, more than 90,000 gallons of
saltwater and crude oil spilled out of a pipeline in Alaska's North Slope, becoming the fourth major incident there in the last three
years.

OCEAN OIL SPILLS CAUSES ECOSYSTEM DEVASTATION, SEA LEVEL RISE, AND KILLS PHYTOPLANKTON ESCALATING GLOBAL WARMING

Dempsey, 1984 (Paul Stephen, Denver University Professor of Law, Journal of International Law and Business, Summer, Lexis)

The ramifications of introducing such high concentrations of petroleum pollution into the oceans are severe. Oil pollution
disrupts phytoplankton, the microscopic plant life in the ocean that forms algae and serves an important function in the
ecosystem. First, oil interferes with phytoplankton photosynthesis. Such interference may eventually reduce the oxygen
output and the carbon dioxide uptake of ocean. Moreover, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may cause a
"greenhouse effect," such that heat will not be allowed to radiate into space, causing an increase in global temperatures. As a
long term effect, the ice caps could eventually melt, causing the sea level to increase up to 200 feet, submerging most
coastal cities.
OCS Impact – AT: Drilling Decreases Oil Prices

OCS DRILLING WILL NOT DRASTICALLY INCREASE OIL SUPPLIES

NYT, 6/26/2008
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/business/26offshore.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

Republicans want to end the 27-year ban on offshore drilling along much of the nation’s coastline, while Democrats want to
force companies to speed up exploration in certain offshore areas that they already control. A version of the Democratic plan may
come to a vote in the House of Representatives as early as Thursday. But oil experts say that neither approach will give
drivers any relief in the short run from prices that stood Wednesday at nearly $4.07 a gallon, on average. They say the simple
reality is that no one knows how much oil is to be found offshore, how difficult producing it would turn out to be or how
many years that might take. And oil companies, amid a global drilling frenzy, are stretched so thin they will be hard-pressed to
take on big new projects anytime soon. More than 400 major drilling and production projects are competing for engineers, rigs,
seismic equipment and steel to build platforms, and the costs of doing the work have skyrocketed.
1NC – Elections DA

A.) UNIQUENESS: OBAMA WILL WIN THE ELECTION NOW

Gallup, 2008 (“Americans Predict Obama Will Be Next U.S. President”, http://www.gallup.com/poll/107995/Americans-
Predict-Obama-Will-Next-US-President.aspx)

“But when Gallup asked voters who they believe will win the White House in November, the Democratic senator from
Illinois has a clear advantage over his Republican Senate colleague from Arizona. As Gallup reports: Not only has Barack
Obama recently opened a small lead over John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking of voter preferences for the general
election, but he leads McCain 52% to 41% in public perceptions of who will win in November. Reporting today on the
results of a survey taken June 9-12, Gallup reports that "Democrats are slightly more confident that their presumptive
nominee will prevail in November - 76 percent say Obama will win.'' Republicans are more bullish about McCain's chances
-- 67 percent. "What tips the balance of national opinion more strongly in favor of Obama is that, by a nine-percentage
point margin, independents join Democrats in believing Obama is likely to win,'' Gallup's Lydia Saad writes.
1NC – Elections DA

B.) LINK: MCCAIN WILL LOSE THE ELECTION UNLESS BUSH ADOPTS POPULAR POLICIES IN HIS SECOND TERM

Lichtman, 2005 (Allan J., Professor of History at American University and National Political Analyst, The Keys to the
Whitehouse: The Surefire Guide to Predicting the Next President, p. x through xi)

Retrospectively, the Keys account for the results of every presidential election from I860 through 1980. much longer than
any other prediction system Prospectively, the Keys predicted well ahead of time the popular-vote winners of every presidential
election from 1984 through 2004. They called Vice President George H. W Bush's victory in the spring of 1988 when he trailed
Mike Dukakis by nearly twentv points in the polls and was being written off by the pundits The Vice President dehed the polls
and (he pundits, not because he discovered negative ads or refurbished his image, but because voters ratified the perfonnance of
the Reagan administration—four years of prosperity. the defusing of the Cold War. and a scandal that faded away. In 1992.
George H. W. Bush lost his chance for a second term, as the Keys predicted, when a sour economy and a lack of domestic
accomplishment tarnished his record as president The Keys predicted President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election in April
of 2003. a year and a half before a contest that pollsters found too close to call right up to election eve. As a sitting
president with no prospective challenger in his own party or a serious third-party competitor. Bush's mixed record of
accomplishment at home and abroad was sufficient to anticipate in his victory in 2004.' likewise, alttumgh President Bush will
not be on the ticket in 2008. the fate of his would-be successor in the Republican Party will depend upon the president's
performance in his second term If the Bush administration fails to meet the domestic and foreign policy challenges of the
next four years, voters will dismiss the Republicans, regardless of the Democratic nominee Moreover, according to the
Keys, the Democrats will have structural advantages in 2008 that they lacked in 2004. The Republicans will not he hclding a
sitting president, which results in the lovs of Key 3 and will likely confront a bruising battle for their party . nomination which
forfeits Key 2. Thus, two Keys that the GOP held in 2004 are in jeopardy for 2008. making a Democratic victory likely that year,
despite the setbacks at the polls that Democrats have suffered thus far in the twenty-first century Democrats, moreover, need not
worry about battling for their party's nomination, history shows that nomination struggles within the out-party do not
subvert its chances to recapture the While Home. A vigorous challenging party usually has multiple presidential contenders,
each of whom professes to have the skills, personality, and policies needed to regain the While House. A spirited out-party
contest for the presidential nomination might even signify the vulnerability of the party in powrr. as candidates compete lor what
appears to be a promising nomination. The greatest popular vote victory by a challenging party candidate in American hisiorv
was achieved by Republican Warren (larding in 1920 after a deadlocked convention nominated him as a compromise candidaie
on the tenth ballot.

AND – THE PLAN IS OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR

<INSERT PLAN POPULAR AMONG THE PUBLIC>


1NC – Elections DA

AND – ENERGY POLICY IS THE CRITICAL ELECTION ISSUE

Morris, 2008 (R. Beschloss, “Energy Policy Hinges on Election”, Desert Sun)

“With energy development rapidly becoming the presidential campaign's critical issue, there are several happenings bringing the
collision between the environmentalist partisans and the "Energy Now" protagonists to a rapid showdown. Thursday morning, the OPEC chief minister predicted
crude oil per barrel to rise to $170 later this summer. He also added that U.S. gasoline could rise to $6 per gallon. The crude oil target is $20 more than what I had
predicted at the first of the year, along with $125 per barrel by Memorial Day. The Obama campaign's position to forego drilling, in alignment with the "greens"
is sending tremors throughout Canada. Our neighbors to the north are worried the "climactic change prevention" lobby will convince the Democratic president, if
elected, to issue an executive order to prevent oil derived from tar sands to be cut off from further U.S.-bound delivery. This is due to the high level of CO2 and
greenhouse gases released by this all important energy component, making up an increasingly significant part of shipments from Canada, our No. 1 energy
supplier. I had predicted this a month ago, when Canada demanded a release from the U.S. Defense Department, which had earmarked a substantial segment of
the tar sand-derived oil, before shipment over the border. With Canada providing the single-most source of supply to alleviate the U.S. energy shortage, a halt to
such deliveries would prove catastrophic. We are told that the Canadians are already contemplating alternative delivery targets in case Barack Obama is elected.
It's becoming increasingly clearer that the winner of the Nov. 4 presidential election will also determine the nature of
America's approach to energy survival for years to come.”
1NC – Elections DA

C.) IMPACT:

<INSERT YOUR FAVORITE IMPACT MODULE>


Elections Uniqueness – Obama Will Win
OBAMA WILL WIN THE ELECTION NOW

Associated Press, 7/2/2008 (via http://www.courant.com/news/local/statewire/hc-02132231.apds.m0071.bc-ct--


polljul02,0,3297336.story)

Sen. John McCain's poor showing in a new Connecticut poll highlights challenges the Republican presidential contender
faces in states where the Iraq war and President Bush are unpopular, a pollster said Wednesday. "There's a direct
correlation there. Bush is a huge drag on McCain," said Quinnipiac Poll Director Douglas Schwartz. The poll shows
Democrat Barack Obama leading McCain 56 percent to 35 percent. The Illinois senator has support from nearly every
subgroup of voters except Republicans, topping McCain among younger and older voters, people with and without college
degrees, men, women, blacks and whites. Obama also wins 70 percent of those likely voters who disapprove of the job
that Bush is doing. And in Connecticut, that number is huge - 78 percent of voters. McCain garners support from only 21
percent of those Bush critics. "That's just a huge hurdle for McCain to overcome. He's getting about 20 percent of those Bush
disapprovers and he's going to have to do so much better in order to be more competitive in states like Connecticut," Schwartz
said. Obama wins big among voters who consider the war a top issue - 74 percent, compared to McCain's 35 percent. Sixty-
seven percent of Connecticut voters believe going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing for the U.S. to do. Yet voters are almost
evenly split on whether the U.S. should immediately withdraw troops on a certain date or keep troops in Iraq without a fixed date
for withdrawal. Obama doesn't appear to gain much from adding New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to his ticket. Only 35 percent of
likely voters said they would like Clinton to be Obama's running mate. Only 18 percent said they'd be more likely to vote for
Obama is he chose her, 25 percent said less likely and 55 percent said it wouldn't make a difference. McCain wouldn't benefit
from picking Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., as his running mate. Only 14 percent said they'd be more likely to vote for McCain if
Lieberman is on the ticket; 32 percent said they'd be less likely and 52 percent said it doesn't make a difference.

OBAMA WILL WIN NOW AND ENERGY POLICY IS THE CRITICAL ELECTION ISSUE

Times, 6/18/2008 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4159793.ece)

A Washington Post/ABC poll yesterday showed 80 per cent of voters say petrol prices are causing them hardship, while the
issue is now ranked as more important than terrorism, education, taxes and family values. Mr Obama leads Mr McCain by
48 to 42 per cent, similar to the margin enjoyed by John Kerry over President Bush at the same stage four years ago before his
eventual defeat in the general election. The Democratic nominee currently holds double digit leads on the economy, petrol
prices and energy policy.

OBAMA IS AHEAD OF MCCAIN NOW, DESPITE ATTACKS ON OBAMA’S PATRIOTISM

Newsmax, 7/2/2008 (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/mccain_obama_cnn_poll/2008/07/02/109270.html)

The survey, conducted June 26-29, shows Obama holding a mere five-point lead over his rival, McCain, 50 percent to 45
percent. The race for the White House, however, grows even tighter when the two most prominent third-party candidates are
weighed into the equation. When votes polled for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr (3 percent) and Independent Party
candidate Ralph Nader (6 percent) are added to the mix, Obama’s lead shrinks to just 3 percentage points (46 percent to 43
percent), which pollsters considered a virtual dead heat when taking into consideration margin of error. A survey conducted by
CNN just a month ago showed similar poll results. Obama, at that time, led McCain by the same scant 46 percent to 43
percent margin. The latest CNN/ORC survey also shows some voters still have lingering questions about Obama's patriotism —
about 25 percent. The breakdown of those polled who show concern over Obama’s devotion to America is 10 percent of
Democrats, 29 percent of independents, and 40 percent of Republicans. "Strategically speaking, the question is not how many
people consider Obama unpatriotic, it's how many people consider Obama unpatriotic who would have voted for him
otherwise," CNN polling director Keating Holland points out. "Most of the respondents who think Obama is unpatriotic are
Republicans," Holland notes. "That indicates that Obama may not have lost a lot of votes — so far — on this matter."
Elections Uniqueness – Obama Will Win

OBAMA WILL WIN NOW – HE CONTROLS THE HISPANIC VOTE

AFP, 7/2/2008 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5idkmRCyHmmRz4ZaWL1HmgmxZszsg)

Democrat Barack Obama has a dominant lead over Republican John McCain among Hispanic voters, despite his struggle to
woo the key bloc during his presidential primary campaign, a poll found Wednesday. A Gallup survey put Obama up 59
percent to 29 percent over his rival among registered Hispanic voters across the United States. The community will likely
play a pivotal role in general election swing states like Colorado, New Mexico and Florida. The poll was published as
McCain made a three-day trip through Colombia and Mexico, designed to burnish his foreign policy credentials, which was also
seen as an attempt to win favor among Hispanic voters in the United States. The poll appears to indicate that many Hispanic
voters have shifted their support to Obama from his vanquished Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, who built a Latino
powerbase during the fiercely contested nominating contest. In nationwide "Super Tuesday" primary contests in February for
instance, Clinton won the Latino vote by around two-to-one over Obama, according to exit polls. Gallup said that support for
Obama was consistent across demographic groups in the Hispanic community. Only 18 percent of the survey sample identified
themselves as Republicans. McCain's hopes of attracting a strong vote from Hispanics were hampered by the failure of a
comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress last year, which he supported, despite the risk of alienating conservative
Republicans.

OBAMA WILL WIN THE ELECTION NOW

Usborne, 2008 (David, Reporter for the Independent World, “Murdoh Says ‘Rock Star’ Obama Will Win Election”, Independent
World)

"He is a rock star," said Mr Murdoch. "I love what he is saying about education. I think he will win and I am anxious to meet
him." Recalling a surprising loss of a safe Republican seat in a Mississippi by-election recently, Mr Murdoch suggested
November may see a Democrat landslide. "You have probably the making of complete phenomenon in this country," he
noted. John McCain, he said, goes into the election with "lots of problems". Mr Obama is tantalisingly close to seizing the
Democratic nomination. Only three more primary votes remain – Puerto Rico on Sunday, followed by Montana and South
Dakota on Tuesday. A potential bump on the road is a meeting tomorrow of the party's rules committee which will consider
proposals to reinstate votes cast in Florida and Michigan that were disqualified because both states voted too early. Mr Murdoch
called Mr McCain, the Republican nominee, a "friend of mine" but was unexpectedly harsh in his assessment of him. "He's been
in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises. I think he has a lot of problems." He added Mr McCain
"doesn't know much about the economy". While he was a "patriot", "he doesn't know much about organising a campaign, it
would seem". Not everyone will be surprised by Mr Murdoch's comments. Earlier this year, his newspaper The New York Post
endorsed Mr Obama over Hillary Clinton on the eve of New York's primary election, even though Mr Murdoch had previously
appeared to have courted both the former first lady and her husband Bill Clinton. He admitted in California that he had been
involved in the newspaper's nod for Mr Obama. He predicted that the deteriorating economy will aid Mr Obama's bid. "The
average American is really getting hurt financially and that all bodes well for him," he said. And while he said the race issue
would be a challenge, "it looks like he will overcome that totally".
Elections Uniqueness – Obama Will Win

MCCAIN WILL LOSE TO OBAMA NOW BECAUSE OF BUSH’S UNPOPULARITY

MSNBC News, 2008

“Yes, Jeremiah Wright could be a high liability for Obama if he becomes the nominee. Sure, questions about Clinton’s honesty
and trustworthiness could also hurt her in a general election, as well as Bill Clinton’s return to the White House. But according
to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, the biggest political albatross heading into November is – drum roll, please – George Bush. In
the poll, 43% say McCain being too closely aligned to Bush and his policies is a major concern. That’s compared with 36%
who say that about Clinton’s apparent flip-flops; 34% who say that about Obama’s bitter guns-religion remark; 32% who say that
about Wright and Bill Ayers; 31% who say that about Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness; 27% who say that about Bill Clinton
having too much influence on policy decisions; 17% who say that about Obama not being patriotic enough; and 16% who
believe McCain might be too old. When you add that Bush problem to other macro-political trends – just 27% approve of
Bush’s job (his lowest mark ever in a survey), just 15% think the country is on the right track, 81% believe the country is
in a recession – that’s quite a head wind McCain and the Republicans are facing. So while the political world might beat the
Wright issue to death or parse every little thing Bill says, let’s not forget overall dynamics of this presidential election.”
Elections Internal Link – Bush Popularity Key

MCCAIN HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING THE ELECTION AS LONG AS BUSH CONTINUES TO ENACT UNPOPULAR POLICIES

Jackson Sun, 2007 (October 7, Lexis)

Republicans will lose the 2008 race for president. I suspect they also will lose additional seats in Congress. They will not lose
because they are conservative. They will not lose because the Republican Revolution is dead, though it is. They will lose because
they allowed their party to fall under the control of extremists. They will lose because the Republican Revolution, one of the all
time great marketing schemes, didn't deliver what it promised. They will lose because they allowed their party to become the
pulpit of the religious right. They will lose because they lost touch with middle America. Presidential elections are won or lost
in the middle. Congressional elections can be subject to this rule because of guilt by association. Staunch Bush supporters in
Congress will not just be fighting for their seats in 2008, they will be fighting with the boat anchor of the Bush legacy in tow.
By the end of the Clinton years, political scandal, extreme liberalism and the irresponsible behavior of the president doomed
Democrats. That scenario is about to play out for Republicans in 2008. Even with the next election hanging over the
Republican Party like a guillotine blade, President Bush continues to charge ahead with unpopular, illogical and
politically incorrect decisions. Republicans who must run for election next year must wake up with a headache each
morning; part hangover from what Bush did yesterday and part worry about what he might do today to make their race
more difficult.

BUSH’S POPULARITY IS CRITICAL TO THE GOP’S CHANCES IN 2008

Hugick, 2007 (Larry, “The Political Fallout: Bush, Iraq, and the GOP”, Public Opinion Pros,
http://www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2007/sep/hugick.asp)

George W. Bush is barred from seeking a third term, and his vice president is also not a candidate in the 2008 presidential
race. But the impact of growing public discontent with the situation in Iraq and Bush’s record low approval ratings casts
a long shadow over the Republicans’ ability to keep the White House in 2008, after having already lost control of both
houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. In all three previous cases where a president scored an approval rating
below 30 percent on more than one occasion, his party was soundly defeated in the next major election. Jimmy Carter, who
had first to fend off a challenge by Ted Kennedy for his party’s 1980 presidential nomination, ultimately got only 41 percent of
the popular vote in losing his bid for reelection to Ronald Reagan. After Richard Nixon’s resignation in the summer of 1974
removed him from the national stage, the GOP nonetheless lost forty-eight house seats in the fall congressional elections,
allowing the Democrats to control two-thirds of house seats. In the 1952 presidential election, with the Korean conflict in a
stalemate and Truman’s ratings consistently below 30 percent, Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson was defeated in a
landslide, winning just 89 electoral votes to Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s 442. An incumbent president is always viewed
as the leader of his party and has a major influence on the way it is perceived. People’s party identification tends to be
relatively stable, but when a president is highly unpopular for an extended period of time, his party’s image can suffer as
well. As seen in Table 2, based on Newsweek poll party ID averages, the proportion of Americans who call themselves
Republicans dropped significantly between George W. Bush’s first year in office and the current year. In 2001, 30 percent of
Americans identified as Republican. Preliminary figures for 2007 put the number of self-identified Republicans at 25 percent, a
drop of five percentage points. Since Princeton Survey Research Associates began conducting the Newsweek poll in 1993, there
have been fifty-seven quarters for which sufficient data were available to compute a party ID average. The first two quarters of
2007 are the only two in which GOP identification has averaged below 26 percent.
Elections Internal Link – Bush Popularity Key

BUSH POPULARITY IS THE KEY VARIABLE IN THE ELECTION

Columbus Post Dispatch, 2007 (October 14, Lexis)

Some Democrats believe that despite the deep disdain for Clinton among Republicans, the atmosphere is too poisoned for a
GOP victory. "The election isn't going to be about Hillary or Rudy," said James Ruvolo, former chairman of the Ohio
Democratic Party. "It's going to be about the last eight years, and Republicans can't get any independents to vote for
them."

BUSH POPULARITY KEY

Frontrunner, 2007 (September 4, Lexis)

Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online says, "A key challenge for" President George W. Bush is "that a president's
legacy is often heavily influenced by the partisan affiliation of his successor. Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and George
H.W. Bush are all largely seen as failed presidents in no small part because their party lost the White House in their wake, which
is a crucial tool for shaping popular and historical perceptions." The "problem for Bush and the GOP is that it seems very
unlikely a Republican candidate will have any chance of winning in 2008 so long as Bush's approval ratings are in the
freezing range."

BUSH UNPOPULARITY MEANS GOP WILL LOSE NOW

USA Today, 2007 (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/political-exit-.html)

A key challenge for Bush is that a president's legacy is often heavily influenced by the partisan affiliation of his successor.
Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush are all largely seen as failed presidents in no small part because
their party lost the White House in their wake, which is a crucial tool for shaping popular and historical perceptions.
Keeping the White House in the same partisan hands not only represents a referendum for continuity, it also prevents the
more unsavory aspects of the previous administration from coming to light amid the inevitable blame-shifting that comes
with new administrations. President Reagan's historical standing was put on the glide path to greatness in part because his
anointed successor won the presidency. If Al Gore had won in 2000, Bill Clinton's legacy would certainly be higher (and it will
also improve if Hillary Clinton is elected). The problem for Bush and the GOP is that it seems very unlikely a Republican
candidate will have any chance of winning in 2008 so long as Bush's approval ratings are in the freezing range. As my
colleague Ramesh Ponnuru argues, Bush's approval ratings need to be at least in the mid-40s for the Republican nominee to have
a fighting chance. But how to get those numbers up so late in his administration?
AT: McCain Distancing Himself From Bush

MCCAIN CAN’T DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM BUSH

Baltimore Sun, 7/2/2008


(http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/mccain_obama_compared_to_bush.html)

A new USA Today/Gallup poll reports two out of three Americans are concerned that McCain would pursue policies that
are too similar to what Bush has pursued. Forty-nine percent reported they are "very concerned." As the presumptive
Republican nominee, McCain faces Bush's legacy and his low approval ratings. Bush's approval rating is 28 percent
among Americans. However, 60 percent of Republicans report approval of Bush, as well as 55 percent of McCain supporters.
Among Democrats, his approval rating is at 6 percent. Continued…
"McCain does have enough disagreements with Bush to perhaps make the argument that he will not represent a third
Bush term seem credible. At the same time, on the major issues such as the economy and Iraq, McCain's and Bush's
positions are essentially the same."

BUSH’S UNPOPULARITY TIES MCCAIN DOWN

Todd, 2008 (Chuck, MSNBC, June 12)

The 200-pound ball and chain: We hate to sound like a broken record, but just how bad is the political environment for
McCain and the Republican Party? Let’s start with Bush, whose job approval rating is just 28%, up one point from his all-
time low. Then add this: 54% say that they’re looking for a new president who would bring greater changes to current
policies, even if that person is less experienced and tested. By contrast, 42% say they’d rather have a more experienced and
tested person become president, even if that means fewer changes to current policies. “The 200-pound ball and chain around
McCain’s foot is George W. Bush,” says NBC/WSJ co-pollster Peter D. Hart (D).
Elections Internal Link – Iraq Distraction Module

IRAQ IS A KEY ISSUE FOR VOTERS – IT IS NOT PLAYING WELL FOR THE GOP AND THEY WILL LOSE THE ELECTION WITHOUT A DISTRACTION

IBD, 2007 (Investors Business Daily, December 18, Lexis)

The public is in a sour, anxious mood. That's likely to boost Democrats and undercut Republicans in 2008, pollsters say.
Concerns about the economy, health care and Iraq top almost all surveys, which also say the general public is favoring the
Democrats on those issues. At the same time, interest in issues that have helped Republicans in the past -- such as terrorism,
crime and gay marriage -- is receding. The bottom line: While the election remains months away and will be greatly affected by
the eventual presidential nominees, polls show that it's the Democrats' race to lose at this point. Independents Favor Dems Karlyn
Bowman, resident scholar for polling at the American Enterprise Institute, says the shift is clearest in polls that track which party voters identify with. The
numbers were at parity in 2004 (45%-45%), according to Gallup. Today the Democrats have a 52%-36% lead. "It's because more independents have moved in
the Democrats' direction," Bowman said. "Starting in the 1950 s through the 1990 s, they were a very reliably Republican group. That's clearly changed." The
shift is based on a sense of economic gloom associated with the Bush administration and the former GOP congressional majority. A December Gallup poll found
that 71% thought the economy was getting worse. That's up from 53% in January. The Pew Research Center's Oct. 31 study of voter concerns found that 79%
cited the economy as a major issue, with health care and Iraq tied for second at 76%. The study found that concern over jobs actually had fallen since 2004, from
76% to 71%. But concern over energy prices soared from 54% to 65% over the same period. "It's clearly high fuel and gas prices that are driving concern over
the economy," Bowman said. The high fuel prices cause people to think inflation is on the rise, regardless of other indicators. Those fears are "an incredibly
powerful political indicator," she added. Carroll Doherty, associate director of research for Pew, says that while energy is a major part of the problem, economic
anxiety is very "broad based." "There's the mortgage foreclosure crisis, the energy prices, continuing job concerns despite declines in the (poll) numbers on that
issue, and just fears of a general economic slowdown," Doherty said. The economy has even managed to supplant Iraq as the top issue, Doherty says. Pew also
found that terrorism was rated as a top issue by 69%, down from 77% in 2004. Concerns over social issues like abortion, stem cell policy and gay marriage were
near the bottom of the list. While 47% rated abortion as a top issue in 2004, only 39% do now. Stem cell research fell from 43% in 2004 to 35% today. Gay
marriage declined from the top issue at 32% to only 22%. Those drops don't always mean opinions have changed. Rather, it means voters just aren't thinking of
them at the moment. "There hasn't been much of a shift in attitudes on gay marriage," Doherty said. "It's just that it's out of the headlines." A December
Gallup poll, which required voters to rank issues in order of importance, found that Iraq (37%), the economy (17%) and
health care (15%) were the top issues overall. Those answers differed greatly when broken down to Republican, Democrat and
Independent voters. Republican concerns don't move others nearly as strongly. That portends trouble for the eventual
GOP nominee. For Republicans, Iraq was the top concern (29%), with immigration and terrorism tied for second (17% each).
The economy was fourth (13%). Other polls put terrorism even higher as a GOP issue. For Democrats, Iraq was the top issue
(46%), followed by health care (22%). The economy was third (15%). No other issue was close to double digits. Independents
tilted toward the Democrats. They rated Iraq and the economy as their top issues, just not as strongly as the Democrats (34%
and 19%, respectively).
Elections Internal Link – Iraq Distraction Ext.

IRAQ WILL SIGNIFICANTLY HAMPER MCCAINS GENERAL ELECTION CHANCES

Indian Express, 2008 (Lexis)

On foreign policy and national security, John McCain, the almost certain Republican nominee, enjoys one huge advantage and
one equally large disadvantage vis-a-vis either of his Democratic rivals. His advantage consists of the fact that the former navy
pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war is universallyacclaimed as a genuine hero', a phrase Obama employed again last week. Efforts
to tarnish those credentials, asthe Republicans successfully did against Democrat John Kerry four years ago, stand little chance
of succeeding. McCain's large disadvantage lies in the fact that he, more than any other candidate who set out last year to
winthe presidency, is linked to the unpopular Iraq war policy of George W. Bush. Indeed, at a time when polls suggest that
much of the country has soured on the war, McCain remains outspoken in its defence. America is winning in Iraq, heinsists;
to withdraw just as success appears possible would be both foolish and dishonourable. McCain has casually said that he could
contemplate American troops remaining in Iraq for another 100 years.

THE ELECTION WILL FOCUS ON IRAQ NOW AND THAT DOOMS MCCAIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION

Hotline, 2008 (February 14, Lexis)

On Iraq, most Dems "are happy to let McCain and his surrogates...promote an agenda opposed by a majority of
American voters" (Kady, Politico, 2/13). Or I’ll just end up walkin’ in the cold novemebr rain. Meanwhile, President Bush,
"newly confident that his troop-surge strategy is working, is taking steps that are likely to guarantee another Iraq-driven
election." He favors keeping a big US force "in Iraq through the November elections, probably close to the pre-surge level" of
130K troops. Bush is "redoubling his bet on success in Iraq" and unless "the war becomes a lot more popular" that stance
could hurt GOP congressional candidates and the national party. Bush, to Fox News: "History will be the judge of an
administration. I frankly don't give a damn about the polls."
Elections Internal Link – Iraq Distraction Ext.

GOP WILL LOSE – VOTERS ARE TOO CENTERED AROUND BUSH’S COATTAIL ON IRAQ

Auger, 2008 (James, Global Insight, January 2, Lexis)

Whatever happens between now and November, the United States will have a new president at the start of 2009. George W. Bush
is barred from running for a third consecutive term, although given his current unpopularity he would be lucky to secure one.
While most of the Republican hopefuls are keen to portray themselves as his natural heir in terms of policies, they will
struggle to overcome unpopular elements of his legacy such as the Iraq war. Consequently, the November election is really
the Democrats' to lose. Both Obama and Clinton are intriguing candidates with plenty of energy and ambition, but they are also viewed with suspicion by
many voters. Obama is comparatively inexperienced, and would be something of a wildcard in the presidential residence, the White House. Clinton has no
shortage of experience, but is inevitably closely associated with her husband and his record. This is an asset in terms of rallying Democratic support, but a
weakness when it comes to winning over right-leaning voters in the electorate as a whole. Clinton has succeeded in softening her image to a degree, but many in
her party would prefer to usher in the new generation that Obama represents.

IRAQ FOCUS HURTS MCCAIN

New York Observer, 2008 (February 5, Lexis)

In an election year when voters say they are demanding change from the failures and follies of the Bush years, this
political profile could create serious problems for any candidate. For Mr. McCain, the dangers may be even greater,
because while he resolutely upholds an unpopular war, he has forfeited the single issue that could most easily inflame the
Republican base as well as many independents.</p><p>Any other Republican running against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would
quickly put the Democrats on the defensive over their refusal to promise that millions of undocumented workers and their families will be deported someday
soon, or ever. Any other Republican would be able to portray the Democratic Party as advocates of unrestricted immigration and "amnesty" for immigrants who
have entered the United States illegally. It is simple to conjure a negative ad showing dark, frightening foreigners, with a script bemoaning lost jobs, rising crime
and welfare costs, even the threat of terrorism. Stimulating fear has become a tradition in American elections.</p><p>But Mr. McCain cannot plausibly endorse
or benefit from that kind of demagogic commercial. After all, he was for amnesty before he was against it, as his conservative critics might put it. And much as
he may now wish to pretend that the issue is moot, his name remains on the reform bill sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy.</p><p>Advisers to Mr. McCain
may plan to mount a different brand of fear-based attack, much as former White House adviser Karl Rove did so successfully during the 2002 and 2004 elections.
That campaign would feature ads assaulting the Democrats as disloyal and timid, for daring to voice even the mildest objection to the Bush administration's
surveillance and torture policies.</p><p>Dramatic commercials might steal a page from television, with a president trying to decide how to interrogate a suspect
who knows where to find the nuclear suitcase bomb. Could we count on a Democrat to authorize the waterboarding in time? Yet that scary scenario won't work
for Mr. McCain, either, because he has stood forthrightly against torture, to the great dismay of many detractors in his own party.</p><p>The war in Iraq
will afford him the chance to draw sharp distinctions with his Democratic opponent, but that difference will place him on
the wrong side of the electorate. He will win points, perhaps, for sticking with the unpopular position. But with the prospect of
recession growing each day, his devotion to military solutions and neglect of economic concerns may make him appear not
only dangerous but irrelevant.
AT: Iraq Is The Key Issue

IRAQ IS NOT KEY TO THE ELECTION

Pew Research Center, 2007 (November 9, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/633/iraq-news-less-dominant-still-important)

News about the Iraq war does not dominate the public's consciousness nearly as much as it did last winter. Currently, just
16% of Americans name the Iraq war as the news story that first comes to mind when asked what has been in the news
lately. In December and January, a period when U.S. policy toward Iraq and President Bush's troop surge drew extensive news
coverage, far greater numbers named the Iraq war as the first story that came to mind.
Elections – Defending The ‘Keys’ Model

KEYS MODEL PREDICTS A DEMOCRATIC WIN UNLESS A POPUALR POLICY LIKE THE PLAN IS ENACTED – WITHIN OUR METHODOLOGY WE CONTROL
LINK AND UNIQUENESS CLAIMS

THE KEYS MODEL IS EMPIRICALLY AND CONSISTENTLY CORRECT – IT’S THE ONLY MODEL TO PREDICT GORE’S POPULAR VOTE WIN
Elections Solves The Case – Alternative Energy

OBAMA SOLVES THE AFF – HE WILL INVEST IN RENEWABLE ENERGY

LA Times, 6/24/2008 (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign24-2008jun24,0,832512.story)

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign dismissed the proposal as "tinkering at the edges." The two campaigns have been
sparring over how to address skyrocketing gasoline prices and climate change. In mid-April, McCain proposed a summer gas-tax
holiday that would suspend federal gasoline and diesel taxes. That proposal was matched by Hillary Rodham Clinton but derided
as a gimmick by Obama, who said it would not resolve the country's reliance on petroleum. The Illinois senator, who
advocates more federal support for renewable energy sources and higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, has taken aim
at oil speculators, whom he has blamed for the recent run-up in prices. McCain said last week that he wanted to open up
additional areas off the nation's coasts for oil and gas exploration, and aggressively promote construction of more nuclear
power plants.

OBAMA SUPPORTS INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – MCCAIN DOES NOT

Hook, 2008 (Janet, LA Times, “Repairing the U.S. Economy Is A Question of How”)

McCain has called for mandated emissions limits to curb global warming, an example of him embracing government
regulation and parting ways with most fellow Republicans. But he opposes most government incentives and subsides to help
meet those emissions limits, and which are favored by Obama and many other officials. Obama, for example, would invest
$150 billion in subsidies over 10 years to develop alternative fuels. McCain, discussing environmental issues last month, told
voters in Washington state, "I'm a little wary -- I have to give you straight talk -- about government subsidies. When the
government jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as well as intended."
Elections Solves The Case – Cellulosic Ethanol

OBAMA SUPPORTS CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

Bevill, 2008 (Kris, contributor to Ethanol Producer Magazine, “U.S. Presidential Candidates’ Views Vary on Biofuels”, Ethanol
Producer Magazine, July)

There are a few similarities between the candidates—but also some glaring differences. Obama, D-Ill., and Clinton, D-N.Y.,
have plans to continue funding research for cellulosic ethanol and other types of biomass-derived fuels. Both have a $150
billion, 10-year investment plan to fund the continuation of renewable energy technologies. Obama hasn’t mentioned where the
money for his plan will come from, but Clinton has stated that one-third of her $150 billion plan will be provided by a Strategic
Energy Fund partially financed by oil companies.

MCCAIN WON’T USE GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES TO SPUR CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

Bevill, 2008 (Kris, contributor to Ethanol Producer Magazine, “U.S. Presidential Candidates’ Views Vary on Biofuels”, Ethanol
Producer Magazine, July)

McCain, R-Ariz., has said he’s in favor of using switchgrass, sugarcane and ethanol to reduce the nation’s dependency on
foreign oil, but he hasn’t delivered a financial plan as to how he will support the advancement of those fuels. Although he
said he supports ethanol, McCain is the only candidate who has taken a stance against ethanol subsidies. He said the
industry is mature enough to exist without government help. According to McCain’s Web site (www.johnmccain.com), he views
ethanol subsidies and the current ethanol tariff as a cause of higher transportation and food costs. “Ethanol subsidies, tariff
barriers and sugar quotas drive up food prices and hurt Americans,” McCain said on the Web site.

OBAMA WILL INVEST TONS IN CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

Power, 2008 (Stephen, Wall Street Journal, “In Energy Policy, McCain, Obama Differ on Role of Government”, June 9)

Sen. Obama has no such compunction about using the government's means to achieve his ends on energy and climate change.
He says the U.S. doesn't do enough to move promising but risky clean-energy technologies from the research lab to the
marketplace. He's promising to invest $150 billion over the next decade in alternative fuels such as cellulosic ethanol that
can be made from materials such as switchgrass and wood chips. He'd push a requirement that the U.S. by 2025 get at least
25% of its electricity from renewable sources like the wind, the sun and geothermal energy (which together currently account for
less than 1% of U.S. electricity supply).
Elections Impact – Polish BMD Module

MCCAIN WILL PUSH FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF BMD IN POLAND

Council on Foreign Relations, 2007 (http://www.cfr.org/bios/662/)

Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has strongly criticized Vladimir Putin, whom he has called “a dangerous person.” In an October 2007
Republican debate, McCain expressed support for President Bush’s plan to build a missile defense shield in Eastern
Europe. “I don't care what [Putin’s] objections are to it,” he said.

THAT CAUSES ACCIDENTAL WAR WITH RUSSIA ENSURING EXTINCTION

Whitney, 2007 (Mike, Global Research, December 19, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18926.htm)

Finally, Russia Chief of Staff, General Yuri Balyevsky warned: “A possible launch of a US interceptor missile from Central
Europe may provoke a counterattack from intercontinental ballistic missiles....If we suppose that Iran wants to strike the
United States , then interceptor missiles which would be launched from Poland will fly towards Russia and the shape and
flight trajectory are very similar to ICBMs” (Novosti Russian News Agency) Balyevsky's scenario of an “accidental” World
War 3 is more likely than ever now that Bush is pressing ahead with his plans for Missile Defense. Russia's automated
missile warning systems can be triggered automatically when foreign missiles enter Russian air space. Its a dangerous
game and potentially fatal every living thing on the planet. To great extent, the American people have no idea of the reckless
policy that is being carried out in their name. The gravity of the proposed Missile Defense system has been virtually ignored by
the media and Russia's protests have been dismissed as trivial. But hostilities are steadily growing, military forces and
weaponry are being put into place, and the stage is set for a major conflagration. This is every bit as serious as the Cuban Missile
Crisis, only this time Russia cannot afford to stand down.
Elections Impact – Yucca Mountain Module

MACCAIN WILL STORE NUCLEAR WASTE AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, OBAMA WON’T

Bohan, 2008 (Caren, Reporter for News Daily, “Obama Criticizes McCain’s Nuclear Power Plan”, News Daily)

Obama was speaking in Nevada, a state where proposals to build a nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain have
generated strong opposition. He also took aim at McCain's plan to allow more offshore U.S. oil drilling. "It doesn't make sense
for America," Obama said. "In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan
to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain," the Illinois senator said. The U.S. Energy Department
has applied for a license to operate a long-delayed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles from Las Vegas.
Opposition in the U.S. Congress to the Yucca Mountain waste site is among the hurdles it faces. Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is among those who oppose it. McCain, an Arizona senator, backs the project, while Obama is
against it. Asked his views on nuclear power in Jacksonville, Florida on Friday, Obama said, "I think that nuclear power should
be in the mix when it comes to energy." But he added, "I don't think it's our optimal energy source because we haven't figured out
how to store the waste safely or recycle the waste." Obama supports using federal research and development dollars to
explore whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for reuse.”

THIS RISKS NUCLEAR VOLCANOES

New Scientist, 2002 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523571.300-yucca-mountain-could-become-nuclear-


volcano.html)

If A volcano ever erupted beneath the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada it could cause a
devastating explosion that sent high-level nuclear waste spewing into the atmosphere. Yucca Mountain lies about 145
kilometres north-west of Las Vegas, within an active volcanic field. An eruption at the site is considered extremely
unlikely, but it is possible. There are six craters within 20 kilometres of the site, including Lathrop Wells volcano, which
formed by eruptions just 80,000 years ago. A study in 2000 estimated that there was a 1 in 1000 chance of an eruption at the site
during the 10,000 years it will take for the radioactivity of the waste stored there to dissipate. And a recent report suggests that a
more active cluster of volcanoes 100 kilometres to the north could be an even bigger threat

EXTINCTION

Camarow, 2001 (David, “Yucca Mountain: Time To Think The Unthinkable”, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-
issues/nuclear-energy/issues/yucca-mountain/yucca-mountain-testimony-comarow_2001-12-08.htm)

None of that is impossible, and therefore none of that is unthinkable. We are not talking about the short-term or even long-term
economic prosperity of Las Vegas. We are talking about nothing less than the survival of the human race. Lest you dismiss
this as just more fanatic hyperbole, let this be a reality check: Yucca Mountain will hold all of the high level nuclear waste
ever produced from every nuclear power plant in the US - with about 10% additional defense waste -- some 77,000 tons. The
danger of getting it here aside for a moment, the amount of radioactivity and energy to be stored in one place, under that
relatively tiny little bump in the desert is easily enough to contaminate and sterilize the entire biosphere. Is that
unthinkable? No. If it is possible, it is thinkable. When you are talking about these types of risks, risks that can endanger entire
segments of our population, let alone the entire earth, then the risk analysis must go into higher gear. It is not enough to
merely calculate the risks as "extremely low" - because there is no "low enough" when the consequences are so cataclysmic.
We accept certain risks, which are relatively high - 50,000 traffic deaths per year for example. But, as terrible as those deaths and
injuries are, they do not imperil our culture, our nation or the survival of the human race. We are less willing to accept such risks
when the consequences happen all at once -- plane crashes for example. That is our human nature. We are willing to spend much
more to lower the risk of death in groups than chronic deaths spread out over time and space. As a people, as caretakers for future
people, we cannot create unnecessary catastrophic risks like biosphereicide, the agonizing death of billions.
Elections Impact – Iran Strikes Module

MCCAIN WILL STRIKE IRAN

Jones, 2007 (Terry, “Saved By the Bomb: Senator McCain Has Hit Upon A Solution to All the Republican Party’s Woes: A
Nuclear War With Iran”, Common Dreams News)

“Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John McCain was asked what should be done about
Iran. He responded by singing, “Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran”, to the tune of the Beach Boys’ Barbara Ann. (Join the hilarity and
see for yourself on YouTube.) How can any thinking person disagree? I mean, any country with a president who doesn’t shave properly and never wears a tie
deserves what’s coming to it - a lot of American bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don’t miss out on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism. The
problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year’s US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican party re-elected. This is
essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is
discovering what a shoddy job Halliburton has been doing. In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the US - inspectors have discovered
buckled floors, crumbling concrete, failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance.
The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more problematic as opinion turns against George Bush’s little
invasion of Iraq. Even Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as “an illegal foreign occupation”; his
nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn’t been returning calls for weeks. More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White
House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise. The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III
called a “poisonous” environment has begun to dent fundraising - an unheard-of problem for the Republicans. So the only
solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and amusingly suggests. The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the
job properly and go nuclear. Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the
country uninhabitable for years. With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring
more costs. But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that the
world would be totally changed. A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis “Scooter” Libby signed a statement for the Project for the New American
Century, a neoconservative thinktank. They rather hoped for “some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor” to kickstart their dream of a world
run by US military might. A nuclear war would do the trick in spades. The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or even 100 years. Of
course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in the process, but that shouldn’t be a problem as long as there are anti-radiation suits for White
House and Pentagon staff. Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner what’s left of the world’s oil reserves. In 1955 Albert Einstein and
Bertrand Russell said the world was faced by a “stark and dreadful and inescapable” choice: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce
war?” Senator McCain wasn’t bothered by such questions; the human race may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of permanent re-
election.”

IMPACT IS WORLD WAR THREE AND NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE

Chossudovsky, 2007 (Michel, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on
Globalization, Global Research, September 16,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070916&articleId=6792)

Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Authorization was issued. The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the
media nor even in Congressional debates. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear
weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022. Tactical nuclear weapons directed against Iran have also been deployed at military
bases in several NATO non-nuclear states including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey. It should be understood that even without the
use of nukes, the proposed US aerial bombardments of Iran's nuclear facilities could result in a nuclear Chernobyl type
disaster on a significnatly larger scale. World War III Scenario While the war on Iran is acknowledged by the Western
media, it is not front page news. The broad implications of an impending catastrophe are simply not addressed. Escalation
could lead us into a World War III scenario. Through media disinformation, the seriousness of a US-led war on Iran
allegedly in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the "international community" is downplayed . The objective is to galvanize Western public
opinion in support of a US-led military operation, which would inevitably lead to escalation. War propaganda consists in "fabricating an enemy" while
conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government. "Make the World safer",
"prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace". "Combat nuclear proliferation by
rogue states"... Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in
Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the
nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
Elections Impact – Iran Strikes Ext.

OBAMA WILL PURSUE DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN

Robinson, 2008 (Dan, Reporter for Capitol Hill, “Obama Pledges Security for Israel, Toughness, Diplomacy on Iran”, VOA
News)

“Referring to threatening statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against Israel, Senator Obama said his goal
would be to eliminate what he called the real and grave danger of Iran's activities in support of terrorism and pursuit of
nuclear capabilities, which Iran denies. "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,
everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything," he said. At the same time, he again
sought to contrast his approach with presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, on the question of how
to engage with Iran. Obama says he would personally lead diplomatic efforts, carefully prepared with a specific agenda,
and coordinated with key allies. "Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversary just for
the sake of talking," he said. "But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled
diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if, it can advance the interests
of the U.S. That is my position. I want it to be absolutely clear." There should be no doubt, Obama added, that as president he
would never take the threat of military action off the table, but said any use of military force is more likely to succeed if
diplomatic efforts are first exhausted.”
Elections Impact – Terrorism Module

OBAMA WIN IS CRITICAL TO STOP TERRORISM

Khalil, 2008 (Yasser, Researcher and Journalist, “Muslim World Speaks Out On Obama”, Turkish Daily News, June 27)

“US Senator Barack Obama represents a phenomenon that has drawn global attention and captivated the minds of
Muslims around the world as he wages a spirited campaign to become the next president of the United States. In spite of the
campaign's heated debate and some controversial rhetoric regarding Islam, large segments of Muslims remain fascinated with
the election and have become big fans of Obama. This level of support for an American presidential candidate is
unprecedented in the Muslim world. The fact that it comes amidst an almost unanimous feeling of indignation and rage
towards US foreign policy – particularly in Iraq and Palestine – makes it even more noteworthy. The simple explanation is
that many Muslims see new reason for hope in the political approach of Obama and his advisors. His apparent eagerness to
rally more international support for US policy, and even talk to America's "enemies", is cause for optimism. Imagine what
global politics might look like in Iraq, or Sudan, or Afghanistan, if Obama-like vision had influenced US leadership earlier. As
an Arab Muslim in Egypt who is affected by US foreign policy, I believe an Obama approach may help solve the accumulated
problems between Muslims and the United States that have become more aggravated since the September 11 terrorist
attacks. New and more creative techniques for dealing with extremists instead of the controversial methods used by the
current US administration could also stop giving Al Qaeda and other such groups the pretext for recruiting new members.
Then, perhaps, extremists would lose the arguments that fuel their criminal machine and lead them to destroy innocent people.”

TERRORISM RESULTS IN EXTINCTION

Sid-Ahmed, 2004 (Mohammed, Political Analyst, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)

WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK BY TERRORISTS? EVEN IF IT FAILS, it would further exacerbate the negative
features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. SOCIETIES WOULD CLOSE IN ON THEMSELVES, POLICE MEASURES
WOULD BE STEPPED UP AT THE EXPENSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, TENSIONS BETWEEN CIVILISATIONS AND RELIGIONS WOULD RISE AND ETHNIC
CONFLICTS WOULD PROLIFERATE. IT WOULD ALSO SPEED UP THE ARMS RACE AND DEVELOP THE AWARENESS THAT A DIFFERENT TYPE OF WORLD
ORDER IS IMPERATIVE IF HUMANKIND IS TO SURVIVE. But the still more critical scenario is IF THE ATTACK SUCCEEDS. THIS COULD LEAD TO A
THIRD WORLD WAR, FROM WHICH NO ONE WILL EMERGE VICTORIOUS. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs
over another, THIS WAR WILL BE WITHOUT WINNERS AND LOSERS. WHEN NUCLEAR POLLUTION INFECTS THE WHOLE PLANET, WE WILL ALL BE
LOSERS.
Elections Impact – OCS Drilling Module

MCCAIN SUPPORTS OFFSHORE DRILLING – OBAMA DOES NOT

Fox News, 6/19/2008

On Monday, GOP presidential candidate John McCain made lifting the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development a
key part of his energy plan. McCain said states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts and
get some of the royalty revenue. He repeated the call Tuesday, with his campaign launching an ad faulting Bush for not getting
behind domestic production sooner. "In effect, our petrodollars are underwriting tyranny, anti-Semitism, the brutal repression of
women in the Middle East, and dictators and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere," the presumptive Republican
presidential nominee said. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore
drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years.

OCEAN DRILLING CAUSES METHANE HYDRATE RELEASE

Industries in Transition, 2002 (September, Lexis)

Ocean drilling plays a critical role in addressing questions about hydrates because it provides the only means available of
directly sampling the material and the sediments that host them deep beneath the seafloor. In 1995, ODP researchers drilled
into gas hydrates in a relatively stable area off the U.S. East Coast. Scientists have estimated that area could contain enough
methane to supply U.S. energy needs for more than 100 yr. They also found evidence suggesting that hydrates are involved in
the global climate cycle, and that they can cause massive landslides.

METHAN HYDRATE RELEASE WILL FRY THE PLANET CAUSING EXTINCTION

Inside Energy, 2001 (November 5)

'If we begin as a civilization to exploit methane hydrates, and use technology experimentally, we may destabilize methane
hydrates and create a real big jump of methane hydrates release to the atmosphere,'' Charter said. ''If it could end the ice
age, what if it were induced by man on top of the current global warming change? ... We may not just say, 'oops, we ended
the ice age.' But, 'oops,' we fried the planet.' It's best to understand the implications before we go poking around the Earth.''
Elections Impact – OCS Drilling Ext.

MCCAIN WILL LIFT THE BAN ON OCS DRILLING, OBAMA WILL NOT

Times, 6/18/2008 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4159793.ece)

John McCain called for an end to the 27-year ban on offshore oil production as he risked tainting his green credentials with
an attempt to tap the fears and resentment of American voters over $4-a-gallon (£2) petrol prices. The Republican presidential
nominee’s speech in Houston triggered a swift reaction from his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, who accused him
of betraying previous promises on the environment. Both sides recognise that the 74-per cent increase in prices at the pump
over the last 18 months has been one of the biggest contributors to a growing sense of insecurity for voters who grew up on
cheap fuel. Although petrol costs might still seem low compared to those in Britain — where prices are at least twice as high —
the attachment of Americans to their cars and the distances driven daily by suburban or rural families has sent a shock of pain
across the political spectrum.
Alternative Energy – Popular Among Public

PUBLIC STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY

Grey, 2001 (Thomas O., AWEA Communications Director, “Wind Energy Views on the Environment: CLean and Green”)

The Vermont survey was mailed to a random sample of residents in the town of Searsburg, where a 6-megawatt wind farm was
planned (and has since been built). Sixty-three percent of those receiving the survey questionnaire completed it, a very high
percentage. Of those responding, 89% said they would like to see increased use of wind energy, compared with 79% for
hydro, 53% for municipal waste, 47% for gas, 25% for nuclear, 22% for wood, 6% for coal, and 5% for oil.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES ARE POPULAR AMONG THE PUBLIC

Electrtic Light and Power Magazine, 2008 (Electric Light and Power Magazine and Utilitu Automation & Engineering T&D
Magazine (Joint Website), “New Report Finds Majority of Americans Want Solar Power, June 19)

A recent poll has found that a majority of Americans, across all political parties, support development and funding of
solar energy. According to the study, 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. The findings were reported in the SCHOTT
Solar Barometer, a survey conducted by the 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. Eighty-six percent of Independents supported 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). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent)
and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage
development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe
the ITC should not be extended.

MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008 (“Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy”, March 6)

However, there continues to be substantial agreement across partisan lines on several areas of energy policy. Roughly
90% of Republicans, Democrats and independents support tougher auto fuel standards, and about 80% in each group favor
more federal funding for research into alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydrogen technology.
Alternative Energy – Popular Among Public

MASSIVE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Broder and Connelly, 2007 (John M. and Marjorie, New York times, “Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming”,
April 26)

The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing
environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal.
Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with
ethanol, which is now made largely from corn, is a good idea, the survey found. They also are nearly evenly split on building
nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in
their community, they said no, 59 percent to 36 percent.
Alternative Energy – Popular In Congress

OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FOR THE USE OF ALTERNAITVE SOURCES OF ENERGY

NYT, 2006 (New York Times, December 10)

Now some analysts and money managers are hoping the imminent Democratic takeover of Congress will also be bullish for
alternative energy stocks by improving prospects for favorable legislation for the industry. One likely initiative, known as a national
renewable portfolio standard, would require utilities to derive 10 percent of their electricity output from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, less than 3 percent
of electricity is generated from such sources. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the presumptive chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, says he hopes to pass “some version” of a renewable portfolio standard in the next Congress. The details of such legislation — as well as
whether it would be approved by Congress and signed by President Bush — are very much uncertain. But that hasn’t stopped investors from placing their bets.
Democrats may be in the forefront, but they aren’t the only ones to jump on the alternative energy bandwagon, said
Randy Gwirtzman, a research analyst at Baron Capital, which is based in New York. “Both sides of the aisle have shown
they’re in favor of alternative energy sources,” he said. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, for example, is
concerned about the nation’s reliance on imported oil. “With the surging prices of oil,” he said, “there’s a strong feeling among
Republicans that our economy and national security can be damaged if we don’t decrease our dependency.” Mr. Gwirtzman
recommends shares of SunPower, which he said has a highly competitive solar-cell product line that is well positioned to benefit from a more sympathetic
Congress. Stuart Bush, technology analyst at RBC Capital Markets based in Austin, Tex., also likes SunPower, which is a spin-off of Cypress Semiconductor. Mr.
Bush says SunPower solar cells are more efficient than the industry average in converting solar energy into electricity. Unlike many other alternative energy
companies, SunPower already generates a small profit, and its revenue could reach $600 million next year and $1 billion in 2008, Mr. Bush said. A renewable
portfolio standard should help alternative energy move closer to parity with traditional energy sources, Mr. Bush said. “Each technology individually is on a path
to reducing costs and achieving parity with traditional energy sources, some very dramatically. The wind industry is probably closest to achieving economic
viability without any support” from the federal government. One company he favors is Zoltek, which makes lightweight carbon-fiber blades for wind turbines.
Zoltek could also be helped by a longer extension of federal renewable energy tax credits, a legislative goal of wind-energy lobbyists. The production tax credits,
which reward electricity producers for each kilowatt of energy they generate from renewable sources, are scheduled to expire next year. In the past, the credits
have typically been extended for two years at a time, which the wind-energy industry maintains is too short a period to stimulate long-term investment.
Democrats will support a longer extension, Senator Bingaman said. “Clearly, we do need to extend those tax credits that
relate to renewable energy, and we need to do so for a longer period,” he said. A consensus on alternative energy is perhaps
closest in biofuels, which have the support of many Republicans, particularly from farm belt and southern states. “I do think
we need to increase the use of biofuels as much and as quickly as possible,” Senator Sessions said.
Alternative Energy – Bush & GOP Supports

BUSH AND REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS SUPPORT ALTERNRATIVE ENERGY – 2005 ENERGY BILL PROVES

Smith, 2005 (Don C., “RE Gains? The US Policy Act of 2005”, Science Direct, Volume 6 Issue 5, September)

When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, one of his expressed goals was to push through a new
energy policy. As a first step, the president assembled a major task force, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, to study the
country's energy situation. The aim was to prepare a strategy to “address the nation's energy needs for the 21st century.” Despite
the president's investment of time and political capital, however, the energy bill stalled in the 107th and 108th Congresses.
Nevertheless, this year the political climate changed and with - among other things - the support of more Republican
members of the U.S. Senate the energy bill1was passed. At the top of the list was the extension of the production tax
credit (PTC) for wind energy and biomass electricity. Under the legislation, the “placed-in-service” date to which the 1.9
cents per kWh credit applies was extended through 2007. The credit applies over the first 10 years of a project's operation, and is
a particularly critical factor in financing wind farms. Randell Swisher, American Wind Energy Association executive director,
lauded this provision and said, “This is the first time that an extension of the production tax credit for wind energy has
been approved before the credit expires, and, following the past six years of boom-and-bust cycles caused by successive
expirations, that is very good news for the industry.” Consequently, the passage of the PTC portends strong growth
momentum for wind energy at least in 2006 and 2007. The wind industry was also encouraged by provisions requiring that
utility system reliability rules to be developed be non-discriminatory and that incentives be provided to encourage construction
of new and upgraded transmission lines. “By requiring that new national reliability rules be non-discriminatory and by providing
incentives to ease transmission bottlenecks, the [bill] chips away at two important barriers to continued wind energy
development in this country,” Mr. Swisher said. “These long-term reliability and transmission provisions could help level the
playing field and brighten the long-term planning horizon for wind power.” The bill also represented “the strongest national
policy for solar power in two decades,” according to Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. For
the first time since 1985, homeowners who install solar energy systems will receive a tax credit worth 30 percent of the system
cost, capped at $2,000. Businesses that purchase solar equipment will also receive a credit worth 30 percent of the system cost.
“These tax credits will bring solar power costs over the tipping point in many areas of the country,” Mr. Resch said.
Alternative Energy – Bush Supports

BUSH SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES

Bush, 2008 (President Bush, Speech on June 18, Office of the Press Secretary)

In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration
has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've
mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels.
With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to
become better stewards of the environment.
Alternative Energy – GOP Opposes

REPUBLICANS OPPOSE GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Edwards, 2008 (John G., “Bill To Lift Solar Power Halted By Republicans”, Las Vegas Review Journal, June 18)

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.
Alternative Energy – Democrats Support

STRONG DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Mufson, 2007 (Steven, Washington Post Staff Writer, “Democrats Hope to take From Oil, Give to Green Energy”, Washington
Post, January 4)

House Democrats are crafting an energy package that would roll back billions of dollars worth of oil drilling incentives,
raise billions more by boosting federal royalties paid by oil and gas companies for offshore production, and plow the
money into new tax breaks for renewable energy sources, congressional sources said yesterday.

DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES

Lengell, 2007 (Sean, “Democrats Eye Cutting Dependence on Foreign Oil; Plan Pushes Renewable Energy Such As Wind, Solar,
Geothermal”, Washington Times, June 29)

The House's Democratic leaders are planning an end of summer energy onslaught - a broad legislative push designed to make
the nation less dependent on foreign oil. The developing plan would extend existing tax credits for the production of
renewable energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power, and create new incentives for the use and
production of renewable energy.

DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Lautenberg, 2008 (Senator Frank, Weekly Democratic Radio Address, democrats.senate.gov, April 26)

“Democrats are fighting hard for change, and we have made real progress. We passed a new energy bill that begins to turn
the tide by improving gas mileage for cars and trucks, investing in clean, renewable fuels and other smart energy steps, such as
improving the energy efficiency of our buildings. “The long-term solution to our energy crisis lies in alternative fuels and
efficiency. If we aggressively promote innovation in solar, wind, biofuels and geothermal power, we can help lower energy
prices, turn the tide on global warming and strengthen our national security. And while we’re doing all that, we will be creating
hundreds of thousands of good new jobs right here in America.
Biofuels – Popular In Congress

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FROM BIOFUELS

Whitman, 2006 (Christine Todd, President of the Whitman Strategy Group, former Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, “Open Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government”, June 27)

Similarly, representatives of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol,
biodiesel, and biomass fuels. Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment, but also
promotes rural economic development and may lessen the international trade gap. American innovation, in this case to improve
the environment and stimulate economic growth, can always count on bipartisan support.

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR BIOFULES IN CONGRESS

The Hill, 2007 (“Rapidly Growing Investment in Biofuels Catches Markets Off-Guard”, March 6)

Biofuels find significant bipartisan support in the United States and a number of supportive policy ideas are being floated
in and around Congress. These include raising RFS standards significantly, implementing loan guarantees or tax breaks, or
improving infrastructure for ethanol use. Senators have proposed mandates in these areas rather than softer supports. The
focus on distribution infrastructure reflects a fear that production capacity will grow while demand is stunted by a lack of access,
leading to an ethanol glut.
Biofuels – Popular Among Public

MAJORITY OF PUBLIC WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO DO MORE TO PROMOTE BIOFUELS

Energy Resource, 2006 (“Majority of US Adults Would Give Thumb’s Up to Candidates Who Support Biofuel Development”,
October 25)

Four of every five U.S. adults say they are likely -- and four out of every 10 say they are very likely -- to support federal and
state political candidates who favor providing incentives to promote increased national production and availability of
biofuels, a new survey shows. Released today by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the survey conducted by
Harris Interactive also finds that 50% of U.S. adults strongly agree that national and state governments are not doing
enough to promote production of biofuels, which are made from agricultural crops or plant matter. Additionally, 82% of
adults say national and state governments should provide financial incentives to biofuels producers to encourage the
production and availability of biofuels. "A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial
incentives to promote greater development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil," said Brent
Erickson, executive vice president of BIO's Industrial & Environmental Section. "And they seem ready to support political
candidates who support biofuels and favor such incentives."

OVERWHELMING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR BIOFUELS

BIO, 2006 (Biotechnology Industry Organization, “Survey Shows U.S. Adults Support Government Incentives for Biofuels”,
October 18)

Four in five U.S. adults (80%) strongly or somewhat agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to
promote production of biofuels -- fuels made from agricultural crops or plant matter -- according to a new survey released by
the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of BIO, said, "Developing domestic
biofuels and ending our over-reliance on foreign oil appear to be top concerns among Americans in this election year, our
survey finds. Reducing dependence on oil and lessening environmental impacts are important to our nation's future economic
growth and competitiveness. A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to
promote development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil. And they are ready to support
political candidates who favor such incentives."

PUBLIC SUPPORTS BIOFUELS – SPECIFICALLY ETHANOL

Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008 (“Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy”, March 6)

Comparable majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents also favor more funding for ethanol research, but
support for this policy has slipped among all three groups since February 2006.
Biofuels – Bush Supports

BUSH SUPPORTS THE USE OF BIOFULES

Rohter, 2006 (Larry, “With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil is Satisfying it’s Fuel Needs”, New York Times, April 10)

In his State of the Union address in January, Mr. Bush backed financing for ''cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not
just from corn but wood chips and stalks or switch grass'' with the goal of making ethanol competitive in six years.

INCENTIVES FOR BIOFULES HAVE THE SUPPORT OF BUSH

DOE, 2007 (U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal
Funding”, February 28)

Today’s announcement is one part of the Bush Administration’s comprehensive plan to support commercialization of
scientific breakthroughs on biofuels. Specifically, these projects directly support the goals of President Bush’s Twenty in Ten
Initiative, which aims to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector to the equivalent
of 35 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2017. Funding for these projects is an integral part of the President’s Biofuels
Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and
perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels, electricity, and other products. The solicitation, announced a year ago,
was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. However, in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bush’s Advanced
Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative, within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct 2005), Section 932, Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling.
Biofuels – Democrats Support

DEMOCRATS SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF BIOFUELS

Bellatoni, 2006 (Christina, “Democrats Push Ethanol Growth; Bills Promote Alternative Energy, ‘Flex Fuel’ Vehicles”,
Washington Times, May 12)

House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America, and they
introduced bills to expand production of ethanol. "We can grow new energy here at home from American farms to
American families," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota Democrat.
Cap & Trade – Republicans Oppose

REPUBLICANS OPPOSE CAP AND TRADE REGULATION

Hunt, 2008 (Tam, Community Environmental Council, Renewable energy World.com,


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story?id=52717)

This brings us back to cap and trade. Any legislation that could be passed by this Congress this year and not vetoed by
President Bush will have far less impact on consumer behavior than market forces are already achieving. Republicans in
Congress have a decent point when they say the last thing consumers need right now is even higher prices due to federal
legislation (though higher prices in the short and mid-term would likely lead to longer-term cost savings for consumers as
alternatives came online in a big way).
Cellulosic Ethanol – Lobbies Support

POWERFUL POLITICAL INTEREST GROUPS SUPPORT CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

Lashinsky and Schwartz, 2004 (Adam and Nelson D., “How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline, Forever”, Fortune Magazine,
January 26)

What's more, powerful political lobbies in Washington that never used to concern themselves with botanical affairs are
suddenly focusing on ethanol. "Energy dependence is America's economic, environmental, and security Achilles' heel,"
says Nathanael Greene of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a mainstream environmental group. National- security hawks
agree. Says former CIA chief James Woolsey: "We've got a coalition of tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, hawks, and
evangelicals." (Yes, he did say "evangelicals"--some have found common ground with greens in the notion of environmental
stewardship.)
Cellulosic Ethanol – Bush Supports

BUSH SUPPORTS THE TRANSITION TO CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

DOE, 2007 (U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal
Funding”, February 28)

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385
million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the biorefineries are expected to produce
more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. This production will help further President Bush’s goal of making
cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012 and, along with increased automobile fuel efficiency, reduce
America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years.
Corn Ethanol – Unpopular Among Public

PUBLIC OPPOSES THE MANDATE FOR CORN ETHANOL

National Center for Public Policy Research, 2008 (“Farm-Belt Voters Favor Eliminating or Reducing Corn Ethanol Mandate,
Poll Finds”, June 10)

Most Americans, including those living in the Farm Belt, want Congress to reduce or eliminate the corn ethanol mandate,
according to a new poll released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The poll, published by the Public
Opinion and Policy Center of the National Center for Public Policy Research, found that 41% of Americans want Congress to
repeal the corn ethanol mandate entirely, while 35% want Congress to repeal the law it passed just last December, which
will double it. Just 6% want the mandate to increase as planned while 5% want it to be even expanded further.
Corn Ethanol – GOP Opposes

REPUBLICANS OPPOSED GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CORN ETHANOL

Associated Press, 2008 (June 30)

The Environmental Protection Agency is being urged to reduce ethanol production this year. Almost 50 House
Republicans say the energy law requiring production of 9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 has pushed up corn prices,
hurting low-income people and livestock producers. The Agriculture Department says 30 to 35% of this year's corn crop is
slated for ethanol. Corn prices are up more than 80% in the past year. This year's crop is being hurt by flooding in the Midwest
and drought in the South. The Agriculture Department says farmers will harvest 9% fewer acres of corn this year. The House
Republicans say the administration could immediately affect the supply of corn used for food and feed.
Corn Ethanol – Democrats Are Split

DEMOCRATS ARE SPLIT ON CORN ETHANOL

LA Times, 2007 (November 28)

But a plan to dramatically increase ethanol production has become a major sticking point in congressional negotiations to
complete work on the bill. And it has created a challenge for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose Democratic caucus has
split over the issue. Pro-ethanol Democrats and farm groups want the bill to require a nearly fivefold increase by 2022 in
the amount of home-grown alternative fuels that must be blended into gasoline. They say the mandate would reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign oil and help America’s farmers. Democrats on the other side, joined by environmental and food-industry
groups, think the mandate could raise the price of corn used for food; harm the environment by using more land to
produce biofuels; and gouge taxpayers by expanding ethanol subsidie.
Geothermal Energy – Bush Opposes

BUSH OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

Butler, 2007 (Rhett A., “Bush Administration Cuts Funding for Geothermal Energy”, Mongabay.com an Environmental Science
and Conservation News Site, March 13)

The Bush Administration is seeking to eliminate federal funding for geothermal energy research according to a report from
Reuters. Oddly, the move comes as the White House has made a push for renewable energy to reduce dependence on foreign oil
imports. Apparently the administration appears to be focused on biofuels as liquid fuels and nuclear for electricity
generation. "The Department of Energy has not requested funds for geothermal research in our fiscal-year 2008
budget," Reuters quoted Christina Kielich, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, as saying. "Geothermal is a mature
technology. Our focus is on breakthrough energy research and development."
Hydrogen Cars – Popular Among Public

AMERICAN PUBLIC INCREASINGLY SUPPORTS HYDROGEN POWERED VEHICLES

Nguyen, 2008 (Daisy, Associated Press, “Hydrogen Fuel Station Opens in LA”, July 3)

Although there are few hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles on the road, supporters hope the station will show the public
that hydrogen can become a mainstream, eco-friendly alternative to petroleum. California officials see it as part of the
Hydrogen Highway, a developing network of fueling stations to promote commercialization of hydrogen-powered cars. "It
was only a few years ago that this was just a concept; now you can see it, touch it and feel it," Fred Joseck, technology
analyst of the U.S. Department of Energy's hydrogen program, said at the opening ceremony.
Nuclear Energy – Popular Among Public

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS POPULAR AMONG THE PUBLIC

Taylor, 2006 (James M, Managing Editor of Environment and Climate News at the Heartland Institute, “Public Favors Nuclear
Power: Poll”, October 1)

Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles
Times. In a telephone poll of nearly 1,500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1, 61 percent of respondents said
they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming, while only 30 percent opposed it.
The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean, economical, and
environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power.
The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results, published August 4, are in line with increasing support for nuclear
power in newspaper editorial departments. Shortly after the poll results were released, the Miami Herald and
Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.

MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PUBLIC SUPPORTS NUCLEAR ENERGY

Bisconti, 2006 (Ann Stouffer, Ph.D. and President of Bisconti Research Inc., “Clear Majority of Americans Agree Nuclear
Energy Will Play Important Future Role in Electricity Supply”, May)

There is a consensus among Americans that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting the nation’s electricity
needs in the years ahead, according to two March national public opinion surveys conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. with
GfK NOP (formerly NOPWorld and RoperASW). Eighty-six percent of the public and 88 percent of college graduate voters
agree that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting future electricity demand. Majorities also support
license renewal for existing nuclear power plants and “definitely building” new nuclear power plants. Seventy-three percent of
Americans would find it acceptable to add a new reactor at the nearest existing nuclear power plant site. The Nuclear Energy
Institute sponsored the two surveys. The general public survey was based on telephone interviews with a nationally
representative sample of 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 and older. The margin of error in this survey was plus or minus three
percentage points. A national sample of 500 college graduates who are registered to vote also was surveyed, with a margin of
error of plus or minus five percentage points.
Nuclear Energy – GOP Supports

GOP SUPPORTS RELIANCE ON NUCLEAR POWER

NEI, 2000 (Nuclear Energy Institute, News Release, “Republican Platform Recognizes Nuclear Energy’s Environmental
Benefits”, July 30)

The Republican National Convention today voted on its national platform, which recognizes nuclear energy, along with
hydro power, as America's leading sources of clean electricity. The platform language states: "The current administration
has turned its back on the two sources that produce virtually all the nation's emission-free power: nuclear and hydro, the
sources for nearly 30 percent of the country's electricity. Because of cumbersome federal relicensing of hydro and nuclear
operations, we face the prospect of increasing emissions and dirtier air." The following is a statement by John Kane, vice
president of governmental affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, in response to the platform language.
RPS – Controversial In Congress

FEDERAL RPS IS EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL – GENERATES RIFTS WITHIN CONGRESS

Davenport, 2007 (Coral, Congressional Quarterly Staff, “A Clean Break in Energy Policy”, CQ Weekly, October 8)

Experts believe Congress is more likely to embrace the renewable energy standard than other climate-change proposals that
require especially difficult political trade-offs, such as imposing new carbon taxes. But the renewable standard, proposed by
New Mexico Democratic Rep. Tom Udall and Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Todd R. Platts, remains enormously contentious.
It faces powerful opposition from many big, investor-owned utilities that would probably have to raise rates and cut shareholder
dividends in order to pay for more expensive electricity. The companies’ Washington trade group, the Edison Electric Institute,
has branded the proposal “little more than an electricity tax” consumers would have to pay on top of the energy they use. Coal
producers and the United Mine Workers are also strenuously fighting the mandate. So is President Bush, who, notwithstanding
his support for the Texas renewable energy standard, believes such mandates should be confined to those states that want
them. The proposal is also creating regional rifts within Congress. House members and senators from the Southeast
contend that their region will have to shoulder an especially heavy burden because of a shortage of wind power, meaning
utilities in states such as Georgia and Tennessee would have to import considerable amounts of renewable energy from
elsewhere. Those objections convinced senators to refuse to take up a renewable energy standard that Energy and Natural
Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico proposed this summer, despite the fact that the chamber endorsed similar
proposals three times in the past. Bingaman and Udall are prominent figures in the debate because their home state is a major
source of geothermal energy.
RPS – Popular In Congress

RPS IS EXTREMELY POPULAR IN CONGRESS – IT WILL BUILD POLITICAL CAPITAL

NYT, 2006 (New York Times, December 10)

Now some analysts and money managers are hoping the imminent Democratic takeover of Congress will also be bullish for
alternative energy stocks by improving prospects for favorable legislation for the industry. One likely initiative, known as a
national renewable portfolio standard, would require utilities to derive 10 percent of their electricity output from renewable
sources by 2020. Currently, less than 3 percent of electricity is generated from such sources. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat
of New Mexico, the presumptive chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, says he hopes to pass
“some version” of a renewable portfolio standard in the next Congress. The details of such legislation — as well as whether
it would be approved by Congress and signed by President Bush — are very much uncertain. But that hasn’t stopped investors
from placing their bets. Democrats may be in the forefront, but they aren’t the only ones to jump on the alternative energy
bandwagon, said Randy Gwirtzman, a research analyst at Baron Capital, which is based in New York. “Both sides of the aisle
have shown they’re in favor of alternative energy sources,” he said. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, for
example, is concerned about the nation’s reliance on imported oil. “With the surging prices of oil,” he said, “there’s a strong
feeling among Republicans that our economy and national security can be damaged if we don’t decrease our
dependency.” Mr. Gwirtzman recommends shares of SunPower, which he said has a highly competitive solar-cell product line that is well positioned to
benefit from a more sympathetic Congress. Stuart Bush, technology analyst at RBC Capital Markets based in Austin, Tex., also likes SunPower, which is a spin-
off of Cypress Semiconductor. Mr. Bush says SunPower solar cells are more efficient than the industry average in converting solar energy into electricity. Unlike
many other alternative energy companies, SunPower already generates a small profit, and its revenue could reach $600 million next year and $1 billion in 2008,
Mr. Bush said. A renewable portfolio standard should help alternative energy move closer to parity with traditional energy sources, Mr. Bush said. “Each
technology individually is on a path to reducing costs and achieving parity with traditional energy sources, some very dramatically. The wind industry is probably
closest to achieving economic viability without any support” from the federal government. One company he favors is Zoltek, which makes lightweight carbon-
fiber blades for wind turbines. Zoltek could also be helped by a longer extension of federal renewable energy tax credits, a legislative goal of wind-energy
lobbyists. The production tax credits, which reward electricity producers for each kilowatt of energy they generate from renewable sources, are scheduled to
expire next year. In the past, the credits have typically been extended for two years at a time, which the wind-energy industry maintains is too short a period to
stimulate long-term investment. Democrats will support a longer extension, Senator Bingaman said. “Clearly, we do need to extend
those tax credits that relate to renewable energy, and we need to do so for a longer period,” he said. A consensus on
alternative energy is perhaps closest in biofuels, which have the support of many Republicans, particularly from farm belt
and southern states. “I do think we need to increase the use of biofuels as much and as quickly as possible,” Senator Sessions
said.
RPS – Popular In Congress

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR RPS IN CONGRESS

Manka, 2007 (Maria Surma, Prominent Journalist, “Congress To Pass Federal Renewable Energy Standard?”, Green Options)

The Dow Jones Newswire reports that Congress is “likely” to pass a renewable energy standard – in this instance called a
renewable portfolio standard (RPS) – in the next several months. Renewable energy requirements have stronger support on
both sides of the aisle as opposed to the more controversial limits on global warming emissions. Prudential Equity Group
analyst James Lucier went so far as to say, “An RPS can almost certainly be done this year… It's one of the few things
investors can count on in this Congress."

MASSIVE CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE PLAN

Synder, 2007 (Jim, Correspondent for The Hill, The Hill, August 3, http://thehill.com/business--lobby/disagreement-on-
renewable-energy-complicates-bill-passage-2007-08-03.html)

There is a Jenga-like quality to the delicate work of constructing national energy policy, where votes fall along regional lines as
much as party affiliation. As Democratic leaders worked Thursday to build support for one of their top priorities before heading
into the August recess, there was evidence of growing divisions within the caucus over efforts to promote renewable energy.
Mandates for the production of renewable fuels for transportation and electricity generation enjoy significant support
among Democrats and environmental groups, a key party constituency.

PLAN IS POPULAR AMONG DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS

PRL, 2003 (Press Releases Live, April 8)

U.S. Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Udall (D-CO), and Jim Leach (R-IA) Tuesday confirmed that they will likely
offer an amendment to the House energy bill requiring electric utilities to acquire 20% of their electricity from wind, solar
and other renewable energy sources by 2025. The amendment is based on bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1294, which was
introduced earlier this year. While its acceptance as an amendment and overall passage of the bill are uncertain, the federal
lawmakers are actively seeking support from their colleagues to get the best possible vote on the floor. The House energy bill is
not comprehensive without an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard, Tom Udall, a member of the House Resources
Committee, said. We are urging Congress to heed calls from farmers and consumers to make this renewable portfolio
standard part of this year's energy bill. I believe there is genuine, bipartisan support for this approach.
RPS – Democrats Support

STRONG DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR A FEDERAL RPS

Clotter, 2007 (Christopher, J.D. University of Dayton School of Law, University of Dayton Law Review, Spring, Lexis)

There also appears to be strong Democratic support for a federal RPS. n314 Democratic Senator and new Chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Jeff Bingaman, has already created an investigation team to determine how a
national RPS should be crafted. n315 Since Democratic leadership "is likely to support an RPS," there is at least some
possibility that a federal RPS 10 or RPS 20 will be enacted soon.
Solar Energy – Popular In Congress

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FOR SOLAR POWER

Strain, 2008 (Jeffery, Freelance Personal Finance Writer, “Solar Power’s Great, But Is It Worth It?” The Street.com, June 12)

With energy prices at all time highs, should you be looking to solar power to help your pocketbook? When it comes to politics,
there aren't many issues where more than 90% of Republicans, Independents and Democrats can agree -- but that's
exactly how things stand when it comes to developing solar power. According to a recently released SCHOTT Solar
Barometer report, 91% of Republicans, 98% of Independents and 97% of Democrats believe it's in the vital interest of the
U.S. to develop solar power.
Solar Energy – Unpopular In Congress

CONGRESS OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR SOLAR ENERGY

Wilson, 2008 (Keplie, Freelance Writer Covering Energy and Environmental Issues, “Democrats Are Blowing Out Best Chance
for Clean Energy”, June 30)

On June 18th, Congress failed for the tenth time this year to pass an extension of the renewable energy tax credits that
have nurtured the infant wind and solar power industries in the US but are set to expire at the end of 2008. The tax credit
extension should have been included in the big renewable energy bill that Congress passed at the end of 2007, but Republicans
blocked the provision because they didn't like closing oil tax loopholes to pay for it.
Solar Energy – Popular Among Public

MASSIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SOLAR ENERGY

Electrtic Light and Power Magazine, 2008 (Electric Light and Power Magazine and Utilitu Automation & Engineering T&D
Magazine (Joint Website), “New Report Finds Majority of Americans Want Solar Power, June 19)

A recent poll has found that a majority of Americans, across all political parties, support development and funding of
solar energy. According to the study, 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. The findings were reported in the SCHOTT
Solar Barometer, a survey conducted by the 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. Eighty-six percent of Independents supported 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). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent)
and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage
development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe
the ITC should not be extended.

MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS SOLAR ENERGY

Solar Hope Online, 2007 (“Majority of Americans Favor Solar on New Homes”, June 2)

According to a recent Roper survey commissioned by Sharp Electronics Corporation, nearly 90 percent of Americans think
that solar electricity should be an option for all new home construction, up significantly from one year ago (79 percent).
Three-quarters of survey respondents perceive solar power to be more important than ever, evidence that Americans
recognize the value of solar as a clean, renewable form of energy.
Solar Energy – Bush Supports

BUSH SUPPORTS SOALR ENERGY

Broehl, 2006 (Jesse, Editor of Renewable Energy Access, “President Bush Visits Solar Energy Facility”, February 21)

Solar energy enjoyed its fair share of prime time exposure this week thanks to President George W. Bush who visited a solar
manufacturing facility as part of his two-day tour aimed at shoring up support for his new energy initiatives he says will help
wean U.S. dependence from foreign oil. "The ultimate goal is to have solar technology on your home, and that home will
become a little power-generating unit unto itself, and that if you have extra electricity, that you could put it back in your grid, so
you become a power producer, but you're using renewable sources of energy to power your homes and to fire up your
refrigerators," Bush said. "And this is real. I really am thankful that the folks of this company gave me a chance to come and visit
about it."Included in the Bush Administration's new energy proposals unveiled during his State of the Union Address is the
Solar America Initiative (SAI), which proposes the largest funding increase for solar energy research in U.S. history. By
2015, this initiative aims to make solar power cost-competitive with conventional energy.
Wind Energy – Unpopular In Congress

CONGRESS OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR WIND ENERGY

Wilson, 2008 (Keplie, Freelance Writer Covering Energy and Environmental Issues, “Democrats Are Blowing Out Best Chance
for Clean Energy”, June 30)

On June 18th, Congress failed for the tenth time this year to pass an extension of the renewable energy tax credits that
have nurtured the infant wind and solar power industries in the US but are set to expire at the end of 2008. The tax credit
extension should have been included in the big renewable energy bill that Congress passed at the end of 2007, but Republicans
blocked the provision because they didn't like closing oil tax loopholes to pay for it.
Wind Energy – Democrats Support

DEMOCRATS FAVOR WIND ENERGY

DNC, 2008 (Democratic National Committee, “Idaho Taking the Lead in Wind Energy”)

Wind power is one of many technologies that Democrats want to invest in to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. From
more fuel efficient cars to wind power to cleaner gas, Democrats have taken the lead in cutting our addiction to oil. Idahoans
have shown that they are ready to take a lead in energy independence by their support for wind power and can be taken as a
model for other states in the use of this emerging technology.