You are on page 1of 36

Politics DA Z Seniors 08

With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Index 1

Index............................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1NC Shell [1/2]............................................................................................................................................................................................2
1NC Shell [2/2]............................................................................................................................................................................................3
Uniqueness – Won’t Pass.............................................................................................................................................................................4
Uniqueness – A2: GOP................................................................................................................................................................................5
Link – Alternative Energy Increases Political Capital.................................................................................................................................6
Link – Democrats Like Alternative Energy.................................................................................................................................................7
Link – Alternative Energy is Popular...........................................................................................................................................................8
Link – Pelosi Likes Alternative Energy.......................................................................................................................................................9
Link – Hydrogen Popular...........................................................................................................................................................................11
Link – A2: Bush Won’t Push Plan.............................................................................................................................................................12
Pelosi Key..................................................................................................................................................................................................13
Concessions Key........................................................................................................................................................................................14
A2: Bush is Not a Lame Duck...................................................................................................................................................................15
A2: Bush Won’t Push ANWR....................................................................................................................................................................16
ANWR Bad – Turns Case..........................................................................................................................................................................17
ANWR Bad – Native Culture....................................................................................................................................................................18
ANWR Bad – Ecosystem...........................................................................................................................................................................19
ANWR Bad – A2: Economy......................................................................................................................................................................20
ANWR Bad – A2: High Oil Prices Good..................................................................................................................................................21
ANWR Bad – A2: Oil Industry Good........................................................................................................................................................22
Non-Unique – Will Pass.............................................................................................................................................................................23
Non-Unique – A2: Democrats...................................................................................................................................................................24
Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link.............................................................................................................................................................25
Bush is Not a Lame Duck..........................................................................................................................................................................26
Link Turn – GOP Hates Alternative Energy..............................................................................................................................................27
Link Turn – A2: Democrats Like Alternative Energy................................................................................................................................28
Link Shield – Bush Won’t Push Plan.........................................................................................................................................................29
Link Shield – Democrats won’t Compromise...........................................................................................................................................30
Link Shield – Media Won’t Cover.............................................................................................................................................................31
ANWR Good – Economy..........................................................................................................................................................................32
ANWR Good – High Oil Prices Bad.........................................................................................................................................................33
ANWR Good – A2: Turns Case.................................................................................................................................................................34
ANWR Good – A2: Native Culture...........................................................................................................................................................35
ANWR Good – A2: Ecosystem.................................................................................................................................................................36

Basic Bush Bad DA. ANWR won’t pass now because Bush is perceived as lame duck and Democrats control the floor.
Alternative energy policy will 1. be perceived as a win for Bush which allows him leverage to his agenda, and 2. be a concession
to Democrats (in the neg block, you can also add a Pelosi link which is also sweet) which allows Bush to pass ANWR. ANWR is
bad because of multiple reasons.

Politics DA 4 Life 1
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

1NC Shell [1/2] 2

Bush wants to lift ANWR, but as a lame duck and Democrats holding Congress, it’s not going to pass – Bush needs a win to
strengthen his clout.
McClatchy News 7/18/08 “Is Bush going out with 'a whimper'?” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/44730.html JLee

WASHINGTON — The White House wants the American public to think it's on the rebound, scoring important triumphs in Iraq and
North Korea and on domestic spying while taking tough stands on oil drilling and relief for homeowners. The White House, the
experts and the polls say, however, is wrong. President Bush hasn't begun a comeback. "All this is pretty much a lot of noise. He's going out with a
whimper," said Erwin Hargrove, presidential scholar at Vanderbilt University and the author of "The Effective President." Adam Warber,
professor of political science at Clemson University, had similar thoughts. "It's very difficult for him now. His public approval is
so poor, he doesn't really have a lot of political capital," Warber said. Congress is run by Democrats reluctant to give Bush any
domestic victories, and his approval ratings have remained at or near a dismal 30 percent for about a year. Bush is the nation's
fifth lame duck since the 22nd Amendment limited presidents to two terms, beginning with Harry Truman's successor in 1952. One was Richard Nixon, who resigned because of
Watergate-related scandals 19 months into his second term. The others left office with strong approval ratings. Bill Clinton's was 59 percent in a July 2000 Gallup poll. Ronald Reagan's number when he left office was 64 percent. Dwight D. Eisenhower hit 59
percent approval just before stepping down. Bush's achievements, which are fueling the White House PR machine, flow from his recent tendency to compromise more on national security issues. In recent weeks Bush: *Discussed with Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al Maliki what the White House called "a general time horizon" for cutting the number of American troops in Iraq. Bush said he wasn't endorsing timetables, which he's long opposed. *Took North Korea, which he once labeled part of an "axis of evil,"
off the list of terrorism sponsors and loosened trade sanctions after it agreed to provide details of its nuclear program. *Won congressional approval of $162 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, though only after including new college aid for military
veterans that he'd opposed. *Won his bid to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including the controversial provision that could allow immunity for telecommunications firms that participated in warrantless wiretaps. *Ended the executive ban on
drilling off most U.S. coastlines. *Tried to reassure the public, in his first news conference since April, that he understood their economic pain and was working to ease it. Bush was upbeat recently as he recalled his recent string of accomplishments. "People
say, 'Aw man, you're running out of time. Nothing's going to happen,'" he said. He rattled off his list, and looked ahead.. "What can we get done?" he asked. "We can get good housing legislation done. We can get good energy legislation done. We can get trade

there's plenty of time to get action with the United States Congress." But outside the White House, few were as
bills done. And

optimistic. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed Bush's energy policies, saying, "Really, the president's done nothing." His call for more drilling, Reid said, "Underlines
and underscores that the main organization he's trying to help are the oil companies." Congress needs to approve any end to the drilling ban, and with
Democratic leaders opposed, that's unlikely. There are more ominous signs for Bush that his power remains diluted. This week, Congress overrode his veto of Medicare legislation, and in the House of
Representatives, Republicans, who fear a rout in November's elections, put some polite distance between themselves and the White House. "You want the president involved, but in the context of the election, he's not on the ballot," said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-
Va., the House chief deputy Republican whip. "Our candidates are on the ballot." Next week, Congress is expected to consider help for faltering housing markets, including a rescue plan for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Some conservative

unless the president's approval rating


Republicans are wary, saying the bill could become costly to taxpayers. Passage is expected, but it won't come easily, nor will Bush find his path smooth elsewhere. Analysts say that

jumps — unlikely as long as the economy wobbles and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars continue — his clout is likely to remain diminished. "It's not clear he's turned
anything around, so the current view of him will probably endure for a while," said Bruce Buchanan, professor of government at the University of Texas. The best Bush can
do is keep trying to pile up victories, keep "trying to win the things he needs to win," said Tim Blessing, co-director of the Presidential Performance Study at Alvernia
College in Pennsylvania. Foreign policy is probably his best bet, since, as he showed with North Korea, he can effect change more quickly. And bold steps are often likely to get at least tacit political support, Blessing said, if only because "no senator or

few expect any major domestic-policy breakthroughs or any major Democratic concessions in the
congressman wants to go home and appear weak." But

months ahead. "Since it's an election year, and you have a Democratic Congress, you're just not going to see a lot of policy initiatives
going anywhere," Warber said. "The president is in a bind."

Alternative energy would boost Bush’s credibility and give leverage to pass agenda.
The Press Enterprise 6-25-08 (Michael McGinnis, “Inland Views; Bush can still salvage his energy legacy” ln) GRodarte

There is plenty of room for criticism in the handling of the wars, and undoubtedly, it will be discussed in great detail for many years to come. But I feel that Bush's greatest failure will be his energy policy , or
more precisely, the lack of a cohesive energy policy. In his final months as a lame-duck president, Bush still has one deadly weapon: the veto. Our president makes no bones about being an oilman, and it's no great secret that oil money has played a role

the development of alternative fuels. This


throughout his presidency. Bush is blatantly pandering to big oil by threatening to veto any action by Congress to remove oil-industry tax breaks and use those funds to further

would undoubtedly be the crowning touch to an ignoble administration. We have an energy crisis. There is no doubt that we are a great nation that is full of rich resources and a tremendous
wealth of brainpower. We have demonstrated time and again our "can-do" attitude. So why do we insist on an energy policy that depends on foreign oil and the utilization of food crops to augment our fuel supply? We are subsidizing every gallon of ethanol
produced in this country and placing a tariff on every gallon imported to protect this boondoggle. Some California utilities are showing leadership, such as Southern California Edison's commitment to a large-scale solar energy installation, which will exceed

250 megawatts. Additionally, Edison will be involved in one of the largest wind turbine parks with the Tehachapi wind project. This is the kind of leadership thatmust come from our president and Congress. We must
have a viable national energy policy with clearly defined goals. We need to develop our vast coal reserves; and yes, we have the technology to make coal energy cleaner. But, as always, it is expensive to make a clean-burning fuel. Nuclear generation looks
interesting, but only if we can resolve the problem with the disposal of spent fuel. Unfortunately, the free ride with cheap energy is over, but as I see it, solar energy is the Holy Grail, the panacea for our future. It's not cheap (yet), but the price is dropping and

Bush can still shape his presidential


new technologies are coming forth. The amount of money going to an exceedingly wealthy industry (big oil) could be better spent on developing more efficient alternative fuels.

legacy in a positive way by just doing the right thing to establish a viable energy policy that lessens our dependence on oil.

Democrats are committed to alternative energy – Plan is a concession to Democrats.


Federal News Service, 5-7-2K8 (NEWS CONFERENCE WITH HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP; SUBJECT: ENERGY PRICES; LOCATION: H-210, THE
CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C, ln) GRodarte

This effort here is to start to fund alternative energies so we have an alternative energy policy that fills
out our energy strategy, because for the last six years we've done exactly what the Republicans have suggested -- from drilling and
opening more land, without a policy that deals with alternatives. So, the entire approach of the House Democratic
Congress, and other colleagues, is to have an alternative energy policy, invest resources in creating alternative energy
policies that deal with diversifying America's energy sources so we have a strategy that seizes the
future and does not force the taxpayers or the consumer, wedded to a past energy source which is only oil.

Politics DA 4 Life 2
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

1NC Shell [2/2] 3

ANWR is bad – Laundry list.


Peichel, 08 (Jeremy, Buena Vista University, “An In-Depth Look at the Ethical Dilemma of Drilling for Oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge”, 4/30/08,
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2008-04/msg04349.html) CMair

Although the drilling in the refuge has a 75% approval rating among the Alaskan population, according to a February 2000 poll conducted by the Dittman Research Corporation,12 it is not necessarily popular among the people directly affected for several reasons. First, the drilling would
occur on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . Since this is land owned by the federal government, it is not just up to the Alaskan people to decide. All Americans should have their say in this issue. The input of Alaskans is just as valued as the input of New
Yorkers on this issue. The key difference is information about the issue. Though it is possible that the Alaskans surveyed were uninformed on the subject of drilling, we would like to think otherwise. Logically, Alaskans would be more likely to know about the area, about the land, and about the animals that live there,

Native American opposition, it is likely that


simply because of their first-hand experience. The second reason lies within the dissident Alaskans, made up of mostly native people. The poll showed 23 percent opposed to drilling, with 3 percent unsure. Due to

within that 23 percent that opposed drilling is a portion of the native population. Two native tribes live in and around ANWR, the
Gwi’ichens, and the Inupiats. These tribes each have some land allotted to them on the coastal plain, the area proposed for
exploratory drilling . The Inupiats are very much in favor of drilling, where as the Gwi’ichen people oppose the move diametrically. Proponents of drilling suggest that the Gwi’ichen people are simply bitter about Exxon and British Petroleum letting the leases on tribal lands expire.13 Though

the native population that holds this land sacred does not want drilling, regardless of the motives behind it. Our
this may be true, it still shows that

sense of justice should ring out since we have already taken so much from Native American tribes; it seems like the right idea to
let them have what they want , keeping in mind, however, that another native tribe wants to drill. The Inupiats are still on very good terms with Exxon and BP, so they are the ones in favor of drilling. Finally, the environmentalists and those who study and appreciate ANWR are

These people would lose something sacred


also opposed to drilling. Though pictures of the coastal plain of ANWR show it to be desolate arctic tundra, a segment of the human population still enjoys visiting there and calling it their own pristine wilderness.14

and valuable to them if we were to develop on the coastal plain. Even though technological advancements in drilling have
reduced the footprint of drilling, there will still be oil derricks and pipelines on the horizon in that section of the refuge. That is
devastating to those who did not take for granted a pristine, though desolate most of the year, wilderness. Opponents of drilling
are most adamantly opposed on the basis that it harms the environment. Regardless of how safe oil companies claim to be, there
will still be spills in this area. Spills are primary tools that oil drilling uses to spoil the environment. Nevertheless, there are other
types of pollution besides contamination. Landscape pollution and human interference will also contribute some degree of
damage to the wilderness of the area . Oil companies claim, however, that new technology and advancements in drilling will reduce the amount of infrastructure and the size of facilities built.15 The fact that only fifteen hundred acres (equivalent to an average-sized
regional airport) will be directly affected by pipeline, road, or drilling facilities is a very handsome number, even for some environmentalists (see Table 1). With a refuge larger than 10 states, a regional airport seems like a small cost, but the effects could potentially strike farther than that. Table1. Land Use in the Arctic

The
National Wildlife Refuge Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 1998. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis. ONLINE. U.S. Geological Survey. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm [15 November 2003].

transportation and construction, in addition to human pollution, garbage, and other waste would possibly disrupt the balance of
nature in that area. With a human population drawing on resources in the refuge, there is also the potential for damage to delicate
balances like the watershed and predator-prey cycles . These factors are potential harms to the environment that need to be examined and properly addressed by the drilling authority if any drilling is to be environmentally acceptable. In the end,
however, we realize that some things, like the spills, are inevitable and are consequences inherent in the process of drilling and transporting oil. The animal population is the final consideration to examine in the case of ANWR. How does this affect the animals? Magazines like National Geographic show pictures of polar
bears casually strolling along the top of a pipeline.14 We have seen from the case of Prudhoe Bay that animal populations flourish with the introduction of these oil platforms. In fact, at Prudhoe Bay, the caribou population increased sevenfold.4 This is an obvious affect of human interaction on the caribou, and may not

Overpopulation and disruption of the predator-prey cycles may be the result if such was the case. Overpopulation
necessarily be a positive consequence.

of animals is a serious hazard to local towns and even the drilling facilities itself, as caribou may begin to interfere with the
normal operation of the rig and the transportation of workers and oil. These problems may cause accidents, which in turn harm
the natural environment. It is also possible that these animals have become somewhat dependant on the human interaction and
our development for their existence. What will happen to them when we leave eventually? Our departure may even throw the
balance into disruption. Although, the effect these drilling operations have on the animal population may seem beneficial on the surface, but after looking a little deeper, we see that effects such as exponential growth, which has now
leveled off, may do more harm good. Using Vincent Ruggiero’s criteria laid out in Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues, all of these circumstances and consequences need to be taken into consideration when evaluating which of our obligations and ideals
take the highest priority.16 Ruggiero lays out a strategy for objective evaluation of ethical issues by breaking it down into four main steps. The first step is to build the background details of the issue. The key, he states, is to present information from all sides,
not only for research and for information, but also to illustrate the importance of objectivity in ethical evaluation. The second step, according to Ruggiero, is to develop the underlying questions of the issue. What obligations need to be fulfilled when solving
this issue? Which of society’s ideals are involved and what will bring about the “greater good”? What are potential consequences involved in the issue? After addressing these questions generally, Ruggiero urges the critical thinker to move on to step three and
develop potential courses of action. Being specific is the key. Finally, he says we need to examine the ideals, obligations, and consequences to determine the most ethical course of action and the act accordingly.16 Having laid the groundwork of information

The government has a contract


on the issue, the next step is to determine the obligations, ideals, and consequences.16 In this instance, the main obligations are contractual agreements, self-improvement, and non-malfeasance.

with the Native American populations; they should respect their wishes when it comes to land allotted to them. The oil
companies have a contractual obligation to the government, consumers, and workers to provide safe and environmentally
conscious drilling facilities in order to do the least damage to the land. We as a society have the obligation to try to improve
ourselves, and the development of alternative energies accomplishes that. Improving our fuel supply, while caring for the future
of our environment, is a prime example of self-improvement. Finally, we have an obligation to non-malfeasance. All parties
involved must avoid infringing on the rights, or the well- being of any other group to preserve the integrity of that obligation.
The main ideals involved in this issue are fairness and social-responsibility. The government would need to be as objective as
possible in evaluating the motives of those opposed to drilling along with allowing them to air their concerns about the issue. We
promote social responsibility by being aware of the rights of those involved . We also promote it by taking that knowledge and ensuring that the oversight committees consist of people from both sides of the
issue. Through this equal representation, not only will future developments be secured, but also they will be executed with the cleanest, safest means, under strict observations, since it is the most ethical way to execute such an action.

Politics DA 4 Life 3
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Uniqueness – Won’t Pass 4

Won’t pass – Gridlock because Democrats want to pass an alternative energy development bill.
UPI 8/2/08 “UPI News Track Top News” Lexis JLee

Democratic Senate leaders said this week any action on an energy bill must wait until after the August recess since the two
parties have been unable to agree. Republicans want legislation to expand oil drilling offshore and in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, while Democrats are pushing for tax credits for alternative energy development and curbing oil
speculation.

Won’t pass – Pelosi won’t even put it on the floor.


Pittsburgh Post Gazette 8/2/08 “Do-Not-Drill Democrats are Damaging the Environment” Lexis JLee

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer
Continental Shelf. She won't even allow it to come to a vote. With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of
domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote.
Moreover, given the public mood, she might even lose. This cannot be permitted. Why? Because as she explained to Politico:
"I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet."

Won’t pass – Obama and McCain.


Yukon News 8/1/08 “Presidential candidates aren't targeting ANWR, for now” Lexis JLee

Both US presidential candidates are pledging not to allow oil drilling in ANWR if elected in November. Consistently, both
Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, and Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate,
have voiced opposition to drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "(Obama) doesn't believe that drilling in
ANWR is the single answer to our energy problem here in the United States," said Jeff Giertz, Obama's director of communications in Alaska.
"Reducing our dependence on foreign oil should be a priority, and that involves investing in renewable sources of energy like renewable fuels: ethanol, biodiesel, etc. Wind energy, solar
McCain has announced support for offshore oil
energy and other energy forms," he said. Drilling in ANWR is a "red-herring issue," said Giertz. Unlike Obama,
drilling, yet he remains opposed to ANWR drilling, reasoning that benefits resulting from drilling could not be retrieved "without
considerable costs to taxpayers." "Senator McCain has had a long-held opposition to drilling in ANWR -- much longer than
Senator Obama," said Giertz.

Won’t pass – Controversial.


Anchorage Daily 7/20/08 “Politics Still Keep ANWR Off Limits”
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2413893&title=Politics_Still_Keep_ANWR.html JLee

For Senate Republicans, that means ANWR simply wouldn't be part of their energy proposal between now and the election. "We
took ANWR off the table because we know it's controversial," Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, told reporters last week during a
Republican news conference on energy. "It's a hot button," acknowledged Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. "From a political point of view, we were told
categorically that since Obama has taken the stance he's taken, and McCain agrees with him, there's no chance we can get a vote on ANWR."

Won’t pass – Leadership is key.


Anchorage Daily 7/20/08 “Politics Still Keep ANWR Off Limits”
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2413893&title=Politics_Still_Keep_ANWR.html JLee

Jul. 20--WASHINGTON -- For weeks, nearly every time President Bush has spoken about energy, he has re-emphasized his support for
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Pressured by constituents whose budgets have been strained by high gas prices, members of Congress have seen movement to explore more domestic sources of
energy, particularly offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. And as gas prices continue to climb, polls have shown that people who once refused to consider drilling offshore or in

ANWR have begun to change their minds. For the first time, 50 percent of those polled by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press last month said they supported drilling in ANWR. It's a steep climb
from February, when just 42 percent of those surveyed said they could support opening the wildlife refuge to exploration. Yet politically, ANWR -- considered the nation's best onshore

prospect for a major oil discovery -- remains off limits. "Drilling is a red herring," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said firmly and unequivocally last week. "And that is not where we need
to go." The unmovable opposition has been an exercise in frustration for the Alaskans, who hope ANWR could spark the state's next big oil boom and want to persuade Congress that ANWR can be tapped in a safe, environmentally sound manner. "They're
flipping, whether it's Maine or Oregon or Minnesota," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, citing the polls that show a change in opinion. "States where people traditionally have been opposed are now saying, 'Well, wait a minute? What is going on in
ANWR? Why can't we be exploring there?' " It is an almost palpable shift, said John Katz, who heads Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Washington, D.C., office. "What I'm seeing is an increasing awareness by citizens outside the capital Beltway of the current
energy situation," Katz said. "In increments, the anger and frustration that Americans are feeling ... about the cost of energy is being communicated to the Congress." A public mood swing in response to the early 1970s energy crisis helped change enough

But today's concern about soaring fuel costs so far has not been
votes in Congress to bring about construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline and development of the North Slope oil fields.

strong enough to flip the vote on ANWR. "What I'm not seeing so far is any beneficial impact on the Democratic leadership
in the House and the Senate," Katz said. "They seem pretty well entrenched on ANWR, at least in this moment in history."

Politics DA 4 Life 4
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Uniqueness – A2: GOP 5

1. GOP doesn’t matter – Democrats hold the majority.

2. Cross apply 1NC uniqueness – For ANWR, Democrats won’t lend the floor to the GOP unless Bush can hold leverage.

3. They got it all wrong. GOP supports offshore drilling, but they dropped their support for ANWR.
Times-Picayune 8/2/08 “Senate panel hammers out energy proposal; Plan opens up Gulf for more exploration” Lexis JLee

WASHINGTON -- After weeks of negotiations, a bipartisan group of 10 senators Friday agreed on an energy plan that would
combine more offshore production with incentives for non-petroleum automobiles that they hope will break a partisan impasse
blocking congressional action on record gas prices. "I believe that we must break the partisan gridlock and adopt a policy that
can bring down energy prices now," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., one of five Democrats in the so-called Gang of 10. "I
believe this framework will do just that because, if adopted as outlined, it will send a very powerful message . . . that this is not
business as usual." The proposed legislation would open additional acreage in the Gulf of Mexico for oil leasing, and allow
Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia to opt in to exploration off their shores. It would retain an environmental buffer
extending 50 miles offshore where new production will not be allowed. All of the additional oil would be mandated for domestic
production only. The proposal also would dramatically increase tax incentives for developing vehicles that can run from non-gas
sources. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., one of the leaders of the coalition, said that leadership in both the Democratic and
Republican parties are uncomfortable with the proposal because it includes provisions that have been deemed unacceptable by
party leaders. But Landrieu said that the legislation produces the kind of compromise that both parties ought to embrace, given
that Americans are pressing Congress to deal quickly with $4-a-gallon gasoline. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
said that he hopes "this plan can begin to break the current legislative stalemate," even though it contains provisions that "I do
not agree with." Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said that he and other Republicans have offered some of the provisions included in the
agreement. "I certainly support proposals to increase domestic production and provide incentives to encourage alternative and
renewable technologies, and, in fact, have authored provisions to do this," Vitter said. "It's a shame we couldn't act on ideas like
these and others before the Senate adjourned early for a long recess." Landrieu said the agreement is important because members
of both parties moved from rigid positions blocking legislation to what she described as a reasonable compromise that will
accomplish a great deal. For instance, Republicans dropped their insistence that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be opened to
development, a proposal Landrieu said she supports but is a non-starter for most other Democrats. Democrats dropped their
demand that an energy bill take steps to crack down on speculators, accepting a compromise that they await any action until a
September report on the issue from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. "I'm not impressed with the plan," said state
Treasurer John Kennedy, who will be on the Nov. 4 ballot as Landrieu's Republican opponent. He said that the proposal relies on
tax increases -- supporters say it ends mistaken royalty breaks handed out during the Clinton administration -- and doesn't
include provisions to develop oil shale in the western United States. And, he said, it puts off decisions on tough questions on how
to develop a balanced energy plan to commissions and summits.

Politics DA 4 Life 5
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link – Alternative Energy Increases Political Capital 6

Alternative Energy could start up Bush’s agenda


The Post Standard, 7-3-2K8 (Mike McAndrew, “Clinton Brings Energy to CNY” ln) GRodarte

Clinton said, "We are more dependent on foreign oil today than we were on 9/11. Shame
In her speech to the public,

on us that we let that happen." She said President Bush and Congress should pass renewable energy
production tax credits, require higher gas mileage for cars, tax windfall profits of oil companies, and crack down on market speculators who are causing the price of a barrel of oil to
skyrocket. "There's a lot that could be done, but unfortunately I don't see much indication that's going to

happen in the remaining months of President Bush's term," she said. "I'm very disturbed by the lack of
leadership coming out of the White House and the difficulties we have in the Senate passing something
over the Republican opposition because of our rules." Then Clinton climbed into the rear of a black Chevrolet Suburban that gets 16 miles per gallon and
rode out of Syracuse.

Bush is weak because of failure to develop alternative energy sources – Plan would reinvigorate his agenda.
The Arizona Republic, 6-25-2K8 (Scott Wong, Ariz. summit focuses on oil solutions, ln) GRodarte

The high price of gas is not just the price you pay at the pump ," said Rep. Steve Farley, a Tucson Democrat who introduced HB 2664. "The
"

high price of gas is the pollution we are breathing in our lungs. The high price of gas is the hundreds of
millions of dollars we are spending in Iraq." House GOP spokesman Barrett Marson said Democrats are forgetting the House also quashed a bill that would have
required carmakers to make hybrid vehicles noisier. Ableser introduced the bill to make streets safer for the blind, but Marson said the proposal would have destroyed the state's hybrid industry. Panelist and

the Bush administration and Legislature have displayed a "lack of leadership and political
Sierra Club lobbyist Sandy Bahr said

will" by failing to adequately fund and develop alternative and renewable-energy sources.

Politics DA 4 Life 6
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link – Democrats Like Alternative Energy 7

Incentives are popular to Democrats


Oil Daily 6-5-2K8 (“Congress Mulls Tax Credits” ln) GRodarte

There is wide bipartisan support for extending production tax incentives for solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and other
renewable energy sources that are currently set to expire this year. The measure has been held up over internal squabbles among
Democrats about how to pay for the tax breaks. Fiscally conservative Democrats in the House want to offset the cost of the tax
breaks by repealing drilling incentives for the oil and gas industry, but that is a nonstarter with Senate Republicans. The
renewable industry says Congress needs to act soon to avoid disrupting investment in alternative energy projects. Domenici said
the renewable energy tax credits will pay for themselves by reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs.
"But now, all of a sudden, Democrats have decided that we shouldn't extend these credits unless they are paid for," Domenici
said. "The problem is that in this atmosphere, it is very difficult to find ways to do this that everyone can agree on.

Democrats push for alternative energy


Hammond 04, Founder of Carlist.com, MSNBC alternative energy correspondent, staff writer for Wired, 7-12-2K4 (Lou Ann, “The Greenest Democratic Convention Ever”
http://www.cerc04.org/press/inthenews_sa_071204.html) GRodarte

Democrats have regularly promoted renewable energy, recycling mass transportation, and reducing
pollution that leads to global warming ," said Bruce Hamilton, National Conservation Director of the Sierra Club. The DFC300A is the hardware that takes natural gas and internally creates hydrogen, which in turn creates electricity
without combustion Convention organizers are powering the convention with renewable energy, supplied by Constellation New Energy (a subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group, a Baltimore-based Fortune 500 national energy company). The media centers at the Convention will use renewable sources
including wind, hydroelectric power, biomass and solar energy. Each of these renewable energies emit lower levels of greenhouse gases and displace energy derived from power plants that depend on fuel from overseas. The Convention will also utilize a 250-kilowatt fuel cell power plant, supplied by
Connecticut based FuelCell Energy Inc to power the Democratic National Convention to be held at the Fleet Center in Boston July 26-29, 2004.. Fuel Cell Energy's DFC300A power plant has enough power to provide the base load electricity requirements of a 300-room hotel. The power plant will directly
convert natural gas, supplied by Keyspan Energy, into the hydrogen needed to electrochemically produce electricity. Fuel Cell Energy's DFC power plants generate power without combustion and, due to their favorable emissions profile, are an ultra-clean product since they meet the most stringent air quality
standards in the nation. The DFC300A fuel cell, combined with FuelCell Energy's 30 other customer installations throughout the world have generated more than 41 million kilowatt hours of electricity. "Being the first fuel-cell powered Convention is just one of the ways this event will make history," said
Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino. "We are very pleased that Boston and the Democratic National Convention will be a showcase for how an environmentally sound energy policy is good for Boston and for America." "The DFC power plant clearly shows the flexibility of stationary fuel cells for commercial
and industrial applications," said Herbert T. Nock, Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales of FuelCell Energy. "We delivered, set up and started the power plant in less than two weeks. The unit is so clean it can operate in downtown Boston with no impact on air quality. And it uses half the fuel because it
is twice as efficient as comparably sized power plants." With temperatures looming in the 80s and humidity running around 30-70 percent Boston will be feeling the heat and added congestion during the Convention. What they won't have to be as concerned with is clean air. The DFC300A power plant
produces 99.9 percent less harmful air pollution and 59 percent less carbon dioxide than traditional combustion-based fossil fuel power plants. General Motors will be providing hybrid pickup trucks and buses to the Democratic National Convention Center. Hybrids, which get the best mileage under 25 MPG,
generally known as city use, will provide 60 percent greater fuel economy and 90 percent fewer emissions than regular transit buses. Accusations by Kerry/Edwards against the Bush government "In President George Bush's government, where polluters actually write environmental laws and oil company
profits matter more than hard science and cold facts, protecting the government doesn't matter at all." "Even though 133 million Americans already live with unhealthy air, the Bush administration bowed to energy industry lobbying and rewrote rules to allow 20,000 facilities to spew more smog, soot and
mercury in the air." "Even though overwhelming scientific evidence shows that global climate change is a scientific fact, this administration has rewritten government reports to hide that fact." "We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment." Democratic Platform stance on

the Democrats want; Energy-


OPEC, EPA, CAFE, energy incentives and vehicle manufacturing So, what is Kerry/Edwards proposing for the United States if they are elected to govern us in November? According to the 41 page Democrat platform,

efficient vehicles "We support creating more energy-efficient vehicles, from today's hybrids to
tomorrow's hydrogen cars. We support the American people's freedom to choose whatever cars, SUVs, minivans and trucks they choose, but
we also believe American ingenuity is equal to the task of improving efficiency. We support improving fuel standards, and
because of the challenges this poses, we will offer needed incentives for consumers to buy efficient
vehicles, and for manufacturers to build them." Hydrogen "We are committed to developing hydrogen as a
clean, reliable domestic source of energy. Our economy cannot convert to hydrogen overnight, so we will fund research
to overcome the obstacles to hydrogen fuel and continue our other efforts to achieve energy independence." Renewable Energy
"Our plan begins with commonsense investments to harness the natural world around us - the sun,
wind, water, geothermal and biomass sources and a rich array of crops to create a new generation of
affordable energy for the 21st century. By mobilizing the amazing productivity of America's farmers,
we can grow our own cleaner-burning fuel. We support tax credits for private sector investment in clean air, renewable sources of
energy, and we will make ethanol work better for farmers. And we will ensure that billions of gallons of renewable fuel are
part of America's energy supply while striving for strong, national renewable energy goals." To move beyond OPEC "We
can improve our energy security in other ways. We will seek more diverse sources of oil around the world and here at home. We support balanced development of domestic oil supplies in areas already open for exploration, like the western and
central Gulf of Mexico. We support the expansion of new infrastructure to develop supplies from non-OPEC nations like Russia, Canada and nations in Africa. We will increase efficiency of natural gas use, develop Alaska natural gas pipeline, and

We will work to create new technology (scrubbing) for producing


enhance our nation's infrastructure to help supply natural gas more effectively. Coal "

electricity in a better, more efficient manner. Coal accounts for more than one-half of America's electric power generation capacity
today. We believe coal must continue its important role in a new energy economy, while achieving high environmental standardss. We will invest
billions to develop and implement new, cleaner coal technology and to produce electric and hydrogen
power." Electricity "The Federal Government is the largest single consumer of energy in the world. We will cut the federal
government's energy use and challenge local governments, corporations, universities, small businesses
and hospitals to do the same." Cleaner Air "We will strengthen the Clean Air Act, by controlling all of
the top pollutants and offering new flexibility to industries that commit to cleaning up within that
framework. We will reduce mercury emissions, smog and acid rain, and will address the challenge of climate change with the seriousness of purpose this great challenge demands. Rather than looking at American industries only as
polluters, we will work with the private sector to create partnerships that make a profit and a cleaner world for us all. At the same time, we will plug Republican-created legal loopholes and renew public enforcement of the law." What does all this
mean? In speaking to Kerry's staff, Kerry still wants to increase CAFE, to 37 mpg for each car manufacturer. Currently, car manufacturers have to meet 27.5 mpg for cars and 20 mpg for light trucks.

Politics DA 4 Life 7
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link – Alternative Energy is Popular 8

Increasing access to alternative energy fuels is popular-Alternative Fuel Grant Program proves
Thune 06, Republican Senator from South Dakota, 12-8-2K6 (John, US Fed News, Home Grown Energy Held Up By Politics, ln) GRodarte

I recently had the opportunity to attend a groundbreaking ceremony for a new ethanol plant in Loomis-yet another impressive
addition to South Dakota's budding alternative fuels industry. The remarkable progress our state has made in the renewable
energy arena has helped to transform South Dakota's agriculture industry and given our family farmers a market to sustain and
enhance their way of life. In Congress, I have been working on ways to continue the growth of South Dakota's alternative fuels
industry, which will ultimately have a positive impact on our state's economy, our farmers and American consumers across the
country. Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike have stressed the need to enhance renewable
energy research and provide consumers with more diverse energy options so America can become less
dependent on foreign sources of oil. However, for the past four months I've met resistance with some Senate Democrat
colleagues on a measure that would greatly increase access to ethanol, biodiesel and other home-grown renewable fuels for all
Americans. The Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Grant Program, which I introduced with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO)
and other Republicans and Democrats, would provide grants (up to $30,000) to gas stations owners for the
installation of alternative fuel pumps. These additional pumps would give consumers greater opportunities
to opt for cleaner, American-grown sources of energy, including E-85 ethanol, compressed natural gas, bio-diesel,
hydrogen and other alternative fuels. Our nation's automakers have put more than 9 million alternative fuel vehicles on the road
- close to 6 million of which are flex fuel vehicles that can run on E-85 ethanol or gasoline. The missing link? Availability. Out
of 180,000 independently owned gas stations, just over 1,000 of them (less than 1 percent) offer alternative
fuels such as E-85 ethanol. The Alternative Fuel Grant Program would address this serious gap in the
distribution system. The legislation has wide bipartisan support in the Senate; was cleared by the relevant
Senate committees; overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 355 - 9; and enjoys
the support of the nation's leading automakers, agriculture groups, and alternative energy organizations.
Despite this widespread support, one or more Democrat Senators have placed an anonymous hold on this non-controversial bill,
which prevents the full Senate from passing this common-sense legislation. With the backing of nearly every Democrat
in the House, a majority of Democrats in the Senate, and countless renewably energy and agriculture
groups, it leaves me to believe the hold-up of the Alternative Fuel Grant Infrastructure Program is purely
politically motivated. With the election season behind us, the time for partisan politics has passed, and the time for progress
is now. However, it seems this bill will not be able to be sent to the President until next year at the earliest because of these secret
holds on this common-sense, bipartisan legislation. I hope my colleagues will drop their objections when I reintroduce this bill
next Congress, so this measure can become law and consumers and producers can begin to enjoy the benefits of more home-
grown renewable fuels.

Politics DA 4 Life 8
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link – Pelosi Likes Alternative Energy 9

Plan will be a concession to Pelosi – Pelosi supports alternative energy programs, and she will solidify Democrats.
USA Today 07 July 30 “Pelosi gains support for energy bill” http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-30-congress-energy_N.htm JLee

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi solidified Democratic support behind her energy initiatives Monday and
quieted rebellious party members who feared U.S. energy production would be hurt. Democratic leaders reached agreement on
legislation that would impose nearly $16 billion in additional taxes on oil companies over 10 years and use the money to promote
renewable energy programs and energy conservation and efficiency. To garner broader Democratic support, Pelosi scrapped proposed changes in the way royalties are collected from offshore
federal oil and gas leases. Also dropped was a provision that would have made it harder for the federal government to designate nationally significant corridors for pipelines and electric power lines. Pelosi, bowing to Democratic lawmakers in oil-producing
regions, agreed to some changes in the way permits are issued for energy leases on federal land. Congress two years ago gave new authority for the federal government to designate energy corridors to ease power grid congestion. The House Resources

The speaker has sought to bring about Democratic unity" on


Committee, in its portion of the bill, had put severe restrictions on that authority, provisions the Democrats agreed Monday to scrap. "

the energy package, said a Pelosi spokesman, Drew Hammill. The Democratic bill avoids, however, several of the toughest energy fights, by not including measures to increase automobile fuel economy, a mandate to use more ethanol as a
substitute for gasoline, or to require electric utilities to use renewable fuels. These issues could still be brought up as amendments when the legislation comes up for a floor vote, probably Friday. It is likely to be the last action by the House before lawmakers
depart for the month-long summer recess. A sizable number of Democrats had opposed provisions they viewed as detrimental to domestic oil and gas production, including a requirement that energy companies pay cash for oil and gas taken under federal
offshore drilling leases. A coalition of 47 moderate to conservative Democrats, known as the "Blue Dogs," had threatened to withhold support unless the royalty-in-kind option was preserved and changes were made in the lease permitting and energy corridor
provisions. With strong GOP opposition to the bill, Pelosi needs the Blue Dogs' support if she is to fulfill a promise to get energy legislation passed before the August congressional recess. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, co-chairman of the Blue Dogs' energy
task force, said that while he still had some concerns he felt Pelosi had "moved along way in improving this bill." Republicans have ridiculed the Democrats' energy package, saying it ignores the need to produce more domestic oil, coal and natural gas or to

Pelosi and many other Democrats have


help expand nuclear power. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, dubbed it the "non-energy, energy bill." But

maintained it steers a new direction in energy priorities, seeking to promote conservation and renewable energy sources such as
ethanol and biodiesel and power from wind turbines. It includes tax breaks, loan guarantees and other incentives to develop
renewable energy sources, hybrid gas-electric cars that would get their juice from the electricity grid, and new efficiency
standards for an array of appliances and equipment. The energy legislation has been the focus of intense lobbying by both
industry and environmentalists in recent days. Environmentalists and advocates for renewable energy sources, especially the
wind industry, have urged lawmakers to add to the legislation a national requirement for utilities to produced at least 20% of their
electricity from renewable sources. Pelosi has been open to taking up the electricity issue on the House floor, though its prospects there
are uncertain. Lawmakers from much of the Southeast oppose a national renewable electricity requirement, arguing that utilities would not be able to comply without raising electricity
prices.

Plan will be a concession to Pelosi – Pelosi supports solar power.


Renewable Energy World 07 Feb. 28 “Pelosi Supports Important U.S. Solar and Fuel Cell Bill” http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=47595 JLee

In a meeting last Wednesday with solar and environmental lobbyists, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed her support for
H.R. 550, an important bill that would extend the residential and commercial investment tax credit (ITC) for solar and fuel cell
equipment for eight years -- and revise other key tax credits for those industries. Pelosi and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom met with members
of the Vote Solar Initiative, PV Now, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council at the Mascone Convention Center to discuss legislative priorities
for the environment and renewable energy. "Speaker
Pelosi stressed the need to work across party lines for long-term support of solar and
other renewables. She was especially supportive of H.R. 550, which will do great things for the solar industry," said David Hochschild,
Executive Director of PV Now. Hochschild was one of the solar advocates who met with Pelosi and Newsom. H.R. 550, also known as the "Securing America's Energy Independence
Act," would extend the residential and commercial ITC for eight years, modify the residential and commercial tax credit for photovoltaic systems to $1,500 per half kilowatt, remove
the 30% cap for commercial installations and the $2,000 cap on residential installations and provide three-year accelerated depreciation for commercial solar and fuel cell projects.
Renewable energy advocates hope that Pelosi's interest in the bill will make it a priority for both Democrats and Republicans in the House.

Pelosi supports alternative energy


Pelosi 07, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 3-1-2K7 (Nancy “Greening the Capitol” http://speaker.gov/issues?id=0023) GRodarte

“Today we say that the Capitol will be not just a shining symbol of our democracy, but a symbol of our
commitment to the future. Not only by the power of our ideas on energy independence, but by the
power of our example, we hope to send a message to the world and to the country.” - Speaker Pelosi, June 21,
2007Addressing global warming and protecting the environment are vital to protecting the health of all
Americans, particularly our children. For the sake of our future generations, America must provide
strong leadership to reduce emissions that are responsible for global warming. Increasing use of
renewable energy sources, including biofuels, and energy efficiency will help reduce emissions,
protecting future generations from this global threat. In less than a year, Green the Capitol efforts
have made significant progress. The U.S. House of Representatives will be one of the world's first
"carbon neutral" legislative bodies. We are purchasing wind power, using natural gas at the Capitol
Power Plant, and as we phase in more carbon efficiencies, purchasing carbon offsets. We are re-lighting the Capitol dome
with energy efficient lighting, and our cafeterias have taken steps to green their processes and equipment, including composting all food waste. A new food pulper reduces the weight of cafeteria waste by as
much as 70 percent by extracting water from it. The House now sells only 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper, and has installed compact flourescent lights. We are also encouraging green
transportation with a bike sharing program and a car sharing program for House employees.

Politics DA 4 Life 9
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte
10

Politics DA 4 Life 10
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link – Hydrogen Popular 11

Hydrogen Incentives are popular in Congress and with Bush-It creates an alignment between local and national interests,
creates jobs, and decreases oil dependence.
States News Service 07 1-22-2K7 (INGLIS PUSHES FOR BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT ON H-PRIZE ENERGY LEGISLATION, ln) GRodarte

U.S. Rep. Inglis (R-SC) and U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) will re- file their H-Prize hydrogen incentive bill tomorrow after it passed with overwhelming
bi-partisan support, 416-6, during the 109th Congress. It stalled last year in the Senate, therefore requiring it to be re-filed and passed in the new Congress. The H-Prize
Act of 2007 would provide incentives for breakthroughs in moving to a hydrogen economy. The grand prize is a total of $10
million in federal funds with up to $40 million to be raised in matching private capital for commercialization. " Moving to a hydrogen economy is the ultimate

triple play with perfect alignment between the local and national interest," Inglis said. "We can create jobs,
clean up the air and make America more secure by breaking dependence on Middle Eastern oil." The
H-Prize Act is the kind of energy legislation the country needs because of its broad support, and its
potential to attract the best and brightest entrepreneurial minds to hydrogen research, Inglis said. "The goal of the prize is
to develop the most non-governmental way to break through to a hydrogen economy," Inglis said. "We want to harness the power of the American 'can do' spirit and innate human competitive drive.

"Democrats are for alternative energy; Republicans are for alternative energy. The Congress is ready;
the President is ready. So let's do it." President Bush is expected to discuss alternative energy in tomorrow
night's annual State of the Union address.

Politics DA 4 Life 11
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link – A2: Bush Won’t Push Plan 12

Times have changed – Bush is calling on Congress to create better alternative energy technologies
UPI 7-29-2K8 (“Bush lists ways to reach energy security” ln) GRodarte

The United States has options to become less dependent on foreign oil, President George Bush said
Friday, but Congress must act now for the future. Opening environmentally sensitive areas to oil exploration, streamlining the permitting process for new
refineries and developing shale oil technologies won't make the United States less dependent on foreign oil overnight, Bush said in a speech at Euclid, Ohio. "But it will certainly send a clear signal to the
markets that the United States is no longer going to sit on the sidelines, that we're going to use our new technologies to find hydrocarbons right here in the continental United States," he told an audience at

Other ways to achieve energy efficiency include use of wind, solar and nuclear
Lincoln Electric Co. after touring the facility

power as well as exploring clean-coal technologies, Bush said. "But I'm here to talk about the meantime, the interim, the right now," Bush said.
"And if the United States of America cares about how much gasoline -- the price of gasoline, then we better get out there finding some supplies of oil and gas." Bush called on the

Democratic leadership in Congress "to pass good legislation on behalf of the consumers of the United
States of America."

Politics DA 4 Life 12
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Pelosi Key 13

Getting Pelosi on board is key – ANWR will pass.


Columbus Dispatch 8/1/08 “Oil-drilling issue left idle amid D.C. recess” Lexis JLee

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-West Chester, has pressed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to permit a floor vote
on a GOP-backed measure that would end the federal ban on drilling for oil off the U.S. coasts and in Alaska's Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. Pelosi has refused, saying it would damage the environment and wouldn't immediately reduce the price of
gasoline. There is little doubt that if Pelosi permitted a vote, majority of House members would favor the proposal. A
Quinnipiac Poll released yesterday shows that 64 percent of likely voters in Ohio favor drilling for oil off the coasts of the United
States and in the refuge. "Democrats have lost ground already," said Rep. David L. Hobson, R-Springfield. "This is a big deal" in
districts nationwide. Even some Democrats are trying to distance themselves from their leaders. Rep. Zack Space, D-Dover, who
is facing his first re-election campaign, said he is willing to consider signing off on drilling offshore and in the refuge.

Pelosi is key to put ANWR on vote – There’s already a bipartisan movement towards drilling in ANWR.
CNN Politics 7/17/08 “'Two oil men' to blame for high gas prices, Pelosi says” http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/congress.oil/ JLee

Pelosi said she would continue to oppose two policy changes that President Bush and congressional Republicans have been
advocating: lifting the ban on offshore drilling and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. Pelosi said
she had no plans to allow votes to lift a ban on offshore drilling despite widespread support for the move. A recent CNN poll
conducted by the Opinion Research Corp. found that 72 percent of those polled supported more offshore drilling. About a quarter
-- 27 percent -- backed Pelosi's position. The poll, conducted June 26-29, has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage
points. Pelosi said there are plenty of opportunities that oil companies should explore before environmentally sensitive areas such
as ANWR are open to drilling, pointing to the 33 million acres that have already been approved for offshore drilling and the 68
million acres of federal land in the lower 48 states that is open to exploration. "The impression that the White House has given
you is that if you could drill in these protected areas, the price of gasoline will come down," Pelosi said. "Even the president in
his press conference the other day acknowledged that that was not the case." Pelosi's renewed opposition to more drilling comes
as two bipartisan groups -- one in the House, the other in the Senate -- are trying to rekindle stalled energy legislation by forging
a compromise to expand domestic oil and gas drilling. The compromise would include new domestic drilling to satisfy
Republicans and promote conservation and alternative energy sources to satisfy Democrats, lawmakers said. Despite Pelosi and
the Democratic leadership opposing efforts to repeal a 1981 law barring most offshore drilling, the Senate group said its plan
probably would allow offshore drilling in new areas of the outer continental shelf. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, is bucking his
party's leadership by supporting new drilling. He said he and the other senators advocating the deal are "people who are all
seriously concerned about the issue who want to find solutions that are most likely to involve compromise." Another group
member, Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, said, "Somebody around here's got to do it. We think the Senate can vote in the
majority for energy proposals that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the pressure on gas prices." The Senate
group met behind closed doors Wednesday at the Capitol, seeking to forge legislation that could be introduced after the August
recess. Talks were to continue later in the week, according to one senator who attended the meeting. In the House, the bipartisan
"energy working group" -- formed by Reps. John Peterson, R-Pennsylvania, and Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii -- includes 23
members, roughly split between the two parties.

Politics DA 4 Life 13
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Concessions Key 14

1. Cross apply 1NC uniqueness – Democrats are specifically against ANWR, and they hold the majority.

2. In a Democrat majority, Bush needs a compromise to push agendas.


Washington Post 7/13/08 “Recent Bush Victories Smell of Compromise” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201616.html JLee

President Bush has racked up a series of significant political victories in recent weeks, on surveillance reform, war funding and
an international agreement on global warming, but only after engaging in the kind of conciliation with opponents that his
administration has often avoided. With less than seven months left in office, Bush is embracing such compromises in part
because he has to. Faced with persistently low public approval ratings, a Democratic Congress and wavering support among
Republicans, he and his aides have given ground on key issues to accomplish broader legislative and diplomatic goals, according
to administration officials, legislative aides and political experts. "To get something done or to get what you want or most of
what you want, you've got to compromise," said Nicholas E. Calio, who served as Bush's first legislative affairs director. "The
president and the White House are very focused on getting things done, and they don't abide the notion that he's a lame duck."
Bush's willingness to compromise remains limited, and he has threatened to veto several key measures winding through
Congress, from Medicare payments to housing reform. Yet any hint of accommodation is notable for a president who has often
pursued a confrontational strategy with Congress -- even when it was in GOP hands -- and who has stood behind an unpopular
war and go-it-alone policies abroad. "There hasn't been wholesale change, but there has been definite movement toward
compromise," said Thomas E. Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution. "What you're seeing is a willingness to
bend some when you're getting a broader objective. On other things, you finesse it."

Politics DA 4 Life 14
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

A2: Bush is Not a Lame Duck 15

1. Cross apply 1NC uniqueness – That’s what the White House wants you to think. Bush has zero capital. Prefer this evidence.
It cites a professor in presidential studies in Vanderbilt and Clemson.

2. Congress proves – Bush has zero influence.


Politico 7/16/08 “Bush walks like a duck as GOP bolts” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11785.html JLee

From Medicare to mortgages, President Bush’s lame-duck status is more and more evident in Congress, as restless Republicans
defect and power shifts to activist Cabinet members, such as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, willing to engage with
Democrats. Within hours of receiving Bush’s veto message on Medicare legislation on Tuesday, lawmakers overrode the
president, putting into law a bill that many Democrats — only weeks ago — didn’t think had enough votes to get through
Congress. Instead, Republican defections tipped the scales dramatically, and on the veto override, 153 members of the
president’s party joined 230 Democrats on the 283-41 vote. The Senate followed, 70-26, with 21 Republican defections. The
current crisis over the mortgage finance industry shows the other side of the coin. The president used a televised news
conference Tuesday to endorse Treasury’s plan to shore up investor confidence in the two troubled giants: Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. But again, Republicans are defecting, prompting delays in the House and forcing Paulson to rely on Democrats to
see the bill through Congress.

Politics DA 4 Life 15
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

A2: Bush Won’t Push ANWR 16

1. Cross apply 1NC uniqueness – Bush is pushing for ANWR now but Democrats are blocking it.

2. Bush wants to push ANWR – Speeches prove.


Washington Post 7/30/08 “Bush’s Olympic Hurdle” Lexis JLee

Mark Naymik and Stephen Koff write for the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "In Cleveland to raise money for Republican congressional
candidates, Bush made a stop at Lincoln Electric, which designs and manufactures welding equipment, including products used
to assemble gas pipelines and wind towers... "He used the bulk of the 25-minute speech... to call on Congress to support oil
exploration off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Politics DA 4 Life 16
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Bad – Turns Case 17

Drilling in ANWR reverses all alternative energy initiatives – It sends the perception that more oil is left and will reduce
motivation for alternative energy efforts.
Nicole Smith 08 Article Myraid, “An Argument Against Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” http://www.articlemyriad.com/anwr.htm JLee

Opponents of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to petroleum companies also offer legitimate claims to defend their
position (Loomis, 2002). Environmentalists acknowledge and bemoan the fact that Americans are addicted to oil, and they agree
with drilling proponents that the progress towards implementing alternative energy sources is painstakingly and frustratingly
slow. Drilling opponents contend that this fact is not a viable argument for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
however. First, perpetuating Americans’ habits of energy-dependence, they claim, will not help shift the culture away from
petroleum. In other words, drilling for more oil will only give the impression that there is always more oil to be had, which, in
turn, would be likely to reduce the motivation of individuals to pursue the advocacy and use of alternative energy sources.
Second, the fact that Americans need more petroleum does not justify causing what environmentalists believe will be massive
ecosystem damage as the result of drilling (Herndon, 2002; Loomis, 2002). In fact, opponents of drilling have suggested that
despite the large reserves believed to be in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the extraction of the petroleum in this region will
not meet the country’s energy needs for more than a few years—perhaps a decade at the most—and that the costs of
environmental devastation caused by drilling are not worth such a meager supply of oil.

Politics DA 4 Life 17
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Bad – Native Culture 18

Drilling in ANWR will destroy the native culture – Their lifestyle depends on it.
Patrick Leahy 08 U.S. senator from Vermont, “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/environment/anwr.html JLee

ANWR and Indigenous People: While oil development in ANWR would provide valuable revenue for some Native Americans,
such as the Inupiat, it would have potentially disastrous impacts on other Native Americans, in particular the members of the
Gwich'in Nation who live near ANWR. As they have for thousands of years, the Gwich'in depend on the Porcupine caribou herd
for food, clothing, and tools. The caribou are central to their spiritual life. Oil development in the 1002 area of ANWR, the
calving grounds of the Porcupine herd, would likely reduce the size of the herd and alter its annual migration patterns. This
would, in turn, threaten the very survival of the Gwich'in culture.

Cultural destruction should be rejected – It is valuable for all of humanity.


Rodolfo Stavenhagen 90 Professor at the United Nations University, “The Ethnic Question” p73.JLee

The struggle for the preservation of the collective identity of culturally distinct peoples has further implications as well. The
cultural diversity of the world’s peoples is a universal resource for all humankind. The diversity of the world’s cultural pool is
like the diversity of the world’s biological gene pool. A culture that disappears due to ethnocide or cultural genocide represents a
loss for all humankind. At a time when the classic development models of the post war era have failed to solve the major
problems of mankind, people are again looking at so called traditional cultures for at least some of the answers. This is very
clear, for example, as regards to agricultural and food production, traditional medicine, environmental management in rural
areas, construction techniques, social solidarity in times of crises, etc. The world’s diverse cultures have much to offer our
imperiled planet. Thus the defense of the collective rights of ethnic groups and indigenous peoples cannot be separated from the
collective human rights of all human beings.

Politics DA 4 Life 18
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Bad – Ecosystem 19

Drilling in ANWR will disrupt the ecosystem – It’s empirically proven.


Sands and Pahler 08 Elizabeth Sands and Stephanie Pahler, Columbia U, “Prudehoe Bay” http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceandsociety/web-
pages/Prudhoe%20Bay.html JLee

Prudhoe Bay is an important issue to consider when reviewing the ANWR controversy, because it provides an example of the
consequences and effects of constructing a large oil field in an almost identical environment. According to the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation Spill Data Base, there are on average 409 reported spills at Prudhoe Bay. While most
of these spills are small, 1.3 million gallons of 40 different substances ranging from acid waste to oil have been spilled between
1996 and 1999. Studies of diesel spills in the arctic have shown that 28 years after the spilling occurred there is still little
vegetation recovery and hydrocarbons remain in the soil, which is evidence that the future of wildlife surrounding oil fields is
constantly in danger. The oil fields disrupt the symbiosis existing in nature; thus, when vegetation is destroyed, the survival of
the animals relying on that vegetation as their sustenance is also at risk. Also, studies conducted by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game show that the female caribou productivity around the North Slope oil fields, including Prudhoe Bay, has declined
since oil production began because of the interruption of their calving grounds. The caribou demonstrate a 3-4 kilometer
avoidance of the structures on the oil fields, including roads and pipelines, and the same result is to be expected if the ANWR is
developed for oil production. The Arctic Refuge consists of 19 million acres and the proposed drilling would take up "only"
2000 of these acres. There are two problems with this however: first, the 2000 acres are only the land directly covered by
industrial machinery or roads; land underneath raised pipes for example, is not counted in the 2000 acres. Also, land completely
enclosed by infrastructure, so long as there is no infrastructure directly above it, is not counted either. Through observing the
caribou's interaction with the Prudhoe Bay facilities, it is obvious that they would distance themselves kilometers away from any
structure built on the ANWR, thus, not taking into account all the land within this distance greatly underestimates the true effect
the proposed oil fields would have. While the effects of the oil fields in Prudhoe Bay are estimated to extend over an area of
12,000 acres, the actual footprint of production covers over 640,000 acres.

Each ecosystem disruption risks extinction.


Montague 95 Peter, Rachel's Environment & Health News, The Four Horsemen -- Part 2: Loss of Biodiversity, December 14
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=651

Extinctions are dangerous for humans, but it is not immediately clear just how dangerous. In their 1984 book, EXTINCTION,
Paul and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held together by rivets. As time goes on, an occasional rivet will pop
out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but eventually if we pop enough rivets, a crash seems certain to occur. So
it is with humans and the other species with whom we share the planet. No single species is essential to our well being, yet it is
certain that we need biological diversity in order to survive. Therefore each time we diminish diversity, we take another
irreversible step toward the brink of a dark abyss. In the process, we desecrate the wondrous works of the creator.

Politics DA 4 Life 19
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Bad – A2: Economy 20

Empirically wrong – It’s our addiction to oil itself that hurts the economy.
Cleveland and Kaufman 02 Cutter J. Cleveland and Robert K. Kaufman, Department of Geography, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston U, “Oil
supply and oil politics: Déjà Vu all over again” http://www.sciencedirect.com JLee

The Bush energy presumes that a reduction in US import dependence no matter the size of that cut will help insulate the
economy from the deleterious effects of oil price increases. But this too is a false premise. Nearly every recession in the post-
WWII period has been preceded by an increase in the price of oil (Hamilton, 1983). The recessions associated with the 1973–74
and 1979–80 price shocks are well known. On the eve of the second oil price shock the US imported 46 percent of its oil. But at
the time of the price increases that contributed to the recessions in the 1950s and 1960s, the US imported less than 20 percent of
its oil. The lesson here is clear. It is not dependence on imported oil per se that makes the economy vulnerable to price swings,
but the dependence on oil itself. Oil is the lifeblood of industrial civilization, both as a fuel and as a chemical feedstock. Nearly
every human activity in industrial nations uses oil directly and/or indirectly. It should be no surprise that the production of GDP,
price levels, unemployment, and other important barometers of economic well being are tethered to the price of oil. A reduction
in our vulnerability to swings in the price of oil requires a reduction in our use of oil, regardless of where on the planet it is
produced. Coal and natural gas are relatively abundant, but in a greenhouse world these fuels may carry an increasingly heavy
price. There have been impressive recent cost declines for renewable energy systems such as wind and photovoltaics, but most
forecasts for the near term project only modest penetration of these technologies (IEA, DOE). This could change with more
aggressive policies that target these energy systems.

Politics DA 4 Life 20
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Bad – A2: High Oil Prices Good 21

Their argument assumes peak production which won’t happen until 2020, and it’s still only a fraction of oil demand.
Sands and Pahler 08 Elizabeth Sands and Stephanie Pahler, Columbia U, “Domestic Energy Consumption” http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceandsociety/web-
pages/facts%20and%20figures.html JLee

One of the main arguments of the pro-oil lobbyists has been that opening up ANWR for drilling will reduce US dependency on
foreign oil imports. Currently, Alaska's Northern slope produces about 200,000 barrels of oil per day. If ANWR were to be
exploited for oil, that number could increase to 1-2 million barrels of oil per day increasing total domestic production by 1-2
million barrels of oil per day. While at first this seems like a considerable amount, we would still be importing 13-14 million
barrels of oil per day, assuming domestic oil demand does not increase and other domestic oil reserves are not depleted. This
number also represents the peak production that ANWR could output, not likely to be reached until 2020 if drilling were to begin
immediately. From 1990-2000, the US saw a ten percent increase in oil demand so it is unlikely that demand will stay the same
in the upcoming years. As other domestic oil reserves are either approaching their peak oil production or have already passed it,
the prospect of significatly reducing import of foreign oil is unrealistic.

The DOE confirms – Even at its peak production, U.S. would still heavily rely on imports.
E Magazine 04 Environmental Magazine, source from MSNBC.com, “Department of Energy Says ANWR Oil Would Have Little Impact”
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1488 JLee

According to an analysis released last week by the Department of Energy (DOE), opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR) to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less
than 50 cents a barrel. The report, issued by DOE's Energy Information Administration, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead
to pump oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000
barrels a day by 2025. But even at peak production, according to the EIA analysis, the United States would still need to import 66
percent of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge's oil remained off the market. At the same time, the report
says new Alaska production would stem the expected dramatic decline in domestic production and extend the economic life of
the Alaska oil pipeline as production from other North Slope areas declines significantly. But even the additional domestic
production would not be enough to overcome increased demand, meaning continued heavy reliance on imports, the EIA says.
Currently, the United States imports about 56 percent of the oil it consumes.

Politics DA 4 Life 21
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Bad – A2: Oil Industry Good 22

Drilling in ANWR doesn’t help the oil industry – It’s not cost effective.
Sands and Pahler 08 Elizabeth Sands and Stephanie Pahler, Columbia U, “Domestic Energy Consumption” http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceandsociety/web-
pages/facts%20and%20figures.html JLee

Although the oil business is very lucrative, the fixed costs for the industry are very high. An estimated $17.17 for each barrel of
Arctic oil sold will go back to the companies to pay for exploration costs, infrastructure (including repair to corroded Alaska
pipeline), cost to transport oil to and from market, costs to lease land from US government and Inupiat Indian tribe, and other
company costs. According to projections by the Alaska Department of Revenue, in 2020, when ANWR drilling could become a
reality, oil is predicted to be at only $13 a barrel. This would be a substantial loss to the oil companies, namely British Petroleum,
ChevronTexaco, Nabors Alaska Drilling, (Endicott, Arco, Anadarko subsidiaries of BP). In 1989, BP withdrew from Arctic
power, possibly signaling bad profitability potential in the Northern Slope. Also, BP spent an estimated $2 billion on oil
exploration in Alaska only to find the region "dry" and not worth pursuing. If drilling in Alaska is not economically viable, then
companies will not drill. BPs pullout indicates just that; drilling in Alaska is more trouble and expense than it is worth.

Politics DA 4 Life 22
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Non-Unique – Will Pass 23

Will pass – Public pressure.


Red Orbit 7/29/08 “Oil Prices Changing Minds on Drilling in ANWR”
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1499173/oil_prices_changing_minds_on_drilling_in_anwr/index.html JLee

ARCTIC NATIONAL WILD-LIFE REFUGE, Alaska - This place is a Zen thing. The only way to tell you've wandered in is the absence of anything saying so. No signs. No road to get here. No advice from government stewards about what to seek out or
what to avoid. No entrance fees and no officially licensed T-shirt. This isn't just wilderness, contend those who want to keep it pristine, but a sanctuary for wildness. It is also oil country. With just the last half of the last year of the petroleum-friendly Bush

$4 gasoline and a sluggish economy have made Americans friendlier to the idea
administration remaining, the window for opening the land to drilling could be about to close. Yet

of pumping from the Arctic wilderness. Republican congressional candidates recently staged a fact- finding trip to Alaska to
showcase the possibility of an untapped domestic oil bounty. President Bush is pushing again for exploration in ANWR. The oil
industry continues to point to expansion on Alaska's north slope as a way to decrease dependence on imported energy. Those calling for
drilling say oil development would barely touch ANWR, disturbing just 2,000 acres of a 19.2 million-acre outback. Exploration would not tromp on the spectacular Brooks Range mountains or their scenic foothills. Rather, it would be limited to the pancake-

While their argument has not triumphed during decades of appeals - the refuge has become ground zero in
flat coastal plain along the Arctic Ocean.

the ongoing fight between environmentalists and the oil industry - they sense a shift. "Public outrage over energy prices before
an election can be a powerful thing," said Roger Herrera, a spokesman for the pro- drilling group Arctic Power. "It can move some politicians." Opponents of drilling in the refuge - they object to
the common ANWR acronym as a denuding device - concede that the coastal plain might not be as photogenic as other parts of Alaska. Still, they say, it is a critical part of the larger ecosystem. Mosquitoes, thick enough in June and July to kill an adult
caribou, send large mammals down to the breezes of the coast for relief. Predators such as grizzly bears and wolf packs follow the caribou. Shore birds rely on the coastline for nesting. Musk oxen, foxes and weasels wander from mountain valleys to coastal
flatlands. "Not all habitats are created equal," said Eleanor Huffines, the Alaska director of the Wilderness Society. "You need all kinds, [and] the rest of the coast is being leased and being drilled." A change would open more than 100 miles of Alaskan
coastline to drilling, meaning leases on more than half of the state's northern shore. Efforts to tap into the oil potential of the land go back before it was established as a refuge. The debate has not stopped since. On Dec. 6, 1960, the U.S. Interior Department
set aside most of the land by administrative caveat "for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wildness and recreational values" after a congressional effort to establish the refuge failed. Twenty years later, in 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska Lands
Act into law, expanding the refuge and meaning it would take an act of Congress to open the land to drilling. In the past 15 years, the House of Representatives has passed bills 10 times that would have opened ANWR to drilling. The Senate went along in
1995, but Bill Clinton vetoed the measure. Through the Bush years, the Senate has been the chief obstacle for alternative energy projects. "It's still a long road," said Steve Hansen, a GOP spokesman on the House Natural Resources Committee, where Rep.

Don Young of Alaska has long pushed for drilling. "Right now, the chances for opening ANWR for drilling are better than they have been for years."

Will pass – GOP pushing. If not, Bush will pass it via executive order.
Associated Press 8/2/08 “GOP senators rally for ANWR exploration” Lexis JLee

Sens. Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski are among 10 Republican senators who are urging President Bush to issue an executive
order for a seismic survey of energy resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain. The senators made their
request Friday in a letter to the president, saying the energy crisis "now borders on an emergency."

Will pass – Gas prices.


Denver Post 8/1//08 “State of the Race” Lexis JLee

Gas price is bottom line: At the same time, polls show voters are willing to hand those same oil companies more of what they
want - tax breaks, offshore drilling and the goal of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska - as long as it lowers
gas prices. "The Democrats are pursuing a failed strategy," said Dick Wadhams, campaign manager for Republican Senate
candidate Bob Schaffer. "The American public has responded by saying: 'We want more exploration. We want more oil
domestically.' "

Politics DA 4 Life 23
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Non-Unique – A2: Democrats 24

GOP and public pressure outweigh – Even the Democrats are starting to switch votes.
Prairie Pundit 8/2/08 “The Pelosi Delusion on Drilling” Lexis JLee

Aug. 2, 2008 ( delivered by Newstex) -- Even some Democrats are getting antsy, fearing the party's stance could hurt them in the
fall elections. But Pelosi, who has opposed offshore drilling throughout her two decades in Congress, insists opening new areas
to drilling won't lower gas prices in the short term. She believes a vote would only help the GOP blame Democrats for high gas
prices. "I will not ... give the administration an excuse for its failure," Pelosi said at an end-of-session roundtable interview
Thursday. Republicans have put a bull's-eye on the federal moratorium on coastal drilling, which has kept most of the East and
West coasts off limits to new oil rigs since 1982. Bush announced earlier this month that he would lift the presidential
moratorium on drilling, and the GOP is now seeking to lift the congressional ban. Pelosi drew derision from her critics for telling
the Web site Politico this week that she was blocking a vote on offshore drilling because "I'm trying to save the planet." But she
elaborated on that theme Thursday, saying she sees energy independence and fighting global warming as "my flagship issue."
She said she will use her power to resist a policy that could increase the country's oil dependency. "I'm not going to be diverted
for a political tactic from a course of action that has a big-picture view - a vision about an energy-independent future that reduces
our dependence on fossil fuels ... and focuses on those renewables that are protective of the environment," she said. Republicans
are quietly gleeful at Pelosi's tactics, which have only breathed more life into an issue the GOP is clinging to as a lifeline in an
otherwise grim year for the party. Some House Republicans said Thursday that they will ask Bush to order a special session of
Congress in August if lawmakers adjourn this week, as expected, without voting on drilling. While a special session is unlikely,
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, made clear that his party plans to use the issue as a bludgeon against Democrats
throughout the five-week August recess. "A solid majority of Americans want us to have more drilling for more American-made
energy, and they aren't going to take no for an answer," Boehner said Thursday. "Speaker Pelosi, Senators (Harry) Reid and
(Barack) Obama are defying the will of the American people, and they're doing so at their own risk." Some Democrats have
already started to shift their views. Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa., who voted two years ago against drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and for a federal ban on offshore drilling, told a hometown paper last weekend he now wants to "drill
everywhere." A new CNN/Opinion Research poll released this week found that 69 percent of Americans favor more offshore
drilling, while 30 percent oppose it. But the poll found the public was split over whether more coastal drilling would lower gas
prices, with 51 percent saying yes and 49 percent saying no. But the poll's more interesting finding was about who Americans
blame for $4-a-gallon gas prices: About two-thirds said oil companies and foreign countries that produce energy were the major
causes. Just over half blamed the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and the moratorium on offshore drilling. But only about 1
in 3 - 31 percent - blamed Democrats in Congress for high gas prices....Democrats are the problem and Pelosi is make things
worse for them. I think by election day only one in three will not be blaming the Democrats who are responsible for the no
energy policy that has strangled domestic production. They can't blame the strangling of production on foreigners or
Republicans. Only Democrats now favor strangling production.It is hard to argue with a straight fact, unless that face has been
surgically altered, that you favor energy independence when you are taking actions that make us more dependent on foreign
sources of energy. If Democrats really believed that they will not be blamed for the energy shortage they would not fear a vote on
the subject.

Politics DA 4 Life 24
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link 25

Uniqueness overwhelms the link – Even under concessions in energy policy, ANWR won’t pass because it’s too contentious.
LA Times 8/2/08 “Senators unveil bipartisan energy plan” Lexis JLee

In a possible breakthrough on energy, a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a compromise Friday that would preserve the oil-
drilling ban off the West Coast while easing restrictions on exploration off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. The
proposal also would provide billions to greatly expand the availability of vehicles powered by alternative fuels. In unveiling the
ambitious plan, the senators -- five Democrats and five Republicans who call themselves the Gang of 10 -- hope to break a
partisan standoff that sent lawmakers home on their month long summer recess Friday without action on major legislation to
address high gasoline prices. But the proposal's prospects appear remote this election year, with time running out on the
congressional session and the parties highlighting their differences on energy. And a number of the proposals remain
controversial -- expanding drilling off Florida, reviving the nuclear industry, boosting efforts to convert coal into fuel for motor
vehicles. At home, lawmakers are likely to hear from voters about canceled vacations and tighter family budgets because of high
gas prices. When Congress returns to Washington in September, "we hope that colleagues will have heard from their constituents
that something has to be done, and done before Congress finishes its business this year," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a
leader of the bipartisan group that forged the plan. The proposal is the first sign of progress on an issue that has stirred anxiety
and animosity on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was hopeful the compromise "can begin to
break the current legislative stalemate on the Senate floor." The proposal would offer concessions to Republicans who have
called for increased domestic production: An area of the Gulf of Mexico, 50 miles off Florida's coast, would be open to drilling;
and Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia could decide whether to allow drilling 50 miles off their shorelines. The senators
excluded efforts to lift the long-standing ban on new drilling off the California coast or to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to energy exploration as too contentious and likely to complicate passage of the plan. In a significant shift, the group's
Republicans agreed to repeal a key oil industry tax break and force oil companies to pay billions in royalties to the U.S. Treasury
for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Politics DA 4 Life 25
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Bush is Not a Lame Duck 26

Bush can still score victories – He’s not a lame duck.


Bloomberg 7/19/08 “Campaign Notebook: Bush Shows That a Lame Duck Still Has Moves”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRa4aqPAsv9o&refer=home JLee

July 19 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush, a lame duck with approval ratings under 30 percent, still managed to roll up a
few victories in recent weeks. He won the battle with the Democratic majority in Congress over a $162 billion funding measure
for the Iraq War; he got an overhaul of a terrorist surveillance law he championed; lawmakers approved an expansion of a
program Bush established in 2003 to fight AIDS in Africa. On foreign policy, Bush's troop surge is getting credit for improving
security in Iraq. North Korea has agreed to disable its nuclear plant and allow experts to inspect the site under an agreement with
the U.S. and five other nations. “Because he's stuck to it, he's been able to pull off a few things,” said Bruce Buchanan, a political
scientist at the University of Texas in Austin.

Bush is strong on security issues, and even if he is lame duck, he still has political muscle to influence the agenda.
Chron.com 7/10/08 Associated Press, “Lame duck Bush still effective on national security” http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5881997.html JLee

WASHINGTON — For an unpopular guy on his way out of his office, President Bush still has some juice. When Bush signed a
law Thursday to broaden the government's eavesdropping power, he served notice of how much sway he still holds on matters of
national security. Yes, he is relevant in the twilight of his second term, even with anemic public approval ratings and much of the
country tuning him out. Bush got the anti-terrorism spying legislation largely on his terms. He also has won fight after fight to
keep the Iraq war going without a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops. He vetoed a bill that would have banned waterboarding for terror suspects, then
watched as Democrats failed to override him. Contrast this to Bush's domestic agenda, which is all but ignored by the Democratic-controlled Congress. He keeps pushing for items that
seem to be going nowhere, from offshore drilling to tax cuts to a trade deal with Colombia. Lawmakers blew right by him in approving a massive farm bill. Why the difference on
protecting the country is, in fact, a different matter. The president commands the military in a time of war. He leads
security? Because
a nation that was infamously attacked — and no one has forgotten 9/11. So going against him can mean being labeled as soft on
terrorism or unsupportive of the troops. In an election year, try going to the voters with that around your neck. Avoiding security risk Sen. Barack Obama, the
Democrats' presidential contender, didn't want to take that risk. He backed the eavesdropping bill on grounds that it was imperfect but better than losing a tool against terrorism. The
measure targets terrorists, though it has raised alarms about sweeping in innocent Americans. But opponents in Congress were hemmed in by time. Wiretapping orders approved last
Plus, there was Bush, offering a credible veto threat. So Congress agreed on new
year would start expiring in August without congressional action.
surveillance rules. Including a provision Bush demanded: immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans. "You'd have to say it's a clear win
for President Bush, but I don't think it happened just because of President Bush," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar on the presidency and Congress at the American Enterprise Institute.
"An awful lot of Democrats just did not want this issue to drag into the summer and beyond with the possibility that something could happen out there, and this could have been put out
there against them as a contributing factor." Bush clearly reveled in his latest victory. Right after returning from Japan on Wednesday, Bush held a Rose Garden event to praise the
passage of the eavesdropping legislation. The good news was essentially there waiting for him, as the Senate had passed the bill earlier in the day. "Good timing," White House
spokesman Tony Fratto said. Then Bush went back to the Rose Garden on Thursday to sign the bill, this time flanked by members of Congress. He thanked his own administration. He
thanked lawmakers of both parties. Bush evoked the memory of Sept. 11, 2001, one of the worst times in the country's history. It was also a time when the nation was united behind
Bush. "I vowed to do everything in my power to prevent another attack on our nation," Bush said. "I believe this legislation is going to help keep that promise." To be sure, Bush has
had a second term of big setbacks, even on security. Bumpy road The White House is grappling with how to respond to a rebuff from the Supreme Court, which ruled that foreign
terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. Bush's own former spokesman, in a stunning book, said Bush favored
Bush's approach to Congress, though, does not change. Nine times he has vetoed
propaganda over honesty in leading the nation into war in Iraq.
bills. Congress has had the muscle to override him only twice, and never on a matter of war or terrorism. Bush bashes Congress
for inaction, then glosses over all the bitter words if a compromise with lawmakers emerges. He makes big promises. Sometimes he delivers.
Sometimes he doesn't. And sometimes, he just keeps talking of what he plans to get done, no matter how unlikely. Like a Middle East peace deal before he leaves office. The
message: I'm still in charge here. "Being a lame duck means you have less clout," Ornstein said. "But you're still the president of
the United States."

Politics DA 4 Life 26
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link Turn – GOP Hates Alternative Energy 27

Alternative Energy unpopular with Republicans


Reid 08, Democratic Senate Majority Leader and Senator from Nevada, 7-7-2K8 (“REID: DEMOCRATS WILL FIGHT THIS WORK PERIOD TO MAKE ENERGY,
HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE” ln) GRodarte

"The alternative energy tax extenders bill also enjoys strong bipartisan support. Yet Senate Republican leaders
blocked this legislation to cut taxes. "It seems that the Republican definition of 'bipartisan' changes all the
time. If even a small handful of Republicans oppose legislation that all the rest support, the Republican leadership does not consider it to be 'bipartisan.' "I understand the frustration that Republicans
feel as the minority party, with the future looking no brighter for their party than the present. But the stakes are far too high for inaction. If they truly seek bipartisanship -

as is their claim - our Republican friends will end their pointless, harmful obstruction, and work with
us to pass these bills that all enjoy strong, and in many cases overwhelming bipartisan support.

Politics DA 4 Life 27
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link Turn – A2: Democrats Like Alternative Energy 28

Even if alternative energy is popular, fighting is inevitable over funding – Proves compromise is impossible
US Fed News, 7-10-2K8 (“Democrats block out Ensign’s Renewable Energy Amendment” ln ) GRodarte

Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for Senator John Ensign's renewable energy amendment, Democrats today blocked
his amendment from any consideration. Ensign's amendment would encourage the development of solar, wind and other alternative energies,

all broadly supported policies that are key components to reducing America's reliance on Middle
Eastern oil. "These critical tax incentives need to be extended if we want to encourage more clean,
renewable energy in this country," said Ensign. "Unfortunately, I have been blocked out and we have missed a unique opportunity to send these incentives to the President's
desk. If we continue to drag our feet we could find ourselves looking back on a renewable energy potential that was never met." In April, the Senate voted 88 - 8 in

support of adding this renewable energy amendment, authored by Ensign and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), to the Housing bill. Despite
this overwhelming bipartisan vote, House Democrats pulled the provision out of the bill. Democrats
object because Ensign's amendment is not "paid for" with tax increases. Earlier this week Ensign offered a
compromise that was fully "paid for" with spending reductions, but even that was not accepted. "It's
disappointing that even when we find common ground Congress still fails the American people who understand the urgent need for more green energy," said Ensign. " Renewable energy

has overwhelming support on Capitol Hill, yet we cannot even compromise to achieve this common
goal." "As we move forward, I will continue to look at every available option to extend these tax incentives before it is too late," said Ensign. "Harnessing the sun's power, the wind's energy and
geothermal resources can help end our addiction to oil, but we need to act soon to ensure that these projects are built." According to recent estimates, Ensign's renewable energy amendment would help
create 116,000 jobs and result in $20 billion in economic investment.

Politics DA 4 Life 28
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link Shield – Bush Won’t Push Plan 29

Bush is commited to oil consumption and will fight to block alternative energy legislation
Congressional Quarterly, 7-31-2K8 (“DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HOLD A NEWS CONFERENCE ON SUBSIDIES FOR OIL COMPANIES” ln) GRodarte

Here are the numbers you need to know about ExxonMobil: $40.6 billion, their profits from last year, which they will almost certainly eclipse this year; $32 billion in stock buybacks last year
alone, and they are keeping that pace through the first half of 2008; and only $10 million -- that's .03 percent of their 2007 earnings -- spent

on renewable energy. Big Oil and their friends in the Bush-Cheney administration and here in Congress have fought the shift towards
renewables and for responsible oil policies at every turn. They have lobbied against our use-it-or-lose-it
legislation. They have fought releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And just yesterday, they helped
defeat a bill that would have tamped down speculation in the oil markets , all because the oil companies want nothing more than high
prices. So what does the Bush administration do? What does the Republican leadership do? They want to

get in a plane and fly to the remotest part of a wildlife refuge up in Alaska that every expert says will not give any relief -- and even
at that point in time, almost de minimis relief to consumers at the pump -- instead of doing the things that they can do now in order to help the consumer at the pump.

Politics DA 4 Life 29
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link Shield – Democrats won’t Compromise 30

Zero risk of link – Any concession that includes ANWR will be perceived as unwilling to compromise.
McClatchy 7/9/08 “Hoping to win on offshore drilling, GOP drops Alaska push” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/107/story/43594.html JLee

Senate Republican leaders say they remain supportive of drilling in ANWR, but that now is not the time when both parties are
looking for a compromise that will help consumers. Democrats have told them that any energy package with ANWR in it pegs
them as unwilling to compromise, and that they simply won't consider it, said Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Republican
minority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Politics DA 4 Life 30
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

Link Shield – Media Won’t Cover 31

Even if Bush wins a bill, the media won’t cover it which is key to Bush’s leverage.
Associated Press 7/27/08 “President Bush, the media's forgotten man” http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jcrsp_3w2jStZ5fUvGO-KHmQf2ywD9267OR80 Jlee

President Bush — remember him? He has long ceased to be a hot story. Across all forms of mainstream media, news coverage of
the president has fallen significantly this year. The drop-off has big implications for Bush, whose ability to influence the public
debate is weakened by less exposure, and for the country, which ends up with lighter scrutiny of the nation's highest office.
And while the trend is not unusual for a lame-duck leader — Bill Clinton was plenty overshadowed in his final months — the
declining attention still seems pronounced given the forces working against Bush. The nation is tired, worn down by wars and a
weak economy. Much of the country seems ready to move on, even though Bush remains relevant thanks mainly to his veto
power and his command over the military. News organizations, making an editorial judgment influenced by tighter budgets, see
less point in covering an unpopular president with waning clout and diminishing news value. The presidential beat is expensive;
the airfare alone for one of Bush's foreign trips easily can run more than $20,000. For the reporters still following Bush, the big
stories still happen, but far less often. TV correspondents find it harder to get on the air, photographers doubt whether their
pictures will get any play, and writers often see their work buried in the back of the newspaper. On top of it all, Bush is not part
of the story getting all the buzz: the race for his job. Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain make news every time they speak, a
luxury of attention once afforded to Bush. He used it to his advantage as a candidate in 2000 and an incumbent in 2004. Now he
watches as Obama's trip to the Middle East and Europe gets coverage that seems, well, presidential. Many of the people who
long have covered Bush have abandoned the White House post for the presidential campaign. When it's over, they may return,
when the White House beat is deemed juicy again. "The press follows power," said Bob Lichter, director of the Center for Media
and Public Affairs at George Mason University. "I'm sure this goes through the mind of network producers (about Bush) — he's
not popular, he's not influential with Congress, he's not very powerful. So why cover him?" Over the first four months of the
year, Bush got about half as much coverage on nightly network broadcasts as he did in 2007, according to an analysis by
Lichter's center. Bush's coverage on major network news is running more than 60 percent below what he got during his first
seven years in office. More broadly, Bush has faded in the primary places people get their news: major newspapers, TV
networks, cable TV news, radio and online sites. The nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism, which conducts an
ongoing analysis of those media, found the presidential campaign is consistently dominating coverage. Looked at another way,
Obama was a lead newsmaker in 690 stories in June, the same research organization found. McCain was the dominant news
figure in 263 stories. The tally for Bush? 113. The White House professes no objection. "It's only natural that the campaign for
the next president is getting the lion's share of the media attention, but that's as it should be," White House press secretary Dana
Perino said. "It's a good, robust debate about who the next president is going to be. We're very comfortable with that." While
McCain and Obama run for president, Bush actually is president. He is still making or influencing decisions of enormous
consequence. His administration is aggressively trying to settle conflicts with Iran and North Korea. Largely on his terms, Bush
got legislation to extend spying on suspected terrorists and to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will be in charge for
almost six more months, media attention or not. "What is the goal?" Perino said. "It is to achieve the president's agenda, not just
to get in the news." The White House points out that some of Bush's events make a big splash in local media even if national
reporters see no news in them. The national media, though, is the prize to a White House keenly aware of public perception. The
president's advisers have taken some creative steps to try to keep him in the news. On Bush's trip to Africa, the anti-poverty
activist Bob Geldof got a rare interview on Air Force One. Geldof, a rocker who starred in the movie version of "Pink Floyd The
Wall," described his experience with Bush as "gigging on a whole other level" in a magazine piece about Bush's commitment to
Africa. When Bush got back home, he narrated a slideshow about his trip. The event was unusual enough to draw coverage. Bush
had even done practice run-throughs of his 111-slide presentation in the White House Family Theater, a level of attention
normally reserved for major speeches to the nation. Bush this year also did his first interview exclusively for an online audience.
The White House has allowed reporters to attend more of Bush's round-table meetings with visitors, access that typically ensures
a story. And Bush still makes news with every press conference or interview. Yet for reporters who want fresh news and like to
look ahead, a president on his way out has limits. So daily briefings are more lightly attended. Coveted press seats on Air Force
One often go empty. The White House has had perhaps only two days this year when the place was really buzzing with
excitement among the press corps. One was when McCain came by to be endorsed by Bush. The other was when Pope Benedict
XVI visited. In both cases, the story was not about Bush. One downside of this diminished coverage is less watchdog reporting in
a major hall of power. Already, to save money, major newspapers are slashing staffing and trimming the amount of national and
international news they run. So even when Bush makes news, he might not make the cut.

Politics DA 4 Life 31
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Good – Economy 32

Drilling in ANWR solves the economy.


Bernard A. Gelb 01 Specialist in Industry Economics, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. “ANWR Development: Economic Impacts”
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-1408:1 JLee

Development of ANWR for oil production could affect the U.S. economy directly through new economic activity generated by
the development and production itself, indirectly through the ripple effect of such activity, indirectly through the effects of any
change in oil prices, and indirectly through any effects on the amount spent to import oil. A key factor would be the
unpredictable state of the economy. Hypothetical outlays of $6.5 billion and $14.0 billion with an income multiplier of two13
applying to both would come to roughly 0.12% and 0.26% of projected Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in current dollars for the
year 2002, assuming for simplicity that all the outlays occur in one year. If the outlays are spread over more than one year, the
impact in each year would be less, but the total effect would be about the same. If there is some spare capacity, the oil and gas
producing industry and its suppliers would benefit. However, if the economy is at full employment, the multiplier effect would
be transitory. Outlays of similar magnitudes in 2015 or 2020, when the economy is projected to be 45%-70% larger,15 would
have much smaller relative effects. Impacts on some geographic regions and industrial sectors – e.g., Alaska, oil producers, and
manufacturers of drill pipe – would be greater, or smaller.

Economic collapse leads to nuclear war.


Bearden 2k, Author of Bearden 2k, Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists [T. E., “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” Space
Energy Access Systems, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm] bg JLee

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will
have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea
launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or
suppose a desperate China — whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In
addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict,
escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a
few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by
one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without
effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to
take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange
occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The
resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Politics DA 4 Life 32
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Good – High Oil Prices Bad 33

Oil drilling in ANWR would reduce oil prices.


Bernard A. Gelb 01 Specialist in Industry Economics, Resources, Science, and Industry Division. “ANWR Development: Economic Impacts”
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-1408:1 JLee

Other things being equal, an increase in supply would be expected to result in a price decline (or a lower price than would occur
otherwise). The size of price decrease would depend to some extent upon how close world oil output would be in relation to
world production capacity and upon the reaction of other suppliers to the world oil market. CRS estimates – again, based on
hypothetical and uncertain scenarios – that peak plateau production from economically recoverable volumes of 2.03 billion and
9.37 billion bbls at $24 per barrel11 would range from roughly 0.3 million to 1.4 million bbls per day, assuming pipeline capacity
imposes no constraints. Production could begin within 10 years, and could last at least 30 years, declining from the peak. If
exploration starts in 2002, peak production levels probably would be reached in about 2020. EIA projects world oil production to
total 119.3 million bbls per day in 2020.12 On the basis of the aforementioned scenarios, ANWR production (from the respective
discovery volumes) at their peaks around 2020 would range from about 0.25% to 1.17% of world output projected by EIA. If
supply in the world oil market is tight in 2020 and the market reasonably competitive, 1.4 million bbls per day of ANWR
production could result in lower world oil prices in the short run. OPEC and other producers, however, may cut output sooner or
later to offset the supply effect, as has occurred before. For example, OPEC has reduced production volumes three times in 2001.

Oil shocks cause extinction.


Bill Henderson 07 CounterCurrents.org, “Climate Change, Peak Oil And Nuclear War,” 2/24 JLee

A steep spike in the price of oil, precipitated perhaps by an attack on Iran or Middle East instability spreading the insurgency to
Saudi Arabia, could lead to an economic dislocation paralyzing the global economy. Such a shock coming at the end of cheap oil
but before major development of alternative energy economies could mean the end of civilization as we know it. And there is a
building new cold war with still potent nuclear power Russia and China reacting to a belligerent, unilateralist America on record
that it will use military power to secure vital resources and to not allow any other country to threaten it's world dominance. The
world is closer to a final, nuclear, world war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 with a beginning arms race
and tactical confrontation over weapons in space and even serious talk of pre-emptive nuclear attack.

Politics DA 4 Life 33
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Good – A2: Turns Case 34

Alternative energies can’t completely replace fossil fuels – Until a smooth transition comes, some use in oil is inevitable.
ANWR.org 05 “Making the Case for ANWR Development” http://www.anwr.org/case.htm JLee

Through shortsighted actions, Congress and federal agencies have banned oil activity from more than 300 million acres of
federal land onshore and more than 460 million acres offshore in the past 20 years. An estimated 67% of oil reserves and 40% of
natural gas reserves are on federal lands in America's western states. Eighty-eight percent of the energy for America's
transportation, industry, government and residential needs comes from oil, gas and coal. No combination of conservation,
technology or alternatives can come close to replacing these fossil fuels. It will take years for research, testing, permitting,
construction, and distribution systems for replacement alternatives to be realized. When alternative energy sources become
practical and economical, Americans will use them. Until then, fossil fuels must be relied upon.

Politics DA 4 Life 34
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Good – A2: Native Culture 35

Oil drilling doesn’t impact native cultures, and the natives want to modernize.
Sands and Pahler 08 Elizabeth Sands and Stephanie Pahler, Columbia U, “Native Communities” http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceandsociety/web-
pages/Native%20Communities.html JLee

Kaktovik, AK, population 256, is located off the coast of the Beaufort Sea within the ANWR. The Inupiat are permitted by the
government to take 3 whales and 15 musk oxen a year. Previously, these species, among many others such as walrus and seal,
were an important part of their subsistent lifestyle. Uunaallik, whale meat, is a delicacy to the Inupiat which is cut into slices the
size of french fries and partitioned to the families; the meat must last throughout the year, however, so it is primarily frozen and
eaten as a treat. Because the meat is not cooked and is stored for long periods of time, it is often rancid. Today though, the
Inupiat could not consider themselves subsistence dwellers due to the fact that they own land which was discovered to have oil
potential. The oil companies now lease the land and pay each Inupiat family an annual stipend in return and 50% of the villagers
work at Prudhoe Bay. This money has enabled the Inupiat to move above the poverty level and build standardized housing with
heat, establish fire and police control, sanitation, schools and libraries. The favorite past time of the Inupiat children is to ride
around in their ATVs (all-terrain vehicles) up and down the roads. Oil money has enabled families to supplement their diets with
mail ordered foods that arrive daily at the new airport in town. While the Inupiat still perform their traditional whale hunts, whale
and other local animals have become a supplement to their diet, not the mainstay. Thus, the Inupiat standard of living has
improved and is maintained by the money they receive from oil production, and consequently the Inupiat are pro-oil
development. Without the oil money, they would go back to living without heat, running water, or any source of viable income.
Now that they have had a taste of the comforts of modern life, who could blame them for not wanting to return to the traditional
Eskimo lifestyle? The Inupiat believe that oil development will not interfere with the wildlife, and development and nature are
not mutually exclusive. They also maintain that they depend on the health of the land, not only the money that it provides them,
and have self-appointed themselves as "guardians of the land," promising to alert the public if oil development does indeed harm
the refuge.

Politics DA 4 Life 35
Politics DA Z Seniors 08
With Pride Joshua Lee, Greg Rodarte

ANWR Good – A2: Ecosystem 36

Only ANWR ensures safe oil drilling – Other countries are less regulatory in their environmental standards.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette 8/2/08 “Do-Not-Drill Democrats are Damaging the Environment” Lexis JLee

Consider: 25 years ago, nearly 60 percent of U.S. petroleum was produced domestically. Today it's 25 percent. From its peak in
1970, U.S. production has declined 47 percent. The world consumes 86 million barrels a day; the United States, roughly 20
million. We need the stuff to run our cars and planes and economy. Where does it come from? Places like Nigeria where chronic
corruption, environmental neglect and resulting unrest lead to pipeline explosions, oil spills and illegal siphoning by the poverty-
stricken population -- which leads to more spills and explosions. Just this week, two Royal Dutch Shell pipelines had to be shut
down because bombings by local militants were causing leaks into the ground. Compare the Niger Delta to the Gulf of Mexico,
where deep-sea U.S. oil rigs withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single undersea well suffering a significant spill.
The United States has the highest technology to ensure the safest drilling. Today, directional drilling -- essentially drilling down,
then sideways -- allows access to oil that in 1970 would have required a surface footprint more than three times as large.
Additionally, the United States has one of the most extensive and least corrupt regulatory systems on the planet. Does Ms. Pelosi
imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela
and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic? The net
environmental effect of Ms. Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen
worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world --
thereby increasing net planetary damage.

Politics DA 4 Life 36