CNDI 2008

PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

CNDI – CAP AND TRADE AFFIRMATIVE 1/2
CNDI – CAP AND TRADE AFFIRMATIVE 1/2 ..............................................................1 ________________..............................................................................................................3 ***PERMITS – 1AC ..........................................................................................................3 1AC – PERMITS – INHERENCY .....................................................................................4 1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – WARMING ............................................................5 1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – WARMING ............................................................6 1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – WARMING ............................................................7 1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – OIL .......................................................................8 1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – OIL .......................................................................9 1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – COMPETITIVENESS ..........................................10 1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – COMPETITIVENESS ..........................................11 1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – COMPETITIVENESS ..........................................12 1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – COMPETITIVENESS ..........................................13 1AC – PERMITS – SOLVENCY .....................................................................................14 1AC – PERMITS – SOLVENCY .....................................................................................15 1AC – PERMITS – SOLVENCY .....................................................................................16 _____________________________..................................................................................18 ***EXT – WARMING ADVANTAGE ............................................................................18 U – AT THRESHOLD HAS BEEN REACHED...............................................................19 IL – BIODIVERSITY – ENERGY KEY ..........................................................................20 IMPACT ADDON – OSILLATIONS ...............................................................................21 AT BIAS / QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................22 AT BIAS / QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................23 ____________________________________....................................................................24 ***EXT – OIL ADVANTAGE .........................................................................................24 U – PEAK .........................................................................................................................25 IL – RESOURCE WARS ..................................................................................................26 IMPACT ADDON – ECONOMY .....................................................................................27 IMPACT ADDON – ECONOMY .....................................................................................28 IMPACT ADDON – ECONOMY .....................................................................................29 AT NEW DISCOVERIES..................................................................................................30 AT NEW DISCOVERIES..................................................................................................31 ____________________________________....................................................................32 ***EXT – COMPETITIVENESS ADVANTAGE ...........................................................32 U – RENEWABLE SHIFT ..............................................................................................33 U – RENEWABLE SHIFT ..............................................................................................34 IL – COMPETITIVENESS – RENEWABLES KEY .......................................................35 IL – COMPETITIVENESS – RENEWABLES KEY .......................................................36 IL – COMPETITIVENESS – RENEWABLES KEY .......................................................37 IL – COMPETITIVENESS – GLOBAL LEADERSHIP..................................................38 _________________..........................................................................................................39 ***EXT – SOLVENCY ....................................................................................................39 SOLVENCY – ENERGY / COSTS .................................................................................40

1

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

SOLVENCY – INCENTIVES / ENERGY SHIFT............................................................41 SOLVENCY – LEADERSHIP / MODELLING ..............................................................42

2

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

________________ ***PERMITS – 1AC

3

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – INHERENCY
CONTENTION ONE: INHERENCY PRESENT POLICY REFUSES HARD REGULATION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE WHILE SUPPORTING VOLUNTARY CAPS THAT FAIL TO ADDRESS THE PRESSING CHALLENGE OF GLOBAL WARMING SILVERSTEIN 2008 – EDITOR IN CHIEF ENERGYBIZ CARBON HEAT, 4-23, http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=497 One of the administration's purposes is to influence global warming debates that will take place in Congress in June. Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. and John Warner, R-Va., would place mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions but allow those industrials that exceed the limits to buy credits from those who meet them. The goal is to reduce such emissions by 70 percent by 2050. By contrast, the Bush administration has eschewed mandatory reductions and instead has chosen to pursue voluntary decreases. It argues that until the technologies are developed that can capture and store heat-trapping emissions, compulsory restrictions on those releases would be meaningless. The president's current position is that a gradual phase-in of emissions cuts is better than required and rapid reductions. Such an approach would assure greater success without creating economic disruptions. The administration emphasizes that it is not philosophically opposed to a cap-and-trade regime with respect to greenhouse gases, noting that the president has long touted such free market strategies to cutting other harmful emissions. Regardless, it says that it cannot support Senate's bill that would require 70 percent reductions and that a broad philosophical structure is more practical. Under one scenario, power plants would receive a "safety valve" if the cost to fix emissions escalates too much. The administration is not just feeling pressure at home. It is also feeling it abroad. It's still getting heat from the global community over its failure in January in Bali, Indonesia to support a hard reduction in greenhouse gases by mid century. European nations had wanted the current White House to support a commitment similar to their own, which is a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 using 1990 as a baseline. The president refused but has emphasized that his plan would be part of binding international agreement if developing nations such as China and India come on board. If exempted, Bush says it would put them at a competitive economic advantage. All three presidential candidates, incidentally, have said they support cap-and-trade provisions like those enacted by the European nations. That increases the likelihood that supporters of tougher action will wait until next year when they can get more support. Democratic leaders, in fact, have said they will withdraw any bill from a vote that attempts to water down the Lieberman-Warner measure. "The president is throwing a Hail Mary to polluters in a last-ditch effort to stave off any meaningful action on global warming," says Carl Pope, head of the Sierra Club. "Under the president's plan, we'll need a real miracle to save us from global warming."

4

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – WARMING
CONTENTION TWO – CLIMATE CHANGE MOST QUALIFIED SCIENTIFIC PRONOUNCEMENTS CONCLUDE WARMING IS OCCURING FASTER THAN EXPECTED – WE ARE REACHING THE POINT OF NO RETURN GELBSPAN 2007 – SCIENCE REPORTER AND PULITZER PRIZE WINNER BEYOND THE POINT OF NO RETURN, 12-12, http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6752&method=full Within the last two years, a number of leading scientists -- including Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), British ecologist James Lovelock, and NASA scientist James Hansen -- have all declared that humanity is about to pass or already has passed a "tipping point" in terms of global warming. The IPCC, which reflects the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from over 100 countries, recently stated that it is "very unlikely" that we will avoid the coming era of "dangerous climate change." The truth is that we may already be witnessing the early stages of runaway climate change in the melting of the Arctic, the increase in storm intensity, the accelerating extinctions of species and the prolonged nature of recurring droughts. Moreover, some scientists now fear that the warming is taking on its own momentum[1] _ driven by internal feedbacks that are independent of the human-generated carbon layer in the atmosphere. Consider these examples: * Despite growing public awareness of global warming, the world's carbon emissions are rising three times faster than they did in the 1990s. As a result, many scientists tell us that the official, governmentsanctioned forecasts of coming changes are understating the threat facing the world.[2] * A rise of 2 degrees C over pre-industrial temperatures is now virtually inevitable, according to the IPCC, as the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is approaching the destabilizing level of 450 parts per million. That rise will bring drought, hunger, disease and flooding to millions of people around the world.[3] * Scientists predict a steady rise in temperatures beginning in about two years _ with at least half of the years between 2009 and 2019 surpassing the average global temperature in 1998, to date, the hottest year on record.[4] * Given the unexpected speed with which Antarctica is melting, coupled with the increasing melt rates in the Arctic and Greenland, the rate of sea level rise has doubled _ with scientists now raising their prediction of ocean rise by century's end from about three feet to about six feet.[5] * Scientists discovered that a recent, unexplained surge of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is due to more greenhouse gases escaping from trees, plants and soils _ which have traditionally buffered the warming by absorbing the gases. In the lingo of climate scientists, carbon sinks are turning into carbon sources. Because the added warmth is making vegetation less able to absorb our carbon emissions, scientists expect the rate of warming to jump substantially in the coming years.[6] * The intensity of hurricanes around the world has doubled in the last decade. As Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained, "If you take the last 10 years, we've had twice the number of category-5 hurricanes than any other [10-year period] on record."[7] * In Australia, a new, permanent state of drought in the country's breadbasket has cut crop yields by over 30 percent. The 1-in-1000-year drought exemplifies a little-noted impact of climate change. As the atmosphere warms, it tightens the vortex of the winds that swirl around the poles. One result is that the water that traditionally evaporated from the Southern Ocean and rained down over New South Wales is now being pulled back into Antarctica _ drying out the southeastern quadrant of Australia and contributing to the buildup of glaciers in the Antarctic _ the only area on the planet where glaciers are increasing.[8] As one prominent climate scientist said recently, "We are seeing impacts today that we did not expect to see until 2085."[9]

5

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – WARMING
THE RAPIDITY OF GLOBAL WARMING PLACES ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS ON A PATH TOWARDS DESTRUCTION AS THEY FAIL TO ADAPT QUICKLY ENOUGH TO CHANGING CLIMATE DYNAMICS Johansen 2002 – Prof Communication @ U Nebraska-Omaha The Global Warming Desk Reference, p. (66-67) During May of 1997, twenty-one nationally prominent ecologists warned President Clinton that rapid climate change due to global warming could ruin ecosystems on which human societies depend. The signers, including Stephen H. Schneider and three colleagues from Stanford University, urged Clinton to take a "prudent course" in the then-upcoming global climate-change negotiations in Kyoto, Japan (Basu 1997). The scientists warned that the warming would happen so quickly that many plant and animal species will not be able to adapt. The resulting breakdown of ecosystems could lead to disturbances with major effects on human populations, the scientists warned. These may include increasing numbers of fires, floods, droughts, and storms, as well as erosion and outbreaks of pests and pathogens. The letter said that if present (1997) levels of greenhouse-gas emissions continue to rise, the climate will change more quickly during the coming century than at any time during the past 10,000 years. "The signers include the leading international experts on many particular dimensions of this problem," said Harold Mooney, Stanford professor of biological sciences and the organizer of the effort. "As you will read in the letter, they all have deep concerns about the ecological consequences of rapid climatic change" (Basu 1997). Among the signers are Mooney, as well as Paul Ehrlich of Stanford (an international leader in ecological research), and Jane Lubchenco of Oregon State University, a past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Seven of the signers are members of the National Academy of Sciences and five are past presidents of the Ecological Society of America. The scientists said, in the United States [R]apid climate change could mean the widespread death of trees, followed by wildfires and ... replacement of forests by grasslands. National parks and forests could become inhospitable to the rare plants and animals that are preserved there-and where the parks are close to developed or agricultural land, the species themselves may disappear for lack of another safe haven. Worldwide, fast-rising sea levels could inundate the marshes and mangrove forests that protect coastlines from erosion and serve as fil ters for pollutants and nurseries for ocean fisheries. "The more rapid the rate [of change] the more vulnerable to damage ecosystems will be," the scientists told the president. "We are performing a global experiment [with] little information to guide us. (Basu 1997) The ecologists warned that in some United States temperate-zone forests, rapid climate change could lead to "widespread tree mortality, wildfires and replacement of the forests by grasslands. Species that are long-lived, rare, or endangered will be severely disadvantaged" (Basu 1997). "It would be difficult to imagine, for example," the scientists wrote, "how the imperiled species of Everglades National Park, such as the Cape Sable Sparrow and American Crocodile, could migrate north into the urban and agricultural landscapes of coastal and central Florida and successfully reestablish themselves" (Basu 1997).

6

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – WARMING
DESTRUCTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY RISKS EXTINCTION Richard Margoluis, Biodiversity Support Program, 1996, http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10 Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because
biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy environment has become increasingly clear. We have

learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival. OUT OF CONTROL WARMING KILLS ALL ABILITY TO SUSTAIN LIFE – OUR ATMOSPHERE WILL BE LIKE MARS Brandenburg and Paxson 1999 Rocket Scientist and Science Editor Dead Mars, Dying Earth p. (45-47) The monitoring of air samples at Mauna Loa was able to reveal a trend that has continued predictably over time. Since 1955 , when monitoring began, to the present, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen somewhere between 0.5 and 2.88 parts per million per year . Each year, the blip in the graph that indicates the change of the seasons takes the line to yet a higher level, irrespective of whether there was a car driving up the side of the mountain or not.'' Global air contains a little more carbon dioxide every year, and the 1998 reading was the biggest increase in a single year ever recorded. The propane car at the observatory was eventually abandoned when an
increase in traffic of regular cars up the mountain made it pointless to attempt to maintain the purity of the air to the same high standard. Yet despite the fact that the liquid propane needed to run the car wasn't readily available in 1972 (and it cost more than gasoline) and that the expense involved in converting the engine of a single car to propane was about $600, Dr. Pueschel felt that conversion was worth the additional expense, even for the average car owner. Dr. Pueschel knew something that virtually no one else knew: what a single automobile could do to air quality. He personally had witnessed the impact a lone car had made on the monitoring equipment. "Someday we will have to pay, and it won't be cheap," he predicted. Dr. Pueschel had also seen the relentless upward climb of the meedle measuring carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere during the previous two decades. Could his warning have been any more clear? "We take for granted our air is free, but someday we just won't have it anymore." ' The wisdom of hindsight may illuminate what he really meant when he told the newspaper why they had bought the propane car. Gradually, incrementally, we are changing Earth's

atmosphere. But are we slowly altering our atmosphere away from something that supports human life toward something deadly like the atmosphere of Mars? Such an atmosphere would have been very
familiar to Joseph Black, who isolated the very first atmospheric gas. Unitarian minister Joseph Priestley would have recognized the atmosphere of Mars as well. So would coal miners from the early part of the 20th century and the canary that lay gasping at the bottom of the cage, for the atmosphere of Mars is made of fixed air. The atmosphere of Mars

is made of blackdamp. The atmosphere of Mars is made of carbonic acid gas. The atmosphere of Mars is made of a substance that has over time had many names reflecting the toxic side of its nature. While today we call all of them "carbon dioxide" (which we think of as a benign product of our own bodies and the harmless bubbles in soda pop), this substance has clearly not always been viewed as a harmless gas . Nor should it be in the future, for it is time once again to inform our opinions about this
substance and recognize its invisible, dark side. As long as a stylus attached to the monitoring equipment in some lonely station on the top of an inactive volcano in Hawaii continues to etch a line ratcheting upward-showing the increased amounts of carbon dioxide that, year after year, flood our atmosphere, threatening us-then we too must think of it very differently. It isn't a matter of speculation. It is a matter of hard, cold scientific fact supported by

numerous studies conducted by many respected scientists . In the overwhelming majority they agree: Earth's atmosphere has far too much of what we now must think of as carbon die-oxide. It is warming our planet to the point where life, human life, is endangered . We are going to have to do something decisive and effective about this killer. No matter how successful or enlightened we think ourselves to be, we are not exempt from the need to act-in the same way that we are not exempt from the need to breathe.

7

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – OIL
CONTENTION THREE: OIL PEAK CONSENSUS OF GEOLOGISTS, INFORMATION AGENCIES, AND OIL COMPANIES THAT WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF AN OIL PEAK GRANT 2007 – FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY STATE ENVIRONMENT AND POPULATION AFFAIRS PEAK OIL PROSPECTS, SOCIAL CONTRACT PRESS, FALL, VOL 18 NO 1 In the 1950s, Shell Oil geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that oil production in the United States would peak about 1970 and thereafter inescapably drift downward. He was generally derided, but production did indeed peak in 1970. After that several other petroleum geologists applied “Hubbert’s curve” to world recoverable oil resources, and many of them arrived at a peak sometime between 2005 and 2025. They were dismissed shrilly by the oil companies and others who have a stake in more or less perpetual oil supplies, but their predictions are looking better and better. Now, a new report by a Dutch study group shows that the peak may have passed already.1 It cites the U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA) as showing conventional world crude oil production peaking at 74.27 million barrels per day (mb/d) in May 2005. For all liquid fuels, EIA puts the peaks at 85.38 mb/d in May 2005 and 85.54 mb/d in July 2006.2 (That includes crude oil plus heavy oils and tar sands, natural gas liquids, coal-based liquids, gas-based liquids and even biofuels—the proposed substitutes for crude oil.) The International Energy Agency (IEA) puts the peak for all forms of liquid fuels at 86.13 mb/d in

July 2006. By August 2007 output was 1.2 percent below the 2006 peak. Oil production has been on a plateau since 2004, with signs of decline just appearing. That follows an era of remarkable growth. Consider these figures for oil: 1960: 20.97 mb/d. 1970: 45.89. 1980: 59.56. 1990: 60.49. 2000: 69.37.3 The evidence is more convincing because it comes from two groups that have resisted the very concept of peak oil. The EIA has heretofore based its projections on demand rather than supply, and thereby regularly made serious
errors.4 The IEA in July for the first time concluded (reluctantly?) that the oil market will be “extremely tight” by 2012, though it was silent about the longer term.5 One peak is not necessarily a proof. The peak we have seen may reflect transient factors or voluntary restraints on oil output by OPEC, but OPEC production has reflected its capabilities more than OPEC quotas, and the Saudis’ claim of excess capacity beyond current output is suspect. The peak oil approach assumes that peak production occurs when half the recoverable resource has been extracted. There is no requirement in logic that it should occur at exactly that point. Moreover, we cannot know in advance exactly what the recoverable resource is, because technical changes have made it possible to recover more of the oil in any given field. But the those are cavils. The resource is finite, and production in any given field (and in the world at large) will peak when the readily available oil has been extracted. The petroleum geologists have studied the world pretty

carefully by now and found no evidence that there is enough potentially exploitable oil to replace the fields now running down. The problem of course is the astonishing level of demand. If somebody discovered a one billion
barrel field tomorrow, it would provide only 13 days’ consumption at the current rate, and less than that if demand keeps growing. And it might take a decade to bring the hypothetical field into full production. A look at the major oil producers underlies the threat to present oil output levels. Of the 21 major producers—those countries that have achieved an output of more

than one mb/d—10 have already passed their peak, some of them a generation or more ago. Others may be close behind. Saudi Arabia is heavily dependent on the huge but old Ghawar field. That field is undergoing
emergency resuscitation, but several experts have expressed doubts that it can sustain current production very long. The second largest field, and a major supplier to the United States, is Mexico’s Cantarell field. It is in sharp decline, following a worst-case scenario that could reduce its output by 75 percent from 2004 to 2008.6 Future production in Canada and Venezuela depends on success in extracting petroleum from oil sands and heavy tars. Those resources are huge but, at best, they have low net energy yields. Only the richest of them justify mining, because the rest would require more energy inputs than they would yield—even disregarding their demands for water and their serious impacts on climate and the environment. Optimists’ hopes are pinned on (1) Central Asia, but already the oil majors face serious technical and political problems in trying to develop the Kashagan field in the Caspian Sea and other fields in Kazakhstan; (2) the Atlantic off Africa, where political turmoil in Nigeria has held production down; or (3) the Arctic, where there are dreams of exploitable resources as global warming melts the pack ice. Those are slim hopes, compared to the declines I have cited. The big oil companies are behaving as if they expect a decline. They haven’t built a new refinery in the U.S. since the 1970s, presumably because they see no assurance of rising oil supplies over the several decades it takes to build and amortize a refinery. They are using current profits to buy back their own stocks, which means that they don’t see profitable investment opportunities for that money in the industry. Such behavior of course accelerates the decline of future production. To compound that problem, producers such as Mexico and Venezuela are using their oil profits to underwrite their national budgets, rather than reinvesting them in oil production. We have been living in an era when rising demand chased a rising supply. We are

now entering the much more dangerous era of rising demand chasing declining supplies. If we do indeed manage another peak, it will be very soon, before the resource is further depleted. And it will be achieved
only by pumping the existing fields faster, which will very soon lead to an even steeper decline. Economists were predicting $25 oil. Now some of them warn of oil at $100 per barrel. I have news for them: that is just the start of the problem.

8

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – OIL
OIL PEAK WILL RESULT IN MASSIVE RESOURCE WARS RESULTING IN EXTINCTION Heinberg, core faculty member at New College of California, 9/27/2004 (http://www.energybulletin.net/2291.html) Last One Standing – The path of competition for remaining resources. If the leadership of the US continues with current policies, the next decades will be filled with war, economic crises, and environmental catastrophe. Resource depletion and population pressure are about to catch up with us, and no one is prepared. The political elites, especially in the US, are incapable of dealing with the situation. Their preferred “solution” is simply to commandeer other nations’ resources, using military force. The worst-case scenario would be the general destruction of human civilization and most of the ecological life-support system of the planet. That is, of course, a breathtakingly alarming prospect. As such, we might prefer not to contemplate it – except for the fact that considerable evidence attests to its likelihood. The notion that resource scarcity often leads to increased competition is certainly well founded. This is general true among non-human animals, among which competition for diminishing resources typically leads to aggressive behaviour. Iraq is actually the nexus of several different kinds of conflict – between consuming nations (e.g., France and the US); between western industrial nations and “terrorist” groups; and – most obviously – between a powerful consuming nation and a weaker, troublesome, producing nation. Politicians may find it easier to persuade their constituents to fight a common enemy than to conserve and share. War is always grim, but as resources become more scarce and valuable, as societies become more centralized and therefore more vulnerable, and as weaponry becomes more sophisticated and widely dispersed, warfare could become even more destructive that the case during the past century. By far the greatest concern for the future of warfare must be the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The US is conducting research into new types of nuclear weapons—bunker busters, small earth-penetrators, etc. Recent US administrations have enunciated a policy of nuclear first-strike. Chemical and biological weapons are of secondary concern, although new genetic engineering techniques may enable the creation of highly infectious and antibiotic-resistant “supergerms” cable of singling out specific ethnic groups.

9

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – COMPETITIVENESS
CONTENTION FOUR: RENEWABLE COMPETITIVENESS GLOBAL RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ON A MASSIVE SCALE IS INEVITABLE – MOST RECENT INVESTMENT TRENDS PROVE UNEP 2007 – UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME GLOBAL TRENDS IN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT, DIVISION OF TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY AND ECONOMICS, http://www.unep.org/pdf/SEFI_reportGlobalTrendsInSustainableEnergyInverstment07.pdf Renewable energy and energy effi ciency are no longer niche sectors that are promoted only by governments and environmentalists. The increased levels of investment and the fact that much of the capital is coming from more conventional fi nancial actors suggest that sustainable energy options are in fact becoming mainstream. Do these developments indicate true disruptive change to the energy sector, or do
they still relate to only a small part of the global energy mix? According to the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2006,1 new renewables (not including hydro) today only account for 0.5% and 2%, respectively, of the global energy and power sectors. Since the capital stock turnover is very slow - most generating facilities have 40 to 60-year operating lives - these fi gures say little about about today’s technology choices and even less about the future energy mix. Mostly, they give a picture of the technology options that were available in the 1950s through 1970s, when most of today’s plants were built. To get perspective on the current and future

role of sustainable energy technologies in the energy mix, it is more useful to look at today’s investment trends. In 2006, $110 billion - $125 billion was invested in about 120 GW of new power generation globally. Of this
investment, $30.8 billion was in new renewables, which includes $21.5 billion of asset fi nance in new generating plants and the remainder in small-scale systems, such as rooftop solar. The $21.5 billion in renewables plant fi nancing represents about 18% of total power sector investment. In terms of generating capacity, renewables provided 14% to 15% of the total, with wind alone accounting for 12% or 14GW. At fi rst glance, these fi gures imply that renewables are more expensive than conventional options, costing on average 28% more per installed GW. However, they do not take into account operating expenditures and specifi cally fuel costs, which are much higher for fossil fuelled plants. For instance, in developing countries fuel costs alone on an annual basis are equivalent to investments in generating capacity.2 Another fi nancing trend to consider is the level of investment in new technology and manufacturing capacity. In 2006, on top of the $21.5 billion invested in new generating capacity, the RE sector received an additional $25.2 billion in new technology and manufacturing capacity investment. This is in stark contrast to the rest of the energy industry, which on the whole has seen R&D spending from public and private sources stagnating or on the decline.3 The RE sector’s very high level of investment in technology & manufacturing capacity indicates that investors are expecting strong growth for the sector. When the $21.5 billion in asset fi nance, the $9.3 billion in small-scale systems and the $25.2 billion in new technology and manufacturing capacity are added up, total 2006 investment in RE power sector comes to $59 billion, a signifi cant fi gure no matter how it is compared with global power sector investment. Looking forward, the IEA’s WEO 2006 predicted that

new renewables (ex hydro) would provide 11% of new capacity additions between 2004 and 2015. This
forecast seems to be on the low end, since in 2006, the wind sector alone provided nearly 10% of new capacity and its growth has been more than nine times faster than that of the power sector as a whole (24% versus 2.6%). The wind industry has recently forecast 19% growth out to capacity additions in that year, which would see wind accounting for 18% of global capacity additions in that year.4 Forecasting growth rates for energy technologies is a diffi cult undertaking. Normally, one would expect the proponents of a technology to be overly bullish and the general energy sector analysts and capital providers to be more neutral. Today’s investment trends indicate, however, that in the sustainable energy sector the capital providers are now more aligned with industry proponents in terms of expected growth. In fact, the investment community now seems to deviate markedly from conventional energy sector pundits. $59 billion would not have been invested in RE power sector fi nancing in 2006 if investors had been expecting RE growth to drop from over 20% last year down to 8% - a drop that would be necessary for the IEA’s 2015 predictions to hold true. Looking out further to 2030 or beyond, it is very diffi cult to predict which technologies will dominate the mix. The IEA in the WEO 2006 predicts that renewables will account for only 9% of the power sector in 2030, or 12% under the Alternative Policy Scenario. Table 2 lists a number of growth scenarios for renewable energy and the corresponding share of new capacity and installed capacity in the year 2030. The table shows that in addition to being more conservative than investment fl ows would indicate, the IEA fi gures in the WEO 2006 are also at the lower end when compared with other RE growth rate scenarios. In terms of climate change mitigation, the table shows for each scenario how many gigatonnes of CO2e emission reductions would result from the RE sector annually by 2030. This analysis

[CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE; NO TEXT OMITTED]

10

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – COMPETITIVENESS
builds off the conceptual climate wedge framework developed by Pacala and Socolow at Princeton University6 and specifi cally looks at the climate mitigation potential of new RE plants displacing coal generation. Whether RE power generation will

account for 16% or 47% of CO2 reductions in 2030 is unclear, however it is clear that it will be a major contributor to climate stabilization. And this analysis does not include the CO2 reduction potential of hydro generation and non-power sector renewables such as biofuels. Looking at the energy effi ciency sector, although the investment trends are harder to identify, the impacts of improving energy effi ciency can be valued economically. Investments in supply side and demand side effi ciency have been helping decrease global energy intensity, which on average has been dropping 1% to 1.5% per year. Since 1990, energy effi ciency has met one-half of all new demand for worldwide energy services. These savings – 3 billion tones of oil equivalent – have a value of $6 trillion if an average oil price of $27 is assumed (UNF 2007).7 The carbon mitigation impact is also signifi cant, even larger than the contribution of renewables. The challenge is to accelerate historical energy intensity improvement trends to levels around 2% or above, which compounded to 2030 means a 61% improvement in energy production and end use effi ciency. The sustainable energy sectors, combining renewable energy generation and transport fuels with improved supply and demand side effi ciency, together have the potential to change the structure of today’s energy sector, using current technology and building off of a widening array of enabling policy frameworks. The fi nance community has seen this potential and has been investing at a level that implies their belief that disruptive change is now possible and inevitable in the sector.

11

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – COMPETITIVENESS
AMERICA WILL LOSE OUT ON BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE RENEWABLES MARKET TO EUROPE AND CHINA – PROGRESSIVE GOVERNMENT POLICIES CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING COMPETITIVENESS ABATE 2008 – VP RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC HOUSE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, 3-6, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY The most critical challenge facing the US wind industry is policy uncertainty. Long-term, stable, predictable incentives encourage innovation and give technology manufacturers and suppliers the confidence to invest in expanding capacity to meet demand. Unpredictable policy, conversely, stunts technology investment and demand forecasting, limiting innovation and contributing to supply chain constraints. A clear illustration of the importance of stable, long-term, predictable policy is the historical "boom-bust" pattern of the US wind segment resulting from the "on-again, off-again" nature of the production tax credit. When the production tax credit expired at the end of 1999, 2001, and 2003, wind power installations declined by 73-93%. By contrast, the repeated extensions in 2005 and 2006 have stabilized the policy environment, establishing the United States as the world leader in annual wind power installations and stimulating investment and jobs. Expiration of the tax credit would have a devastating impact on the US domestic wind industry. A recent report estimates failure to extend the wind production tax credit would cause a 90% drop in wind power installations, resulting in $11.5 billion of lost investment and a lost employment opportunity of 76,000 jobs in 17 states in 2009 alone. At a time when the United States is seeking to stimulate its economy, investment and jobs that might have been created in the United States could instead shift overseas to Europe and China, which are strengthening their wind policies. The European Union is developing a Binding Directive of 20% renewable energy by 2020. China, the third-largest wind segment in 2007, has established an aggressive national renewable energy standard that, if met, could surpass the United States in wind power by the middle of the next decade. Failure to extend the renewable tax incentives would also cause the US to forgo long-term export opportunities. The connection between a stable domestic policy and a vibrant export sector for renewables is exemplified by Germany, whose incentive system has created the world's leading installed base in a country with a moderate wind resource. Wind power technology is the country's second-leading export industry after automobiles-a fact that US policymakers might consider as they explore options for increased job growth in depressed manufacturing regions.

12

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – ADVANTAGE – COMPETITIVENESS
US technological dominance is key to hegemony Khalilzad, 1995 (Washington Quarterly, lexis)
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen.

The impact is global nuclear war Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's

major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and lowlevel conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a
bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

13

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – SOLVENCY
PLAN TEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES IN THE UNITED STATES BY ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF UPSTREAM AUCTIONED TRADABLE CARBON PERMITS WITH A CAP THAT REDUCES DOMESTIC CARBON EMISSIONS TO SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW 1990 LEVELS [ BY 2050 ].

CONTENTION FIVE: SOLVENCY CAP AND TRADE IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE COST BENEFICIAL AND FLEXIBLE POLICY FOR ALLEVIATING CLIMATE CHANGE CONCERNS WHILE INTEGRATING US EMISSIONS CONTROLS WITH EMERGING INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS STAVINS 2007 – PROF BUSINESS AND GOV’T HARVARD CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, BROOKINGS, OCTOBER, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/10climate_stavins.aspx The need for a domestic U.S. policy that seriously addresses climate change is increasingly apparent. A cap-and-trade system is the best approach in the short to medium term. Besides providing certainty about emissions levels, cap-and-trade offers an easy means of compensating for the inevitably unequal burdens imposed by climate policy; it is straightforward to harmonize with other countries’ climate policies; it avoids the current political aversion in the United States to taxes; and it has a history of successful adoption in this country. The paper proposes a specific cap-and-trade system with several key features including: an upstream cap on CO2 emissions with gradual inclusion of other greenhouse gases; a gradual downward trajectory of emissions ceilings over time to minimize disruption and allow firms and households time to adapt; and mechanisms to reduce cost uncertainty. Initially, half of the program’s allowances would be allocated through auctioning and half through free distribution, primarily to those entities most burdened by the policy. This should help limit potential inequities while bolstering political support. The share distributed for free would phase out over twenty-five years. The auctioned allowances would generate revenue that could be used for a variety of worthwhile public purposes. The system would provide for linkage with international emissions reduction credit arrangements, harmonization over time with effective cap-and-trade systems in other countries, and appropriate linkage with other actions taken abroad that maintains a level playing field between imports and import-competing domestic products.

14

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – SOLVENCY

A HARD CAP AND TRADE REGIME WITH A GOAL OF 80% REDUCTIONS BELOW 1990 LEVELS BY 2050 WOULD BE COST EFFECTIVE AND CREATE THE MARKET AND REGULATORY INCENTIVES FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY TRANSITION AND AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE CAP 2008 – CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS WHAT IS CAP AND TRADE, 1-16, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/capandtrade101.html/print.html What is Cap and Trade? The goal: To steadily reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide in a cost-effective manner. The cap: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an “emissions permit” for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met. This is similar to the cap and trade program enacted by the Clean Air Act of 1990, which reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, and it met the goals at a much lower cost than industry or government predicted. The trade: It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions
below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily. This creates a system that guarantees a set level of overall reductions, while rewarding the most efficient companies and ensuring that the cap can be met at the lowest possible cost to the economy. The profits: If the federal government auctions the emissions permits to the companies required to reduce their emissions, it would create a large and dependable revenue stream. These financial resources could be used to achieve critical public policy objectives related to climate change mitigation and economic development. The federal government can also choose to “grandfather” allowances to the polluting firms by handing them out free based on historic or projected emissions. This would give the most benefits to those companies with higher baseline emissions that have historically done the least to reduce their pollution. What Would a Successful

Cap-and-Trade Program Look Like? The goal: To limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming. The cap: To achieve this goal, the U.S. government should steadily tighten the cap until emissions are reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Businesses would have to obtain permits entitling them to emit a certain quantity of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. All permits would be auctioned off by the government. Emissions permits in the near term would likely fall in the range of $10 to $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent. The trade: Companies unable to meet their emissions quotas could purchase allowances from other companies that have acquired more permits than they need to account for their emissions. The cost of buying and selling these credits would be determined by the marketplace, which over time would reduce the cost of trading the credits as trading becomes more widespread and efficient. The profits: Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources. The other half of the remaining revenue should be used to invest in renewable energy, efficiency, low-carbon transportation technologies, green-collar job training, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some resources should also be invested in the energy, environment, and infrastructure sectors in developing nations to alleviate energy poverty with low-carbon energy systems and help these nations adapt to the inevitable effects of global warming. Revenues from the permit auction would essentially be “recycled” back into the economy to facilitate the transition to an efficient, low-carbon energy economy and ensure that consumers are not unduly burdened by potentially higher energy costs.

15

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

1AC – PERMITS – SOLVENCY
Emissions trading enhances environmental goals—garners support for reductions below the cuts, causes innovation and gathers information necessary to solve future environmental problems Ellerman, Joskow, and Harrison, MIT and National Economics Research Associates, 2003 (“Emissions Trading in the U.S.”, May, www.pewclimate.org)
The use of emissions trading has enhanced—not compromised—the achievement of environmental goals. Emissions trading is sometimes portrayed as a way of evading environmental requirements, but the experience to date has demonstrated the opposite. Environmental goals have not been compromised by trading; rather, emissions trading has helped achieve environmental targets. Enhanced environmental performance can be attributed to the increased flexibility associated with emissions trading for three reasons. First, where emission reduction requirements are phased in and firms can bank emission reductions—as was the case in the Lead Trading, Acid Rain, ABT, and Northeast NOX Budget Programs— the achievement of the required emission reduction has been accelerated. The early reductions may defer the achievement of future annual emissions control targets as the banked credits are used. However, as long as a positive discount rate is assigned to the benefits associated with emission reductions—as is surely the case, since benefits today are preferred to the same benefits tomorrow— accelerating the timing of the cumulative, required emission reductions is an environmental gain. Second, allowing firms that face high marginal costs of abatement, or even technical infeasibility, to comply with environmental requirements by buying allowances—effectively paying others to reduce more on their behalf—has eliminated one of the features of command-and-control programs that diminishes environmental effectiveness. In a command-and-control program, economic hardship or technical barriers can be dealt with only by relaxing the emissions standard in some way. While often justified, these exceptions reduce the regulation’s environmental effectiveness because they are one-sided: standards are relaxed to avoid “hardships” for some facilities, but increased emissions cannot be offset by increasing standards at facilities for which abatement is less expensive or easier technologically. The net result is more emissions than would be produced by an “ideal” regulation—one taking into account differing compliance costs. Emissions trading programs avoid this problem by providing an alternative means of compliance to facilities that face high costs of abatement and by providing an incentive to abate more to facilities with low costs of abatement. The result is a decentralized mechanism for offsetting emissions that does not detract from achievement of the environmental goal. A third reason for enhanced environmental results is the greater ability to gain consensus on the environmental goal, and even adopt a more demanding goal, when flexibility is present. An important reason for the acceptance of more demanding environmental targets in conjunction with trading appears to be that the allocation mechanism can be used to win over those who might otherwise stand to lose the most from tighter regulations. The inclusion of emissions trading in Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 broke what had been a decade-long stalemate on acid rain legislation. In the Northeastern NOX trading program, state officials and regulators turned to emissions trading as a better means to come into attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, a goal which had long eluded these states (and a number of others) despite ample regulatory authority in the existing Clean Air Act. Similarly, regulators in Southern California adopted emissions trading in both SO2 and NOX as a more likely means of achieving emission reduction requirements that were already required. There also is evidence that more stringent emission standards were set for various categories of mobile sources because of the flexibility provided by the ABT programs. Finally, some ancillary benefits of trading programs that would lead to improved environmental quality may be anticipated. Although evidence is limited so far, trading programs should create greater incentives for innovation in emission-reduction technologies than command-and-control regulations have created. While the latter may “force” some technological development, there is no incentive to go beyond the standard, and indeed a disincentive because investments in developing more efficient abatement technology might be “rewarded” only by a tighter standard. In contrast, the incentive to abate in cap-and-trade

16

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

programs, where there is no specific standard for any single plant, is continuous and any improvements in abatement technology will result in allowance savings (Swift 2001). There is also empirical evidence that the Lead Trading Program led to more efficient adoption of lead-reducing technologies by refiners (Kerr and Newell forthcoming). As confidence is gained in the effect of these incentives on innovation, it should be feasible to reduce emissions more than would otherwise be the case. Another ancillary benefit is the significant improvement in the quality of environmental data that results from the monitoring requirements of emissions trading programs.46 This information should contribute to better understanding of and solutions to remaining environmental problems.

17

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

_____________________________ ***EXT – WARMING ADVANTAGE

18

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

U – AT THRESHOLD HAS BEEN REACHED
Slowing the rate of warming is critical—gives ecosystems time to adapt
Thomas professor of Biodiversity and Conservation at the School of Biology at U Leeds 2004 (Carl et. al. Nature, January 8, “Extinction Risk from Climate Change”) Despite these uncertainties, we believe that the consistent overall conclusions across analyses establish that anthropogenic climate warming at least ranks alongside other recognized threats to global biodiversity. Contrary to previous projections24, it is likely to be the greatest threat in many if not most regions. Furthermore, many of the most severe impacts of climate-change are likely to stem from interactions between threats, factors not taken into account in our calculations, rather than from climate acting in isolation. The ability of species to reach new climatically suitable areas will be hampered by habitat loss and fragmentation, and their ability to persist in appropriate climates is likely to be affected by new invasive species. Minimum expected (that is, inevitable) climate-change scenarios for 2050 produce fewer projected 'committed extinctions' (18%; average of the three area methods and the two dispersal scenarios) than midrange projections (24%), and about half of those predicted under maximum expected climate change (35%). These scenarios would diverge even more by 2100. In other words, minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering carbon25 to realize minimum, rather than mid-range or maximum, expected climate warming could save a substantial percentage of terrestrial species from extinction. Returning to near pre-industrial global temperatures as quickly as possible could prevent much of the projected, but slower-acting, climate-related extinction from being realized.

19

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

IL – BIODIVERSITY – ENERGY KEY
Fossil fuel consumption is the major contributor to this massive biodiversity loss McDaniel and Borton, bio scientists, 2002 (10/1, Bioscience, No. 10, Vol. 52, p. 929) When we use fossil fuels as an energy source, a host of selection pressures are put in motion. Mining, transport, and burning of fossil fuels, as well as the infrastructure associated with these activities, directly disturb ecosystems. Although the disturbances from mines, oil fields, roads, trucks, ships, seaports, trains, and railroads are substantial, it is the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) that will most likely alter the biosphere profoundly, because it is a major greenhouse gas and its concentration has increased more than 30 percent in the last century. Increased CO2 concentration alters many plant characteristics and has been implicated in future loss of biodiversity (Phillips and Gentry 1994 ). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has calculated that, unless CO2 emissions are reduced by 60 to 80 percent, global temperature will increase between 1 and 6°C over the next century (Watson et al. 2001 ). This increase will cause major climate change that will accelerate the rate of extinction for several reasons. Climate change is associated with heat waves, spread of diseases, changes in the timing of the seasons, sea-level rise and coastal flooding, coral reef bleaching, Arctic and Antarctic warming, and extremes in precipitation and associated flooding, droughts, and fires (UCS 1999 ). Species may not be able to find habitat or to move fast enough to stay in their climate zone. Their movement may be blocked by human infrastructure—roads and cities, industrial activities, farms, and other impediments. Higher temperatures have already changed species composition in ecosystems (Alward et al 1999 ). Over time, these changes, coupled with other human influences, will reduce biodiversity (Wilson 2002 ). With the accelerating loss of species, habitats, and ecosystems, it is unclear when, how, or how fast the materials and functions of biological diversity, the so-called life-support functions, will decline. These lifesupport functions include such things as atmospheric gas regulation, climate regulation, water purification and flow, ecosystem disturbance regulation, erosion control and sediment retention, soil formation, waste removal, pollination, biological control of populations, habitat creation and preservation, food, raw materials, genetic resources, and human recreation, as well as spiritual and other cultural amenities. These materials and functions are essential for a civil human society and ultimately, for existence (Wilson 1992 , 2002 ).

20

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

IMPACT ADDON – OSILLATIONS
TURN – CLIMATE OSCILLATIONS A – Warming will cause frequent extreme weather events generating massive climate instability Godrej 2001 – Former editor of New Internationalist The No-Nonsense Guide to Global Climate Change, p. (23-24)
All change So what's in store? The general predictions of the IPCC scientists include a greater degree of warming over landmasses than over seas, as the darker, rougher surfaces of land soak up solar energy better. The Arctic will see the greatest amount of warming in its winter temperatures. Nighttime warming will be greater than that for daytime. For the mid-latitudes (most of North America, Europe, parts of South America) the number of hot days in summer will increase whilst exceptionally cold days will decrease in number. The most worrying predictions though concern the unpredictable - there will be an increase in extreme weather events such as freak floods and prolonged droughts and they will last longer . Not all the changes would have to do with warmer weather as such; the increased energy flows could drive more intense bliz zards and snowstorms as well. With temperatures rising there will be increased evaporation both from land and sea. The latter could translate into increased rainfall. But this will not be an orderly change, with the rainfall compensating for the drying out of the land. Instead there will be all sorts of local imbalances, some areas turning to desert after their soils have been baked dry whilst others see topsoil washed away by floods. Storms will become more frequent and intense, coastal regions could be awash with rain while great continental interiors dry up. The most worrying aspect of these changes are that they have been calculated assuming gradual global climate change, but the distant past offers evidence for abrupt switches in climate. And the fear is that cli mate systems could undergo just such a dramatic flip , from which recovery would be a matter of centuries rather than decades (see box: Northern Europe and the big chill).

B – IMPACT: Climate oscillations will destroy agriculture and the world economy— kills billions Milbrath, Director of the Research Program in Environment and Society at the State University of New York-Buffalo, 1994 (THE FUTURIST, May, p. 28.)
Another scenario suggests that there could be an extended period, perhaps a decade or two, when there is oscillation-type chaos in the climate system. Plants will be especially vulnerable to oscillating chaos, since they are injured or die when climate is too hot or too cold, too dry or too wet. And since plants make food for all other creatures, plant dieback would lead to severe declines in agricultural production. Farm animals and wildlife would die in large numbers. Many humans also would starve. Several years of climatic oscillation could kill billions of people. The loss of the premise of continuity would also precipitate collapse of world financial markets. That collapse would lead to sharp declines in commodity markets, world trade, factory output, retail sales, research and development, tax income for governments, and education. Such nonessential activities as tourism, travel, hotel occupancy, restaurants, entertainment, and fashion would be severely affected. Billions of unemployed people would drastically reduce their consumption, and modern society's vaunted economic system would collapse like a house of cards.

21

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

AT BIAS / QUALIFICATIONS
Neg authors are paid off and have no scientific standing Gelbspan, long time science reporter and winner of the Pulitzer Prize, 2004 (Ross, Boiling Point, p. 33-6)
ExxonMobil's new public relations charade did little to conceal its real intentions. By 2001, ExxonMobil had replaced the coal industry as the major funder of the most prominent and visible "greenhouse skeptics." By 2003, ExxonMobil was giving more than $1 million a year to an array of ideological, right-wing organizations opposing action on climate change-including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall I Institute, the American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research, and the American Legislative Exchange Council. In its effort to sabotage the unprecedented scientific consensus of the IPCC, ExxonMobil has basically picked up where the coal industry left off. During the 1990s, that effort had been spearheaded by Fred Palmer, who, around the time of the Bush election, was hired as chief lobbyist for Peabody Energy. Prior to his hiring by Peabody Palmer headed up the Western Fuels Association, a $400-million coal consortium that had funded a tiny handful of industry-funded "greenhouse skeptics" who had long been dismissed by the mainstream scientific community. Throughout the 1990s, Palmer directed an extensive and extremely successful public relations offensive funded by the coal industry that used such prominent "greenhouse skeptics" as Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Sherwood Idso, and Robert Balling, among others. One campaign, which sent three of these "skeptics" around the country to do media interviews, was crafted, according to its strategy papers, "to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact" and, more specifically, was designed to target "older, less-educated men ... and young low-income women" in districts that get their electricity from coal and preferably have a member on the House Energy Committee, according to the strategy papers for the campaign. Over the last ten years, those skeptics received more than a million dollars, either directly or indirectly, from coal and oil interests. Their strategy was quite simple-continue to raise doubts about the science in order to preempt any public demand for action. Their funding by the fossil fuel lobby was never disclosed publicly until it was published in The Heat Is On in 1997. (The issue of financial disclosure is not a small one. Industry-funded research can be neutral-and it can be good or bad. But disclosure is critical so that the work in question can be reviewed with an eye to commercial bias. If, for instance, a medical researcher's work is funded by a pharmaceutical company, that funding must be declared in the tag line as a condition of publication. Unfortunately, those same guidelines do not apply to climate science. And-most damning-few journalists who have written about this issue have ever bothered to ask about funding.)

22

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

AT BIAS / QUALIFICATIONS
What is especially telling about the industry-funded "greenhouse skeptics" is their lack of standing in the scientific community. In a review of Michaels's work, Tom M.L. Wigley, a preeminent climate modeler at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, concluded it was so flawed that not only would it fail to pass the scrutiny of qualified climate scientists, it would not even be accepted for peer review. As for Singer, he has been unable to publish anything in the peer-reviewed literature in the last twenty years except for one technical comment. Singer's recklessness transcends his deeply flawed scientific pronouncements. It involves at least one public lie about his own funding. In early 2001, Singer was accused of hav ing his work funded by the oil industry. In response, Singer wrote in a letter to the Washington Post that he had not received any oil industry money for at least twenty years when he had done a consulting job for the industry. In fact, Singer received at least $10,000 and as much as $75,000 from ExxonMobil in 1998 alone, according to information on the oil giant's own Web site. (Shortly after that information was published in the Nation, ExxonMobil withdrew the page from its Web site.
Overall, however, the success of the campaign of disinformation by the fossil fuel lobby on the public and on policymakers in the United States is striking. One proof of the success of that campaign is reflected by two polls done by Newsweek magazine. Back in 1991, 35 percent of people surveyed by Newsweek said they thought global warming was a very serious problem. By 1996-even though the science had become far more robust and the IPCC had declared that humans are, indeed, changing the climate-that 35 percent had shrunk to 22 percent, largely as a result of the fossil fuel lobby's deceptive public relations campaign. That record of success was clearly not lost on the Luntz group. One section of the notorious Luntz memo counsels the president: "The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science. Americans unanimously believe all environmental rules and regulations should be based on sound science and common sense. Similarly our confidence in the ability of science and technology to solve our nation's ills is second to none. Both perceptions will work in your favor if properly cultivated."

Sure enough, the most prominent new effort by the skeptics to discredit the findings of mainstream scientists surfaced in the spring of 2003 in the form of a study authored by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and published in an obscure journal, Climate Research. The paper was coauthored by Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso, whose Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide was long funded by the coal industry and more recently supported by ExxonMobil.

23

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF ____________________________________

***EXT – OIL ADVANTAGE

24

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

U – PEAK
Oil will run out— the peak will be reached by 2010 John Attarian, Ph.D., doctorate in economics from Michigan, 2002 (“The Coming End of Cheap Oil” The Social Contract, Summer http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=1094&terms=) Other geologists have recently applied Hubbert’s method to world oil. In 1996, L. F. Ivanhoe pointed out that world oil discovery peaked in 1962, that world production tends to parallel discovery with a roughly 32-year lag, and that most of the world’s large oil fields have probably already been found. Using United States Geological Survey (USGS) world data, and allowing for diminished consumption after the 1970s oil price shocks, Ivanhoe put the peak year at 2010, perhaps slightly postponed by discoveries since 1992.(7) Two years later, Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrère, then associated with the Geneva-based Petroconsultants, asserted that “within the next decade, the supply of conventional oil will be unable to keep up with the demand.” With forty years’ experience apiece in the oil industry, they debunked the industry’s optimistic assessment of “proved” reserves exceeding a trillion barrels. Reserve figures are problematic, especially for countries outside America, which can and do inflate reserves for political purposes; shortly after OPEC modified production quotas in the 1980s to take reserves into account, several members increased their reserves by some 300 Gb total. Campbell and Laherrère put total world reserves at 850 Gb, with another 150 Gb still undiscovered. “There is only so much crude oil in the world, and the industry has found about 90 percent of it.” Total supply (800 Gb consumed as of end-1997 plus probable reserves plus still undiscovered oil), they concluded was some 1,800 Gb, and output would peak before 2010.(8) Campbell’s updated projections obtained similar results; even broadening conventional oil, to include natural gas liquids in oil wells, generated an estimate of 1,950 Gb and a peak in 2010.(9)

25

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

IL – RESOURCE WARS
As supplies run out the U.S. will initiate a massive military campaign to secure oil supplies, collapsing hegemony Richard Heinberg, New College of California, program of Culture, Ecology, and Sustainable Community, 2003 (The Party’s Over, p. 197-8) Regional rivalries and long-term strategy: Even without competition for energy resources, the world is full of conflict and animosity. For the most part, it is in the United States' interest to prevent open confrontation between regional rivals, such as India and Pakistan, Israel and Syria, and North and South Korea. However, resource competition will only worsen existing enmities. As the petroleum production peak approaches, the US will likely make efforts to take more direct control of energy resources in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Caspian Sea, Africa and South America - efforts that may incite other nations to form alliances to curb US ambitions. Within only a few years, OPEC countries will have control over virtually all of the exportable surplus oil in the world (with the exception of Russia's petroleum, the production of which may reach a second peak in 2010, following an initial peak that precipitated the collapse of the USSR). The US - whose global hegemony has seemed so complete for the past decade - will suffer an increasing decline in global influence, which no amount of saber rattling or bombing of "terrorist" countries will be able to reverse. Awash in debt, dependent on imports, mired in corruption, its military increasingly overextended, the US is well into its imperial twilight years. Meanwhile, whichever nations seek to keep their resources out of the global market will be demonized. This has already occurred in the cases of Iran, Iraq, and Libya - which sought to retain too large a share of their resource profits to benefit their own regimes and hence attained pariah status in the eyes of the US government. Essentially they were seeking to do something similar to what the American colonists did in throwing off British rule over two centuries earlier. Like the American colonists, they wanted to control their own natural resources and the profits accruing from them. Many readers will object to such an analogy between American colonial patriots and modern-day Libyan or Iraqi leaders on the grounds that the latter are autocrats guilty of human-rights abuses that justify their condemnation by the international community. But we must recall that America's founders were themselves engaged in slavery and genocide and that many US client states including Turkey, Israel, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia - have also been guilty of serious abuses.zl In the future, secure access to resources will depend not only on the direct control of oil fields and pipelines but also on successful competition with other bidders for available supplies. Eventually, the US will need to curtail European and Japanese access to resources wherever possible. Again, every effort will be made to avoid direct confrontation because in open conflict all sides will lose. Even the closest trading partners of the US - Canada and Mexico, which are currently major energy-resource suppliers - will become competitors for their own resources when depletion reaches a point where those nations find it hard to maintain exports to their energy-hungry neighbor and still provide for the needs of their own people.

26

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

IMPACT ADDON – ECONOMY
TURN – GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE A – Without immediate efforts to reduce consumption the oil peak will destroy the global economy Roberts, Harper's Magazine, Finalist for the National Magazine Award, 2004 (Paul, The End of Oil: A Perilous New World, p. 12-14) Yet despite the staying power of the status quo, each year that energy consumption continues unabated, the end of the current energy system not only becomes more inevitable but appears more likely to occur as a traumatic event. As energy supplies become harder to transport, as environmental effects worsen, and as energy diplomacy sows even greater geopolitical discord, the weight of the existing energy order becomes less and less bearable - and the possibility of a disruption more undeniable.
In the end, this question of disruption may be the most critical one of all -not simply for policymakers and oil sheiks, but for anyone accustomed to filling up at the gas station or switching on an air conditioner; for it is not simply change that affects us, but the rate of change - how quickly and cleanly one way of life is exchanged for another. A swift, chaotic shift in our energy

economy almost guarantees disruption, uncertainty, economic loss, even violence. By contrast, were we somehow to manage a gradual, smooth change, phased in over time, we might be able to adapt, minimizing our losses and even allowing the more clever of our species to profit from new opportunities.
In fact, while the precise shape of our energy future remains veiled, we can already discern two distinct paths for getting there. On the one hand, we can imagine the transition as a kind of a proactive endeavor, driven by global consensus over some perceived threat, based on scientific analysis, and managed to minimize disruption and maximize economic gain. On the other, we can picture a change that is less a transition than a reaction, a patchwork of defensive programs triggered by some political or

Suppose, for example, that worldwide oil production hits a kind of peak and that, as at Ghawar, the amount of oil that oil companies and oil states can pull out of the ground plateaus or even begins to decline - a not altogether inconceivable scenario. Oil is finite, and although vast oceans of it remain underground, waiting to be pumped out and refined into gasoline for your Winnebago, this is old oil, in fields that have been known about for years or even decades. By contrast, the amount of new oil that is being discovered each year is declining; the peak year was 1960, and it has been downhill ever since. Given that oil cannot be produced without first being discovered, it is inevitable that, at some point, worldwide oil product ion must peak and begin declining as well - less than ideal circumstances for a global economy that depends on cheap oil for about 40 percent of its energy needs (not to mention 90 percent of its transportation fuel) and is nowhere even close to having alternative energy sources. The last three times oil production dropped off a cliff - the Arab oil embargo of 1974, the Iranian revolution in 1979, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War - the resulting price spikes pushed the world into recession. And these disruptions were temporary. Presumably, the effects of a long-term permanent disruption would be far more gruesome. As prices rose, consumers would quickly shift to other fuels, such as natural gas or coal, but soon enough, those supplies would also tighten and their prices would rise. An inflationary ripple effect would set in. As energy became more expensive, so would such energy-dependent activities as manufacturing and transportation. Commercial activity would slow, and segments of the global economy especially dependent on rapid growth - which is to say, pretty much everything these days would tip into recession. The cost of goods and services would rise, ultimately depressing economic
natural disaster.

27

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

IMPACT ADDON – ECONOMY
demand and throwing the entire economy into an enduring depression that would make 1929 look like a dress rehearsal and could touch off a desperate and probably violent contest for whatever oil supplies remained. When such a production peak will occur is, as we shall see, a Very Big Question. Optimists like the U.S. government believe that a peak in oil production cannot occur before 2035 or so and that would give the world plenty of time to find something else to burn. Pessimists, by contrast, a group whose members include geologists, industry analysts, and a surprising number of oil industry and government officials, believe that a peak may come much sooner - perhaps as soon as 2005. (Indeed, a small but vocal minority believes
that the peak has already occurred and that this is why oil companies like Shell and BP are struggling to find untapped sources of oil to replace all the barrels they produce.) Granted, such a wide range of dates is not particularly helpful for anyone wanting to know when to start hoarding diesel, light out for the hills, or invest in oil company stocks. But

even the oil optimists concede, usually privately, that the important oil - that is, the oil that exists outside the control of the eleven-country OPEC oil cartel - will in all likelihood peak between 2015 and 2020. We call this "important oil" because, once it peaks, the free world will have to rely more each year on oil controlled by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran governments that cannot be counted on to bear the best interests of the West in mind in setting pricing policy. That brings us back to the question of smooth or sudden change. Admittedly, even if the world knew exactly when non-OPEC oil was going to peak, only so much could be done to prepare, given the size of the existing oil infrastructure and the complacency of the average consumer. Yet it's also true that were Western governments to begin taking steps to reduce oil demand, or at least to slow the rate at which it is growing (by, say, raising fuel efficiency standards for cars), the impact of such a peak would be lessened dramatically - and the world would gain all the benefits of using something other than oil. At the same time, if the consuming world instead continues in its current mode - known by energy economists and other worriers as "business as usual" - oil demand will be so high by 2015 that a peak (or any big disruption, such as a civil war in Saudi Arabia or a massive climate-related disaster that kills thousands and forces politicians to cut the use of oil and other hydrocarbons in a hurry) could be an unmitigated disaster. Thus, the real question, for anyone truly concerned about our future, is not whether change is going to come, but whether the shift will be peaceful and orderly or chaotic and violent because we waited too long to begin planning for it.
lest you think it's about time to buy a larger SUV, it is worth noting that

28

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

IMPACT ADDON – ECONOMY
B – IMPACT: This causes multiple nuclear wars
Lewis 98 (Chris, Coming Age of Scarcity, Amercian Studies at UC Boulder) Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world the United States, Europe, Japan and Others will fight neocolonial wars to force those countries to remain within the collapsing global economy. The neocolonial wars will result in mass death, suffering , and even regional nuclear wars. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy, then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War Two pale in comparison. However, these neocolonial wars fought to maintain developed nations economic and political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage the complex economic and trading networks and squander material, biological, and energy resources that they will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth’s 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global civilization.

29

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

AT NEW DISCOVERIES
New oil discoveries will be insufficient- downward trend is inevitable Roberts, Harper's Magazine, Finalist for the National Magazine Award, 2004
(Paul, The End of Oil: A Perilous New World, p. 50-2) This three-part source-reservoir-trap configuration - "a petroleum system," in geologists' terminology constitutes an underground hydrocarbon machine that generates, transports, and stores oil and gas. Petroleum systems exist all over the world and comprise anything from smallish entities producing just a few hundred barrels a day to the four massive systems in the Middle East that together account for half of the world's known oil reserves. Yet for all their variety, all petroleum systems operate according to a set of rigid natural rules. The source rocks, for example, must contain enough organic material to generate usable volumes of oil and gas. The migration rock must be sufficiently permeable, or the oil won't flow freely through it. The cap rock must be sufficiently impermeable, or the oil will simply leak away. Above all, the timing must be perfect. To become oil, the organic material in the source rock must be heated to a certain temperature for a certain period of time. Typically, this happens when the source rock gets buried and, over millions of years, is pushed downward, into what oil scientists call the "kitchen" - a geological zone between ten thousand and thirteen thousand feet below sea level where temperatures are high enough (100 to 135°C) to boil organic matter into petroleum. Petroleum forms only in the kitchen. Source rock that isn't pushed low enough will not be cooked, whereas source rock that is pushed too far, past the kitchen, becomes too hot, and the petroleum is either "cracked" into gas or simply destroyed. There is no halfway: the conditions for oil either exist or they don't. Nor are there any guarantees: even if a system meets all these criteria, it may still reveal itself to be empty when oil companies pierce it with their drills. Many older petroleum systems have produced oceans of oil in the distant past, only to have it leak away millions of years before humans even knew what oil was. Oil, in other words, is a relatively rare phenomenon, produced only in certain geological spaces, under certain conditions, and within a shallow tune just below the surface of the earth. Worldwide, there exist approximately six hundred petroleum systems capable of producing commercial volumes of oil and gas. Of these, approximately four hundred have been explored The remainder lie in places like the Arctic or in deep offshore waters - remote, hard-to-reach areas that oil companies have turned to only it after exploiting the more accessible oil. This state of affairs helps explain why oil exploration has become so much more difficult in recent decades. Not only are the remaining "undiscovered" systems harder to reach, but they are likely to be smaller: historically larger systems, being easier to find than smaller ones, have tended to hr discovered first. What is more, oil companies prefer to develop the large discoveries first and put off exploring the smaller, less profitable fields until later. "In any region, the large fields are the biggest targets and are usually discovered first," says petroleum geologist Joseph Riva, a former oil analyst with the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS). "As exploration progresses the average size of the fields discovered decreases, as does the amount of oil found per unit of exploratory drilling:"7 Or in plain English, remaining undiscovered fields not only will be smaller but are likely to yield ever-smaller volumes of petroleum.'

30

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

AT NEW DISCOVERIES
In fact, when one charts the average volume of oil that has been discovered each year since the beginning of the century, it becomes clear that new oil is indeed getting harder to find. Year by year, the volume of newly discovered oil -that is, the number of barrels found each year and recorded in the books as known or discovered reserves - climbs steadily upward from 1860 until around 1961, when it peaks. Since then, oil companies have found on average, a little less oil each year - with the exception of a mall blip in the late 1990s as big finds were announced in the Caspian, off the shore re of West Africa, and in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, since 1995, the world has used 24 billion barrels of oil a year but has found, on average, just 9.6 billion barrels of new oil annually. According to a study by Wood Mackenzie Consultants, industry is finding less than 40 percent of the new oil it needs to keep the base of known reserves from shrinking. Barring some fairly spectacular disruption to historical patterns, there is little reason to expect anything to alter the downward trajectory of discovery. "We've been drilling holes all over the world since the early 1900s," says Les Magoon, a geologist with the USGS who has mapped world petroleum fields for three decades and does not share his employer's optimism. "Statistically, it's unlikely that there is all this `hidden resource,' waiting to be found; [it] is pretty hard to support scientifically."' Indeed, according to pessimists, when we use these more realistic forecasts of future oil discoveries, our estimates for the world's total remaining oil - proven and undiscovered - drops to a trillion barrels (not 2.6 tril lion, as the USGS claims) and puts the peak at around 2010. That doesn't leave us a lot of time certainly not enough time to prepare for the kind of consequences that a peak is expected to unleash. Even if we assume that the peak would actually be a plateau, with the "cliff" pushed out till, say, 2016, the deadline is still fairly imminent, given the size and value of the oilbased infrastructure - the tankers, the pipelines, the refineries, 747s, Greyhound buses, and, above all, cars that would need to be upgraded or replaced outright. "The point to remember about production isn't that it peaks, but that it declines rapidly afterward, at a time when the world demand would be moving rapidly in the opposite direction," Joe Romm, former acting U.S. assistant energy secretary for the Clinton administration, told me last year. Once a decline begins, Romm says, "there is very little time for the U.S. to react.""'

31

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

____________________________________ ***EXT – COMPETITIVENESS ADVANTAGE

32

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

U – RENEWABLE SHIFT
MARKETS AROUND THE WORLD ARE ACCEPTING THE INEVITABILITY AND GREAT POTENTIAL OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY INVESTMENTS UNEP 2007 – UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME GLOBAL TRENDS IN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT, DIVISION OF TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY AND ECONOMICS, http://www.unep.org/pdf/SEFI_reportGlobalTrendsInSustainableEnergyInverstment07.pdf In conclusion, sustainable energy markets are becoming more liquid and more global. The various forms of capital now being deployed across the value chain signal the sector’s shift into the mainstream. Given the maturing sector fundamentals, the recent capital build-up does not appear to be a sign of shortterm volatility, but part of a longer-term trend. With individual sectors there is considerable volatility, however, risk and uncertainty can be diversifi ed across technologies and geographies. These trends have continued through the fi rst half of 2007, with new investment globally in sustainable energy expected to total $85 billion for the year. What these fi gures represent is not a fi ne-tuning of the current global energy system, but rather full-scale economic development. Investment growth is underpinned by clean energy policy initiatives. Despite the considerable discussion about the need for energy technologies of tomorrow, the investment community already believes that the technologies available today are ready to decarbonise the energy mix.

33

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

U – RENEWABLE SHIFT
A renewable energy transition is happening globally—a new market will emerge in 10-20 years El-Ashry, CEO of the Global Environment Facility, 2001
(http://www.gefweb.org/Outreach/outreach-PUblications/New_Business_Renewable_Energy.pdf) Around the world, a transition to renewable energy systems has already begun. From private investors to governments to multilateral assistance agencies, renewable energy is receiving increasing investment shares and attention. For example, in a recent G-8 summit in Okinawa, Japan, assembled ministers for the first time recognized the importance of renewable energy and took new initiative, saying, “we call on all stakeholders to identify the barriers and solutions to elevating the level of renewable energy supply and distribution in developing countries.” The International Energy Agency, under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), said in 1999, “the world is in the early stages of an inevitable transition to a sustainable energy system that will be largely dependent on renewable resources.” The World Bank in 1999 committed itself to preparing several hundred million dollars a year in renewable energy projects as part of a new strategic initiative. In the past two years, Shell and British Petroleum have each committed $500 million for renewable energy investments. In addition, some countries, including developing countries such as China and India, are beginning to propose domestic targets for renewable energy ranging from 5 to 15 percent of new electricity supply within 10 to 20 years. A transition to renewable energy is inevitable, not because fossil fuel supplies will run out— large reserves of oil, coal, and gas remain in the world— but because the costs and risks of using these supplies will continue to increase relative to renewable energy. Costs will increase as the environmental impacts of fossil fuel use are increasingly incorporated into the costs of energy and as the cheapest reserves are depleted. Risks can increase as fossil fuel prices and availability become more variable due to such factors as privatization, deregulation, and political events. Renewable energy avoids fuel costs and fuel price risks; thus, as the costs of renewable energy technologies continue to fall, renewable energy is expected to overtake fossil fuels as the lowest cost, least-risk investment.

34

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

IL – COMPETITIVENESS – RENEWABLES KEY
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT IS VITAL TO PROMOTING JOB GROWTH AND CONFIDENCE TO STIMULATE OUR ECONOMY IN A GLOBAL COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE ABATE 2008 – VP RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC HOUSE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, 3-6, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Victor Abate, Vice President of Renewables at GE Energy. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the renewable energy economy, its potential to stimulate investment and job creation, and the critical importance of government policy in realizing this potential. GE Energy is a power generation technology leader with more than 100 years of industry experience. Our global team of 36,000 employees operates in over 700 sites in more than 100 countries. Our power generation business is a diverse portfolio consisting of thermal, gasification, nuclear, and renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar, and biomass. With energy demand increasing dramatically and growing worldwide pressure to address greenhouse gas emissions, GE believes that renewable energy must become an integral part of the 21st-century energy mix. GE Energy contributes the largest number of products to GE's ecomagination initiative, a companywide environmental commitment that includes an increase in "green" technology R&D from $700M in 2004 to $1.5B by 2010. This testimony will focus on wind, currently the most commercially viable renewable energy technology. Renewable Energy Industry Growth The United States, with its abundant domestic renewable energy resources, is well positioned to take advantage of this growing industry. A supportive policy environment has enabled the US to become the global leader in new wind power installations. Last year the US added 5,244 MW-over 25% of the world total. The US installed base of wind power grew 45% and totals 16.8 GW in 34 states, accounting for over 1% of the nation's electricity supply and powering over 4.5 million homes. Wind power accounted for 30% of all nameplate generation capacity added in the United States last year, second only to natural gas. The US is on pace to surpass Germany and become the nation with the largest installed base of wind power by the end of 2009.

35

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

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

Every region and state in this nation has significant renewable energy potential - wind and solar energy, geothermal energy,
ocean power, crops for biomass, and environmentally sustainable hydropower. In fact, North America has some of the world's greatest wind energy resources; North Dakota alone has enough to produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity each year , 37 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption in 1999 (3 trillion kWh ). Every minute, the sun drenches earth's surface with more energy than the world consumes in a year. The United States has the best solar resource of any industrialized country. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enough electricity could be generated to meet all of U.S. demand with solar energy on a plot of land 100 miles square in Nevada. The benefits of renewable energy are compelling: a cleaner environment for current and future generations, reduced threats of global warming, economic growth, greater diversity of fuel supply, improved energy and national security, rapid and modular deployment, and a global potential for technology transfer and innovation.

In addition, renewable energy technologies provide more jobs per unit of energy generated than do conventional energy technologies. According to the Department of Energy, wind energy provides about five times more jobs per dollar invested than coal or nuclear power. A recent study concluded that solar PV provides the most jobs of any renewable technology, on an energy capacity basis, and many of these positions are high-wage, high-tech jobs. The global markets for renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are booming. Wind has been the fastest growing energy source worldwide for most of the past decade, while global shipments of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and modules have increased at an average annual rate of 33 percent since 1996. During the same period, the use of coal for generating electricity has declined by 9 percent worldwide. Solar
PV and wind power technologies have matured considerably since the 1980s, experiencing dramatic increases in productivity and lifetime, while achieving significant declines in cost. In good wind sites, wind power is now the cheapest new energy source, with full life-cycle costs below those of most fossil-fuel powered plants.

Today, solar PV provides electricity for several hundred thousand people around the world, creates employment for more than ten thousand people and generates business worth more than $2 billion annually. According to some forecasts, clean-energy markets will grow from less than $7 billion in 2000 to

36

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

IL – COMPETITIVENESS – RENEWABLES KEY
more than $82 billion by 2010 , and the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) predicts that PV technology has "the potential to become one of the world's most important industries." Driven by concerns about global warming, energy security, increasing demand for energy worldwide particularly in developing countries and advances in renewable energy technologies, nations around the world are setting targets for renewable energy. The European Union aims to generate ten percent of its electricity with renewables by 2010, and the European Wind Energy Association projects that Europe will have 60,000 MW of installed wind capacity by that year. By the year 2020, wind energy could generate 10 percent of the world's electricity and create more than 1.7 million jobs. The European PV Industry Association projects that solar PV will provide 26 percent of total global annual electricity demand by 2040. Even China, India and Brazil have committed to significant increases in the use of renewable energy; India established a ministry for advanced energy technologies, and China has eliminated subsidies for coal. These three nations combined have more than two billion people, with rapidly rising demand for energy and the technologies that produce it, offering nearly unlimited market potential. The current political and commercial commitment to renewable energy around the world implies that the recent surge of activity in this industry is only the beginning of a massive transformation and expansion expected to occur over the coming decades. But without strong and sustained political leadership at home, Americans will lose out in this energy revolution. To compete successfully in the clean energy race, U.S. industries must be strong and resilient, which requires a strong and consistent domestic market for their products.

37

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

IL – COMPETITIVENESS – GLOBAL LEADERSHIP
US renewables dominance is critical to maintaining the American technological lead in the global economy Kammen, Professor of Energy and Society Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) Energy and Resources Group, 7/11/2001 (FDCH, lexis) In the last decade, the case for renewable energy has become an economic and environmental 'win-win' proposition. For many years renewables were seen as environmentally and socially attractive options that at best occupied niche markets due to barriers of cost and available infrastructure. That situation has dramatically changed. Renewable energy resources and technologies - notably solar, wind, small-scale hydro, and biomass based energy, as well as advanced energy conversion devices such as fuel cells - have undergone a true revolution in technological innovation, cost improvements, and in our understanding and analysis of appropriate applications 2 . There are now a number of energy sources, conversion technologies, and applications, where renewable energy options are either equal, or better, in price and services provided than the prevailing fossil fuel technologies. For example, in a number of settings in industrialized nations, wind energy is now the least cost option across all energy technologies with the added benefit of being modular and quick to install and bring on-line. In fact, some farmers, notably in the Midwest, have found that they can generate more income per hectare from the electricity generated by a wind turbine on their land than from their crop or ranching proceeds. Furthermore, photovoltaic panels and solar hot water heaters placed on buildings across America can: help reduce energy costs; dramatically shave peak-power demands; produce a healthier living environment; and increase our energy supply while managing our energy demand. California's energy crisis has raised fundamental questions about regional and national energy strategies. Rising demand suggests the need for new energy supplies, and certainly some new energy capacity is needed. However, there is a wide range of options for achieving supply and demand balance, and some of these options have not been given adequate attention. In general, the lack of past state and federal leadership has meant that we have seen too few incentives for renewable energy development, energy conservation, and efficiency measures, and too little attention to appropriate power plant siting issues and transmission and distribution bottlenecks. As a nation we are ignoring the importance of maintaining leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of which are related to the energy sector.3 This includes keeping pace with Japan and Germany in the production of solar photovoltaic systems, catching up with Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and with Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of fuel cell systems. The development of these industries within the U.S. is vital to both our international competitiveness and commercial strength, and to our national security in providing for our own energy needs. Renewable and distributed energy systems and energy efficiency are areas experiencing tremendous market growth internationally. These systems combine the latest advances in energy conversion and storage, with improvements in computer and other advanced technologies, and are therefore natural areas for U. S. business interests and for U. S. strategic leadership. The U. S. must improve the financial and political climate for clean energy systems in order to reassert our leadership in this vital area.

38

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

_________________ ***EXT – SOLVENCY

39

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

SOLVENCY – ENERGY / COSTS
An upstream tradable carbon system allows a reduction is fossil fuel use that effects all levels of the US economy and costs less than any other approach Nordhaus and Danish, Pew Center for Climate Change, 2003 (“Designing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for the U.S.”, March, http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/USGas%2Epdf) Upstream Cap-and-Trade. While a realistic downstream emissions trading program could reach at most about 50 percent of U.S. emissions, it would be feasible to address virtually all sources of U.S. CO2 emissions through an upstream emissions trading program.73 The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) has found that an upstream program involving fewer than 2000 regulated facilities—approximately the same number of regulated facilities that are subject to the Acid Rain program—could reach virtually all of the CO2 emissions in the U.S. economy.74 These 2000 facilities would include a combination of petroleum refineries, oil importers, natural gas pipelines, natural gas processing plants, coal preparation plants, and certain coal mines where the production bypasses preparation plants. Fuel data is generally available for these facilities, thereby easing the reporting burden on the firms and the monitoring and enforcement burden on the government.75 Like a downstream system, an upstream emissions trading program would give downstream energy users the incentives and the flexibility to implement the most cost-effective means of reducing their emissions.76 However, the incentive would take a different form. Instead of facing limits on their emissions, downstream sources would face limits on the physical availability of carbon-based fuels, which, in turn, would be reflected in fuel price increases. Theoretically, downstream firms and consumers should respond to this price signal in the same way as they would to a requirement to hold allowances directly—that is, under an upstream emissions trading program, the cap on fuel carbon would induce downstream sources to adopt the least-cost mix of emission reduction measures. Whether in practice the impacts on fuel use, technical innovation and efficiency would be the same is not possible to predict. But, because an upstream emissions trading program feasibly, though indirectly, would reach all sources of CO2 emissions, such a program arguably could achieve any given emissions reduction objective at less cost than a large-source downstream program.

40

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

SOLVENCY – INCENTIVES / ENERGY SHIFT
Emissions trading gives businesses the incentive to invest in new technologies that curb emissions- a domestic scheme would help jumpstart the movement to a stop climate change globally Browne, Group Chief Exec. Of BP, 2004 (John, Foreign Affairs, July/August, lexis) The role of business is to transform possibilities into reality. And that means being practical, undertaking focused research, and testing the different possibilities in real commercial markets. The energy business is now global, which offers a tremendous advantage: international companies access knowledge around the world and apply it quickly throughout their operations. But the business sector cannot succeed in isolation. Harnessing business potential requires fair and credible incentives to drive the process of innovation and change. In responding to global warming, that role must fall to the government. Neither prescriptive regulations nor fiscal interventions designed to collect revenue rather than to alter behavior provide the answer. Rather, governments must identify meaningful objectives and encourage the business sector to attain them by using its knowledge of technology, markets, and consumer preferences. Recent experience suggests that emissions trading regimes -- whereby government sets a binding cap on total emissions, dividing the total into "emission credits" that are given to those who emit carbon dioxide -are the best policy for encouraging business. Policymakers (notably in the United States) have demonstrated that it is possible to design such systems for other pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide, thereby harnessing the power of innovation and the flexibility of the market to protect the environment, while avoiding crippling costs. The same insights should apply to carbon dioxide. A well-designed trading regime would include a strictly enforced cap, which would make carbon dioxide emission credits scarcer (and thus more valuable) and would thereby increase the incentive for business to control emissions. Such a system would also allow firms and households the flexibility to apply resources where they have the greatest impact, which is essential, because the best measures for controlling carbon dioxide are hard to anticipate with precision and are widely dispersed across the economy. And a credible emission trading system would create incentives to invest in radical new technologies, the kind that will be crucial in building a carbon-free energy system in the future. Emissions trading systems need not be identical in every country, nor be applied universally from day one. The political reality is that we are unlikely to see the sudden emergence of a single regime; in scope and ambition, that would be comparable to the emergence of a single global currency. Instead, progress is much more likely to come through the gradual process of knitting together diverse national and regional efforts on the basis of their track records of experience and achievement. The key task today is to find practices that will lead to a system that will enable today's diverse and fragmented reduction efforts to be valued on a common basis. The history of trade liberalization over the second half of the twentieth century shows that gradualism can yield impressive results.

41

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

SOLVENCY – LEADERSHIP / MODELLING
US leadership is critical—causes other countries to change their CO2 emissions
Roberts, Harper's Magazine, Finalist for the National Magazine Award, 2004 (Paul, The End of Oil: A Perilous New World, p. 14-5) By necessity, much of this book will focus on the United States. For all that the new energy economy is an international issue, no nation will play a greater role in the evolution of that economy than ours. Americans are the most profligate users of energy in the history of the world: a country with less than 5 percent of the world's population burns through 25 percent of the world's total energy. Some of this discrepancy is owing to the American economy, which is bigger than anyone else's and therefore uses more energy. But it is also true that the American lifestyle is twice as energy-intensive as that in Europe and Japan, and about ten times the global average. The United States is thus the most important of all energy players: its enormous demand makes it an essential customer for the big energy states like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Its large imports hold the global energy market in thrall. (Indeed, the tiniest change in the U.S. energy economy - a colder winter, an increase in driving, a change in tax law - can send world markets into a tailspin.) And because American power flows from its dominance over a global economy that in turn depends mainly on oil and other fossil fuels, the United States sees itself as having no choice but to defend the global energy infrastructure from any threat and by nearly any means available - economic, diplomatic, even military. The result of this simultaneous might and dependency is that the United States is, and will be, the preeminent force in the shaping of the new energy economy. The United States is the only country with the economic muscle, the technological expertise, and the international standing truly to mold the next energy system. If the U.S. government and its citizens decided to launch a new energy system and have it in place within twenty years, not only would the energy system be built, but the rest of the world would be forced to follow along. Instead, American policymakers are too paralyzed to act, terrified that to change U.S. energy patterns would threaten the nation's economy and geopolitical status -not to mention outrage tens of millions of American voters. Where Europe has taken small but important steps toward regulating carbon dioxide (steps modeled, paradoxically on an American pollution law), the United States has made only theatrical gestures over alternative fuels, improved efficiency, or policies that would harness the markets to reduce carbon. As a result, the energy superpower has not only surrendered its onceawesome edge in such energy technologies as solar and wind to competitors in Europe and Japan but made it less and less likely that an effective solution for climate change will be deployed in time to make a difference.

42

CNDI 2008
PERMITS

CAMP STARTER SET
AFF

43

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful