THE FORT PLTX

PTXXXXXXXXX LINKS
PTXXXXXXXXX LINKS.........................................................................................................................................................1 ************ALTERNATIVE ENERGY***********...................................................................................................................19 A2: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LINKSSSSS.......................................................................................................................20 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................21 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................22 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................23 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................24 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................25 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................26 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................27 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................28 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................29 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................30 ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................31 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................................32 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................................33 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................................34 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC (AT: ECON).........................................................................................................................35 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC (AT: ECON).........................................................................................................................36 ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC (AT: ECON).........................................................................................................................37 ALT ENERGY POP- CONGRESS......................................................................................................................................38 ALT ENERGY UNPOP- PUBLIC (ECON)...........................................................................................................................39 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................40 ALT ENERGY UNPOP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................41 ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN...........................................................................................................................................42 ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN...........................................................................................................................................43 ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN...........................................................................................................................................44 ALT ENERGY INCREASES POL CAP...............................................................................................................................45 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................46 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................47 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................48 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................49 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................50 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP..........................................................................................................................................51 ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP (LOBBIES)......................................................................................................................52 ALT ENERGY UNPOP........................................................................................................................................................53 ALT ENERGY UNPOP- CONGRESS(OIL= OPPOSITION)...............................................................................................54 ALT ENERGY UNPOP (NO TURNS)..................................................................................................................................55

THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................56 ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................57 ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................58 ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................59 ALT ENERGY BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................60 ALT ENERGY BIPART/POP-REPS....................................................................................................................................61 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................62 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................63 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................64 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................65 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................66 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................67 ALT ENERGY PART...........................................................................................................................................................68 ALT ENERGY-CON 2 DEMS..............................................................................................................................................69 ALT ENERGY PART/ COST POL CAP..............................................................................................................................70 ALT ENERGY PART/COST POL CAP...............................................................................................................................71 ALT ENERGY POP-REPS..................................................................................................................................................72 ALT ENERGY POP-REPS..................................................................................................................................................73 ALT ENERGY POP- REPS.................................................................................................................................................74 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS.............................................................................................................................................75 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS.............................................................................................................................................76 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS.............................................................................................................................................77 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................78 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................79 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................80 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................81 ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS.................................................................................................................................................82 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-DEMS............................................................................................................................................83 ALT ENERGY UNPOP-OIL.................................................................................................................................................84 ALT ENERGY POP- CONGRESS......................................................................................................................................85 ALT ENERGY POP- CONGRESS......................................................................................................................................86 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................87 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................88 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................89 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................90 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................91 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................92 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................93 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................94 ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS................................................................................................................................95

THE FORT PLTX ALT ENERGY POP- SWING VOTERS...............................................................................................................................96 ALT ENERGY POP-CHRISTIAN RIGHT............................................................................................................................97 ALT ENERGY POP-MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................................98 ALT ENERGY POP-PELOSI...............................................................................................................................................99 ALT ENERGY POP-LGV..................................................................................................................................................100 ALT ENERGY POP-BUSH................................................................................................................................................101 ALT ENERGY POP MICHIGAN......................................................................................................................................102 ALT ENERGY POP COLORADO...................................................................................................................................103 ALT ENERGY POP EVANGELICALS ...........................................................................................................................104 ALT ENERGY POP EVANGELICALS............................................................................................................................105 ALT ENERGY POP- EVANGELICALS.............................................................................................................................106 ALT ENERGY POP- EVANGELICALS.............................................................................................................................107 ALT ENERGY POP- HUNTERS.......................................................................................................................................108 ALT ENERGY POP- HUNTERS.......................................................................................................................................109 ALT ENERGY POP- HUNTERS.......................................................................................................................................110 ALT ENERGY POP COLORADO .................................................................................................................................111 ALT ENERGY POP-COLORADO.....................................................................................................................................112 ALT ENERGY POP- FLORIDA.........................................................................................................................................113 ALT ENERGY POP-FLORIDA..........................................................................................................................................114 ALT ENERGY POP- ARIZONA .......................................................................................................................................115 ALT ENERGY POP- BUSINESSES..................................................................................................................................116 ALT ENERGY = MCCAIN WIN.........................................................................................................................................117 ALT ENERGY = MCCAIN WIN.........................................................................................................................................118 ALT ENERGY= OBAMA WIN...........................................................................................................................................120 ****************BIOFUELS***************.............................................................................................................................121 BIOFUELS BIPART..........................................................................................................................................................122 BIOFUELS POP- PUBLIC................................................................................................................................................123 BIOFUELS POP- PUBLIC................................................................................................................................................124 BIOFUELS POP- PUBLIC................................................................................................................................................125 BIOMASS POP- PUBLIC..................................................................................................................................................126 BIOFUELS POP- CONGRESS.........................................................................................................................................127 BIOFUELS POP- OBAMA................................................................................................................................................128 BIOFUELS POP- BUSH....................................................................................................................................................129 BIOFUELS POP- DEMS...................................................................................................................................................130 BIODIESEL BIPART.........................................................................................................................................................131 BIODIESEL- CON TO DEMS............................................................................................................................................132 BIODIESEL UNPOP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................133 ************BROWNFIELDS*********...................................................................................................................................134 BROWNFIELDS POP- OBAMA........................................................................................................................................135 BROWNFIELDS INCREASES POL CAP.........................................................................................................................136

THE FORT PLTX BROWNFIELDS POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................137 BROWNFIELDS POP- ENVIRO.......................................................................................................................................138 BROWNFIELDS BIPART..................................................................................................................................................139 BROWNFIELDS BIPART..................................................................................................................................................140 BROWNFIELDS POP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................141 BROWNFIELDS POP- USCM...........................................................................................................................................142 BROWNFIELDS POP- LOBBY.........................................................................................................................................143 BROWNFIELDS POP- LOBBY.........................................................................................................................................144 BROWNFIELDS BIPART..................................................................................................................................................145 BROWNFIELDS BIPART..................................................................................................................................................146 BROWNFIELDS POP- LOBBY.........................................................................................................................................147 BROWNFIELDS POP- ENVIRO LOBBY..........................................................................................................................148 BROWNFIELDS UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................149 BROWNFIELDS COST POL CAP....................................................................................................................................150 BROWNFIELDS UNPOP..................................................................................................................................................151 BROWNFIELDS UNPOP..................................................................................................................................................152 BROWNFIELDS UNPOP- OIL..........................................................................................................................................153 **************CAF***********..............................................................................................................................................154 CAFE BIPART..................................................................................................................................................................155 CAFE UNPOP- AUTO LOBBIES......................................................................................................................................156 ***************CAP & TRADE***************........................................................................................................................157 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................158 CAP POP- REPS..............................................................................................................................................................159 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................160 CAP POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................161 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................162 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................163 CAP POP..........................................................................................................................................................................164 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................165 CAP POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................166 CAP & TRADE (LIEBERMAN WARNER BILL) POP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................167 CAP & TRADE POP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................168 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................169 CAP & TRADE-BIPART....................................................................................................................................................170 CAP & TRADE PART.......................................................................................................................................................171 CAP & TRADE POP- UNIONS.........................................................................................................................................172 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS..............................................................................................................................173 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS..............................................................................................................................174 CAP & TRADE UNPOP (ENERGY COSTS).....................................................................................................................175 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................176

THE FORT PLTX CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................177 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................178 CAP & TRADE POP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................179 CAP & TRADE POP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................180 CAP & TRADE POP-PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................181 CAP & TRADE BIPART....................................................................................................................................................182 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- REPS........................................................................................................................................183 CAP & TRADE POP- CONGRESS (A2: FIGHTS)............................................................................................................184 CAP & TRADE POP- REPS..............................................................................................................................................185 CAP & TRADE POP- BOTH CANIDATES.......................................................................................................................186 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- REPS........................................................................................................................................187 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- MCCAIN....................................................................................................................................188 CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................................................189 CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................................................190 CAP & TRADE POP- OBAMA..........................................................................................................................................191 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS..............................................................................................................................192 CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................................................193 CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................................................194 CAP & TRADE UNPOP-REPS.........................................................................................................................................195 CAP & TRADE POP-DEMS..............................................................................................................................................196 CAP & TRADE PART.......................................................................................................................................................197 CAP & TRADE COST POL CAP......................................................................................................................................198 CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS.............................................................................................................................199 SAFETY VALVE POP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................200 SAFETY VALVE POP- LOBBIES AND ENVIRO.............................................................................................................201 SAFETY VALVE MEANS NO EFFECT............................................................................................................................202 SAFETY VALVE UNPOP-CONGRESS............................................................................................................................203 UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP...............................................................................................................................204 UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS.........................................................................................................205 UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP/DWNSTRM POP - CONGRESS...........................................................................206 *********CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE**********........................................................................................................207 CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE POP- MCCAIN.........................................................................................................208 *************CLEAN COAL*********....................................................................................................................................209 CLEAN COAL POP- MCCAIN..........................................................................................................................................210 *************EPA***************............................................................................................................................................211 EPA POP- WHITE HOUSE...............................................................................................................................................212 EPA UNPOP- WHITE HOUSE..........................................................................................................................................213 ***************ETHANOL**************.................................................................................................................................214 BRAZILIAN TARIFF- BIPART..........................................................................................................................................215 BRAZILIAN TARIFF PART...............................................................................................................................................216

THE FORT PLTX BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- LOBBIES..........................................................................................................................217 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................219 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN................................................................................................................................220 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN................................................................................................................................222 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN................................................................................................................................224 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN................................................................................................................................225 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- BUSH.....................................................................................................................................226 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................227 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP-MCCAIN/UNPOP- OBAMA....................................................................................................228 BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP-LUGAR...................................................................................................................................229 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP-FARMS..............................................................................................................................230 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................231 BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................232 BRAZILIAN TARIFF COST POL CAP..............................................................................................................................233 BRAZILIAN TARIFF COST POL CAP..............................................................................................................................234 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL BIPART...................................................................................................................................235 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL POP- CONGRESS..................................................................................................................236 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL POP-BUSH.............................................................................................................................237 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL LOBBIES SUPPORT...........................................................................................................238 CELLULOSIC ETHANOL BUSH SUPPORTS...............................................................................................................239 CELLULISTIC ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................240 CORN ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC......................................................................................................................................241 CORN ETHANOL UNPOP-PUBLIC.................................................................................................................................242 CORN ETHANOL GOP OPPOSES...............................................................................................................................243 CORN ETHANOL UNPOP- CONGRESS.........................................................................................................................244 CORN ETHANOL DEMOCRATS ARE SPLIT...............................................................................................................245 CORN ETHANOL UNPOP- MCCAIN...............................................................................................................................247 CORN ETHANOL POP- OBAMA.....................................................................................................................................248 ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC.................................................................................................................................................249 ETHANOL POP-PUBLIC..................................................................................................................................................250 ETHANOL UNPOP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................251 ETHANOL UNPOP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................252 ETHANOL =MCCAIN FLIP FLOP.....................................................................................................................................253 ETHANOL POP- DEMS....................................................................................................................................................254 ETHANOL UNPOP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................255 ETHANOL BIPART...........................................................................................................................................................256 ETHANOL UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................257 ETHANOL PART..............................................................................................................................................................258 **************FED BUILDINGS**********.............................................................................................................................259 FED BUILDINGS BIPART/POP-PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................260

THE FORT PLTX FED BUILDINGS POP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................261 FED BUILDINGS POP- OBAMA......................................................................................................................................262 FED BUILDINGS POP- MCCAIN......................................................................................................................................263 FEMP UNPOP- REPS.......................................................................................................................................................264 **********GAS RATIONING***********................................................................................................................................265 GAS RATIONING UNPOP- DEMS...................................................................................................................................266 **************GEOTHERMAL*************...........................................................................................................................267 GEOTHERMAL BIPART...................................................................................................................................................268 GEOTHERMAL POP-REID...............................................................................................................................................269 GEOTHERMAL POP-DEMS.............................................................................................................................................270 GEOTHERMAL POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................271 GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- CONGRESS.............................................................................................................................272 GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- REPS.......................................................................................................................................273 GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- BUSH.......................................................................................................................................274 GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- BUSH.......................................................................................................................................275 GEOTHERMAL POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................276 *************GLOBAL WARMING***********.......................................................................................................................277 GW POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................................278 GW POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................................279 GW POP- RELIGIOUS RIGHT..........................................................................................................................................280 GW UNPOP- OIL LOBBIES..............................................................................................................................................281 ************HEMP**********..................................................................................................................................................282 HEMP POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................................283 HEMP POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................................284 HEMP POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................................285 HEMP POP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................................286 HEMP POP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................................287 HEMP POP- FARMERS....................................................................................................................................................288 HEMP POP- CALI, MONTANA AND ND..........................................................................................................................289 HEMP= CULVER WIN......................................................................................................................................................290 HEMP UNPOP- PUBLIC...................................................................................................................................................291 HEMP COST POL CAP....................................................................................................................................................292 HEMP COST POL CAP....................................................................................................................................................293 HEMP UNPOP- AGENCY.................................................................................................................................................294 HEMP POP- BUSH...........................................................................................................................................................295 HEMP UNPOP- BUSINESS..............................................................................................................................................296 *************HYBRID CARS*********...................................................................................................................................297 SUVS POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................................298 HYBRID CARS BIPART...................................................................................................................................................299 HYBRID CARS POP- ENVIRO & AUTO LOBBIES..........................................................................................................300

THE FORT PLTX HYBRID CARS POP- DEMS.............................................................................................................................................301 ***************HYDROPOWER*************.........................................................................................................................302 HYDROPOWER POP- CONGRESS.................................................................................................................................303 HYDROPOWER POP- REPS............................................................................................................................................304 HYDROPOWER BIPART..................................................................................................................................................305 HYDROPOWER UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................306 ************HYDROGEN***********......................................................................................................................................307 HYDROGEN BIPART.......................................................................................................................................................308 HYDROGEN POP- BUSH.................................................................................................................................................309 HYDROGEN POP- BUSH.................................................................................................................................................310 HYDROGEN POP- CONGRESS.......................................................................................................................................311 HYDROGEN POP- MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................................312 HYDROGEN POP- OBAMA..............................................................................................................................................313 HYDROGEN CARS POP- PUBLIC...................................................................................................................................314 HYDROGEN CARS POP- PUBLIC...................................................................................................................................315 **************LCFS*************............................................................................................................................................316 LCFS BIPART/BOTH CANIDATES..................................................................................................................................317 LCFS BIPART...................................................................................................................................................................318 LCFS POP- BOTH CANIDATES......................................................................................................................................319 LCFS PART......................................................................................................................................................................320 LCFS POP- OBAMA.........................................................................................................................................................321 LCFS POP- OBAMA.........................................................................................................................................................322 LCFS POP- DEMS............................................................................................................................................................323 LCFS POP- MCCAIN........................................................................................................................................................324 LCFS POP- MCCAIN........................................................................................................................................................325 LCFS POP- BUSINESS....................................................................................................................................................326 LCFS UNPOP- BUSINESS...............................................................................................................................................327 **********MASS TRANSIT**********....................................................................................................................................328 MASS TRANSIT BIPART.................................................................................................................................................329 MASS TRANSIT BIPART.................................................................................................................................................330 MASS TRANSIT POP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................331 MASS TRANSIT POP- REPS...........................................................................................................................................332 MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- BUSH......................................................................................................................................333 MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- CONGRESS...........................................................................................................................334 MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- REPS......................................................................................................................................335 MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- REPS......................................................................................................................................336 **************MILITARY*********..........................................................................................................................................337 MILITARY UNPOP- ENVIROS..........................................................................................................................................338 MILITARY UNPOP- DOD/LOBBIES/DEMS......................................................................................................................339 MILITARY POP- BUSH.....................................................................................................................................................340

THE FORT PLTX MILITARY POP- OBAMA.................................................................................................................................................341 MILITARY POP- MCCAIN.................................................................................................................................................342 MILITARY BIPART...........................................................................................................................................................343 MILITARY BIPART...........................................................................................................................................................344 MILITARY BIPART...........................................................................................................................................................345 DOD BIPART....................................................................................................................................................................346 MILITARY POP- GREEN HAWKS....................................................................................................................................347 DOD PART........................................................................................................................................................................348 DOD UNPOP- LOBBIES...................................................................................................................................................349 DOD POP- OHIO...............................................................................................................................................................350 DOD POP- NEVADA.........................................................................................................................................................351 MILITARY UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................352 MILITARY POP- REPS.....................................................................................................................................................353 MILITARY UNPOP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................354 MILITARY UNPOP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................355 MILITARY UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................356 AIR FORCE POP- PRIVATE LOBBIES............................................................................................................................357 AIR FORCE (CLEAN COAL) UNPOP- ENVIROS............................................................................................................358 AIRFORCE BIPART .......................................................................................................................................................359 AIR FORCE= MCCAIN WIN.............................................................................................................................................360 AIRFORCE POP- OBAMA................................................................................................................................................361 AIRFORCE UNPOP(LOBBIES)........................................................................................................................................362 AIRFORCE BIPART.........................................................................................................................................................363 AIRFORCE UNPOP- OBAMA..........................................................................................................................................364 MILITARY UNPOP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................365 ***************NANOTECH*************...............................................................................................................................366 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................367 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................368 NANOTECH IS POP- PUBLIC..........................................................................................................................................369 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................370 NANOTECH BIPART/POP- MCCAIN...............................................................................................................................371 NANOTECH UNPOP-CONGESS/POP-MCCAIN.............................................................................................................372 NANOTECH POP- MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................................373 NANOTECH POP- OBAMA..............................................................................................................................................374 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................375 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................376 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................377 NANOTECH BIPART........................................................................................................................................................378 NANOTECH POP- DEMS.................................................................................................................................................379 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................380

THE FORT PLTX NANOTECH UNPOP- CONGRESS..................................................................................................................................381 NANOTECH POP- PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................382 NANOTECH POP- PUBLIC..............................................................................................................................................383 NANOTECH POP- PELOSI..............................................................................................................................................384 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................385 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................386 NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................387 **************NATIVES************.......................................................................................................................................388 NATIVES POP- PUBLIC...................................................................................................................................................389 NATIVES POP- BOTH CANIDATES................................................................................................................................390 NATIVES POP- OBAMA...................................................................................................................................................391 NATIVES POP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................392 NATIVES UNPOP- CONGRESS.......................................................................................................................................393 NATIVES POP- DEMS......................................................................................................................................................394 NATIVES POP- KYL.........................................................................................................................................................395 NATIVES PART................................................................................................................................................................396 NATIVES = OBAMA WIN.................................................................................................................................................397 NATIVES POP- MONTANA..............................................................................................................................................399 NATIVES POP- OBAMA...................................................................................................................................................400 NATIVES UNPOP-MCCAIN..............................................................................................................................................402 NATIVES POP- DEMS......................................................................................................................................................403 NATIVES UNPOP- REPS ................................................................................................................................................404 PTC PART.........................................................................................................................................................................405 PTC POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................406 PTC POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................407 PTC BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................408 PTC BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................409 NATIVES BIPART.............................................................................................................................................................410 NATIVES POP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................411 NATIVES POP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................412 PTC POP- DEMS..............................................................................................................................................................413 PTC POP- DEMS..............................................................................................................................................................414 PTC UNPOP- MCCAIN.....................................................................................................................................................415 PTC UNPOP- MCCAIN.....................................................................................................................................................416 PTC POP- BLUE DOG DEMS..........................................................................................................................................417 *************** NET METERING***************.....................................................................................................................418 NET METERING UNPOP- UTILITY COMPANIES...........................................................................................................419 SMART METER POP- MCCAIN.......................................................................................................................................420 FEED IN TARIFFS POP- MCCAIN...................................................................................................................................421 FEED IN TARIFFS POP- PUBLIC....................................................................................................................................422

10

THE FORT PLTX FEED IN TARIFF UNPOP- PUBLIC.................................................................................................................................423 FEED IN TARIFF COST POL CAP...................................................................................................................................424 FEED IN TARIFF UNPOP- PUBLIC.................................................................................................................................425 WIND & SOLAR UNPOP- MCCAIN..................................................................................................................................426 ***********NIF*************...................................................................................................................................................427 NIF UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................................428 ****************NUC POWER***************.........................................................................................................................429 LOAN GUARANTEES POP-BUSH..................................................................................................................................430 LOAN GUARANTEES COST POL CAP...........................................................................................................................431 LOAN GUARANTEES POP- CONGRESS.......................................................................................................................432 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................433 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................434 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................435 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................436 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................437 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................438 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................439 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................440 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................441 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................442 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................443 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................444 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................445 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................................446 NUC WASTE UNPOP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................447 NUC WASTE UNPOP- PUBLIC........................................................................................................................................448 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................449 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................450 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................451 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................452 NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................453 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................454 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................455 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................456 NUC POWER UNPOP- OBAMA.......................................................................................................................................457 NUC POWER POP- BUSH...............................................................................................................................................458 NUC POWER PART.........................................................................................................................................................459 NUC POWER BIPART......................................................................................................................................................460 NUC POWER BIPART......................................................................................................................................................461 NUC POWER POP- DEMS...............................................................................................................................................462

11

THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................463 NUC POWER POP- GOP..................................................................................................................................................464 NUC POWER- PELOSI INDIFFERENT............................................................................................................................465 NUC POWER POP- BOTH CANIDATES..........................................................................................................................466 NUC POWER POP- INHOFE............................................................................................................................................467 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................468 NUC POWER COST POL CAP........................................................................................................................................469 NUC POWER COST POL CAP........................................................................................................................................470 NUC POWER COST POL CAP........................................................................................................................................471 NUC POWER COST POL CAP........................................................................................................................................472 NUC POWER POP- BUSH...............................................................................................................................................473 NUC POWER POP- BUSINESS.......................................................................................................................................475 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................476 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................477 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................478 NUC POWER POP- PRES................................................................................................................................................479 NUC POWER BIPART......................................................................................................................................................480 NUC POWER BIPART......................................................................................................................................................481 NUC POWER POP- DEMS...............................................................................................................................................482 NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................483 NUC POWER POP- BUSH...............................................................................................................................................484 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................485 NUC POWER UNPOP- OBAMA.......................................................................................................................................486 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................487 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................488 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA............................................................................................................................................489 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................490 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................491 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................492 NUC POWER POP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................493 NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC/MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................494 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................495 NUC POWER POP- OBAMA/MCCAIN.............................................................................................................................496 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................497 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................498 NUC LICENSING POP- MCCAIN.....................................................................................................................................499 NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................500 NUC POWER POP- REPS................................................................................................................................................501 NUC POWER POP- FLORIDA..........................................................................................................................................502 NUC POWER POP- MICHIGAN.......................................................................................................................................503

12

THE FORT PLTX NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................504 NUC POWER UNPOP- OBAMA.......................................................................................................................................505 NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................506 NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................507 NUC POWER (REPROCESS) POP- CONGRESS...........................................................................................................508 NUC POWER (DRY CASK) POP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................509 NUC POWER (REPROCESS) UNPOP- CONGRESS......................................................................................................510 GNEP UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................511 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................512 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................513 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................514 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................515 NUC POWER POP- REPS................................................................................................................................................516 NUC POWER POP- CONGRESS.....................................................................................................................................517 NUC POWER POP- PENNSYLVANIA.............................................................................................................................518 NUC POWER POP- MICHIGAN.......................................................................................................................................519 NUC POWER POP-CONGRESS/PUBLIC........................................................................................................................520 NUC POWER= OBAMA WIN............................................................................................................................................521 NUC POWER =MCCAIN LOOSE/UNPOP-NEVADA.......................................................................................................522 NUC POWER POP- PELOSI............................................................................................................................................523 NUC POWER POP- DEMS...............................................................................................................................................524 NUC WASTE UNPOP- CONGRESS................................................................................................................................525 NUC WASTE UNPOP- NEVADA......................................................................................................................................526 NUC WASTE UNPOP- REPS...........................................................................................................................................527 NUC WASTE UNPOP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................528 NUC WASTE UNPOP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................529 NUC WASTE UNPOP- DEMS...........................................................................................................................................530 NUC WASTE UNPOP- REID............................................................................................................................................531 NUC WASTE UNPOP- ENVIRO.......................................................................................................................................532 NUC POWER UNPOP- PELOSI.......................................................................................................................................533 NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................................534 NUC POWER POP- DOMENICI........................................................................................................................................535 NUC POWER POP- REPS................................................................................................................................................536 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................537 NUC POWER POP- REPS................................................................................................................................................538 NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN...........................................................................................................................................539 *****************OCEAN POWER***************...................................................................................................................540 OCEAN ENERGY POP-KLEIN.........................................................................................................................................541 OCEAN ENERGY POP- DEMS........................................................................................................................................542 OCEAN ENERGY UNPOP- MCCAIN...............................................................................................................................543

13

THE FORT PLTX DEEP OCEAN POWER POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................544 DEEP OCEAN POWER UNPOP- DEMS..........................................................................................................................545 OTEC UNPOP...................................................................................................................................................................546 OTEC UNPOP...................................................................................................................................................................547 ***********OFFSHORE DRILLING************.....................................................................................................................548 OFFSHORE DRILLING POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................549 *************OIL D**********.................................................................................................................................................550 OIL D UNPOP ..................................................................................................................................................................551 OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................552 OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................553 OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................554 OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................................555 OIL D UNPOP- PUBLIC....................................................................................................................................................556 ****************OIL SHALES**************...........................................................................................................................557 OIL SHALES POP-REPS..................................................................................................................................................558 ************PATENTS**********...........................................................................................................................................559 PATENTS KILL OBAMA..................................................................................................................................................560 COURT DECISIONS PERCEIVED...................................................................................................................................561 COURT DECISIONS PERCEIVED...................................................................................................................................563 ********REG NEG********....................................................................................................................................................565 REG NEG POP- CONGRESS/BUSH................................................................................................................................566 REG NEG POP- OBAMA..................................................................................................................................................567 REG NEG UNPOP- REPS................................................................................................................................................568 *************RFS**************..............................................................................................................................................569 RFS POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................570 CORN ETHANOL RFS POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................571 ***************RPS*************** ........................................................................................................................................572 RPS POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................573 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................574 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................575 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................576 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................577 RPS POP- ENVIRO LOBBIES..........................................................................................................................................578 RPS UNPOP- BOUCHER.................................................................................................................................................579 RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................580 RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................581 RPS UNPOP- COAL LOBBIES........................................................................................................................................582 RPS POP- BOTH CANIDATES........................................................................................................................................583 RPS POP- OBAMA...........................................................................................................................................................584 RPS POP- MCCAIN..........................................................................................................................................................585

14

THE FORT PLTX RPS CONTROVERSIAL IN CONGRESS......................................................................................................................586 RPS COST POL CAP.......................................................................................................................................................587 RPS COST POL CAP.......................................................................................................................................................588 RPS UNPOP- BUSH.........................................................................................................................................................589 RPS POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................590 RPS POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................591 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................592 RPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................593 RPS DEMOCRATS SUPPORT......................................................................................................................................594 RPS POP-ENVIRO LOBBIES...........................................................................................................................................595 RPS POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................596 RPS POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................597 RPS UNPOP- PUBLIC......................................................................................................................................................598 RPS POP COLORADO..................................................................................................................................................599 RPS COSTS POL CAP.....................................................................................................................................................600 RPS POP- OBAMA...........................................................................................................................................................601 RPS POP- OBAMA...........................................................................................................................................................602 RPS POP- OHIO...............................................................................................................................................................603 RPS UNPOP-CONGRESS................................................................................................................................................604 RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................605 RPS UNPOP-DEMS..........................................................................................................................................................606 RPS UNPOP-BOUCHER/DEMS.......................................................................................................................................607 RPS UNPOP-DOMENICI..................................................................................................................................................608 RPS UNPOP- BUSH.........................................................................................................................................................609 RPS UNPOP- UTILITIES..................................................................................................................................................610 RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................611 RPS UNPOP-INDUSTRY LOBBIES.................................................................................................................................612 RPS POP- REPS...............................................................................................................................................................613 ***************SOLAR POWER***************......................................................................................................................614 SOLAR POP-CONGRESS (STRONG LOBBIES)............................................................................................................615 SOLAR UNPOP-CONGRESS (WEAK LOBBIES)...........................................................................................................616 SOLAR POP=PUBLIC......................................................................................................................................................617 SOLAR POP=PUBLIC......................................................................................................................................................618 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................................619 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................................620 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................................621 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................................622 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................................623 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................................624 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................................625

15

THE FORT PLTX SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................................626 SOLAR POP- PUBLIC......................................................................................................................................................627 SOLAR BIPART................................................................................................................................................................628 SOLAR BIPART................................................................................................................................................................629 SOLAR BIPART................................................................................................................................................................630 SOLAR BIPART................................................................................................................................................................631 SOLAR BIPART................................................................................................................................................................632 SOLAR BIPART................................................................................................................................................................633 SOLAR BIPART................................................................................................................................................................634 SOLAR = PART (UNPOP WITH REPS)...........................................................................................................................635 SOLAR POP=DEMS.........................................................................................................................................................636 SOLAR POP=BUSH ........................................................................................................................................................637 SOLAR UNPOP=REPS (OIL)...........................................................................................................................................638 SOLAR UNPOP-REPS.....................................................................................................................................................639 SOLAR POP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................640 SOLAR UNPOP=CONGRESS..........................................................................................................................................641 SOLAR ENERGY BUSH SUPPORTS...........................................................................................................................642 SOLAR POP- SEN REID..................................................................................................................................................643 SOLAR POP- SEN REID..................................................................................................................................................644 SOLAR POP- REPS.........................................................................................................................................................645 SOLAR UNPOP-REPS.....................................................................................................................................................646 SOLAR UNPOP-MCCAIN.................................................................................................................................................647 SOLAR POP-OBAMA.......................................................................................................................................................648 SOLAR POP- OBAMA......................................................................................................................................................649 SOLAR UNPOP-REPS.....................................................................................................................................................650 SOLAR UNPOP(LINES)...................................................................................................................................................651 SOLAR POP- CALIFORNIA.............................................................................................................................................652 SOLAR BIPART................................................................................................................................................................653 SOLAR POP- MCCAIN.....................................................................................................................................................654 SOLAR POP-FLORIDA....................................................................................................................................................655 SOLAR POP- FLORIDA...................................................................................................................................................656 SOLAR POP- TEXAS.......................................................................................................................................................657 SOLAR POP-REPS..........................................................................................................................................................658 SOLAR UNPOP-REPS.....................................................................................................................................................659 SOLAR POP-REPS..........................................................................................................................................................660 SOLAR POP-PUBLIC.......................................................................................................................................................661 SOLAR UNPOP-PUBLIC..................................................................................................................................................662 SOLAR UNPOP-LOBBIES...............................................................................................................................................663 SOLAR POP-BUSH..........................................................................................................................................................664 SOLAR POP-MCCAIN......................................................................................................................................................665

16

THE FORT PLTX SOLAR POP-DEMS..........................................................................................................................................................666 SOLAR BIPART................................................................................................................................................................667 ************SPS***********...................................................................................................................................................668 SPS POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................669 SPS POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................670 SPS POP- PUBLIC...........................................................................................................................................................671 SPS UNPOP- PUBLIC......................................................................................................................................................672 SPS POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................673 SPS POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................674 SPS BIPART.....................................................................................................................................................................675 SPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................676 SPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................677 SPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................678 SPS UNPOP- CONGRESS...............................................................................................................................................679 SPS COST POL CAP.......................................................................................................................................................680 SPS COST POL CAP.......................................................................................................................................................681 SPS COST POL CAP.......................................................................................................................................................682 SPS COST POL CAP.......................................................................................................................................................683 SPS POP- OBAMA...........................................................................................................................................................684 SPS POP- CONGRESS....................................................................................................................................................685 SPS NOT PERCEIVED.....................................................................................................................................................686 SPS POP- MILITARY........................................................................................................................................................687 SPS POP- LOBBIES.........................................................................................................................................................688 NASA NOT PERCEIVED..................................................................................................................................................689 NASA POP- OBAMA........................................................................................................................................................690 NASA UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................691 NASA UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................692 NASA BIPART..................................................................................................................................................................693 NASA PART......................................................................................................................................................................694 NASA UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................................695 ***************TAX INCENTIVES***************...................................................................................................................696 TAX INCENTIVES POP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................697 TAX INCENTIVES POP- PUBLIC.....................................................................................................................................698 TAX INCENTIVES POP-PELOSI......................................................................................................................................699 TAX INCENTIVES UNPOP-REPS....................................................................................................................................700 TAX INCENTIVES BIPART...............................................................................................................................................701 TAX INCENTIVES PART..................................................................................................................................................702 TAX INCENTIVES POP- OBAMA, UNPOP- MCCAIN.....................................................................................................703 TAX INCENTIVES UNPOP- REPS...................................................................................................................................704 **********TYPES***********..................................................................................................................................................705

17

THE FORT PLTX INCENTIVES POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................................706 PROCUREMENT POP- MCCAIN.....................................................................................................................................707 MANDATORY ACTION POP- PUBLIC............................................................................................................................708 REGULATIONS UNPOP- CONGRESS............................................................................................................................709 COMMAND & CONTROL UNPOP- PUBLIC....................................................................................................................710 TAXING UNPOP- MCCAIN...............................................................................................................................................711 VOLUNTARY ACTION POP- PUBLIC.............................................................................................................................712 VOLUNTARY ACTION POP- CONGRESS......................................................................................................................713 *************WIND************..............................................................................................................................................714 WIND POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................................715 WIND POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................................716 WIND POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................................717 WIND POP- PUBLIC.........................................................................................................................................................718 WIND POP- FLORIDA......................................................................................................................................................719 WIND BIPART...................................................................................................................................................................720 WIND PART......................................................................................................................................................................721 WIND POP- CONGRESS..................................................................................................................................................722 WIND POP- CONGRESS..................................................................................................................................................723 WIND UNPOP- CONGRESS.............................................................................................................................................724 WIND UNPOP- CONGRESS.............................................................................................................................................725 WIND UNPOP- CONGRESS.............................................................................................................................................726 WIND UNPOP- CONGRESS.............................................................................................................................................727 WIND POP- DEMS............................................................................................................................................................728 WIND POP- BUSH............................................................................................................................................................729 WIND= CON 2 LOBBIES..................................................................................................................................................730

18

THE FORT PLTX

************ALTERNATIVE ENERGY***********

19

THE FORT PLTX

A2: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LINKSSSSS

Their alternative energy popular cards dont apply general popularity doesnt translate into support for specific policies Fershee, 08 assistant professor of law at the University of North Dakota (Joshua, 29 Energy L. J. 49, CHANGING RESOURCES, CHANGING MARKET: THE IMPACT OF A NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD ON THE U.S. ENERGY INDUSTRY, lexis) Public support, and even support from individual utilities, for renewable energy, of course, does not translate into national support for a particular program, policy, or fuel source. The best methods for promoting and providing renewable energy - and who should pay for it - are issues in search of a solution. Ultimately, though, renewable energy has moved well beyond the theoretical stages. If desired, a national RPS can be efficiently and effectively implemented. That does not mean it would not require significant upfront expense, and perhaps long-term expense, as well. But those risks face any energy policy, including the status quo.

20

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

Alternative Energies massively popular Oil Change International, Blocking Alternatives, downloaded 6-23-2008, http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy These energy subsidies are completely out of step with a nation that now broadly accepts the need to end our collective oil addiction. According to Democratic pollsters Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner, the public overwhelmingly supports the development of alternative energy, higher mileage standards, hybrids, and incentives to produce more energy-efficient appliances. Americans overwhelmingly support alternative energy Podesta 7 John Podesta, Daniel J. Weiss, Laura Nichols, Americans Urgently Want Action on Energy Independence and Global Warming, April 18, 2007, Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/environment_poll.html Americans want freedom and self sufficiency from our energy policies; Americans, in the tradition of our can-do spirit, believe we should be leading the world in clean, alternative energy. If the political will exists, they believe we can do anything; Americans want accountability. They want their leaders to show they will do the right thing, put money to Good use and act accordingly themselves; They see clean energy as a path to economic growth and new jobs; Democrats, Independents, and Republicans believe the evidence of global warming is now clear and only strengthens the case for immediate action on energy independence; and, Americans overwhelmingly support vigorous standards for clean alternative energy technologies and better mileage. They also support a cap and reduction on global warming pollution.

Alternative energies popular with the public-polls prove Teixeira 7 Ruy Teixeira, March 5, 2007, What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment, Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw.html But attitudes are more positive toward proposals that would actively promote energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. In the February, 2006 Pew poll where 85 percent agreed that America was addicted to oil, the public strongly supported the following proposals to address Americas energy supply: requiring better auto fuel efficiency (86 percent for/12 percent against); increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen technology (82/14); tax cuts for companies to develop these alternative energy sources (78/18); spending more on subway, rail and bus systems (68/27); and increasing federal funding for research on ethanol (67/22). Public has strong support for alternative energy, my evidence is comparative Teixeira 7 Ruy Teixeira, March 5, 2007, What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment, Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw.html The publics especially strong interest in developing alternative energy sources is well-illustrated by a finding in a July, 2006 Los Angeles Times poll. The LAT poll asked respondents to choose the best way among a number of options for reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil. More than half the respondents (52 percent) chose government investment in alternative energy sources, way ahead of the next most popular option, relaxing environmental standards for oil and gas drilling (20 percent), which was followed by requiring stricter mileage standards for cars (eight percent) and more nuclear power plants (six percent

21

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

Increasing access to alternative energy fuels is popular-Alternative Fuel Grant Program proves Thune 06, Republican Senator from South Dakota, 12-8-2K6 (John, US Fed News, Home Grown Energy Held Up By Politics, ln) GRodarte I recently had the opportunity to attend a groundbreaking ceremony for a new ethanol plant in Loomis-yet another impressive addition to South Dakota's budding alternative fuels industry. The remarkable progress our state has made in the renewable energy arena has helped to transform South Dakota's agriculture industry and given our family farmers a market to sustain and enhance their way of life. In Congress, I have been working on ways to continue the growth of South Dakota's alternative fuels industry, which will ultimately have a positive impact on our state's economy, our farmers and American consumers across the country. Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike have stressed the need to enhance renewable

energy research and provide consumers with more diverse energy options so America can become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. However, for the past four months I've met resistance with some Senate Democrat
colleagues on a measure that would greatly increase access to ethanol, biodiesel and other home-grown renewable fuels for all Americans. The Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Grant Program, which I introduced with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) and other Republicans and Democrats, would provide grants (up to $30,000) to gas stations owners for the

installation of alternative fuel pumps. These additional pumps would give consumers greater opportunities to opt for cleaner, American-grown sources of energy, including E-85 ethanol, compressed natural gas, bio-diesel,
hydrogen and other alternative fuels. Our nation's automakers have put more than 9 million alternative fuel vehicles on the road - close to 6 million of which are flex fuel vehicles that can run on E-85 ethanol or gasoline. The missing link? Availability. Out

of 180,000 independently owned gas stations, just over 1,000 of them (less than 1 percent) offer alternative fuels such as E-85 ethanol. The Alternative Fuel Grant Program would address this serious gap in the distribution system. The legislation has wide bipartisan support in the Senate; was cleared by the relevant Senate committees; overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 355 - 9; and enjoys the support of the nation's leading automakers, agriculture groups, and alternative energy organizations.
Despite this widespread support, one or more Democrat Senators have placed an anonymous hold on this non-controversial bill, which prevents the full Senate from passing this common-sense legislation. With the backing of nearly every Democrat

in the House, a majority of Democrats in the Senate, and countless renewably energy and agriculture groups, it leaves me to believe the hold-up of the Alternative Fuel Grant Infrastructure Program is purely politically motivated. With the election season behind us, the time for partisan politics has passed, and the time for progress
is now. However, it seems this bill will not be able to be sent to the President until next year at the earliest because of these secret holds on this common-sense, bipartisan legislation. I hope my colleagues will drop their objections when I reintroduce this bill next Congress, so this measure can become law and consumers and producers can begin to enjoy the benefits of more homegrown renewable fuels.

22

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

Alternative Energies massively popular
Oil Change International, Blocking Alternatives, downloaded 6-23-2008, http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy These energy subsidies are completely out of step with a nation that now broadly accepts the need to end our collective oil addiction. According to Democratic pollsters Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner, the public overwhelmingly supports the development of alternative energy, higher mileage standards, hybrids, and incentives to produce more energy-efficient appliances.

Americans overwhelmingly support alternative energy

Podesta 7 John Podesta, Daniel J. Weiss, Laura Nichols, Americans Urgently Want Action on Energy Independence and Global Warming, April 18, 2007, Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/environment_poll.html Americans want freedom and self sufficiency from our energy policies; Americans, in the tradition of our can-do spirit, believe we should be leading the world in clean, alternative energy. If the political will exists, they believe we can do anything; Americans want accountability. They want their leaders to show they will do the right thing, put money to Good use and act accordingly themselves; They see clean energy as a path to economic growth and new jobs; Democrats, Independents, and Republicans believe the evidence of global warming is now clear and only strengthens the case for immediate action on energy independence; and, Americans overwhelmingly support vigorous standards for clean alternative energy technologies and better mileage. They also support a cap and reduction on global warming pollution.

Alternative energies popular with the public

Teixeira 7 Ruy Teixeira, March 5, 2007, What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment, Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw.html But attitudes are more positive toward proposals that would actively promote energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources. In the February, 2006 Pew poll where 85 percent agreed that America was addicted to oil, the public strongly supported the following proposals to address Americas energy supply: requiring better auto fuel efficiency (86 percent for/12 percent against); increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen technology (82/14); tax cuts for companies to develop these alternative energy sources (78/18); spending more on subway, rail and bus systems (68/27); and increasing federal funding for research on ethanol (67/22).

Public has strong support for alternative energy, my evidence is comparative

Teixeira 7 Ruy Teixeira, March 5, 2007, What the Public Really Wants on Energy and the Environment, Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/wtprw.html The publics especially strong interest in developing alternative energy sources is well-illustrated by a finding in a July, 2006 Los Angeles Times poll. The LAT poll asked respondents to choose the best way among a number of options for reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil. More than half the respondents (52 percent) chose government investment in alternative energy sources, way ahead of the next most popular option, relaxing environmental standards for oil and gas drilling (20 percent), which was followed by requiring stricter mileage
standards for cars (eight percent) and more nuclear power plants (six percent

23

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

Massive public support for alternate energy new polls prove Marshall E. Purnell President, American Institute of Architects, CQ Testimony, 6/11/08
The American public believes the time is now to reduce energy usage and reduce the impacts of climate change. The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners recently conducted a nationwide poll of voters and found that 74 percent of those polled agreed that "the government should take the lead in promoting real estate development that conserves our natural resources." In addition, 71 percent of voters agreed that "the government should immediately put into effect new energy policies that drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions." The American public supports conserving our precious resources, and believes that it is in the best interests of our nation and the world to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel produced energy and move towards a sustainable future. Reducing energy use in our nation's homes would be a major step towards that goal.

Overwhelming public support for alternate energy perceive inaction now Kull, 4/17/08 (Stephen, Director, World Public Opinion.org, http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr08/WPO_Oil_Apr08_pr.pdf)
Of all countries polled, Americans are the most negative about their governments performance in making efforts to replace oil as a primary energy source. More than three in four (76%) believe that their government should make long term plans to replace oil as a primary source of energy, while just 23% feel that enough new oil will be found. A majority (57%) says that the US government is acting based on the assumption that enough new oil will be found, while just 41% believe it is making plans on the assumption that oil will need to replaced as a primary energy source. Nearly nine in 10 (88%) feel that in 10 years, the cost of oil will be much (63%) or somewhat higher (25%) than it is now.

24

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

PUBLIC STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY

Grey, 2001 (Thomas O., AWEA Communications Director, Wind Energy Views on the Environment: CLean and Green) The Vermont survey was mailed to a random sample of residents in the town of Searsburg, where a 6-megawatt wind farm was planned (and has since been built). Sixty-three percent of those receiving the survey questionnaire completed it, a very high percentage. Of those responding, 89% said they would like to see increased use of wind energy, compared with 79% for hydro, 53% for municipal waste, 47% for gas, 25% for nuclear, 22% for wood, 6% for coal, and 5% for oil.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES ARE POPULAR AMONG THE PUBLIC

Electrtic Light and Power Magazine, 2008 (Electric Light and Power Magazine and Utilitu Automation & Engineering T&D Magazine (Joint Website), New Report Finds Majority of Americans Want Solar Power, June 19) A recent poll has found that a majority of Americans, across all political parties, support development and funding of solar energy. According to the study, ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. The findings were reported in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer, a survey conducted by the polling firm Kelton Research. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. Eighty-six percent of Independents supported the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were president, 41 percent of Americans picked solar. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent) and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended.

MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008 (Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy, March 6) However, there continues to be substantial agreement across partisan lines on several areas of energy policy. Roughly 90% of Republicans, Democrats and independents support tougher auto fuel standards, and about 80% in each group favor more federal funding for research into alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydrogen technology.

25

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

MASSIVE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Broder and Connelly, 2007 (John M. and Marjorie, New York times, Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming, April 26) The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal. Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with ethanol, which is now made largely from corn, is a good idea, the survey found. They also are nearly evenly split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in their community, they said no, 59 percent to 36 percent.

26

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

Alternative Energies are popular with the public China Daily, 08
(Alternative energy popular stop in presidential campaign, 7/23/08, Lexis) A small green clearing on a hilltop beside the Ohio River doesn't seem like much of campaign stop, but John Baardson knows the

scent of alternative energy and undecided voters will lure America's presidential contenders before long. "McCain has already called and expressed interest, and we believe Obama will too," said the president and chief executive of Baard Energy. Before Americans go to the polls
in November to choose Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama to be the next US president, Baardson plans to break ground on a $6 billion plant in Wellsville that will turn Appalachian coal into 53,000 barrels a day of diesel and jet fuel. The plant, designed to produce fuel that costs just $60 to $70 a barrel with 46 percent fewer emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than conventional diesel fuels, is an irresistible draw for the 2008 presidential hopefuls. With oil at $130 a barrel and gasoline at $4 a gallon, energy and the economy has vaulted to the top of the political agenda, and McCain and Obama have both sought to portray themselves as proponents of cheaper alternatives. That Baard's plant will be in Ohio, the politically critical state in President George W. Bush 2004 election victory that could once again help determine the outcome of this election, is just a happy coincidence. "The politics are fascinating," Baardson said. "We want to drive home the point that if you want the voters in this area, this is something you can give them ... the price of oil is the number one issue out there and we have a clean solution." The plant will bring at least 1,500 construction and 200 full-time jobs to impoverished eastern Ohio. In addition, some 18,000 tons of coal a day will be liquefied into fuel suitable for use in jets and trucks - adding an estimated 750 mining jobs to the mix. In return for the jobs and home-grown fuel supply, Baard wants the government to offer loan guarantees and Air Force fuel contracts. The state of Ohio helped lure the plant, which is mostly privately funded, with tax incentives. While conservative Republicans see more drilling as the best answer to America's oil needs and liberal Democrats want to focus on wind, solar and biofuels, the politics of coal - which supplies about 50 percent of America's energy needs - is complex. Moderates

on both sides have found something to like about Baard's coal-to-liquid plant, which gasifies woodwaste and coal and captures and sequesters about 85 percent of the resultant carbon dioxide emissions in the region's coal beds. More importantly, analysts believe embracing coal-to-liquid
technologies and others like it may offer Obama a way to win over white working class voters in the area, an economically depressed but culturally conservative region that supported rival Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nominating process. Obama has a track record of supporting coal, since coal mining is also a staple of his home state, Illinois. But whether that will be enough to win over voters concerned about his race or reputation as a liberal elite is not clear. "Right now Obama has the more difficult challenge in this region than McCain, but the economy is in lousy shape so Democrats should be able to connect," said Herb Asher, a professor of political science at Ohio State University, "It's an important area - only 10 percent of (Ohio's) vote but it can move back and forth. I think at this stage it's a challenge for Obama but he doesn't have to carry it - even if he loses, the votes he gets could make the difference." Polls show Obama with a small lead over McCain in Ohio, but the state is considered too close to call.

27

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

Public supports alt energies Politico.com, 3/17/08
Renewable energy groups are hatching a growing number of political action committees in an expanding effort to boost their political clout. The number of alternative energy production PACs, which include a number of renewable energy companies and trade associations, has doubled since the 2004 campaigns. These groups have contributed a combined $300,000 to 2008 candidates so far this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While many of the PAC fundraising numbers are small, the industry as a whole is showing signs of more influence. PAC leaders are attributing the growth to the public's increasing interest in global warming and lawmakers' failure to extend tax credits for solar and wind power. The Solar Energy Industries Association's PAC, already considered an industry leader in its first two years, has raised nearly $50,000 so far this election cycle - almost three times what the solar trade group raised altogether in the 2006 cycle, according to the Federal Election Commission. Headed by SunPower Corp., SunEdison and other big names in the solar industry, the PAC wants to raise at least $100,000 and intends to contribute to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other congressional supporters of solar energy. "Fundraising for pro-solar candidates has become the new business imperative for solar industry executives," said association President Rhone Resch. "We're all getting into political fundraising, and we're all getting to know candidates." The solar PAC's main fundraiser, a cocktail reception at the Solar Power Conference & Expo, brought in $21,000 last year, according to its annual fundraising report. The association is planning several additional fundraisers this year and is expanding its donor list. "Quite simply, 2008 is critical for the growth of SEIA PAC," Resch said in the annual report. "At fundraisers and receptions, solar should be ubiquitous and on the minds of key lawmakers." The American Wind Energy Association's WindPAC, one of the oldest renewable energy PACs, has brought in more than $77,000 this cycle and organized several lobbying days for wind energy supporters. "I think it will be a record-breaking year for us, but almost every year is," said AWEA's senior director of legislative affairs, Gregory Wetstone. "We're growing dramatically. Wind power capacity has increased dramatically and we see our political activity accelerating." Expeditious growth has PAC leaders moving away from low-budget coffee fundraisers to planning upscale cocktail parties with leading renewable energy advocates such as Senate Energy Subcommittee Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee member Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). WindPAC has partnered with PPM Energy's new PAC to throw fundraisers for both senators, who are key wind supporters. PPM Energy's PAC has raised at least $20,000, according to the latest FEC reports. "Two years ago, that sum was zero," said PPM Energy Treasurer Richard Glick. "It is very exciting, but frustrating at times because we are so small. I think eventually we will be a much bigger industry participant and be much bigger players in the political process." And there are even bigger developments on the horizon. RenewPAC, set to launch later this year, will be the first industry-wide PAC for the clean energy sector, representing a handful of energy sources. The PAC, being established by Renewable Energy for America, is expected to be led by clean-tech investors and businesspeople. Many groups are also heading regional campaigns to unseat local members of Congress who have voted against clean energy bills. One prime target is Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.). In the meantime, many of Washington's energy interests are wondering whether the modest fundraisers can match the long-running influence of the oil and nuclear industries. The oil industry has ramped up its lobbying this year after the House voted to transfer $18 billion of its tax credits to solar and wind producers. And the resurging nuclear industry is competing to become the top energy replacement for fossil fuels. A lobbying boost for renewables may come from the greens, who have made clean energy a top priority for their well-established PACs. For example, the Sierra Club this year has largely focused on pushing a pro-wind, pro-solar agenda while battling the resurgence of nuclear energy. Sierra Club Political Director Cathy Duvall said the group plans to raise $1.5 million to $2 million for candidates. "The popularity of renewable energy is very appealing to the American public," Duvall said. "I also think people are very skeptical of current energy special interests." Experts believe the combination could give the budding clean-tech sector additional clout in this fall's elections. "I certainly think renewable energy will have a huge impact," said Daniel Kammen, an energy researcher and policy expert at the University of California, Berkeley. PACs "like these will continue to make energy and environment a lead issue into November."

28

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular Emerging Markets Online, 7/25/07 (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story? id=49424)
The corporatization of biofuels is helping to drive biofuels to the pump, the consumer, and meet Dubya's (and Daschle's) ambitious plan to replace 20% of our petrol fuels with biofuels. This is roughly the same amount the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia, and almost the same amount we import from Venezuela. Each of these countries have the potential to disrupt the U.S. military and economy as we know it. And it's not likely Bush and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will kiss and make up any time soon. Next year, Hillary or Barak probably won't have much luck with Chavez either. So leading up to the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, energy independence will be a vital issue in the debates. Both parties will support it, but for perhaps different reasons. One party will cry foul about war for oil in Iraq, and cite other, environmental reasons. The other party will emphasize national security and economic security concerns, and promote biofuels trade with Brazil, Europe and Asia. Either way, biofuels will win. Or will it? Production Tax Incentives vs. Petroleum Tax Biofuels production tax incentives by the U.S. and other countries have created an internet-like investment frenzy. Under the U.S. mandate, biodiesel can be produced at up to $0.99 per gallon tax credit, and ethanol can be produced at up to $0.51 per gallon tax credit. In the next 16 months leading up to the elections, we will hear about some "villains" concerning our energy policies. These villains apparently sent us to war in Iraq, make unconscionable petrol profits, and are contributing to expensive prices at the pump to the demise of soccer moms and middle Americans everywhere. Hillary Clinton has a plan to penalize these "villains" with a petroleum tax. Cont. When the pre-election cycle starts gaining steam, and the rhetoric heats up, let's remember that renewable energy is an "everybody" issue. Voting for your team D or R is analogous to soccer-hooliganism or fighting for your favorite football team. Six days out of the week, most of us are rational, caring, friendly, loving type of people. On Saturday or Sunday, when the game is on, we turn into rabid, carnivorous, blood-thirsty beasts; put on our war paint, and go fight for our team. Literally. Energy is such an emotional and political hot potato in the U.S. that the discussion can be distorted beyond any form of cognitive reality-and send us into the stratosphere of ideological derision. This is especially true for biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel. Let's not let our emotions get the best of us when it comes to the contributions biofuels and renewable energy will make to national, economic and environmental security and clean air.

Alternate energy incentives overwhelmingly popular E & E News, 3/10/08

Voters from both parties continue to strongly favor increased federal support for policies such as increased vehicle fuel efficiency, alternative energy development and greater use of mass transit but are more divided on policies such as nuclear power and tax breaks for oil exploration, according to a new poll. A poll released late last week by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that 90 percent of voters -- regardless of party affiliation -- support government efforts to boost vehicle efficiency and more than 80 percent support increased federal funding for alternative energy. Additionally, 72 percent support increasing funding for mass transit, though 65 percent of Republicans voiced support for such a policy compared to 73 percent among Democrats and 76 percent of independents. A majority of voters -- 57 percent -- also supported increased funding for ethanol research, but that figure has dropped over the last couple of years from a high of 67 percent in early 2006. The decline was especially pronounced among Republican voters, with 59 percent favoring the additional funding this year compared to 72 percent two years ago. Though the poll showed a high level of agreement on some issues, it also showed a gap between the parties on issues such as nuclear power and tax cuts for oil companies.
MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008 (Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy, March 6) However, there continues to be substantial agreement across partisan lines on several areas of energy policy. Roughly 90% of Republicans, Democrats and independents support tougher auto fuel standards, and about 80% in each group favor more federal funding for research into alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydrogen technology.

29

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

alternative energy incentives are popular among the public Electric Light and Power Magazine, 08 (Electric Light and Power Magazine and Utilitu Automation & Engineering T&D Magazine
(Joint Website), New Report Finds Majority of Americans Want Solar Power, June 19)

A recent poll has found that a majority of Americans, across all political parties, support development and funding of solar energy. According to the study, ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. The findings were reported in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer, a survey conducted by the polling firm Kelton Research. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. Eighty-six percent of Independents supported the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were president, 41 percent of Americans picked solar. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent) and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended.

Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular

Broder and Connelly, 07 (John M. and Marjorie, New York times, Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming, April 26) The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal. Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with ethanol, which is now made largely from corn, is a good idea, the survey found. They also are nearly evenly split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in their community, they said no, 59 percent to 36 percent.

Alternate energy overwhelmingly popular with voters even if it increases energy costs PR Newswire 4/14 (Survey says US consumers are willing to pay premium for Renewable Sourced Products Proquest)
A new survey released today shows that nearly seven out of 10 U.S. consumers (65 percent) are willing to pay more for products made with renewable resources. The nationally representative survey, sponsored by DuPont (NYSE: DD) and Mohawk Industries, queried 1,001 U.S. homeowners to identify consumers' personal attitudes and behavior toward environmental responsibility. Conducted by MarketTools, the survey also revealed that global warming and helping American farmers were important drivers for consumers. Thirty-two percent of respondents said they would consider purchasing renewably sourced products that are more expensive to help deter global warming, while 33 percent of respondents said they would consider doing the same to help American farmers. Renewably sourced products on the market today include carpets, textiles, personal care products and others derived from renewable, farm-grown sources rather than petroleum. "The survey confirms that people are becoming much savvier, with a growing understanding that being environmentally responsible is more than just recycling or buying products made with recycled materials," said Peter C. Hemken, vice president and general manager of DuPont Applied BioSciences - Biomaterials.

Sea change in public opinion makes renewables overwhelmingly popular Grist Environmental News, 07 (3/28, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/28/17117/2960)
There has been an absolute sea-change in the popularity of renewable energy in this country. We recently polled voter attitudes towards solar in Tex. and Fla. -- and the results were nearly 20 points higher than a similar poll in Calif. in 2005. Politicians need to better understand this. When they do, good things happen. To wit, Tampa Tribune's recent article "A Changing Political Climate":

30

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PUBLIC

Alternative energys publicly popular majority wants renewables. By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER, the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics, Big Oil, Big Influence, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html With members of Congress paying special attention to Big Oil, the policy that elected representatives have developed does not reflect the interest of the public, which wants "affordable, reliable, clean sources of energy," Slocum says. A 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center found a majority of Americans across the political spectrum want an energy policy that emphasizes renewable and alternative sources of energy.

31

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC

People overwhelmingly support alt energy Pollingreport .com May 2008 http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm
"Some people say using renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, to generate electricity is a good idea because they are readily available and better for the environment. Other people say using renewable energy sources are a bad idea because they are too expensive and can be unreliable. What do you think -- is using renewable energy sources to generate electricity mostly a good idea or mostly a bad idea?"

Good
% 4/20-24/07

Bad %

Unsure % 9 4

87

32

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC

Alternative energy popular National Conference of State Legislatures, 02
(Troy Gagliano, Renewing the Energy Debate, State Legislatures Magazine: April 2002, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/402energy.htm)

Kansas Representative Sloan says the public doesn't

need to be coaxed to use power generated from renewable resources, but more has to be made available. "Public opinion polls show that citizens overwhelmingly support it," he says, "because
it's cost-effective and can be used in concert with traditional fossil fuel plant operations." State lawmakers need to consider incentives to stimulate electricity generation from renewable resources, he says, which is not only popular

with the public, but can be beneficial to rural landowners and

increase energy self-sufficiency. "Legislators and regulators can provide minimal or no-cost incentives to individual landowners, utility managers and
other interested parties to invest in renewable technologies that enhance a state's energy self-sufficiency," Sloan says. "It's something we all have to look at."

33

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC

ALT ENERGY POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC- THEY WANT ACTION AND DONT TRUST OFFSHORE DRILLING
Dionne, Washington Post columnist, 7-18-8 (E.J., Jr., The Washington Post, Gore's Energy Oomph, Pg. A17) Democrats should be concerned about where they are on the gas-price issue right now, and the party's own strategists are worried that its response so far is inadequate. What the Democrats have been saying about the Bush administration's energy record is certainly true: The money that taxpayers threw at the oil and gas industry in Vice President Cheney's energy plan did nothing to help consumers at the pump. And promises that more offshore drilling will magically bring down prices are not backed by the evidence. "We have been drilling for more oil, and the prices have gone up," Gore said in the interview. "A lot more oil has been found, a lot more has been produced." In his speech, Gore uttered the disturbing truth that "the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise." But voters have this odd view that when they face a problem, they want their politicians to do something. Drilling offshore sounds better than not acting at all. That's why John McCain flipped on the issue and now backs drilling. In a survey report released last week by Democracy Corps, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and strategist James Carville concluded that their party has "not yet advanced a compelling narrative" on the problem of high gas prices and that "John McCain enters the offshore drilling debate with voters' favor." In an otherwise upbeat report on Barack Obama's chances, they warn that the public "wants the government to act to address the immediate price consequences, and to act now for achieving energy independence in the medium and long-term." "A majority of voters," they continue, "believe that coupling an investment in alternative fuels with increased domestic production of oil is preferable to alternative fuel investment combined with energy conservation alone."

34

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC (AT: ECON)

PUBLIC STILL THINKS THE ENVIRONMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ECONOMY

Goldman, CNNMoney.com writer, 7-3-8

(David, CNNMoney, Environmental support dips vs. economy poll Americans still say protection should be a priority over the economy, but nearly three in four favor offshore drilling, http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/news/economy/environment_economy/index.htm?cnn=yes, accessed 7-14-8) NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With the U.S. economy mired in a slump, Americans still believe saving the environment is more important than fixing the economy, according to a new poll released Thursday. But consumers are more closely divided on the issue than they have been in the past. According to a CNN/Opinion Research poll, 49% of Americans say protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth. That compares to 44% of those surveyed who said the economy is the top priority, and the government should focus on economic growth even at the expense of the environment. But environmental advocacy groups say the government may not have to make that choice. "It's a false dichotomy," said Carroll Muffett, deputy campaigns director at Greenpeace. "In truth, what is truly good for the environment is what is truly good for the economy, because a shift to better energy solutions would create jobs."

Support for alternate energy overwhelms opposition to cost increases Global Public Opinion.org 07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm
Other polls also have found a significant willingness to incur costs toward reducing global warming even when the cost is quantified in concrete terms. In a September 1998 Mellman Group poll, majorities were willing to pay an extra $5 (73%), $10 (75%) or $20 (64%) monthly "to buy environmentally clean energy such as solar and wind power from your electric utility company in order to cut down on emissions of carbon dioxide and reduce the threat of global warming." [5] Similarly, a September 1997 Ohio State University National Survey found 68% said they were willing to pay more for energy to reduce pollution, with 51% volunteering an amount of $10 or more per month. [6] A September 1998 Wirthlin poll even found that a strong majority did not back away from a possible increase in costs of $1,000 a year per household. Presented a description of the attitudes of two hypothetical individuals, only 39% said they were more like the one described as "worried" that compliance with the Kyoto Treaty "would add up to more than $1,000 a year for the average American household." Sixty percent said they were, instead, more like an individual who "believes that some increases in the cost of gas, energy and consumer products are expected and worth the price if it can reduce the threat of global warming." [7]

35

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC (AT: ECON)

Public supports action to cut emissions willing to accept costs and perceive long term benefits in competitiveness Global Public Opinion.org 07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm
Most Americans are not persuaded by the argument that taking action to reduce global warming will incur unacceptable economic costs. In fact a majority of Americans is inclined to believe that reducing greenhouse gasses will be economically beneficial in the long run. In a June 2005 PIPA poll Americans were asked which position was closest to theirs. Only 23% said efforts in the United States to reduce the release of greenhouse gases will cost too much money and hurt the US economy. Instead, 71% said that the US economy will become more competitive because these efforts will result in more efficient energy use, saving money in the long run. These results are relatively unchanged from June 2004 when 67% chose the efficiency of these efforts over aggregate costs (29%). [30] This helps explain Americans resistance to taking high cost steps: most are not convinced that reducing greenhouse gasses requires high costs. When poll questions require respondents to assume that this is the case they resist taking action based on that
assumption. A June 2005 poll by the Winston Group asked whether global warming is a significant enough problem such that America should be willing to limit job growth to address it. A slight majority of 55% said No, while only 35% said Yes. [31] Americans have also rejected arguments against participation in global warming treaties based on economic arguments. Asked to choose between two statements in a January 1999 Zogby poll of likely voters, only 24% opted for the one that said, "The US (United States) should avoid any Global Warming treaties that put the US at a competitive disadvantage. Taking drastic steps to reduce fossil-fuel emissions could be bad for our economy and way of life." Rather, 63% opted for the strongly stated argument that "Global warming is a serious threat. We should take all necessary actions to cut down on fossil-fuel emissions and cooperate with other nations to make that happen." [32]

Asked about accepting economic costs to address environmental issues Americans will sometime express readiness to accept very high costs. In August 2005 Harris Interactive asked respondents whether they agreed with a rather extreme general statement that protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost. A strong majority of 74% agreed with this statement while only 24% disagreed. [33] But here again some of this readiness may be rooted in optimism that the economic costs of environmental protection do not have to be severe. An overwhelming 83% said it is "possible to have both a growing economy and a healthy environment" in an April 1999 Rasmussen poll. [34]

36

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- PUBLIC (AT: ECON)

Support for Emission cuts swamps fears of economic cost Global Public Opinion.org 07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm
Americans show a readiness to accept a moderate increase in their energy costs to deal with the problem of global warming and to comply with the Kyoto Treaty. At the same time Americans show an optimism that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved without a harmful economic impact and that technological innovations will be effective. In general, Americans show a readiness to accept some increased costs to deal with environmental problems. In August 2005, Harris Interactive found almost three-quarters (74%) of Americans agreeing that protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost. This is up substantially from when it was previously asked in March 2001, January 2002 and November 2002 by CBS/New York Times, though in all cases clear majorities agreed ranging from 56% to 61%. [1] More specifically Americans also show a readiness to accept increases in energy costs to support the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed above, two-thirds said they favored the McCain-Lieberman legislation (Climate Stewardship Act) even if it costs $15 a month for an average household. [1a] (See Appendix A for MIT study used to calculate costs) Support for accepting costs to abide by the Kyoto Protocol was fairly strong even before President Bushs decision to withdraw.
Shortly before the 1992 Rio conferenceat the time the Rio Treaty was under consideration58% said then-President Bush should "sign the treaty if it harms our economy now, but helps the environment in the long run" (26% opposed; USA Today). [2] The same number expressed support even if it "would increase the cost of gasoline and electricity" (33% opposed). [3]

an overwhelming majority showed a readiness to accept the economic hardships that would come from requiring older power plants to meet current pollution standards, though offered the argument that these plants would be "forced to close down, which would reduce our energy supplies at a time when we desperately need and would put people out of work." Imposing the requirements was favored by 78%; only 13% were opposed. [3a]
In a March 2002 poll (that did not specifically mention global warming)

Majority supports emission cuts despite increased costs Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
Americans also appear to be ready to accept significant costs in support of the legislation. First, respondents were told that According to an estimate done by MIT, cutting greenhouse gas emissions as much as this draft of the new bill would require will increase various costs to the average American household by about $15 a month. They were then asked how they felt about this estimate. The response was neutral overall, with a plurality of 34% assuming that it is approximately correct and nearly as many saying that it seems on the high side (29%) as saying it seems on the low side (31%). They were then asked if they would favor the bill If in fact it appears that it would likely cost $15 a month for an average household. Two out of three (67%) said they would, while 30% said they would not.

37

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- CONGRESS

THE SENATE RECENTLY SUPPORTS CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC REASONS FERGUSON, FELLOW OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY FOR THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, 2007. (CHARLES D., "NUCLEAR ENERGY: BALANCING BENEFITS AND RISKS", APRIL, HTTP://WWW.CFR.ORG/PUBLICATION/13104/NUCLEAR_ENERGY.HTML) ACCESSED JULY 10TH Despite the failed efforts to pass the emission reduction legislation, in 2005 the Senate passed a Sense of the Senate resolution on climate change. The resolution finds that (1) greenhouse gases are increasing and raising average global temperatures, (2) a mounting scientific consensus concludes that human activity has significantly caused the increase in greenhouse gases, and (3) mandatory steps will be needed to slow or stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. The resolution calls on Congress to enact a comprehensive national program using market-based mechanisms to slow, stop, and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the resolution expresses the view that such a program should not significantly harm the American economy and should encourage comparable efforts by other countries that contribute to global emissions and are major trading partners of the United States.

38

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP- PUBLIC (ECON)

ECONOMIC CONCERNS REDUCE SUPPORT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Goldman, CNNMoney.com writer, 7-3-8 (David, CNNMoney, Environmental support dips vs. economy poll Americans still say protection should be a priority over the
economy, but nearly three in four favor offshore drilling, http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/news/economy/environment_economy/index.htm?cnn=yes, accessed 7-14-8) Wallet's impact Historically, Americans have said it is more important to prioritize the environment, especially when the economy is booming. In 1995, 62% favored the environment, and in 2000, 70% said the environment should be the government's top priority. But when the economy is struggling, people weigh the issues more equally. For instance, in 2003, when the economy was coming out of a recession and gas prices started soaring, only 47% said the environment should be a higher priority for the government than the economy. Rising prices - especially record fuel prices - have hurt Americans in the wallets. The average price of a gallon of gas rose to an all-time high of nearly $4.10 a gallon Thursday, according to a survey from motorist group AAA. In a section of the poll released Wednesday, 72% said record gas prices have caused them to make changes in their daily lives, and 30% said those changes were major ones.

39

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP-PUBLIC

Renewable energy legislation is extremely unpopular with the public citizens believe that their interests and economic needs are not being accounted for Nothstine, 8 -- Associate Editor at the Acton Institute, and Managing Editor of Religion & Liberty, B.A. in Political Science from The University of Mississippi in
Oxford, free-lance writer for Institute on Religion and Democracy, staff member for U.S. Congressman Gene Taylor (Ray, Action Institute, Washingtons Unpopular War on Energy 06-18-2008 http://www.acton.org/commentary/459_washington_unpopular_war_on_energy.php) // DCM

Most Americans have little faith in the federal government to represent their interests. Who can blame them, when their fears are constantly
affirmed by Washingtons shenanigans? According to polls, presidential and congressional approval ratings are hovering around an all time low. Just 17 percent of American voters believe the federal government represents the will of the people. That this skepticism is well placed is bad news for citizens who are looking to Washington to solve the problem of rising fuel and energy prices. Its even more dire news for Americans on fixed and limited incomes.

With energy prices already skyrocketing, federal lawmakers wreaked more havoc by trying to pass heavy-handed regulatory legislation known simply as cap and trade. The legislation would impose stringent emission limits on energy and manufacturing industries. At the same time, many environmentalists admit that the legislation would have little to no impact on climate change. However, the bill would greatly increase hidden taxes and costs on consumers. The poor and middle class would be hardest hit.
The religious left and even some evangelicals are supportive of the legislation, rallying around a supposed green policy at the expense of the economically marginalized. With their support come odd statements like this one from the Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Climate Initiative, We agree that a cap-and-trade policy will spur innovation and will create new markets. But even many expert economists who support cap and trade admit that it will have a negative effect on the economy.

40

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP- PUBLIC

Public opinion changing support for alternate energy and emission limits are declining Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08 The tide may be changing on US climate change issues By Joe Kamalick WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--Recent US news reports have challenged popular and congressional wisdom about global warming but the reports were significant more for their venue than content - and they suggest a small but telling shift in public opinion. Citing various scholars and scientists, the news reports said that biofuels might not be the panacea for US energy and environmental problems and that emissions caps might damage the US economy without any effect on climate change. None of this is very new stuff, really, and has been reported here and elsewhere on ICIS news, other focused media and government studies for considerable time. However, these new challenging reports appeared in recent issues of Time magazine and The New York Times, two news outlets that are hip-deep in the US mainstream. The fact that those grand dames of US media are questioning basic tenets of climate change philosophy indicates that a sea change in opinion may be under way. Perhaps most surprising and damning was the Time magazine story of 27 March titled "The Clean Energy Myth" on the newsstand magazine's cover and [1]"The Clean Energy Scam" on its Web site. In its 6 April edition, The New York Times said in a story headlined "[2]A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming" that the popular policy goal of imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to force energy conservation and spur non-polluting technologies is now doubtful. "Now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late," the Times said.

Permits and emission restrictions declining in popularity warming no longer key issue Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08 These arguments against the environmental value of biofuels and the efficacy of mandatory emissions control measures are not new and they face counter-challenges from environmental circles but the fact that they are beginning to percolate in the mainstream US media is noteworthy. In addition, a new survey by the [7]John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress at New York University suggested popular concern about global warming was beginning to ebb. According to the centre, the number of people who said they were "very worried" or "somewhat worried" about climate change fell from 70% in 2006 to 67% this year. As reported by Environment & Energy Daily, the centre's survey also found that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming requires immediate legislative action also declined over the same two-year period, from 77% to 69%. To be sure, these are not major shifts in public sentiment, but the survey results and mainstream media challenges to what once were sacred cows of US environmental policy suggest that the issue may have peaked.

41

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN

GOP must strengthen credentials on energy and environment to avoid election defeat National Journal, 10/20/07
As was indicated in the story on the energy bill in thatsame National Journal issue ["Fizzling Out?" p. 48], a GreenbergQuinlan poll for the League of Conservation Voters after the 2006 elections showed huge numbers of independents voting to change the leadership of Congress because they were dissatisfied with GOP leadership on the energy issues that are so critical in the debate over addressing global warming. This data and a follow-up survey suggest that this tendency will be even more pronounced in the 2008 elections.

Supporting Alternate energy steals key issue from democrats Raum, 6/24/08 (Tom, Writer, associate press, Lewiston morning tribune, lexis)
If you pull into the Obama station, he'll promise you cash back from the windfall-profits tax he plans to slap on Big Oil. Check the tires? How about promises to go after oil-market speculators who help drive up prices as well as big subsidies for solar, wind, ethanol and other alternative-energy projects? The Illinois senator likens his energy package to the Kennedy-era space program. Oil and gas prices that have doubled in the past year have squeezed aside the war in Iraq as the No. 1 issue this election year and both parties are blaming each other for the price spike - and for apparent congressional paralysis. Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their campaigns and have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on Capitol Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the nation's addiction to foreign oil. This debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches. In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released Monday, nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the economy as the top issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points.

42

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN

Alternate energy incentives cause GOP win coopts criticism, steals a key issue and inaction hurts incumbent party Staunton, 6/24 (Dennis, Irish Times EU Correspondent, lexis)
WASHINGTON - With consumers fuming over the high cost of gasoline, Republicans and Democrats each want to prove they alone offer the path to lower pump prices. Republicans argue that drilling in coastal waters, Alaska and the Rocky Mountain West will boost oil supplies. Democrats counter that alternative-energy development will free consumers from fossil-fuel captivity. The problem, energy analysts say, is that neither solution will cut prices right now. Even over the long term, only a marriage of the two approaches will work. And neither party will agree to a wedding in an election year with the Oval Office at stake. "The parties have a lot of incentive not to solve the problem and blame the other side," said Julian Zelizer, political-science professor at Princeton University and author of several books on Congress. "Unhappy voters are the voters people think can be swayed." In the last month, Democratic Reps. Mark Udall of Eldorado Springs and Ed Perlmutter of Golden and Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Fort Morgan have held news conferences at gas stations. Lawmakers know they must offer fixes, with pollsters for both sides saying voters list fuel costs as a top concern. There are no clear-cut solutions, however. High gas prices have started to prompt less driving, but they're still too low to force rapid change. Oil would need to hit $150 to $200 a barrel and stay there before private investment moves heavily into alternative fuels and transportation, said John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF Global in New York. Repealing Environmental Protection Agency limits on the sulfur content in diesel fuel would increase fuel supplies, said Philip Verleger, an Aspen-based energy economist. But that's politically difficult. Voters want anything that might work. In a Zogby International poll this month asking what government actions people favored to lower fuel costs, 60 percent backed encouraging domestic drilling. Almost as many, 59 percent, supported cutting demand by boosting fuel-efficiency standards, and 54 percent endorsed the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. The survey did not ask people to pick one option over another. Political advisers are coaching Republicans to talk about more drilling and renewable energy. Democratic strategists suggest giving solutions that include cracking down on oil speculators and pushing gas alternatives. They also advise blaming President Bush. Playing both ends against middle Presidential candidates are aiming for pleasing the political middle, analysts said. "There is a choice that is before folks," said Hari Sevugan, a spokesman in Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign. "Do we want leadership that's been tied to the folks making money from (high gas prices), or do we want leadership that's fighting for us on this?"

43

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP=GOP WIN

Renewable energy incentives NOW shifts the energy debate in favor of McCain- causes GOP win Raju, June 24, 2008
(Manu, GOP going for green, http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-going-for-green-2008-06-24.html)

Senate Republicans aim to undercut Democrats claim to be the environmentally conscious party by combining their own conservation message with a longstanding push for more oil drilling. The shift, to call for increased energy production and less oil use, allows Republicans and their presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), to argue they will do whatever it takes to stop soaring gas prices. And it could throw cold water on Democratic attempts to link McCain with President Bush and the oil companies reaping record profits. Energy policy has become a flashpoint this campaign season, and both sides are jockeying over who has the best plan to handle gas prices that top $4 per gallon. Republicans will do BOTH find more oil, use less Democrats wont, according to a presentation, obtained by The Hill, that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) gave at a closeddoor lunch on Tuesday. Democrats have long opposed expanded offshore drilling, highlighting environmental concerns and claims that there is enough land to drill and that more is an unnecessary giveaway to oil and gas companies. Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats chief campaign strategist, called the GOP message a defensive and sort of last-gasp effort. Two words: oil companies, Schumer said. They have for seven years done exactly what the oil companies

Republicans are trying to debunk that claim with a greener message: more investment in plug-in electric cars and trucks, less energy use by the federal government and increased oversight of market speculation on oil futures. The move could be perceived as a shift toward McCain, who has been at odds with many in his party on cutting greenhouse emissions and has used environmental issues to distinguish himself from Bush.
wanted.
McCain called for more efficiency rules in a campaign stop Tuesday in Santa Barbara, Calif., arguing that energy could be conserved in the 3.3 billion square feet of federal office space nationwide. The Republican proposal also calls for moving away from the partys bedrock position of emphasizing oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and instead promoting oil-shale extraction and offshore exploration. McCain has long opposed drilling in Alaska, but last week made a reversal to support a states right to allow exploration along the coastal United States. Even though that reversal gives Democrats the opportunity to link McCain with Bush,

it also allows the GOP to rally behind

one party message and unite in one attack against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the Democratic presidential candidate. In one slide of Tuesdays presentation titled
No, we cant a play on Obamas popular slogan, Yes, we can Alexander tried to make the case that the presidential candidate has repeatedly voted against offshore drilling and expanding domestic supplies of oil. He called the Democrats support for half of the energy solution Obamanomics. Following the lunch, Alexander, along with other members of the Republican leadership, echoed the talking points. Lamar likes to say, What if President Kennedy said, Were not going to the moon. Were going halfway

Republicans increasingly see an advantage on the energy debate. With gas prices putting the economy in greater turmoil, public sentiment is starting to shift towards offshore drilling and conservation measures. But the public is also skeptical that such a move would effectively reduce gas prices. About 30 Senate Republicans huddled behind closed doors Tuesday afternoon to craft an energy package they plan to unveil later this week. Items under consideration included the drilling and conservation measures, as well as authorized funding on carbon sequestration technologies, market-driven incentives for renewable energy and an expansion of nuclear power all part of McCains campaign platform. Republicans are urging their rank and file to take that message home during the upcoming recess, saying that positive news coverage will emerge from events to talk about more efficiency rules, like plug-in hybrid cars, along with calls for more supplies.
to the moon? said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). That wouldnt have been a very inspiring message, would it?

44

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY INCREASES POL CAP

Alternative Energy could start up Bushs agenda The Post Standard, 7-3-2K8 (Mike McAndrew, Clinton Brings Energy to CNY ln) GRodarte
In her speech to the public, Clinton said, "We are more dependent on foreign oil today than we were on 9/11. Shame on us that we let that happen." She said President Bush and Congress should pass renewable energy production tax credits, require higher gas mileage for cars, tax windfall profits of oil companies, and crack down on market speculators who are causing the price of a barrel of oil to skyrocket. "There's a lot that could be done, but unfortunately I don't see much indication that's going to happen in the remaining months of President Bush's term," she said. "I'm very disturbed by

the lack of leadership coming out of the White House and the difficulties we have in the Senate passing something over the Republican opposition because of our rules." Then Clinton climbed into the rear of a black Chevrolet Suburban that
gets 16 miles per gallon and rode out of Syracuse.

Bush is weak because of failure to develop alternative energy sources Plan would reinvigorate his agenda. The Arizona Republic, 6-25-2K8 (Scott Wong, Ariz. summit focuses on oil solutions, ln) GRodarte
"The high price of gas is not just the price you pay at the pump ," said Rep. Steve Farley, a Tucson Democrat who introduced HB 2664. "The high price of gas is the pollution we are breathing in our lungs. The high price of gas is the hundreds of millions of dollars we are spending in Iraq." House GOP spokesman Barrett Marson said Democrats are forgetting the House also quashed a bill that would have required carmakers to make hybrid vehicles noisier. Ableser introduced the bill to make streets safer for the blind, but Marson said the proposal would have destroyed the state's hybrid industry. Panelist and Sierra Club lobbyist Sandy Bahr said the Bush administration and Legislature have displayed a "lack of leadership and political will" by failing to

adequately fund and develop alternative and renewable-energy sources.

45

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP

Energy policy is controversial Mayer, 7 Money-in-politics reporter for Center for Responsive Politics (Lindsay Renick, PBS, Big Oil Big Influence 11-23-2007 http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html )
<"I think [the new leadership] generally puts the issue on the agenda for legislative action. It puts it higher on the agenda. But it's

not clear Congress will actually be able to do very much in terms of getting the votes for legislation, because energy policy in reality is very controversial and often very expensive," Victor said. "That's something that both parties have a difficult time dealing with."> * Victor is a law professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow on the Council for Foreign Relations.

46

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP

PLAN WILL REQUIRE POLITICAL CAPITAL TO OVERCOME BARRIERS TO RENEWABLES Virinder Singh, Renewable Energy Policy Project, 1998 [ Government Procurement To Expand PV Markets, http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/pdf/pv4.pdf] E. Establish Solid Political Leadership The primacy of least-cost in the procurement culture is detrimental to PV and other renewable energy alternatives. Overcoming this barrier will require concerted leadership that clearly communicates to government purchasing agents that political leaders are willing to accept the higher price of renewable energy purchases. Overall, effective political leadership requires an explicit commitment to purchase renewable energy, as well as a comprehensive revision of the existing government procurement system to remove imbedded barriers (e.g., payback periods shorter than effective system life). Past experience with federal executive orders suggests that procedural barriers can prevail over the bully pulpit due to their longevity and routinization within the procurement system.16

47

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP

POLITICAL OPPOSITION TO NEW ENERGY POLICIES ENSURES PLAN SPENDS CAPITAL Victor, Stanford Law School professor & Freeman Spogli Institute's Program on Energy & Sustainable Development director, 8

(David G., 3-3-8, Why the United States is doomed to be an energy outlaw, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/118087/output/print, Accessed July 8-08)
Democrats voting in Ohio and Texas may well decide the shape of the U.S. presidential election. Regardless of who they choose to run against Sen. John McCain, the all but certain Republican candidate, it is likely that energy issues will figure more prominently in the election than at any time in the last generation. High prices are sapping economic growth, the No. 1 concern across most of the country. Gasoline is now approaching $4 a gallon; natural gas and electricity are also more costly than a few years ago. Global warming has become a bipartisan worry, and solving that problem will require radical new energy technologies as well. All this is good news in the rest of the world, which is hoping that a new regime in Washington will put the United States on a more sustainable energy path. It may be a vain hope. It is extremely unlikely that Washington will ever supply a coherent energy policy, regardless of who takes the White House in November. That's because serious policies to change energy patterns require a broad effort across many disconnected government agencies and political groups. Higher energy efficiency for buildings and appliances, a major energy use area, requires new federal and state standards. Higher efficiency for vehicles requires federal mandates that always meet stiff opposition in Detroit. A more aggressive program to replace oil with biofuels requires policy decisions that affect farmers and crop patterns-yet another part of Washington's policymaking apparatus, with its own political geometry. New power plants that generate electricity without high emissions of warming gases require reliable subsidies from both federal and state governments, because such plants are much more costly than conventional power sources. Approvals for these new plants require favorable decisions by state regulators, most of whom are not yet focused on the task. Expanded use of nuclear power requires support from still another constellation of administrators and political interests. And so on. Whenever the public seizes on energy issues, the cabal of Washington energy experts imagines that these problems can be solved with a new comprehensive energy strategy, backed by a grand new political coalition. Security hawks would welcome reduced dependence on volatile oil suppliers, especially in the Persian Gulf. Greens would favor a lighter tread on the planet, and labor would seize on the possibility for "green-collar" jobs in the new energy industries. Farmers would win because they could serve the energy markets. The energy experts dream of a coalition so powerful that it could rewire government and align policy incentives.

48

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP

PLAN SPENDS CAPITAL ENERGY COALITIONS TOO FRAGILE Victor, Stanford Law School professor & Freeman Spogli Institute's Program on Energy & Sustainable Development director, 8

(David G., 3-3-8, Why the United States is doomed to be an energy outlaw, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/118087/output/print, Accessed July 8-08)
This coalition, alas, never lasts long enough to accomplish much. For an energy policy to be effective, it must send credible signals to encourage investment in new equipment not just for the few months needed to craft legislation but for at least two decadesenough time for industry to build and install a new generation of cars, appliances and power plants, and make back the investment. The coalition, though, is politically too diverse to survive the kumbaya moment. Just two weeks ago the feds canceled "FutureGen," a government-industry project to develop technologies for burning coal without emitting copious greenhouse gases, demonstrating that the government is incapable of making a credible promise to help industry develop these badly needed technologies over the long haul. (The project had severe design flaws, but what matters most is that the federal government was able to pretend to support the venture for as long as it did and then abruptly back off.) Similarly, legislation late last year to increase the fuel economy of U.S. automobiles will have such a small effect on the vehicle fleet that it will barely change the country's dependence on imported oil and will have almost no impact on carbon emissions. Democrats and Republicans alike claim they want to end the country's dependence on foreign oil, but neither party actually does much about it.

49

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP

INTRODUCTION OF SWEEPING ENERGY LEGISLATION ELICITS AN OVERWHELMING BACKLASH PRESIDENT CAN ONLY LOSE FROM THE PLAN BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD A COALITION AROUND ENERGY COHEN, ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF THE NEW ATLANTIS, 2004

(Stephanie, The New Atlantis, Energy Dreams and Energy Realities, Spring, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/energy-dreams-and-energy-realities, accessed 7-8-08)
More often than not -- to James Madison's delight -- big energy bills die a congressional death. No single faction is able to impose its vision of the energy future on the country as a whole, and the effort to please every faction often degenerates into incoherence. It ends up pleasing no one and offending nearly everyone. The Bush energy initiative is so far no exception, and after three years of debate, no comprehensive energy legislation has emerged, despite Republican control of both Congress and the White House. Consider the major initiatives in one iteration of the Republican energy package: $1.8 billion for a Clean Coal Power Initiative aimed at cutting pollution from coal-fired power plants; $2.081 billion for research into "fusion energy"; $2.15 billion to get hydrogen-powered automobiles on the road by 2020; $1 billion for an experimental power plant capable of producing hydrogen; $18 billion for a natural gas pipeline stretching from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states; a federal mandate to produce five billion gallons of the fuel additive ethanol; $500 million for extracting oil and gas from "unconventional" locations; and funding for "horizontal drilling," "three-dimensional" seismic techniques, and "enhanced recovery" of energy sources. The Bush initiative received a predictable and often unfavorable reaction from many quarters. Liberal critics called the administration a bunch of "fossil fuel dinosaurs" and condemned their devotion to "petro-politics" and "traditional" energy sources. Others labeled the bill a Christmas tree for oil interests, a license for industry profiteering, or a wide-ranging assault on the environment. Conservative critics saw the Bush initiative as an example of needless, reckless, and excessive government spending -- much of it on futuristic energy technologies better left to the private sector, where they would face the dream-destroying gauntlet of the marketplace. Two newspapers that rarely agree both saw the energy bill as an abomination. The Washington Post said the bill was "stuffed with more goodies than a Thanksgiving turkey." The Wall Street Journal described the bill as "one of the great logrolling exercises in recent congressional history," and said that the "GOP leadership has greased more wheels than a NASCAR pit crew" in its attempts to buy votes. The bill drew the wrath of interest groups across the spectrum from the green left to the libertarian right -- from the Sierra Club to Taxpayers for Common Sense, from the Wilderness Society to the Heritage Foundation. The result is that several versions of energy legislation have all dissolved under the weight of contentious "poison pills" -- such as permitting oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, exempting manufacturers of fuel additives from product liability claims, or restructuring electricity markets. The clash of interests has created an unpassable beast and thus, it seems, an unbreakable stalemate. Of course, the interests in the energy debate are not simply philosophical -- pinning pro-development conservatives against pro-conservation liberals. For example, Republican Governor Jeb Bush has vigorously opposed off-shore drilling in Florida -- saying explicitly that it is different than drilling in Alaska, and that we need to protect the "pristine natural environment" that Florida tourism depends upon. Republican senators from coastal states have advocated similar positions to protect state aesthetics and commerce. Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy, a vigorous supporter of renewable energy technology, has vigorously opposed the creation of high-tech windmills off Cape Cod, which would be an eyesore for those with beachfront property. The "not-in-my-backyard principle" and the "more-jobs-in-my-district principle" are always important, and probably decisive on particular votes. But over the long run, the larger philosophies of energy -- Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, industrialist and naturalist -- remain more important in shaping the terms of the energy debate.

50

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP

ALL ENERGY PROMOTION POLICIES CREATE WINNERS AND LOSERS KOMOR, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER LECTURER, 2006

(Paul, Sustainable Energy and the States: Essays on Politics, Markets, and Leadership, edited by: Dianne Rahm, Pg. 146)
Policy can best be understood in terms of winners and losers. Any policy changewhether at the state or national level, whether about energy or defense or anything elsemeans that some parties will gain and some will lose. Another way to say this is that energy policies are often neither good nor bad in generalonly in the particular. An RPS, for example, is good for the wind industry but potentially bad for the coal industry. There are two implications of this truism. First, if people say a policy is good or bad, they usually mean that its good or bad for them. So when you hear spokespersons evaluating a policy, keep in mind who they are and what they want from the policy. Second, policy positions are a function of the amount of perceived gain or loss. Policies to promote sustainability, if presented as such, dont directly translate into significant gain or loss for anyone and therefore are unlikely to garner much interest. In contrast, policies to promote economic development (which can be true of policies to promote sustainability, such as an RPS) are much more likely to see significant support.

MAKING THE EXTERNALITIES COUNT REQUIRES POLITICAL CAPITAL LAUBER, UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2005

(Volkmar, Switching to Renewable Power: A Framework for the 21st Century, Pg. 6)
Now, if external costs were taken seriously, this would indeed make many renewable power technologies immediately competitive. As Jacobsson and Labuer show in this volume, including external costs in Germany means that wind power, which in 2004 came under heavy attack there for supposedly being uneconomical when compared with coal, is actually quite competitive with that fuel. Indeed, if subsidies for coal and factored in, it is already the cheaper option. The major difference between coal-generated electricity and wind power is not costs; it is in the allocation of those costs. In the case of wind power, they are borne by electricity consumers; in the case of coal, they are partially borne by the general public, regardless of causation; in other words, they are externalized. Internalization of external costs required in order to optimize welfare will lead to a reorientation of the energy sector in a more sustainable direction. But serious internalization of external costs will also require a major change in politics.

ENTRENCHED INTERESTS WILL FIGHT TO MAINTAIN FOSSIL FUEL DOMINANCE PERNICK, CO-FOUNDER CLEAN EDGE, INC., WILDER, CLEAN EDGE, INC. CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, 2007

(Ron & Clint, The Clean Tech Revolution: The next big growth and investment opportunity, Pg. 284)
Entrenched interests will fight to hold to a business-as-usual scenarioworking to protect their livelihood and incentives. Some groups will continue to vehemently deny human impact on climate change, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Others will be so busy building up their economies they wont realize the detrimental impact to their people and society in the form of disease and pollution caused by fossil fuels. Supply constraints will create momentary stumbling blocks to clean-tech development in the form of shortages of critical materials like processed steel and silicon. Investors, at times, may exhibit irrational exuberancerunning up the prices of stocks with valuations that outstrip their real value. Venture capitalists, too, may fall prey to this behavior, with too many dollars chasing too few deals resulting in a herd mentality and over-valued private offerings. And when demand outpaces growth, we will see occasional increases in pricing for certain clean-tech goods and services.

51

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY COST POL CAP (LOBBIES)

MANY INTEREST GROUPS EXERT LOBBYING PRESSURE ON CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT REGARDING ENERGY POLICY. SIMON, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2007

(Christopher A., Alternative Energy: Political, Economic and Social Feasibility, Pg. 204)
Interest groups have shown themselves to be a highly effective at influencing public policy in all stages of the policy process. Elected officials, usually members of the two major political parties, often face significant time and resource constraints (and limited incentives) in shaping public policies following the creation of statutes. The budget and committee oversight are tools Congress uses to shape policy postulate, but time limitations and disincentives often mean that Congress eschews large-scale regular oversight. The president, too has significant time constraints and relies heavily on appointed officials to represent his views, which has varying impacts on policy postulate. Interest groups, however, have significant time to follow individual policy arenas and to advance their goals throughout the policy process Environmental groups have and will likely remain very influential in energy policy. A centuries-old movement, interest group influence grew tremendously in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s in the United States. Environmental groups generally do not seek personal economic benefit from their efforts to protect the environment but tend to be driven by a notion of societal benefit. Many groups have significant resources needed to keep group to promote legislative action. Through lobbying efforts and information campaigns, interest groups shape policy outcome. Economic groups have played a significant role in shaping the energy policy debate and in a variety of different ways. Rural agrarian counties in the midwestern United States for instance, have faced economic and social decline for several decades. In the 1970s and 1980s in part due to rising energy costsfamily farmers in the heartland were faced with serious economic depravation. Many of these family farmers were forced to sell their farms, often to large corporate farming interests. Social changes led many mid-western youth to migrate to the cities for greater opportunity, which meant that the next generation of farmers and ranchers disappeared from the rural landscape. Government groups at the state and local levels, such as associations or counties, began to pressure state and national policymakers to promote the use of corn in the alternative energy paradigmfederal ethanol subsidies have played a major role it making this aspect of farming much more profitable and, as a consequence, making farming a more lucrative enterprise. Urban government interest groups, such as the League of Cities, have also played a major role in shaping regulations and distributive policy incentives to promote sustainable communities. The supply of abundant and cheap energy is the cornerstone of the U.S. city of twentieth century; curtailing demand but maintaining quality of life will be the challenge of the twentyfirst-century U.S. city. In order to accomplish this significant goal, however, government interest groups seek the economic aid of governments at all levels. Given Tiebouts (1956) overarching thesis, it is natural that government interests will jockey for financial opportunities to promote the policy innovations unique to their locale and the needs of their communities in relation to other urban areas.

52

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP

Alternative energys divisive controversial and expensive. By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER, the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics, Big Oil, Big Influence, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html Battles on the Horizon With Democrats now in control of Congress, the oil and gas industry is finding that it's getting less for its money on Capitol Hill. Other industries with competing interests and far less cash to spread around, such as environmental groups and alternative energy producers, are now finding more support for their legislative goals. For example, the Clean Energy Act of 2007 seeks to repeal the 2004 and 2005 tax breaks to Big Oil and re-direct the money to renewable energy efforts. Because of the change in power, the oil industry faces the possibility of stricter oversight and fewer goodies from Congress. The industry "definitely has to be worried that there will be anti-oil legislation of all types, and also possibly regulations, depending on who takes over the White House," says David Victor, a law professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow on the Council for Foreign Relations. Victor was part of the council's task force on energy security. "I think [the new leadership] generally puts the issue on the agenda for legislative action. It puts it higher on the agenda. But it's not clear Congress will actually be able to do very much in terms of getting the votes for legislation, because energy policy in reality is very controversial and often very expensive," Victor said. "That's something that both parties have a difficult time dealing with."

53

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP- CONGRESS(OIL= OPPOSITION)

OIL LOBBY POLITICALLY POWERFUL, ENSURING OPPOSITION TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Elhefnawy, University of Miami political science professor, 8

(Nader, Survival, pp. 27-66, April-May)

The second difficulty, the exceptional strength of the oil lobby in the United States, reinforces this. It was largely because of oillobby pressure in the early 1980s that the US Federal Government abandoned tax credits and regulations aimed at fostering alternative energy sources, measures intended to create a free market in energy.54 Abandoning these measures tilted the market in favour of more established sources, not least because coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy attained their market position because of a long history of government subsidy. Given the complexity of the issue and that many forms of government assistance are indirect, such as favourable terms on leases of government land to oil drillers, estimates of such support vary wildly. Nevertheless, the figure easily ran into several hundred billion federal dollars during the last century investments never made in renewable energy. This remained the case even after the 1973 embargo, the federal government spending six times as much on researching energy production from fossil fuels and nuclear energy as on renewables between 1972 and 1995. Such support of oil is actually increasing, at least when the security subsidy of military protection for energy production and transport is taken into account. As a result of these two factors, the US alternative energy industry was not only left to sink or swim among more mature competition, but was put at a disadvantage and withered, while the oil, gas and nuclear lobbies received the lions share of government support. To give one example, the US share of the worlds installed wind-energy capacity fell from 92% in 1988 to a meagre 35% by 1995, with American energy production from wind actually registering negative growth for several years during the 1990s. While growth since 1999 has been rapid, as of 2005 the US share of world capacity was still a mere 15%, behind Spain and Germany, the latter country producing twice as much electricity from wind as did the United States. Not surprisingly, wind energys contribution to American electricity production remains modest, well under 1% compared with 6% for Germany and over 20% for Denmark.

54

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP (NO TURNS)

No turns alternative energys divisive regardless of consensus. Stephanie I. Cohen, marketwatch staff writer, 2/19/2008, Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks, Congress stalls on green tax credits again, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economy-enery-tax/story.aspx?guid= %7b6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E33-2035F30E3050%7d&print=true&dist=printMidSection [ND] For years, lobbying groups have pleaded with Washington for long-term extensions of investment and production tax credits that benefit solar, fuel cells, wind, geothermal and biomass energy sources only to see the measures locked in a political drama that they say leaves alternative energy investors in a lurch. Groups like the Solar Energy Industries Association and American Wind Energy Association say U.S. jobs are at stake. Despite claims of support from both parties for increased funding for cleaner energy alternatives, Congress has repeatedly squeaked out one-year extensions for the incentives only when they are about to expire. The efforts to extend what most Americans seem to support -- increased incentives for alternative energy production -- has proven to be divisive despite a general consensus on the policy.

55

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART

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

NYT, 2006 (New York Times, December 10) Now some analysts and money managers are hoping the imminent Democratic takeover of Congress will also be bullish for alternative energy stocks by improving prospects for favorable legislation for the industry. One likely initiative, known as a national
renewable portfolio standard, would require utilities to derive 10 percent of their electricity output from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, less than 3 percent of electricity is generated from such sources. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the presumptive chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, says he hopes to pass some version of a renewable portfolio standard in the next Congress. The details of such legislation as well as whether it would be approved by Congress and signed by President Bush are very much uncertain. But that hasnt stopped investors from placing their bets. Democrats may be in the forefront, but they arent the only ones to jump on the alternative energy bandwagon, said

Randy Gwirtzman, a research analyst at Baron Capital, which is based in New York. Both sides of the aisle have shown theyre in favor of alternative energy sources, he said. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, for example, is concerned about the nations reliance on imported oil. With the surging prices of oil, he said, theres a strong feeling among Republicans that our economy and national security can be damaged if we dont decrease our dependency. Mr. Gwirtzman
recommends shares of SunPower, which he said has a highly competitive solar-cell product line that is well positioned to benefit from a more sympathetic Congress. Stuart Bush, technology analyst at RBC Capital Markets based in Austin, Tex., also likes SunPower, which is a spin-off of Cypress Semiconductor. Mr. Bush says SunPower solar cells are more efficient than the industry average in converting solar energy into electricity. Unlike many other alternative energy companies, SunPower already generates a small profit, and its revenue could reach $600 million next year and $1 billion in 2008, Mr. Bush said. A renewable portfolio standard should help alternative energy move closer to parity with traditional energy sources, Mr. Bush said. Each technology individually is on a path to reducing costs and achieving parity with traditional energy sources, some very dramatically. The wind industry is probably closest to achieving economic viability without any support from the federal government. One company he favors is Zoltek, which makes lightweight carbon-fiber blades for wind turbines. Zoltek could also be helped by a longer extension of federal renewable energy tax credits, a legislative goal of wind-energy lobbyists. The production tax credits, which reward electricity producers for each kilowatt of energy they generate from renewable sources, are scheduled to expire next year. In the past, the credits have typically been extended for two years at a time, which the wind-energy industry maintains is too short a period to stimulate long-term investment.

Democrats will support a longer extension, Senator Bingaman said. Clearly, we do need to extend those tax credits that relate to renewable energy, and we need to do so for a longer period, he said. A consensus on alternative energy is perhaps closest in biofuels, which have the support of many Republicans, particularly from farm belt and southern states. I do think we need to increase the use of biofuels as much and as quickly as possible, Senator Sessions said.

56

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART

There is bipartisan support for a shift to renewables Whitman, 6 President of the Whitman Strategy Group, a management consulting/strategic planning partnership servicing both government and business clients,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Bush, 50th Governor of the State of New Jersey (Christine, Hall Institue of Public Policy, Open Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government 6-27-06 http://www.hallnj.org/cm/document_handler.jsp?dId=1000156) // DCM

With gasoline prices at record highs, Americans have a renewed interest in the development of more fuel-efficient cars. Majorities of voters in both parties would like to see auto manufacturers create cars that use less fuel and produce less pollution. As such, the tax credits for hybrid cars, recently signed into law by President Bush, received strong bipartisan support in the Congress. The policy was so forwardlooking and logical that it even received the enthusiastic support of the environmental lobby and the auto industry. Similarly, representatives of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass fuels. Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment, but also promotes rural economic development and may lessen the international trade gap. American innovation, in this case to improve the environment and stimulate economic growth, can always count on bipartisan support.

57

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART

Alternative energys bipartisan oil prices force interest in incentives. By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER, the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics, Big Oil, Big Influence, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html The Democratic Congress has made clean energy legislation a priority because of rising gas prices and concerns about the nation's dependence on foreign oil sources, in addition to a scientific consensus that human activity is the root cause of today's global warming. Many Republicans, too, are on board and looking for solutions. "The single most important thing that's happened in the last five years is the price of oil has shot up," Stanford's David Victor says. "That run-up has changed the politics and incentives for people to take an interest in conservation, and that's completely bipartisan. There are people in the left wing and the right wing that say we need to do something about this problem." GOP is on alternative energy bandwagon its bipartisan. The Colorado Springs Gazette, 12/7/2007, Our View, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20071207/ai_n21172265/print?tag=artBody;col1 [ND] Political colors Republicans roll out plan for environment In the world of political fashion, green is the color stylish politicians are wearing these days, and this has some in the GOP jumping on the bandwagon. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a new book out proposing a "contract with the planet" for conservatives. Political support for biofuel production quotas and alternative energy mandates is becoming bipartisan. Colorado Republicans last week got into the act, unveiling their own plan for balancing economic and environmental interests. It leans toward markets and away from mandates, which is a welcome alternative to the command-and-control approach preferred by Democrats. There's nothing here as dramatic (or Draconian) as what Democrats have to propose, but these are worthy proposals. "Republicans are committed to sound environmental policies that do not impose heavy- handed mandates on consumers and businesses," House Minority Leader Mark May said. Energys bipart gas prices ensure compromise. UPI, United Press International, 7/9/2008, Senate pressured to find energy compromise, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/09/Senate_pressured_to_find_energy_compromise/UPI-45951215619569/ [ND] WASHINGTON, July 9 (UPI) -- A group of U.S. senators says public anger about high gas prices is spurring them to push hard to find a bipartisan compromise on an energy bill soon. "This is the No. 1 issue on people's minds, very clearly," Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., told The New York Times (NYSE:NYT) in comments published Wednesday. Conrad was one of a bipartisan group of 10 senators meeting Tuesday to hammer out ideas on how to reach an energy plan compromise.

58

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART

Energy is bipart only common ground on the agenda. Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writers, 11/10/2006, Bush Meets With Pelosi; Both Vow Cooperation, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110900953_pf.html [ND] Despite deep philosophical differences and sharp election-year rhetoric from both sides, the White House and congressional Democrats may share some interest in finding common ground on such issues as overhauling the immigration system, education and energy, according to lawmakers and administration officials. Democratic leaders seem anxious to show they can deliver as a governing party after years in opposition, while Bush is aware that his final two years will be bereft of any significant initiative unless he can work with the party he demonized on the campaign trail. Despite conciliatory rhetoric, there were flashes yesterday of the potential obstacles ahead. The White House once again asked the Senate to approve the nomination of controversial U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton, who holds the post after a recess appointment, but Democrats -- and a key Republican -- quickly moved to block the action. In her interview with reporters, Pelosi said Democrats will act immediately to reinstate lapsed budget rules, which mandate that any new tax cuts or spending increases be paid for with equal spending cuts or tax hikes. That would all but shut the door on Bush's main economic priority, making his first-term tax cuts permanent. The new House and Senate leadership will also quickly challenge Bush on stem cell research, Pelosi said. Democrats expect to pass legislation early next year that would be almost identical to the only bill he has vetoed, a measure to expand federal funding of stem cells beyond the few lines already in existence. The addition of 29 Democratic seats in the House and six in the Senate is probably not enough to override a veto, Pelosi conceded, but Democrats hope to "build public support for a signature." But Pelosi and the House's No. 2 Democrat, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), who also attended the White House lunch, indicated they came away from their meeting with a sense that they could work with Bush. In an apparent effort to demonstrate goodwill, Pelosi added that Democrats will take up the "innovation agenda" laid out by Bush nearly a year ago in his State of the Union address, and pass his proposals to increase funding for basic scientific research and alternative energy programs.

59

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART

Bipartisan support for alternative energy incentives exist Mayer, 7 Money-in-politics reporter for Center for Responsive Politics (Lindsay Renick, PBS, Big Oil Big Influence 11-23-2007 http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html ) The Democratic Congress has made clean energy legislation a priority because of rising gas prices and concerns about the nation's dependence on foreign oil sources, in addition to a scientific consensus that human activity is the root cause of today's global warming. Many Republicans, too, are on board and looking for solutions. "The single most important thing that's happened in the last five years is the price of oil has shot up," Stanford's David Victor says. "That run-up has changed the politics and incentives for people to take an interest in conservation, and that's completely bipartisan. There are people in the left wing and the right wing that say we need to do something about this problem." * Victor is a law professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow on the Council for Foreign Relations.

60

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY BIPART/POP-REPS

Low carbon policies popular with republicans they recognize need for environmental policies CQ 08 (Congressional Quarterly, Stalled for Now, Climate Change Bill May Find Broader Support in Future, June 6, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002890955)
Last week the Senate took up a sweeping climate change bill in what many hoped would be a historic debate. But it ended up fizzling quickly, and now any efforts at comprehensive global warming legislation will likely be shelved until next year. Progress on the legislation (S 3036) was thwarted by partisan sniping and procedural maneuvers. Still, there was evidence of widening bipartisan consensus on key points of energy proposals that are likely to resurface in the new administration. The debate over the climate change bill demonstrated that most Republicans arent yet ready to vote for a bill that would fundamentally transform the economy by putting a price on fossil fuel emissions. But last weeks debate saw even diehard

oil- and coal-state Republicans publicly acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need to transition to a low-carbon economy. It also highlighted a shift that is already taking place in Congress, as more Republicans support major incentives for low-carbon and renewable-energy technologies. It wasnt that long ago that if you were a Republican, you were looked at strangely if you talked about conservation, about these energy alternatives, said Ryan Loskarn, communications director for the Senate Republican Conference. In the past, Republicans have been vocal mainly on more drilling. But theres been a perceptible shift in the mood of the party. In speech after speech, GOP lawmakers called for more funding and research into solar, wind and geothermal power; plug-in hybrid cars; and carbon sequestration. While some Republicans have in the past voted for renewable-power incentives that could help their home-state industries,
now party leaders are getting out in front of the issue and seeking to define it as their own. New World Order As the climate change debate kicked off last week, the heads of the Senate Republican Conference, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas, hosted a forum on the need for what Alexander likes to tout as a new Manhattan Project: a policy centered on research and development of a raft of low-carbon energy initiatives, from plug-in cars to green buildings. We need a crash program for carbon recapture and solar. We stand ready for an agenda for more clean energy, and we have the moment to marshal bipartisan support on this, Alexander said. He said hed like to see the heads of the Senate Energy Committee, Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., and Pete V. Domenici , R-N.M., work with the National Academy of Sciences to determine the top alternative energy priorities, and then say, What should we do in Congress to put that on the fastest track possible? Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure, this doesnt mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables may be, even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be exploring for more oil and gas. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project, you need to start with more oil drilling. And Cornyn, who hails from the nations chief oil state, backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and wind power, but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. Theres a large consensus of people who think we need to be good stewards of the environment. We all realize we cant live on a petroleum-based economy indefinitely, Cornyn said. But the problem with our friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution. Still, Democrats see promise in the new Republican renewables movement. Theres greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy, Bingaman said. We are hoping to be able to move ahead in that area. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been. In the House, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the game-changers. The lines that were drawn clearly about

what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill those are changing. Those old battle lines arent necessarily true anymore, he said.

61

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART

ENERGY POLICY PARTISANSHIP

The Island Packet, 6/30/2008, Dont hold energy policy hostage to partisan politics, http://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/letters/story/536168.html
Dealing with our energy crisis should not be a partisan political issue, but it is. For more than 25 years, Republicans consistently have promoted fossil fuels and opposed federal funding for renewable sources, such as wind and solar energy. Our political parties polarized on energy policy in the 1970s. At that time, oil exporting countries created OPEC, which then quickly quadrupled the price of oil. In response, President Carter and the Democratic Congress planned for energy independence. Among other measures, they doubled gas mileage standards for cars, and they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into conservation and alternative energy sources. Carter even installed solar panels on the White House. When Reagan succeeded Carter in 1980, he removed those solar panels, and his budget gutted research and development funding for alternative energy. Most Republicans have followed Reagan's stand against renewables ever since. A story in the June 18 Packet reported that Senate Republicans had once again blocked a Democratic bill to fund renewable energy. And in the ongoing presidential race, Republican John McCain still preaches reliance on the fossil fuels that produced our present predicament. Isn't the case against fossil fuels obvious? Their production and distribution can devastate the land or sea; their consumption pollutes the air worldwide; rising global demand and limited supply mean ever escalating prices; and the cost of imported oil sends American treasure to foreign countries that fund terrorism. By contrast, Barack Obama and the Democrats advocate energy sources that are clean, inexhaustible and made right here in the USA.

62

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART

GRIDLOCK OVER FUNDING INCENTIVES Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau , Congressional deadlock over renewable energy; Crucial tax credits for wind, solar power to expire at end of year if nothing is done, The San Francisco Chronicle, 6/18/08, p. Lexis Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year. The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them. The stalemate is causing jitters among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are making billion-dollar bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to build solar panels and wind turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress acts. Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which helps finance and operate large-scale solar power projects, said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31, when the credits expire. Because large solar projects can take six months to build, the company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed. "It creates a hiccup that is very unfortunate," Harris said. The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington.

63

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART

There is bipartisan support for energy reform in theory but the details of legislation will cause serious battles. Johnson 08 ("Low-carbon fuels important to stem transportation sectors emissions." Senator Tim - member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Hill. 1/30/08 http://thehill.com/op-eds/low-carbonfuels-important-to-stem-transportation-sectors-emissions-2008-01-30.html) This year, few are predicting much in the way of bipartisan agreement on the thorniest issues of the day. Particularly in the area of energy policy there could be a temptation for Congress to take a legislative breather, having passed two comprehensive energy bills in the past three years. Resting on our laurels will not do when the public remains concerned with high energy costs and the growing recognition that the United States needs to address the effects of global climate change sooner rather than later. In 2007 Congress put the country on a path to reduce gasoline demand by passing new fuel efficiency requirements and boosting the amount of renewable fuels blended into the transportation fuel supply. This year the Senate will consider comprehensive legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions. Any successful policy to require emission cuts will need an aggressive research, development and demonstration component to ensure adequate supplies of energy to keep our economy growing. The good news is that there is at least one existing technology offering an immediate solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Major lobby groups will fight against ethanol. The Washington Post 2008 (June 16, Vinod Khosla, All Biofuels Are Not the Same) Unfortunately, biofuels are the target of interested parties' paid campaigns. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, for example, is waging a multimillion-dollar campaign against ethanol; the American Petroleum Institute is more concerned about food prices than oil prices. Slogans about how much corn and water are required to produce a gallon of ethanol are repeated frequently. In fact, a 16-ounce steak takes about the same amount of corn and more water. Should we ban steaks, too? Similarly, hybrid cars are hyped, but we seldom hear that they reduce carbon emissions about as much as corn ethanol, and at a cost that is substantially higher than flex-fuel cars.

64

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART

ENERGY POLICY IS CONTENTIOUS CAUSING PARTISAN INFIGHTING AND CLASH OF SPECIAL INTERESTS Cohen, Associate Editor of the New Atlantis, 2004 (Stephanie, The New Atlantis, Energy Dreams and Energy Realities, Spring, p. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/energy-dreams-and-energy-realities) More often than not -- to James Madison's delight -- big energy bills die a congressional death. No single faction is able to impose its vision of the energy future on the country as a whole, and the effort to please every faction often degenerates into incoherence. It ends up pleasing no one and offending nearly everyone. The Bush energy initiative is so far no exception, and after three years of debate, no comprehensive energy legislation has emerged, despite Republican control of both Congress and the White House. Consider the major initiatives in one iteration of the Republican energy package: $1.8 billion for a Clean Coal Power Initiative aimed at cutting pollution from coal-fired power plants; $2.081 billion for research into "fusion energy"; $2.15 billion to get hydrogen-powered automobiles on the road by 2020; $1 billion for an experimental power plant capable of producing hydrogen; $18 billion for a natural gas pipeline stretching from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states; a federal mandate to produce five billion gallons of the fuel additive ethanol; $500 million for extracting oil and gas from "unconventional" locations; and funding for "horizontal drilling," "threedimensional" seismic techniques, and "enhanced recovery" of energy sources. The Bush initiative received a predictable and often unfavorable reaction from many quarters. Liberal critics called the administration a bunch of " fossil fuel dinosaurs" and condemned their devotion to "petro-politics" and "traditional" energy sources. Others labeled the bill a Christmas tree for oil interests, a license for industry profiteering, or a wide-ranging assault on the environment. Conservative critics saw the Bush initiative as an example of needless, reckless, and excessive government spending -- much of it on futuristic energy technologies better left to the private sector, where they would face the dream-destroying gauntlet of the marketplace.Two newspapers that rarely agree both saw the energy bill as an abomination. The Washington Post
said the bill was "stuffed with more goodies than a Thanksgiving turkey." The Wall Street Journal described the bill as "one of the great logrolling exercises in recent congressional history," and said that the "GOP leadership has greased more wheels than a NASCAR pit crew" in its attempts to buy votes. The bill drew the wrath of interest groups across the spectrum from the green left to the libertarian right -- from the Sierra Club to Taxpayers

several versions of energy legislation have all dissolved under the weight of contentious "poison pills" -- such as permitting oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, exempting manufacturers of fuel additives from product liability claims, or restructuring electricity markets. The clash of interests has created an unpassable beast and thus, it seems, an unbreakable stalemate.
for Common Sense, from the Wilderness Society to the Heritage Foundation. The result is that

65

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART

ENERGY POLICY WILL BE PARTISAN IN AN ELECTION YEAR THE DENVER POST, EDITORIAL, 2004

(How the West will be won, July 17, Pg. C-15)

No surprise, Kerry -Edwards shape up to differ widely from Bush -Cheney on most if not all of these issues. Environmental issues haven't played a large role in the presidential race so far, but they will carry weight with many voters in a region that is being contested by both parties. We look forward to seeing both Bush and Kerry devote some serious energy to concerns of a region that is dominated in so many ways by federal land and resource ownership. Where, for example, do the candidates stand on a national drought policy - similar to the revised National Flood Insurance Program - that would enable farmers and ranchers to adequately recover for drought losses? Much of the West is in the midst of a six-year drought. This is no longer just bad weather. For many, it has become an economic tragedy. Since the West accounts for 75 percent of the nation's metals production, voters will be interested to learn the candidates' stand on a national minerals policy. Metals produced in the region are critical to the Western economy, and to national security - they provide vital base materials for satellites, aircraft, electronics and telecommunications. There are strong reasons to tap a reliable domestic supply rather than going overseas, and the federal approach must also include pragmatic environmental safeguards. Energy is a tough partisan issue, hotly debated. Both parties preach the need for energy independence, but neither has developed a unifying federal policy that would continue producing traditional fuels such as oil and natural gas while developing alternative energies.

66

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART

Energy legislation causes partisan fights Vickerman, 07 (Michael -Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. "Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch." RENEW watch. July 27, 2007. http://energybulletin.net/node/32648) Indeed Congress is institutionally incapable to pass a comprehensive energy bill that attempts to diversify the nations energy resource base and scale back its carbon footprint unless it contains elements that work in the opposite direction (e.g., gasifying coal and expanding offshore drilling). Further complicating matters is the very nature of the U.S. Senate itself, a body organized to magnify the power of individual states to block national interest initiatives from changing the status quo. Each state is equally represented in the Senate, no matter how populous. And Senate tradition grants committee chairpersons enormous deference to bottle up or water down legislation that might impose unwanted changes on the states they represent. Another Senate tradition, the right of unlimited debate, is enforced by a rule that expressly allows a minority of senators to thwart the will of the majority. To shut off debate on a measure, especially one in which powerful economic forces and regional interests are pitted against each other, bill proponents have to line up not 51 but 60 votes. Under the rule, debate continues even if 59 senators vote in favor of ending it and only one votes against the motion. The energy bill passed by the Senate in June came tantalizingly close to incorporating a 10-year tax package that would have raised $29 billion, mostly from oil and gas companies and redirected it toward renewable energy development. The tax package was designed to be self-supporting; that is, it would not have trigged additional borrowing to underwrite the pro-renewable energy incentives.

67

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART

Energy legislation causes partisanship Vickerman, 07 (Michael -Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. "Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch." RENEW watch. July 27, 2007. http://energybulletin.net/node/32648) It would take nothing short of a sea change to overcome Congressional inertia and recover the ground lost in the last 25 years or so. But though the prospects for a truly coherent national energy policy are improving -- and the need has never been greater -- both the citizenry and the current Congress are far too complacent to entertain changes that might involve belt-tightening and discipline. Given the current political dynamic, it would be unrealistic to expect this Congress, with its narrow majorities, to be the one that jump-starts the federal government into meaningful action. Yes, we will see some progress on the energy front this year and next, but they will represent the sum of state government initiatives undertaken to counter the policy vacuum that persists at the federal level.

68

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY-CON 2 DEMS

Pelosi wants alternative energy plans a concession. Neil Modie, SPI reporter, 4/13/2007, Pelosi brings promise to Seattle to keep energy dollars at home, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/311623_pelosi14.html [ND] "Washington state is ahead of Washington, D.C.," in alternative-energy policy, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Friday in Seattle as she vowed to push legislation through Congress to make the country more energy independent. At a news conference at the headquarters of Seattle Biodiesel, she assured local politicians and leaders of the city's emerging alternative-energy industry that the Democratic-controlled Congress recognizes the urgency of reducing carbon emissions and developing new, home-grown fuel sources, "and now we intend to get something done." Pelosi loves alternative energy plans a concession. Trey Pollard, regular contributor to politickerky, 6/22/2008, Pelosi makes energy the cornerstone of visit with Yarmuth, http://www.politickerky.com/treypollard/926/pelosi-makes-energy-cornerstone-visit-yarmuth [ND] LOUISVILLE -- A Saturday afternoon closed-door meeting in Louisville between U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCalif.), U.S. Rep John Yarmuth (D-Louisville), officials from Ford Motor Company, the United Auto Workers, and state government officials touched on Ford's efforts to develop "gasoline-independent" technologies for new automobile designs. "What I think was impressive to me and the Speaker is that they are taking a very broad look at all the possible technological answers to our crisis," said Yarmuth of the meeting, during a brief press conference held at Ford's Louisville Assembly plant after the meeting. "This issue of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and addressing the climate crisis is a flagship issue of our speakership. For me this is an educational visit," said Pelosi. "I hope that what we get out of this today also is better public policy." "We can learn from experience that Ford has and recognize what they have done being in the lead in terms of having ecofriendly driving," she added. At Saturday's press conference on the floor of the Ford plant, Pelosi and Yarmuth were joined by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger - a former employee of the Louisville facility - and Bruce Andrews, Ford's Vice President for Government Affairs. The press event was staged next to a prototype of a Ford vehicle being developed with lithium-ion battery "plug-in" technology. Pelosi said this sort of technology was fundamental towards her goals for energy policy. "This is the issue of our generation: the issue of transportation innovation, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and keeping our environment safe and clean," said Pelosi. "One of the things we learned about today that is at the heart of the matter is the issue of battery technology. Lithium-ion batteries are the future, [so] how can we, as a matter of public policy, help encourage that development in the United States so that our cars can be in the lead and competitive internationally?"

69

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART/ COST POL CAP

Dems will push for oil and gas subsidy cuts to pay for alternatives ensures GOP deadlock.
Stephanie I. Cohen, marketwatch staff writer, 2/19/2008, Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks, Congress stalls on green tax credits again, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economy-enery-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7b6E4B70B7-B947-40A59E33-2035F30E3050%7d&print=true&dist=printMidSection [ND] Who's to blame Solar and wind seem to have become the ugly stepchild to biofuels and ethanol, which have been the recipient of sizeable, long-term federal subsidies over the past two years that are meant to ensure a market and profits for the industry for the next two decades. Democrats repeatedly tried to extend these tax breaks last year as Republicans did in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These provisions were subsequently extended through December 2008 in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Democrats insist these provisions must be paid for by an alternative source of revenue or what is known as "pay-as-you-go" budget rules. The obvious pair up for Democrats: oil industry profits and the elimination of tax credits for the oil and natural gas industries. Democratic leaders have targeted a manufacturing deduction granted to the oil and gas industry in 2005 at a time when the oil industry is reporting record quarterly earnings and generates little sympathy among voters. "The American taxpayer should not be subsidizing oil and gas companies during times of record profits and record prices at the pump," said House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. But this is also the most contentious path to passage of alternative energy incentives. Republicans have repeatedly warned Democrats that tying the fate of alternative energy tax breaks to the repeal of energy tax breaks for oil and natural gas developers ensures a deadlock. Democrats are engaging in a take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor approach, a strategy that harms the renewable energy sector the most, according to Christine Tezak, energy analyst and senior vice president of Stanford Group.

70

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY PART/COST POL CAP

Alternative energy costs capital finding middle ground-NO RISK OF BIPARTISANSHIP UPI, United Press International, 7/9/2008, Senate pressured to find energy compromise, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/09/Senate_pressured_to_find_energy_compromise/UPI-45951215619569/ [ND] Congressional Republicans advocate more domestic oil and gas production, while many Democrats instead want to focus on alternative energy sources. Finding a middle ground between them will be a hard task, the newspaper said. Complicating matters for the Democrats is reluctance among Senate leaders to sign on to a compromise that might be at odds with policies being espoused by likely Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. Obama is calling for higher mileage standards for U.S. autos and big investments in alternative energy.

71

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-REPS

Republicans support alternative energy Putnam Chairman of the House Republican Conference - 8 (Adam, 5-21-2008, House Republicans Unveil Energy Plan, Real Solutions for American Families http://www.gop.gov/c/journal_articles/view_article_content? groupId=1&articleId=1647&version=1.0
At a news conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol today, House Republicans unveiled our plan to deliver real energy solutions and lower gas prices for Americans facing pain at the pump. Congressman Adam Putnam (R-FL), Chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued the following statement: Washington is broken, and it is no more apparent than on soaring energy and gas prices under the Democrat Congress. More than two years ago, Speaker Pelosi promised a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. Since Democrats took control of Congress, gas prices have risen more than 60 percent and Americans are paying a hefty Pelosi Premium at the pump. This is not the change Democrats promised Americans, and it is the not the change Americans deserve. The American people are hurting from a slowing economy, the housing crunch and rising costs of living. They are tired of waiting for the long-promised commonsense plan to lower gas prices. They are impatient with a Democrat energy policy that is chock full of job-killing tax hikes, burdensome regulation and no new American energy. Today, House Republicans unveiled an energy plan that offers meaningful solutions for American families. Through this agenda, we will increase production of American-made energy including next-generation oil, natural gas, clean-coal, renewable and alternative energies while protecting our nations natural resources. We will cut red tape and increase energy supplies by spurring the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, as many European nations are doing. And we will make America more energy efficient by offering significant conservation tax breaks to Americans who invest in green technologies for their home, car or business. The American people have had it with skyrocketing gas prices and a Democrat Congress that offers no meaningful solutions. Our House Republican plan

provides real solutions to produce American-made energy, help lower gas prices and make us more energy independent. That is the change America deserves.

72

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-REPS

REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS SUPPORT ALTERNRATIVE ENERGY

2005 ENERGY BILL PROVES

Smith, 2005 (Don C., RE Gains? The US Policy Act of 2005, Science Direct, Volume 6 Issue 5, September) When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, one of his expressed goals was to push through a new energy policy. As a first step, the president assembled a major task force, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, to study the country's energy situation. The aim was to prepare a strategy to address the nation's energy needs for the 21st century. Despite the president's investment of time and political capital, however, the energy bill stalled in the 107th and 108th Congresses. Nevertheless, this year the political climate changed and with - among other things - the support of more Republican members of the U.S. Senate the energy bill1was passed. At the top of the list was the extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy and biomass electricity. Under the legislation, the placed-in-service date to which the 1.9 cents per kWh credit applies was extended through 2007. The credit applies over the first 10 years of a project's operation, and is a particularly critical factor in financing wind farms. Randell Swisher, American Wind Energy Association executive director, lauded this provision and said, This is the first time that an extension of the production tax credit for wind energy has been approved before the credit expires, and, following the past six years of boom-and-bust cycles caused by successive expirations, that is very good news for the industry. Consequently, the passage of the PTC portends strong growth momentum for wind energy at least in 2006 and 2007. The wind industry was also encouraged by provisions requiring that utility system reliability rules to be developed be non-discriminatory and that incentives be provided to encourage construction of new and upgraded transmission lines. By requiring that new national reliability rules be non-discriminatory and by providing incentives to ease transmission bottlenecks, the [bill] chips away at two important barriers to continued wind energy development in this country, Mr. Swisher said. These long-term reliability and transmission provisions could help level the playing field and brighten the long-term planning horizon for wind power. The bill also represented the strongest national policy for solar power in two decades, according to Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. For the first time since 1985, homeowners who install solar energy systems will receive a tax credit worth 30 percent of the system cost, capped at $2,000. Businesses that purchase solar equipment will also receive a credit worth 30 percent of the system cost. These tax credits will bring solar power costs over the tipping point in many areas of the country, Mr. Resch said.

73

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- REPS

GOP supports action on emissions even considering economic costs Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
Though Americans beliefs about climate change do differ by party preference, majorities in both parties support taking active steps65% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. Only a third--34%--of Republicans said no steps should be taken on global warming that would involve costs. Even fewer Democrats and independents (16% each) took this view. Forty-eight percent of Republicans and a majority of independents (53%) said global warming is a problem that can be dealt with gradually, but only 39% of Democrats agreed. A plurality of Democrats (44%) said global warming is a pressing problem that requires immediate action, while only 17% of Republicans and 29% of independents agree. In general, differences between Bush supporters and Kerry supporters closely mirrored the differences between Republicans and Democrats.

GOP voters support environmental regulations on energy and emissions Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
Sixty-nine percent of Republicans, 87% of Democrats and 78% of independents also say President Bush should develop a plan to deal with climate change. On regulatory initiatives--such as higher fuel economy--Democrats are more likely to support such initiatives than Republicans, but the differences are not substantial. For instance, 76% of Republicans supported higher fuel efficiency standards on cars, as did 89% of Democrats and 79% of Independents. When asked if they would still support a measure if this meant the cost of cars would rise, 58% of Republicans still supported such policies, as did 67% of Democrats and 63% of independents.

74

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS

Democrats will try to pay for the plan by cutting oil and gas subsidies the GOP will block it

Cohen, 08

(Stephanie, Market Watch, 2/19, Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economyenery-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7B6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E33-2035F30E3050%7D)

Who's to blame Solar and wind seem to have become the ugly stepchild to biofuels and ethanol, which have been the recipient of sizeable, long-term federal subsidies over the past two years that are meant to ensure a market and profits for the industry for the next two decades. Democrast repeatedly tried to extend these tax breaks last year as Republicans did in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These provisions were subsequently extended through December 2008 in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Democrats insist these provisions must be paid for by an alternative source of revenue or what is known as "pay-as-you-go" budget rules. The obvious pair up for Democrats: oil industry profits and the elimination of tax credits for the oil and natural gas industries. Democratic leaders have targeted a manufacturing deduction granted to the oil and gas industry in 2005 at a time when the oil industry is reporting record quarterly earnings and generates little sympathy among voters. "The American taxpayer should not be subsidizing oil and gas companies during times of record profits and record prices at the pump," said House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. But this is also the most contentious path to passage of alternative energy incentives. Republicans have repeatedly warned Democrats that tying the fate of alternative energy tax breaks to the repeal of energy tax breaks for oil and natural gas developers ensures a deadlock. Democrats are engaging in a take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor approach, a strategy that harms the renewable energy sector the most, according to Christine Tezak, energy analyst and senior vice president of Stanford Group. "The House Leadership's Robin Hood approach may have political dividends but it is 'expensive' in terms of negative investor sentiment," Tezak said in a recent research note. The GOP supports alternative energy only if its untied from the oil and gas manufacturing deductions

Cohen, 08

(Stephanie, Market Watch, 2/19, Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economyenery-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7B6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E33-2035F30E3050%7D)

Republicans, many who say they support bolstering incentives for wind and solar, have nonetheless rejected recent Democratic proposals and backed the White House's position against curtailing tax breaks. They say they support extending the tax credits if they are disentangled from the manufacturing deduction. In August, the White House issued a statement saying the president will not sign legislation that "would lead to less domestic oil and gas production, higher energy costs, and higher taxes." "Repealing the manufacturing deduction for only the oil and gas industry is a targeted tax increase that puts U.S. industries at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors," the White House said in a policy statement released last summer when Democrats tried to advance the measures. The manufacturing tax deduction was passed in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, and can be used by a number of industries including major oil and gas producers. Democrats argue that freezing this deduction won't affect production or gasoline prices in the immediate future.

75

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS

Republicans wont support alternative energy policies that dont increase oil drilling CQ 08 (Congressional Quarterly, Stalled for Now, Climate Change Bill May Find Broader Support in Future, June 6, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?
docID=news-000002890955) Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure, this

doesnt mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables may be, even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be exploring for more oil and gas. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project, you need to start with more oil drilling. And Cornyn, who hails from the nations chief oil state, backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and wind power, but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. Theres a large consensus of people who think we need to be good stewards of the environment. We all realize we cant live on a petroleum-based economy indefinitely, Cornyn said. But the problem with our friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution. Still, Democrats
see promise in the new Republican renewables movement. Theres greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy, Bingaman said. We are hoping to be able to move ahead in that area. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been. In the House, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the game-changers. The lines that were drawn clearly about what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill those are changing. Those old battle lines arent necessarily true anymore, he said.

REPUBLICANS WILL OPPOSE PLAN

Congressional Quarterly, 6/6/2008, Stalled for Now, Climate Change Bill May Find Broader Support in Future, Lexis
Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure, this doesnt mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables may be, even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be exploring for more oil and gas. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project, you need to start with more oil drilling. And Cornyn, who hails from the nations chief oil state, backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and wind power, but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. Theres a large consensus of people who think we need to be good stewards of the environment. We all realize we cant live on a petroleumbased economy indefinitely, Cornyn said. But the problem with our friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution. Still, Democrats see promise in the new Republican renewables movement. Theres greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy, Bingaman said. We are hoping to be able to move ahead in that area. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been. In the House, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the game-changers. The lines that were drawn clearly about what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill those are changing. Those old battle lines arent necessarily true anymore, he said.

76

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP-REPS

REPUBLICANS OPPOSE GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Edwards, 2008 (John G., Bill To Lift Solar Power Halted By Republicans, Las Vegas Review Journal, June 18) The solar energy industry is poised to pump billions of dollars into the Nevada economy and create thousands of jobs - but advocates say the Senate on Tuesday shot down a bill needed to give the sun power industry a jump-start. Republicans for the second time in a week prevented the Senate from taking up a tax bill providing more than $50 billion in renewableenergy credits and tax breaks for families and businesses. The vote Tuesday to move to the legislation was 52-44, eight short of the 60 votes needed. Only five Republicans voted to end the filibuster against action on the bill; others objected to the Democratic plan to pay for the tax relief by making some hedge fund managers and multinational corporations pay more taxes.

77

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS

DEMOCRATS CALLING ON BUSH TO SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Seattle Times, 7-14-8

(Cantwell: Offshore drilling not the answer, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl? document_id=2008051044&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=apoffshoredrillingnorthwest&date=20080714, accessed 7-16-8) Sen. Maria Cantwell says a plan by President Bush to allow offshore drilling will not solve the nation's energy crisis. Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood for 18 years. Bush says offshore drilling could yield billions of barrels of oil over time and eventually take pressure off gas prices, although it would take years for production to start. Cantwell, a Washington state Democrat, says Bush is not really serious about addressing high gas prices. She says his proposal only continues failed policies of the past that feed the nation's oil addiction. Cantwell called on Bush to work with Congress to increase use of alternative and renewable energy sources. Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig hailed Bush's action, which he called the first step to increase domestic oil production after decades of restrictions.
DEMOCRATS PUSHING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Hunt, Associated Press, 7-14-8

(Terence, The Huffington Post, Bush, Congress, Both?: Who's To Blame For Energy Prices?, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/bush-congress-both-whos-t_n_112492.html, accessed 7-14-8) "But we know that drilling by itself will not solve the problem of high gas prices," Van Hollen said. "We cannot drill our way to energy independence." He cited Democrats' calls to tap the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, because it is full and "America's rainy day is now." And he said the country must focus on new energy policies that focus on alternatives to oil. [NOTE: Van Hollen = Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.]

78

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS

STRONG DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Mufson, 2007 (Steven, Washington Post Staff Writer, Democrats Hope to take From Oil, Give to Green Energy, Washington Post, January 4) House Democrats are crafting an energy package that would roll back billions of dollars worth of oil drilling incentives, raise billions more by boosting federal royalties paid by oil and gas companies for offshore production, and plow the money into new tax breaks for renewable energy sources, congressional sources said yesterday.

DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES

Lengell, 2007 (Sean, Democrats Eye Cutting Dependence on Foreign Oil; Plan Pushes Renewable Energy Such As Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Washington Times, June 29) The House's Democratic leaders are planning an end of summer energy onslaught - a broad legislative push designed to make the nation less dependent on foreign oil. The developing plan would extend existing tax credits for the production of renewable energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power, and create new incentives for the use and production of renewable energy.

DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Lautenberg, 2008 (Senator Frank, Weekly Democratic Radio Address, democrats.senate.gov, April 26) Democrats are fighting hard for change, and we have made real progress. We passed a new energy bill that begins to turn the tide by improving gas mileage for cars and trucks, investing in clean, renewable fuels and other smart energy steps, such as improving the energy efficiency of our buildings. The long-term solution to our energy crisis lies in alternative fuels and efficiency. If we aggressively promote innovation in solar, wind, biofuels and geothermal power, we can help lower energy prices, turn the tide on global warming and strengthen our national security. And while were doing all that, we will be creating hundreds of thousands of good new jobs right here in America.

79

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS

Democrats strongly support renewable energy, reduced pollution, and cleaner mass transportation Hammond, 4 -- Founder of Carlist.Com, Guest Reporter on MSNBC for alternative energies and technologies, host of Motortrend rado, writer for Wired magazine,
writer for Auto Aficionado, writer for Green Car Journal (Lou Ann, The Greenest Democratic Convention Ever http://www.cerc04.org/press/inthenews_sa_071204.html) // DCM <"Democrats have regularly promoted renewable energy, recycling mass transportation, and reducing pollution that leads to global warming," said Bruce Hamilton, National Conservation Director of the Sierra Club. The DFC300A is the hardware that takes natural gas and internally creates hydrogen, which in turn creates electricity without combustion Convention organizers are powering the convention with renewable energy, supplied by Constellation New Energy (a subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group, a Baltimore-based Fortune 500 national energy company). The media centers at the Convention will use renewable sources including wind, hydroelectric power, biomass and solar energy. Each of these renewable energies emit lower levels of greenhouse gases and displace energy derived from power plants that depend on fuel from overseas. The Convention will also utilize a 250-kilowatt fuel cell power plant, supplied by Connecticut based FuelCell Energy Inc to power the Democratic National Convention to be held at the Fleet Center in Boston July 26-29, 2004.. Fuel Cell Energy's DFC300A power plant has enough power to provide the base load electricity requirements of a 300-room hotel. The power plant will directly convert natural gas, supplied by Keyspan Energy, into the hydrogen needed to electrochemically produce electricity. Fuel Cell Energy's DFC power plants generate power without combustion and, due to their favorable emissions profile, are an ultra-clean product since they meet the most stringent air quality standards in the nation. The DFC300A fuel cell, combined with FuelCell Energy's 30 other customer installations throughout the world have generated more than 41 million kilowatt hours of electricity. "Being the first fuel-cell powered Convention is just one of the ways this event will make history," said Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino. "We are very pleased that Boston and the Democratic National Convention will be a showcase for how an environmentally sound energy policy is good for Boston and for America." "The DFC power plant clearly shows the flexibility of stationary fuel cells for commercial and industrial applications," said Herbert T. Nock, Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales of FuelCell Energy. "We delivered, set up and started the power plant in less than two weeks. The unit is so clean it can operate in downtown Boston with no impact on air quality. And it uses half the fuel because it is twice as efficient as comparably sized power plants." With temperatures looming in the 80s and humidity running around 30-70 percent Boston will be feeling the heat and added congestion during the Convention. What they won't have to be as concerned with is clean air. The DFC300A power plant produces 99.9 percent less harmful air pollution and 59 percent less carbon dioxide than traditional combustion-based fossil fuel power plants. General Motors will be providing hybrid pickup trucks and buses to the Democratic National Convention Center. Hybrids, which get the best mileage under 25 MPG, generally known as city use, will provide 60 percent greater fuel economy and 90 percent fewer emissions than regular transit buses. Accusations by Kerry/Edwards against the Bush government "In President George Bush's government, where polluters actually write environmental laws and oil company profits matter more than hard science and cold facts, protecting the government doesn't matter at all." "Even though 133 million Americans already live with unhealthy air, the Bush administration bowed to energy industry lobbying and rewrote rules to allow 20,000 facilities to spew more smog, soot and mercury in the air." "Even though overwhelming scientific evidence shows that global climate change is a scientific fact, this administration has rewritten government reports to hide that fact." "We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment." Democratic Platform stance on OPEC, EPA, CAFE, energy incentives and vehicle manufacturing So, what is Kerry/Edwards proposing for the United States if they are elected to govern us in November? According to the 41 page Democrat platform, the Democrats want; Energy-efficient vehicles "We support creating more energy-efficient vehicles, from today's hybrids to tomorrow's hydrogen cars. We support the American people's freedom to choose whatever cars, SUVs, minivans and trucks they choose, but we also believe American ingenuity is equal to the task of improving efficiency. We support improving fuel standards, and because of the challenges this poses, we will offer needed incentives for consumers to buy efficient vehicles, and for manufacturers to build them." Hydrogen "We are committed to developing hydrogen as a clean, reliable domestic source of energy. Our economy cannot convert to hydrogen overnight, so we will fund research to overcome the obstacles to hydrogen fuel and continue our other efforts to achieve energy independence." Renewable Energy "Our plan begins with commonsense

investments to harness the natural world around us - the sun, wind, water, geothermal and biomass sources and a rich array of crops to create a new generation of affordable energy for the 21st century. By mobilizing the amazing productivity of America's farmers, we can grow our own cleaner-burning fuel. We support tax credits for private sector investment in clean air, renewable sources of energy, and we will make ethanol work better for farmers. And we will ensure that billions of gallons of renewable fuel are part of America's energy supply while striving for strong, national renewable energy goals." To move beyond OPEC "We can improve our energy security in other ways. We will seek more diverse sources of T
oil around the world and here at home. We support balanced development of domestic oil supplies in areas already open for exploration, like the western and central Gulf of Mexico. We support the expansion of new infrastructure to develop supplies from non-OPEC nations like Russia, Canada and nations in Africa. We will increase efficiency of natural gas use, develop Alaska natural gas pipeline, and enhance our nation's infrastructure to help supply natural gas more effectively. Coal "We will work to create new technology (scrubbing) for producing electricity in a better, more efficient manner. Coal accounts for more than one-half of America's electric power generation capacity today. We believe coal must continue its important role in a new energy economy, while achieving high environmental standardss. We will invest billions to develop and implement new, cleaner coal technology and to produce electric and hydrogen power." Electricity "The Federal Government is the largest single consumer of energy in the world. We will cut the federal government's energy use and challenge local governments, corporations, universities, small businesses and hospitals to do the same." Cleaner Air "We C

will strengthen the Clean Air Act, by controlling all of the top pollutants and offering new flexibility to industries that commit to cleaning up within that framework.

80

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS POPULAR WITH THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS PAST LEGISLATION PROVES

Gail Russell Chaddock Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor; 6-25-07; In Congress, A Boost For Alternative Energy http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0625/p03s02-uspo.html?page=1
Washington - \Congress is a big step closer to its goal of tipping national energy policy away from oil and gas development and toward alternative energy sources such as wind, geothermal, and biomass. With the Senate's passage of an energy bill June 21, action this week shifts to the House, where Democrats will be rolling out their own plan for America's energy future. Rifts within their ranks, however, are forcing House Democrats to postpone some tough issues until fall a move that could complicate coming to terms with the Senate once an energy bill clears the House. At the heart of the House struggle over energy policy is a standoff between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Dingell (D) of Michigan, a powerful committee chairman with long-standing ties to the auto industry. Speaker Pelosi wants this year's energy bill to mark a clean break with energy policy of the past, when Republicans controlled the Congress and enacted financial breaks for oil and gas producers. Representative Dingell worries that new regulations could sink already-battered US automakers and cost more industry jobs.

81

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-DEMS

DEMS PUSHING FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NOW

Democrats.org official website of the democratic party; July 2008; Democratic Party Agenda Energy Independence http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/
We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology. Energy independence puts America in the driver's seat to pursue affordable and efficient energy solutions that will benefit all Americans, improve America's security, reduce the burden on American families, and help clean our environment. American families should not have to pay the price for a failed national energy policy. They deserve an energy policy that creates a cleaner and stronger America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and also creates new jobs for American workers. By clearing the pathways to innovation, investing in our workers and infrastructure, and providing American consumers with broader, more responsible choices, the Democratic plan will provide the tools to help move America forward, toward real energy security for the 21st century. DEMOCRATS HAVE EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LEGISLATION

Associated Press; 6-22-07; Senators Reach Agreement on fuel economy http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19352490/

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Thursday to require average fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon for new cars, pickup trucks and SUVs by 2020, raising efficiency standards that have not changed significantly for nearly two decades. The fuel economy measure was added to a broad energy bill without a roll call vote even as senators were holding a news conference announcing the compromise. Republicans earlier blocked Democratic efforts to raise oil taxes by $29 billion and use the money to promote renewable fuels and other clean energy programs. Democratic leaders hoped to complete the energy bill Thursday night, but senators close to the auto industry began an effort to derail the entire bill. We will be continuing to oppose it, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., This is not over by any stretch. The legislation for the first time would establish a single fuel economy standard applicable to not only cars, but also SUVs and pickups which currently have to meet less stringent requirement. Fuel efficiency requirements would vary for different classes of vehicles based on weight and size. But manufacturers would be required to meet an overall fleetwide average of 35 mpg. It closes the SUV loophole, declared Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., referring to current requirements that allow much less stringent fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. This is a victory for the American public. The compromise, approved without floor debate, was crafted over several days behind closed doors with the aim of heading off attempts by senators sympathetic to the auto industry to press a less stringent proposal. President Bush, who was in Alabama visiting a nuclear power plant, said Congress must be realistic about the energy legislation. The White House opposes having Congress mandate a specific mileage number for auto fuel economy. Bush believes the Transportation Department should be given increased flexibility to set a standard. Automakers are currently required to meet an average of 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and small trucks. The car standard has not changed since 1989, though the truck requirements have been increased slightly by the Bush administration. The measure tacked onto the energy bill would require a 35 mpg fleet average including SUVs and pickup trucks by 2020, and require that automakers make half of their vehicles capable of running on 85 percent ethanol fuel by 2015.

82

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP-DEMS

All democrats that matter oppose alternative energy regional auto lobbies ensure disagreement. By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER, the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics, Big Oil, Big Influence, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html So far Congress has been slow to push through comprehensive energy legislation, in part because issues related to renewable energy standards and fuel efficiency standards differ by region, rather than political party, which means not all democrats are on board, says Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch. "Some of the southernbased coal burning power companies have killed or delayed efforts to set a renewable energy requirement for electric companies. Michigan Reps. and others influenced by the car industry have also managed to put off any kind of tougher requirements for fuel economy." O'Donnell says. "John Dingell is a democrat but doesn't see eye to eye with [Speaker of the House] Nancy Pelosi in some of these issues and so far you've seen somewhat of a stalemate." Dingell has consistently defended the auto industry, which is fighting against stricter fuel economy standards. These standards have not been changed since the 1980s. The auto industry is a major player in Dingell's home state of Michigan, which relies heavily on the industry for jobs and is the corporate home of General Motors, Ford and the domestic division of DaimlerChrysler. Among all members of Congress, Dingell has received the second most in contributions from the auto industry at $869,200, just behind Republican Spencer Abraham, a former Michigan senator. The industry has been one of Dingell's largest contributors during his careersecond only to electric utilities. During former President Bill Clinton's administration, Congressional Democrats who supported more rigid standards missed a chance to pass such legislation, but they had to grapple with a Republican-controlled Congress largely unsympathetic to the idea. Congress just adjourned for the Thanksgiving break without voting on an energy bill that would, among other things, boost the fuel efficiency of the nation's vehicles. Speaker Pelosi had hoped but failed to bring the measure to a vote, largely because negotiations stalled over the fuel economy standards. The Changing Climate for Energy Policy As Congress wrestles with the comprehensive energy legislation, the oil and gas industry is not only fighting off repeals of its tax breaks, but is pushing again for increased domestic production of energy, specifically permission to drill in certain coastal areas that have been off limits. The companies are also trying to prevent democrats from prosecuting them for jacking up prices excessively and they publicly oppose the bill's mandated use of alternative fuels. The industry joined the fight for coal-to-liquid fuel, in which oil companies have investments, but the controversial provision to encourage creating diesel fuel from domestic coal has already been eliminated from both the house and senate's versions of the bill. The legislation is also meant to correct an error by the interior department during former President Bill Clinton's time in office that allowed many companies to drill in deep waters without paying royalties. [for more on the royalty issue, see NOW reports "The Royalty Treatment" and "Crude Awakening"] The best Big Oil can do right now is slow down the legislation, Wentworth of the Union of Concerned Scientists says. "The [legislation] is being held up because the oil and gas industry is concerned about closing loopholes for offshore drilling," he says. "They're fighting this tooth and nail. This is slowing down the clean energy solutions that the public wants."

83

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY UNPOP-OIL

Big Oil is strongly lobbying against alternative energy the possibility of electric cars threatens profits Independent News, 7 (Johann Hari Big Oils Vendetta Against the Electric Car 04-07-07 http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/07/377/) // DCM
General Motors (GM) had developed a prototype of an electric car with swelling consumer potential. It was a sleek, silver car that could drive at the same speed as a fossil-fueled hunk of metal - only with no exhaust fumes and no carbon emissions. You simply plugged it in at night, like a mobile phone, and drove off in the morning. The electricity costs the equivalent of 30p for a gallons worth of travel, as opposed to the 4 Brits pay at the petrol pump. But GM seemed reluctant to push this extraordinary product onto the consumer market. So the California State Senate decided to give them a nudge. They passed a law that said if you want to sell cars for Californias roads, a proportion of them have to be electric cars: 2 percent in 1998, 5 percent in 2001, and 10 percent in 2003. The state senators envisaged a day when electric cars would turn the old fossil fuel beasts into relics. They argued that since it took a law to get seatbelts, airbags and catalytic converters into cars, we also need a law to get toxic fumes and surplus global warming gases out of the atmosphere. The car companies were immediately and irreparably enraged. They began a two-pronged strategy: the most grudging and stuttering possible compliance with the law, while lobbying fiercely alongside Big Oil to have the law scrapped. The first electric cars appeared on Californias roads nonetheless, and a slew of celebrities like Tom Hanks, Ted Danson and Mel Gibson snapped them up and plugged them at every opportunity. But the people working on selling the electric cars noted something odd: GM was deliberately underselling them. Chelsea Sexton, one of the companys electric car specialists, explains that the team had to fill in vast questionnaires for every customer, only for most to be inexplicably rejected: I had to fill in a resume for Mel Gibson listing his accomplishments and achievements, because they said he didnt warrant a car. Instead of marketing them with sexy women draped over the cars, GMs ads had odd opaque graphics and the voice of an elderly woman. Big Oil speedily joined this anti-advertising campaign. Exxon-Mobil followed its standard operating practice of setting up fake consumer groups to spread disinformation about the products, saying they were bad for the environment. This corporate

coalition finally succeeded in repealing the law - and GM immediately called in all their electric cars and sent them to the scrap heap.
The drivers offered over $1.9m to keep the last remaining models - but the company preferred to destroy them. A bemused Sexton says, Theres no precedent for a car company rounding up every particular kind of car and crushing them, as if theyre afraid one will get away. Their campaign almost complete, Chevron-Texaco came in with a final blow. The biggest drawback to the electric car had been its limited range: one charge lasted around 60 miles, then the car stopped. So the distinguished engineer Stan Ovshinsky created a battery that could run up to 300 miles at 70mph on a single charge - enough to get from London to Scotland, and make the car extremely popular. The oil companies bought the technology. It has not been seen since. Why? Why would a string of corporations turn down cash and scrap a potentially extremely profitable technology? Isnt that contrary to everything we are taught about how market economies work? The oil companies had an

obvious interest in stopping an alternative to fossil fuels. There is $100 trillion of oil left in the earth, and they plan to mine it - even if doing so will make the planet uninhabitable. Anything that could divert that cash away from them is a threat to be crushed.

84

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- CONGRESS

POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR RENEWABLES- CONGRESS AND INDIVIDUAL STATE ACTION PROVES Sawin & Prugh, WorldWatch Institute, 2004 (Janet L. and Thomas, Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century, Worldwatch Paper # 169, May 30, p. 49, accessed July 8-08) Even in the United States, despite an oil-oriented White House, nearly half the members of Congress have joined the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. Although this political support has not yet translated into the needed federal legislation, many statesincluding Arizona, California, Nevada, New York, and Texashave enacted pioneering laws, and more and more governors are professing the benefits of renewable energy for their states, from energy security and jobs to reduced dependence on imported oil.

85

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- CONGRESS

SPECIAL INTERESTS DICTATE ENERGY POLICY SACRED COW PROGRAMS LIKE THE PLAN HAVE HARDENED POLITICAL SUPPORT Victor, Stanford law professor & Spogli Institute Program on Energy & Sustainable Development director, 8

(David, Newsweek.com, The Energy Trap, Why the United States is doomed to be an energy outlaw, http://www.newsweek.com/id/118087, accessed 6-29-8)
Whenever the public seizes on energy issues, the cabal of Washington energy experts imagines that these problems can be solved with a new comprehensive energy strategy, backed by a grand new political coalition. Security hawks would welcome reduced dependence on volatile oil suppliers, especially in the Persian Gulf. Greens would favor a lighter tread on the planet, and labor would seize on the possibility for "green-collar" jobs in the new energy industries. Farmers would win because they could serve the energy markets. The energy experts dream of a coalition so powerful that it could rewire government and align policy incentives. This coalition, alas, never lasts long enough to accomplish much. For an energy policy to be effective, it must send credible signals to encourage investment in new equipment not just for the few months needed to craft legislation but for at least two decades-enough time for industry to build and install a new generation of cars, appliances and power plants, and make back the investment. The coalition, though, is politically too diverse to survive the kumbaya moment. Just two weeks ago the feds canceled "FutureGen," a government-industry project to develop technologies for burning coal without emitting copious greenhouse gases, demonstrating that the government is incapable of making a credible promise to help industry develop these badly needed technologies over the long haul. (The project had severe design flaws, but what matters most is that the federal government was able to pretend to support the venture for as long as it did and then abruptly back off.) Similarly, legislation late last year to increase the fuel economy of U.S. automobiles will have such a small effect on the vehicle fleet that it will barely change the country's dependence on imported oil and will have almost no impact on carbon emissions. Democrats and Republicans alike claim they want to end the country's dependence on foreign oil, but neither party actually does much about it. The only policies that survive in this political vacuum are those that target narrower political interests with more staying power. Thus America has a highly credible policy to promote corn-based ethanol, because that policy really has nothing to do with energy; it is a chameleon that takes on whatever colors are needed to survive. It is a farm program that masquerades as energy policy; at times, it has been a farm program that masquerades as rural development. As an energy policy it is a very costly and ineffective way to cut dependence on oil. As a global warming policy it is even less cost effective, since large-scale ethanol doesn't help much in cutting CO2 and other warming gases. Similarly, the United States has a stiff subsidy for renewable electricity-mainly wind and solar plantsbecause environmentalists are well organized in their support for it. The coal industry periodically gets money for its favored technologies, as in FutureGen, but even that powerful lobby has a hard time getting the government to stay the course.

86

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS

McCain frames the plan as a financial carrot to the alt energies sector- steals key swing states from Obama Sabar, June 30, 2008
(Ariel, The Christian Science Monitor, McCain and Obama share energy goals not methods, lexis)

With fuel topping $4 a gallon and oil at a record price, energy now ties the economy in polls as voters' top concern, and the presidential candidates spent the past week trying to outflank each other on an issue that's thinning billfolds from Maine to California. Their plans share key goals - less reliance on foreign oil, a push for cleaner fuels - but their methods differ sharply. The presumptive GOP nominee, wants 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and an end to the
federal moratorium on new offshore drilling. He would use market lures - tax rebates for electric cars, a $300 million prize for a better car battery - to promote alternative sources of energy. He would offer motorists immediate relief in the form of a hiatus in the federal gas tax. The presumptive Democratic nominee, opposes new offshore drilling and is wary of nuclear power. He would double auto fuel-efficiency standards within 18 years, subsidize development of ethanol, and force power companies to generate one- quarter of their energy from wind, solar, and other renewable sources by 2025. An opponent of the gas-tax holiday, Obama favors a "windfall profits" tax on multinational oil companies. In many ways, their approaches square with party ideology. On

the Republican side, financial carrots and a significant role for the private sector. On the Democratic side, subsidies, taxes, and regulation. But in a departure from GOP predecessors, McCain has refused to cede the "green" label to his Democratic rival. His aides say his plan strikes the right balance among short-term relief for consumers, environmental stewardship, and long-term energy independence. They have taken to calling Obama "Dr. No," portraying him as an obstructionist with too narrow a view of the country's energy woes. In a speech in Las Vegas Wednesday, McCain trumpeted his plan as a breakthrough after "three decades of partisan paralysis." He
vowed Wednesday to wean America of its dependence on foreign oil by 2025 and gave his proposal no less momentous a title than "The Lexington Project," after the Revolutionary War site where "Americans asserted their independence once before." Obama last week called McCain's proposals a series of "cheap gimmicks" that "will only increase our oil addiction for another four years." Obama wants to reduce oil use 35 percent by 2030, pass a law to phase out all incandescent light bulbs, and spend $150 billion over the next decade to develop and market clean-energy technology, from hybrid vehicles to biofuels like ethanol.

The campaigns are keen to the politics of their plans in important swing states. Ethanol is an economic engine in corn-growing Iowa and Minnesota; offshore drilling is a divisive issue in Florida; and nuclear power is a lightning rod in Nevada, home of the federal government's proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. While Obama's plan is more in keeping with traditional interests in those states, McCain frames his proposals as a boon for consumers and another example of his "straight talk." "With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians," he said this month in a speech in Houston. With McCain trailing Obama on most domestic issues in voter opinion polls, the Arizona senator has strived to link his energy plan to national security, where his ratings are higher. "When we buy oil, we are enriching some of our worst enemies," he said last week in Las Vegas, naming the Middle East, Venezuela, and Al Qaeda as beneficiaries of America's dependence on overseas
oil. Obama has said that new oil exploration would not lead to lower prices at the pump - not anytime soon, anyway. "We can't drill our way out of the problems we're facing," he said this month in Florida.The war of words between the senators escalated throughout the week, with dueling conference calls for reporters and new standalone websites devoted to energy. Both McCain and Obama support tougher government oversight of energy futures traders whose speculation has been blamed for spikes in oil prices. They also agree that the federal government - with its giant fleet of cars and square miles of office space - should become a model of energy efficiency. But where Obama sees stricter standards as key to a more energy independent and efficient America, McCain looks to domestic oil exploration and entrepreneurialism. "I

won't support subsidizing every alternative, or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lowers costs," McCain said in a speech last year. "But I'll encourage the development of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and then let consumers choose the winners."

87

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS

Green issues appeal to key swing voters in the election- sways important states towards McCain CHICAGO TRIBUNE 5-13-2008
John McCain launched a green-tinted courtship of West Coast swing voters on Monday, with a call to action on global warming and an indictment of the Bush administration's "failed" policies to combat it. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee visited the wind-power technology firm Vestas, near Portland International Airport, to decry melting polar ice, vanishing glaciers, changes in animal migration and "rising temperatures and waters," all products, he said, of a reliance on fossil fuels that threatens America's economy and security. McCain championed nuclear power and warned that China and India must take steps to curb their own rising carbon emissions. "The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention," McCain said, "particularly in Washington." He endorsed a "cap and trade" system that would impose carbon-emission limits on industries and require businesses that exceeded those caps to buy credits from businesses that pollute under their limits. Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both support such a "cap and trade" system, with stricter limits than under McCain's plan. Obama, Clinton and some environmental groups criticized the reach of McCain's proposals. And analysts and voter-registration statistics suggest that even with his green appeal, McCain faces an uphill battle to put this increasingly blue state into play in the fall. Democrat John Kerry won Oregon by 76,000 votes in 2004, a 4-percentage-point margin over President George W. Bush. McCain advisers believe the Arizona senator's environmental stances could help push the state his way this fall. Analysts note that Oregon's electorate has shifted over four years, with heated opposition to the Iraq War and Bush in general. Voter registration reflects that: In November 2004, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by about 63,000. This month, a registration surge in advance of the state's May 20 mail-ballot primary helped swell the Democrats' advantage to 190,000 voters. The Portland speech expanded on an issue McCain has stressed throughout the campaign, before friendly and skeptical audiences alike. In it, he laid out his targets for carbon emission reduction: 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, compared to the 80 percent reduction proposed by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In a veiled shot at Bush, he promised to lead the world in the effort. "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears," McCain said. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges." Clinton and Obama both stressed energy policy in trips to Oregon last week, and both criticized McCain's remarks on Monday for not going far enough. "While Sen. McCain's proposals may be improvement on President Bush's, that's not saying much," Clinton said in a statement her campaign released. Obama ripped McCain for his vote on a 2005 bill that contained incentives for renewable energy development. "It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy," Obama said in a statement. McCain will keep up the environmental theme Tuesday with a round-table discussion in a suburb of Seattle. Pollster Tim Hibbitts said the global warming pitch probably won't get him "on the green side" of Obama or Clinton among environment-first voters but could help "take the edge off" among voters concerned with the environment but more focused on other issues.

88

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS

Swing voters perceive the plan as a moderate move by the GOP- key to McCain victory Vlahos, July 3, 2008
(Kelley Beaucar, Moderates Could Find It Difficult to Ride McCains Coattails, http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/03/mcmoderates-coattails/

For John McCain, a victory in November could come at a steep price. Throughout his campaign, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been shifting to the right in an effort to woo the GOPs wobbly conservative base. But that shift could make it harder for Republicans to win or hang on to House and Senate seats in key swing districts this fall. McCain longtime image of a moderate maverick who championed campaign finance reform, the environment and pork-barrel busting could be a big help in tight congressional races where independent and swing voters could make or break the election.
But if he continues to shift right to appeal to those base voters who are skeptical of him, he may not be welcome in those districts where he has the strongest role to play. He is right now being groomed by many in the Republican Party to create his conservative bona fides, and in doing so he may be pushing away some of the moderate vote that made him so attractive in the primary and caucus races, said Matt Towery, who has worked in Republican campaigns and now runs the Insider Advantage polling company in Georgia. If thats beginning to develop, Towery warned, the coattails may be far and few between. McCains touch-and-go relationship with the GOPs conservative base is no secret. In a FOXNews/Opinion Dynamics poll in June, only 54 percent of Republicans surveyed said they were satisfied with their choice for president this year, compared to 78 percent of Democrats who said they were satisfied with Barack Obama. McCains recent turnaround on the issue of offshore oil drilling and his support for an amendment to Californias constitution barring same-sex marriages may appeal to conservative voters,

And while McCain needs conservatives to turn out and vote for him on Election Day, the Republicans most needing his help this year are moderates from mixed districts who rely on crossover votes and independents to win. For instance, political analysts say McCain could potentially help former Pennsylvania Rep. Melissa
but those positions risk turning off moderate voters in swing districts.

Hart, a Republican who was upset by Democrat Jason Altmire in 2006 in her Democratic-trending suburban Pittsburgh district.

The problem for McCain, said Larry Ceisler, a Democratic consultant in Pennsylvania, is he really hasnt done anything to show these moderate and independents that he is one of them. However, Ceisler noted, McCain is certainly an improvement over Bush and (former Sen. Rick) Santorum, so I think he will create a somewhat better environment for swing voters than in the 2006 midterm, when Republicans lost four seats in Pennsylvania.

89

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS

McCains environmental record allows him to capitalize on the plan- win over swing voters
FRONTRUNNER 4-7-2008

The New York Post (4/7, Campanile, 648K) reports that some observers say that Sen. John McCain "could be the strongest GOP presidential candidate in decades on so-called green issues," and "once quipped: 'Nature is not a liberal plot.' But critics claim McCain's environmental record is worse than his rhetoric. They charge he sabotaged his own Climate Change bill by inserting a provision promoting nuclear power. The League of Conservation Voters gave McCain a zero rating for missing votes on 15 key environmental tallies while campaigning last year. His lifetime rating since entering Congress is 24 - a big, fat F. ... Still, McCain's environmental record is good enough to win over moderate, eco-friendly swing voters, said campaign adviser Charlie Black." Plan changes the perception of the Republican brand- key to McCain victory NPR, june 24, 2008 ( Mccain advisor: GOP must address climate change http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php? storyId=91850623) The Republican brand needs some "freshening up" if the party is going to appeal to voters in swing states, says Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. "We now have a candidate in John McCain who is viewed as independent-minded and taking different approaches, who is a little on the leading edge of some of the emerging issues, like energy issues and climate change," Pawlenty, the national co-chairman of McCain's presidential campaign, tells NPR's Michele Norris. Pawlenty says creative thinking on such issues will help the Republican Party seem more modern. Plan allows McCain to undercut Democrats as the green party- key to election
WHITE HOUSE BULLETIN 4-7-2008 McCain Could Undercut Democrats' Advantage On The Environment The White House Bulletin April 7, 2008 Monday Newsweek (4/14, Adler, 3.12M), in its cover story, reports, "The environment, which typically ranks somewhere around 'regulatory reform' among voters' concerns, has emerged as a leading issue in this election cycle; last year more than three voters in 10 said they would take a candidate's green credentials into account, according to pollster John Zogby, up from just 11 percent in 2005." According to Newsweek, many environmentalists "breathed a sigh of relief when McCain locked up his party's nomination, but he was widely viewed as the most acceptable of the major GOP contenders." McCain "is an appealing figure to some environmentalists. ... So, ironically, McCain -- with a voting record that would put him at the bottom of the heap among Democrats -- is sometimes perceived as more passionate about the environment than his Democratic opponents, whose objectively much stronger records are viewed as a matter of party orthodoxy."

90

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS

Plan boosts McCains popularity with independents Meckler, May 12, 2008
(Laura, Stephen Power, McCain Woos Democrats on Environment, The Wall Street Journal, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb? index=0&did=1476903241&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1215292309&clientId=15 66)

After spending several weeks staking out positions on taxes, Iraq and judges designed to appeal to conservatives, John McCain is shifting his attention to independents and Democrats, with proposals on climate change. The Republican presidential candidate also is using his stance on energy and the environment to draw distinctions between himself and President Bush, whose popularity is at a near-record low. Sen. McCain's support of regulating global-warming gases like carbon dioxide -- the biggest environmental issue before Congress -- more closely resembles the stance of his Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, though he disagrees with them on how such regulations should be structured. Besides championing legislation to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, Sen. McCain has opposed the administration's call to open parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, citing the refuge as a natural treasure on par with the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon in his home state of Arizona. In a campaign appearance last week, Sen. McCain said he "was once honored" that former Interior secretary and Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt, a Democrat, "said that I was the Grand Canyon's best friend. I don't know if he still believes that, but he said it once." Sen. McCain also has supported California's efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, in contrast to the Bush administration, which in December blocked the state's bid to regulate such emissions from cars. The McCain campaign believes his position will make him competitive in California, a Democratic stronghold, and with independent voters across the country. In a sign of Sen. McCain's potential appeal to environmentally conscious voters, a top official at the Sierra Club, one of the nation's most influential environmental groups, said the group might not endorse any candidate for president. The group endorsed Democrats in six of the past seven presidential elections; it declined to endorse a candidate in 1988. As for greenhouse gases, Sen. McCain and many Democrats believe the U.S. should force industry to reduce emissions through binding caps. President Bush and many Republicans warn that binding targets could put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage against fast-growing countries, such as China, that haven't committed to emissions reductions. Sen. McCain has co-sponsored legislation that seeks to reduce global-warming gases by creating a "cap and trade" system in which companies would buy and sell what amount to permits to emit greenhouse gases.

91

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS

Climate change legislation sways independents towards McCain The Associated Press, July 3, 2008
(Candidates courting the center, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmQEONZ9sodACWl8gD-8P_fRAxyAD91MAA000)

MCCAIN The four-term Arizona senator is trying to distance himself from the unpopular President Bush and, seemingly, the Republican Party itself. He emphasizes bipartisanship and his record of reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats while talking up two subjects that resonate strongly with voters of all stripes. Those are efforts to curb global warming and the need to free the country from its dependence on foreign oil. At the same time, he's also emphasizing some of his policies that appeal to independents and moderates. For example, speaking to Hispanic leaders last week, McCain focused largely on comprehensive immigration reform, pledging to make a broad overhaul of the immigration system his "top priority." He wants a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants; he mentioned secure borders largely in passing and rejected the enforcement-only approach the far right advocates. His television advertisements don't mention that he's a Republican. Two of his commercials emphasize fighting global warming and achieving energy security. One says: "A comprehensive bipartisan plan to lower prices at the pump, reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic drilling, and champion energy alternatives for better choices and lower costs." Another says: "McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming, five years ago" and praises "a plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment."

92

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS

Must Reverse stance on energy and environment to win crucial swing voters National Journal, 4/23/08
When it comes to the White House, environmental issues could matter more in the general election than they have in the primaries, some political analysts say. Daniel Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, noted that the Energy Department is predicting that gasoline prices will rise to $3.40 a gallon this summer as campaigns heat up. He argued that high energy prices could hurt McCain because of his opposition to rolling back tax benefits for the oil companies and requiring electric companies to use more renewable sources of energy. McCain has, however, frequently supported legislation to require auto companies to produce more-fuel-efficient vehicles. If the environmental community decides to campaign against McCain, he won't feel much pain in the deep-red conservative states, where he has already been downplaying his green record. But green issues could be key to winning the purple-state moderates and independent voters who could decide the general election. "Linking clean energy and global-warming solutions to future economic growth is essential to appeal to swing voters in November," Weiss said.

93

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS

Reducing emissions and oil dependence are crucial issue for swing voters Christian Science Monitor, 11/27/07
Environmental issues are typically low on the list of public concerns when choosing candidates and presidents. But independent voters - a key to winning the open primaries and general election - view energy independence and climate change as very important, according to a survey cited in The New York Times."After immigration, reducing oil dependence and global warming is the second-most-important issue among independent voters, said Daniel J. Weiss, the director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.... Mr. Weiss cited a Democracy Corps poll released last month, which also found that among Democrats, it is the fourth-most-important issue."

Alternate Energy key issue for swing voters extremely popular National Journal, 10/6/07
Democratic pollsters disagree. "Energy is a huge issue,"said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners. "The war is top, but then energy is part of the next level of issues that also includes the economy and health care," she said. "Energy Is a very, very big umbrella because it speaks to national security, it speaks to the environment, it's green jobs, it's the future." The environment and energy are particularly important issues for independent voters, Lake noted. "They're among the top issues for Democrats to talk to independent men about," shesaid. "They believe new energy technology will create good-paying American jobs. They like energy independence. They don't like oil companies."

94

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-SWING VOTERS

Pro environmental policies swing independent voters Murray, 6/3/08 (Ian, DNC Member, States News Service, lexis)
"I am now, after much thought and consideration, supporting Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States and will be voting for him at the convention in Denver. I have been a strong supporter of Hillary and Bill Clinton since 1991, having chaired and run Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 campaigns in Erie County. I have continued until this time to endorse with all my heart the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. She has been a true champion of the Democratic ideals that are so important to voters of Northwestern Pennsylvania. It is clear to me though that Barack Obama has the required votes for nomination at the convention in Denver. Barack Obama's message of change and his positions on health care, the Iraq war, the environment, the economy, and other issues vital to the Democratic Party have resonated with record numbers of voters including young voters, independents, and like-minded Republicans. I have been involved in running campaigns in Northwestern Pennsylvania since 1972, this epic contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has fortified in me the vitality of the Democratic Party and its hopes and vision for our future. I pledge all my support, my heart, and my passion for Barack Obama and will be working night and day in the coming days and weeks to bring the Obama and Clinton camps together and unify in Northwestern Pennsylvania as we begin our quest for that which all our futures and health depend, the election of Barack Obama."

Environmental issues key to swing voters PR Newswire, 10/17/07

"As voters weigh the cost and benefit of each candidate, it is important to note the lasting effect and cultural importance the environment has on the average voter. Across all political affiliations, the environment is seen as a major cultural issue of our time. Interestingly, a large majority (68%) of Americans agree with Al Gore's environmental views, despite the fact that 80 percent of those polled have not seen his film or read his book. "As a network focused on showcasing independent thought, we believe the independent voters will be the difference in the upcoming election. While this poll was meant to determine how significant an impact Al Gore's Nobel Prize had on the American political culture, where the environment fit into the grander political landscape and how his film and his recognition will effect the coming presidential race, it is our hope that this survey not only provides insightful understanding of our nation, but also a strong voice to those voters who are passionate about the issues, but have not yet found their candidate."

95

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- SWING VOTERS

Pro Environment stance key to win swing voters Star Ledger, 3/2/07
"The importance of the endorsement is that people who care most about the environment tend to be swing voters, including liberal Republicans and women," he said. "That helps a lot in close races." Tittel said past questionnaires have played a role in the enactment of important environmental legislation. "This questionnaire helps to focus not only on the work we do, but the work of the Legislature as well," Tittel said. "Over the past five election cycles, at least two-thirds of the bills (the Sierra Club backed) have become law, such as the Highlands Act, the Clean Car Act, dedicated funding for open space, clean diesel legislation, (and) restoring the public advocate's office." Tittel said global warming is the Sierra Club's top priority and environmentalists want to know the candidates' positions on a series of bills that work together to address the issue, including capping greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency and conservation.

Pro Environment popular with swing voters Straits Times, 5/20/08

With his image of being a maverick, Mr McCain has long irked the party's core conservative base with his proabortion, pro-immigration and pro-environment stances. But these positions are popular with Hispanics, independents and women - the swing voters that the party needs to hold onto.

96

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-CHRISTIAN RIGHT

Plan restores the GOPs credibility over energy policy- boosts Christian right turn out Kuhnhenn, June 17, 2008
(Jim, McCain ad puts distance with Bush on environment, The Associated Press, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYpS6G-fl1uyS2zifc0FsveuPGwD91C36MG0)
SCRIPT: Announcer: "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming, five years ago. Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions. A plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment. Reform. Prosperity. Peace. John McCain." McCain: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message." KEY IMAGES: Jarring music and a quick black and white succession of video images heavy traffic, smokestacks belching smoke, glaciers collapsing into the ocean, capped by a color clip

"McCain climate views clash with GOP." The music softens amid images of windmills, water turbines and solar panels. The ad concludes with McCain outdoors, pines and mountains behind him as a breeze ruffles his untucked shirt. ANALYSIS: The ad is built on a foundation of five central words: " ... stood up to the president." Democrats have been trying to portray the Republican presidential candidate as an extension of President Bush. McCain and the Bush administration have clashed over how to control greenhouse emissions. And with McCain embracing Bush's current policies on the Iraq war and tax cuts, the issue of climate change gives him a chance to distance himself from the unpopular president. McCain has favored a plan that would see greenhouse gas emissions cut by 60 percent by 2050 and supports more nuclear power.
of the sun setting. McCain then appears on screen behind a microphone above a superimposed newspaper headline: But the ad aired a day after McCain's announcement Monday that, like Bush, he favors lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. The announcement, a reversal from his position in his first presidential campaign in 2000, when he said he favored the ban, upset environmental groups. McCain also had indicated he was open to a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, but on Tuesday criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for demanding the same thing. The Democratic National Committee criticized McCain's environmental record, noting his policy changes and some votes against tax credits for alternate energy sources.This is the second ad in McCain's expanded general election media campaign. The first described his family's tradition of military service and his more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. If there is a narrative in the ads it is to establish his biography as a war hero and independent politician. McCain currently has the airwaves to himself. Obama has yet to begin broadcasting his general election themes. McCain is spending at least $2 million a week on the ads, a modest expenditure

McCain often has said he aspires to be as great a conservationist as his role model and fellow Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. While the ad sought to assure independent and environmentally conscious voters, global warming also stands as an important issue with the evangelical and Christian conservative voters McCain is trying to court.
that focuses on key battleground states.

97

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-MCCAIN

[ ] McCain supports alternative energy, hed vote for the plan
Styles 08
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant, advisor and communicator, helping organizations and executives address systems-level policy. His industry experience includes leadership roles at Texaco Inc. in strategy development and scenario planning, alliance management, and energy trading, at both the corporate center and with business units involved in global oil refining & marketing, transportation, and alternative energy. He has an MBA and a BS in Chemical Engineering. Friday, January 18, 2008 http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2008/01/candidates-energy-mccain.html

It's a Good thing that Youtube and Google convey ample information on Senator McCain's views about energy and the environment, because his campaign website is a bit sparse on both topics, particularly compared to the level of detail provided by Senator Obama. From his comments in various speeches, town halls, and

small events, it's clear that he is very concerned about our dependence on foreign oil, on both economic and national security grounds. He emphasizes the instability or governmental hostility of many of the countries from which our imports flow, frequently citing Nigeria, Venezuela and Russia as examples. I wasn't surprised to see him make the "funding both sides of the War on Terror" argument in the principal energy policy document on his website. National security is Senator McCain's strong suit, and he places energy squarely within this context. The measures he proposes for improving energy security cover the same themes as many other candidates, including wind and solar power, higher fuel economy standards, electrification of transportation via plug-in hybrids and batteries, and biofuels. He also strongly supports nuclear power, based on its low greenhouse gas emissions. Surprisingly, given the intensity of his views on energy independence--which seem to include an unrealistic expectation of how soon it could be achieved--he would leave offshore drilling to the discretion of the nearest affected states, and he opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I think he is missing a bet, there, but it's consistent with the theme of environmental stewardship that runs through the whole McCain campaign. Climate change is a major element of that theme, and of the Senator's legislative agenda. He has criticized the Bush administration's approach to global warming, and together with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) he sponsored a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill that was the precursor of the Warner-Lieberman bill currently under consideration in the Senate. It's not hard to find video clips of the Senator talking about climate change and the inter-generational
responsibility he feels in this regard. (I look forward to reviewing Governor Romney's position on this issue, since the Romney campaign has labeled Senator McCain's approach to climate change as "radical" and "wrong-headed.")

98

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-PELOSI

Pelosi supports increasing renewable use and efficiency Pelosi 7, (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Greening the Capitol, 03-01-07, http://speaker.gov/issues?id=0023) Today we say that the Capitol will be not just a shining symbol of our democracy, but a symbol of our commitment to the future. Not only by the power of our ideas on energy independence, but by the power of our example, we hope to send a message to the world and to the country. - Speaker Pelosi, June 21, 2007Addressing global warming and protecting the environment are vital to protecting the health of all Americans, particularly our children. For the sake of our future generations, America must provide strong leadership to reduce emissions that are responsible for global warming. Increasing use of renewable energy sources, including biofuels, and energy efficiency will help reduce emissions, protecting future generations from this global threat. In less than a year, Green the Capitol efforts have made significant progress. The U.S. House of Representatives will be one of the world's first "carbon neutral" legislative bodies. We are purchasing wind power, using natural gas at the Capitol Power Plant, and as we phase in more carbon efficiencies, purchasing carbon offsets. We are re-lighting the Capitol dome with energy efficient lighting, and our cafeterias have taken steps to green their processes and equipment, including composting all food waste. A new food pulper reduces the weight of cafeteria waste by as much as 70 percent by extracting water from it. The House now sells only 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper, and has installed compact flourescent lights. We are also encouraging green transportation with a bike sharing program and a car sharing program for House employees. Oil conservation on top of Nancy Pelosis agenda - she wants a shift to renewables Gregory 7, (Mick Gregory, Nancy Pelosi Punishes U.S. Oil Companies and Rewards OPEC Including (Chavez) Citgo Oil., 0118-07,http://sadbastards.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/nancy-pelosi-punishes-us-oil-companies-and-rewards-hugo-chavezs-citgo-oil) The Democrat-controlled House surged ahead without debate to roll back U.S. oil industry research incentives last Thursday in what left-wing supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. Economists said the tax scheme would reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports such as Citgo, the Venezuelan owned oil company. The energy legislation was the last of six high-priority issues that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, from San Francisco had pledged to push through during the first 100 hours of Democratic control. The bill passed by the new Democrat majority. This bill says foreign oil and foreign jobs are good, American oil and American jobs are bad, and that is crazy, said Rep. Kevin Brady, Republican representing The Woodlands, Texas.

99

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-LGV

Alt energy is popular with League of Conservation Voters,
LCV 6/19/08 (League of Conservation Voters, June 19 2008, LCV Responds to McCains Flip-flop on Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/lcvrespondsto-mccain-s-flip-flop-on-drilling-in-the-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge.html) [MB] Every day that goes by, Senator McCain abandons another principle in order to score political points and help his friends in the oil industry, LCV President Gene Karpinski said. And every day, John McCain looks more like George Bush on global warming and Americas energy future, the top issues he names when he cites his difference from George Bush. The basis for our criticism of Senator McCain is when he said I would be more than happy to examine it again, in response to a question about drilling in the Arctic Refuge. See: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/mccain_hinting_at_anwr_reversa.php Instead of offering more help to ExxonMobil, Senator McCain and President Bush should be getting serious about energy efficiency and renewable energy sources that will actually reduce our need for oil, create jobs, and save families money at the pump.

100

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-BUSH

BUSH SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES

Bush, 2008 (President Bush, Speech on June 18, Office of the Press Secretary) In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.

101

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP MICHIGAN

Michigan voters overwhelmingly support alternate energy incentives even if it increases energy costs States News Service, 2/14/08 (released by University Michigan, Lexis)
MICHIGANIANS WILLING TO PAY EXTRA FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION The following information was released by the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor: Three out of four residents in the auto industry-dominated state of Michigan would be willing to pay for ways to increase the role of renewable energy sources, a new University of Michigan survey says. Many states have enacted policies that mandate increased use of renewable energy as well as other policies that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Michigan, however, has been among the least active states, which makes these latest findings surprising, said Barry Rabe, a professor in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and School of Natural Resources and Environment. "The strong support for better vehicle fuel-efficiency standards and a willingness to pay for expanded renewable energy production are surprising, considering Michigan is home of the U.S. automotive industry and the nation's highest unemployment rate," Rabe said. "Despite all that, the residents support these changes and say they're willing to help pay for them.'' In fact, while the costs estimated to reduce global warming vary, nearly half of Michigan residents surveyed said they would be willing to pay more than $50 annually in order to produce more renewable energy. Most Michigan residents support state requirements to increase the level of renewable energy in the state's electricity supply. Rabe co-authored the survey of 1,001 adults with Christopher Borick, professor of political science at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania. It is the first known survey of its kind to ask Michigan residents about global warming issues and climate policy options. These issues have moved rapidly from the back-burner toward the front of the American public policy agenda. Michiganians say increasing global temperatures constitutes a serious problem, which mirrors the nation's perception. Eight out of 10 respondents indicated the Earth's climate has become warmer over the past four decades. Among residents in the 18-29 age group, 63 percent the highest percentage among three age segments considered global warming a very serious mater.

102

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP COLORADO

Alt energy popular in Colorado Denver Post, 6/30/08
One-third of Colorado registered voters are not affiliated with a political party. In New Mexico, Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 200,000, yet the state routinely votes for the GOP presidential candidate. Montana voters don't even register with a party. Brimming with individualistic, self-reliant, libertarian-leaning voters, the Rocky Mountain West will play a pivotal role in a year when independent voters are expected to make or break John McCain's and Barack Obama's presidential bids. Voters here in recent elections have backed individual candidates regardless of political affiliation and have responded to messages emphasizing economic populism, fiscal discipline and the balance between individual rights and governmental protections. Already, McCain is emphasizing his 22 years as a Western senator sensitive to the region's issues and personality, and touting his record of standing up to both political parties. Obama is portraying himself as a reformer, someone who won't engage in Washington-style politics and is committed to taking the country in a better direction. While voters have elected Democrats for state and federal offices in these states, those candidates have been moderates or conservatives, many of them more comfortable in cowboy boots and a bolo tie than a Washington, D.C.-style suit. With the exception of former President Bill Clinton's election in 1992 (largely due to the impact of third-party candidate Ross Perot) and reelection four years later, a Democratic candidate has won only one state in the eight-state region since Lyndon Johnson nearly swept it in 1964. "The question is whether the national Democrats are finally in a position to appeal to Western voters," said Dan Kemmis, former speaker and minority leader of the Montana House of Representatives and director of the O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West. "Can they address and be sensitive to Western issues?" The stakes couldn't be higher. If just Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico had cast their electoral votes for John F. Kerry in 2004, he'd be president now. Here's the second half of an in-depth look at four states that could prove pivotal in determining our next president. Colorado and New Mexico are below, and Nevada and Montana can be found here. Colorado Colorado has gone through profound political changes since Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry lost here four years ago. Democrats won a U.S. Senate seat and a majority in the statehouse in that election, then took over the governor's mansion and picked up a seat in Congress. The state's pragmatic and progressive unaffiliated voters are largely credited - or blamed, depending on whom you ask - for the political conversion. Trailing registered Republicans by only 4,190 voters (and ahead of Democrats by 112,725 voters), unaffiliateds are expected to be the political kingmakers in November. These middle-of-the-road voters, however, are swayed less by policies than whether they think the country is on the right or wrong track. And then, of course, there's the personality test. "It's less about a specific issue than style, authenticity, integrity and a sense of the future," said Tom Cronin, a political science professor at Colorado College who has studied the Interior West's voting behavior for the past 40 years. "Unaffiliated voters look at what direction the country is going in. But since they don't have much evidence of what [the candidates] will do, they often engage in retrospective voting." Even though McCain has a proven track record of making decisions independent of his party, if unaffiliated voters aren't happy with the economy, the war in Iraq and other issues, Cronin said, that could politically damage McCain, who is associated with the party in power and has been in Congress for 22 years. McCain also has obstacles in shoring up the GOP base, perhaps most notably in evangelical communities. Some areas, such as Colorado Springs in El Paso County, have significant political influence and excel at voter mobilization. High turnout in this dependably Republican county is critical for McCain to combat big Democratic numbers in the Denver area. But James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, has yet to back off from his position that he would not vote for McCain "under any circumstances." This has continued the dialogue about whether McCain is "conservative enough" for some Republicans and led to concerns that a chunk of GOP voters might sit this election out. "It's a problem, but it's not insurmountable," said Bill Armstrong, a former Colorado Republican senator who is now head of Colorado Christian University. "McCain isn't going to have a problem solidifying his base in the long run because Barack Obama is doing it for him. He's too radical." Obama has scheduled an invitation-only event for Wednesday in Colorado Springs, his campaign announced Friday. Armstrong also said that as long as McCain hammers home a message of fiscal discipline and is a "straight shooter" on energy policy, he will garner enough support to win the state.

103

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP EVANGELICALS

Studies prove evangelicals love alternate energy and emission cuts Tiano, 07 (Noel, Center for ethics @ University Nevada, Reno Gazette Journal, 3/10/07)
A study conducted by Ellison Research in February 2006 shows that as many as three out of four born-again or evangelical Christians tend to support environmental issues such as reducing global warming. In fact, last year, a group of conservative Christians published "The Evangelical Climate Initiative," which advocates for national legislation requiring sufficient reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, use of renewable energy and the purchase of hybrid vehicles. Moreover, they argue that these measures save money, reduce global warming and pollution, which harm human health, and eventually can pay for themselves.
Nevertheless, conservatives such as James Dobson from Focus on the Family, Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship and Franklin Graham have not embraced this initiative and dispute causes and solutions to global warming. Those who oppose the former's position cite Genesis 1:28 where creation is to be dominated; some have a dualistic perception of spirit and matter &mdash; one good and the other evil; many are convinced that Christ is coming back any moment; and others contend that environmentalism leads to worshipping the creature instead of the creator. Obviously, there is the political issue &mdash; the fear of being identified with liberals and Democrats. Interestingly, the Rev. Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals stresses, however, that his organization has advocated for human rights in Darfur, AIDS prevention, prison rights, Tibetan Buddhists rights and care for the environment. Furthermore, he adds that global warming is real. Both the local and the global are interrelated. Proponents address the social justice issue because our poorest global neighbors will be hit the hardest. In response, many churches have formed grass-roots coalitions. "What Would Jesus Drive?" or WWJDrive? is a discussion initiated by the Evangelical

Environmental Network. "Creation Care" promotes caring for both humanity and nature. And "Regeneration Project" is an interfaith campaign that has spread to 20 states.

104

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP EVANGELICALS

Evangelicals want alternate energy incentives

Frydenberg 7 (Joshua, former senior adviser to John Howard and a director of a leading international investment bank. He recently participated in the Australia-America Leadership Dialogue in California. Bush has to tackle global warming, now NEWS; Opinion; Pg. 15, February 2, lexis)

But he is falling short. Constituencies that are important to him are demanding tougher action. Unless he makes further substantial adjustments to policy, support for the Administration on this important issue is likely to fall. Leaders representing an unusual coalition of interests - the evangelical movement, big business, the national security establishment and environmental groups - have united in their call for the President to outline a more aggressive response to global warming. With leading Republicans such as Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and presidential aspirant Senator John McCain also publicly promoting their green credentials at every opportunity, Bush has been left with little room for political manoeuvre. Perhaps most interesting of all has been the environmental advocacy of the religious groups. With white evangelicals making up nearly a quarter of the American electorate, Bush's victory in 2004 depended heavily on winning their votes - 78 per cent voted for him, according to the National Election Pool exit poll. However, last year, 85 evangelical leaders co-signed a statement that called for greater use of renewable energy and more stringent legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions, including a market-based cap and trade program that the President is yet to support. Citing both the social justice implications of global warming on the world's poor and mankind's God-given responsibility to exercise "proper" stewardship over the Earth, the Christian leaders are running radio and television campaigns in states with influential legislators.

105

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- EVANGELICALS

Evangelicals love emission cuts and renewables Statesman Journal, 07 (4/17, lexis)
Public hearings about legislation to deal with global warming and greenhouse gas emissions start this week with committee members in both the House and Senate. The legislation stems from recommendations of the governor's task force on global warming, which met for almost two years to find ways to cut the state's carbon emissions. Some of the recommendations already are in the works -- the adoption of California's stricter tailpipe emission standards for cars and light trucks, for example. Environmentalists, faith leaders and renewable-energy advocates urged legislators to take a role in the global debate -- no matter how insignificant Oregon's emissions are compared to global levels. "There is a groundswell of support in the evangelical community," said Jenny Holmes of the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon. "We are wanting to see our government take action." Sen. Brad Avakian, D-Portland, and Rep. Jackie Dingfelder, D-Portland, are pushing the global-warming discussions.

God Loves Alternate Energy Las Vegas Review Journal, 2/20/08

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Tuesday continued his push to promote the development of renewable energy resources, suggesting that God was the first environmentalist. During a speech to about 500 renewable energy professionals attending the Renewable Energy World Conference and Expo North America at the Rio, Reid, who has been campaigning to stop the development of new coal-fired energy plants in favor of more environmentally sound renewable energy sources, recounted an ancient rabbinical story about God talking to Adam. "See my handiwork, how beautiful and choice," God tells Adam, pointing to trees in the Garden of Eden. "Be careful not to ruin and destroy my world, for if you do ... there is no one to repair it after you." Reid spokesman Jon Summers said that the environmental message is catching as more politically active evangelicals start to support environmentally friendly measures.

Evangelical voters love Alternate Energy Incentives view it as a religious imperative Pelosi, 2/27/08 (Nancy, house speaker, Capitol hill press release)
"This legislation: strengthens and extends the production tax credit, which will spur the deployment of wind,biomass, geothermal, hydropower, tidal, and landfill gas; extends the solar and fuel cell investment tax credit, andoffers tax incentives for residential solar, wind, and geothermal technologies; creates a new production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol and extends the biodiesel production tax credit; expands the tax credit for gas stations that install alternative fuel pumps, such as E85 pumps; includes tax incentives to promote greater efficiency for homes and businesses and creates a new
tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles; and creates a new category of tax credit bonds tofund local initiatives to promote the deployment of green technologies. "It will spur the production of clean renewable energy sources and provide business with the certainty necessary to make long- term plans to build viable and sustaining markets for these technologies. This is all about answers in themarketplace. "It will ensure we keep the jobs that were created with renewable tax credits, and create hundreds of thousands more - the next generation of good-paying, green collar jobs that will be right here in America. "Because this legislation is vital for a greener and more prosperous future, it is supported by a broad coalition from business, environmental, and labor communities from corporations such as Home Depot and Dow ChemicalCompany, to the Sierra Club, to the United Steelworkers and the National Farmers Union. "Energy independence is an economic issue - in terms of budgets for America's families, and creating newgreen jobs; it is an urgent national security issue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; it is an environmental and health issue to reduce global warming and protect the health of our children; and it is a moral issue to care for ourplanet. We work closely with the evangelical community on these issues because they believe, as do I, that this planet is God's creation and we

have a moral responsibility to preserve it.

Evangelicals love the plan Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, founders of the Forum on Religion and Ecology, teach religion and ecology at Yale University. They are editors of the Harvard book series on World Religions and Ecology, Chronicles of Higher Education, 2/9 07
In the United States, the greening of churches and synagogues leads religious communities to search out sustainable building materials and renewable energy sources through InterFaith Power and Light, a nonprofit organization that works with religious organizations on environmental issues. A group of Christian leaders in the Evangelical Climate Initiative is focusing on climate change as a moral issue that will adversely and disproportionately affect the poor around the world. "Green Yoga" is exploring ways in which yoga practitioners can bring their meditative focus to greater awareness of environmental concern. The "Green Nuns," a group of Roman Catholic religious women in North America, sponsors a variety of environmental programs drawing on the ecological vision of Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme, who describe the story of the universe in both sacred and scientific terms. In Canada the Indigenous Environmental Network is speaking out about the negative effects of resource extraction and military-related pollution on First Nations Reserves. Internationally, the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has led several international symposia on religion, science, and the environment, focused on water issues.

106

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- EVANGELICALS

Evangelicals view environmentalism as important voting issue support emission limits
Bailey, April 08 (Ronald, senior correspondent, Reason Magazine, New Age of Reason, April 2008, http://www.reason.com/news/show/124939.html) It is possible that environmental revivalism may supplant the fundamentalist aspect of the Fourth Great Awakening. If so, we may be in for a period in which campaigns for green reform programs dominate American politics. And its worth noting that some evangelical churches recently have embraced environmental issues. In 2004 the board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals adopted an Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility affirming that because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. Huckabee, the evangelical candidate, says plainly that he wants to be a good steward of the earthand, to that end, favors an economy-wide cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gases. The heirs of the Social Gospel have also enthusiastically embraced and promoted modern campaigns for clean living.

Evangelicals are the New Environmentalists Wilson 7/9 (Kevin Wilson, Salem News, Pastor Ken Wilson is co-founder of a project that brings evangelical pastors together for a day with environmental
scientists to discover common ground., Why Evangelicals will become the new environmentalists; http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july092008/jesus_green_7-908.php)

You've probably noticed a shift in the American religious landscape. Evangelicals who have been known to affix the adjective "whacko" to the term "environmentalist" are starting to go green. Calls to return to the biblical heritage of environmental stewardship are pouring from leaders like Richard Cizik, the Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, Rick Warren, the author of The Purpose Driven Life, and Bill Hybels, the voice for over 6,000 churches in his Willow Creek Association.What began as a trickle and has swelled into a steady stream is bound to become a flood as evangelicals in America become the new environmentalists. We will bring new energy to address the growing global environmental crisis of a warming climate, an alarming extinction rate, the rapid loss of land that can grow crops, and over a billion people without clean drinking water.Why am I so sure? Because evangelicals love to rediscover biblical truths that have been long neglected in the church and dive into these truths with passion. Good stewardship of God's green earth is a hallmark of faithfulness to the earth's creator. The Bible is shot through with this emphasis, but many evangelicals have been blind to it for cultural reasons. Once we start seeing it again, there will be "aha" moments spreading like wildfire among us.

107

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- HUNTERS

Hunters and Anglers love emission reductions Grand Rapids Press, 6/6/08
A new assessment of the threat to fish and wildlife habitat has hunters and anglers calling for action. Groups representing nine major hunting and fishing organizations planned to meet with the House committee chairman who hopes to write legislation to curtail greenhouse gases linked to global warming. "These are the branches of the conservation movement from which I come," said Rep. John Dingell said in an interview with The Associated Press. Dingell, D-Mich., said the groups' concerns are very important in helping with a measure to address the problem. The alarm sounded by hunting and fishing organizations is significant.

108

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- HUNTERS

Climate legislation is top priority for hunters and fishers Environment and Energy Daily, 6/4/08
The climate legislation has emerged as the major focus for environmental groups this year. In recent weeks, wildlife advocates and hunting and fishing groups have begun to turn up the heat on their campaigns to advance the bill -- launching advertising campaigns, reports and a flurry of letters to senators to press for their support. Environmentalists say they see this as a long-term campaign. With the 60 votes needed to advance the bill anything but certain, many groups expect they will continue the fight in future years. "We see this as perhaps the most important conservation bill we have ever worked on, both because of the emissions reductions, as well as protections for natural resources threatened by inevitable global warming," said John Kostyack of the National Wildlife Federation. "We've taken a look at some of the other key programs, like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, and our top priority programs can only operate successfully if we grapple with climate change science."

Hunters and fishers love climate legislation Environment and Energy Daily, 6/4/08
The National Wildlife Federation also circulated a new report to senators yesterday highlighting the "urgent need for climate change legislation." And grassroots activists from across the country have come to town to press their lawmakers for their support. Last month more than two dozen hunting and fishing groups -- including Pheasants Forever, the Izaak Walton League of American and Ducks Unlimited -- also sent a letter supporting the bill. "The future of hunting and fishing in America depends on the ability of conservation agencies to assist fish and wildlife to adapt to a changing climate," they wrote.

Hunters and Anglers want the plan Targeted News Service, 6/6/08
Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner put forth thoughtful legislation that reflects the complexity of this crisis, and recognizes the important links between climate action, conservation, and human well-being. They, and others who have worked to advance and improve this legislation, should be applauded for their work to find common ground on this critical issue. Businesses, faith-based organizations, conservation groups, hunters, anglers, labor unions, small-town mayors and big-state governors have all embraced the call to action represented by this bill.

Hunters and Fishers love the plan swing western states In These Times, June, 08
Hunters and fishermen across the nation have expressed concern about the changing climate and, along with farmers, have been key to recent Democratic victories in many Western states.

Hunters HATE Bush b/c of environmental policy, McCain is seen as viable but GOPs record makes them suspicious
Schneider 7-09-08 (Bill, staff writer, New West, Hunters, Look Beyond the End of Your Gun Barrel, http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/hunters_look_beyond_the_end_of_your_gun_barrel/C37/L37/) The League of Conservation Voters, not exactly a hunting group but still the nations best ranking of environmental voting records, gave Obama an unimpressive 67 percent rating. Meanwhile, McCain received a perfect score, zero. The last eight years, under the leadership of the Emperor (aka George W. Bush) and his apprentice Darth Vader (aka Richard B. Cheney), have been an all-time low for conservationists trying to protect wild land and wildlife habitat. Along the way the numbers of hunters have continued to decline, as has the amount of huntable land. John McCain has a moderate flair about him and definitely wont be an arch-enemy of environmental laws, which is what we now have, but since locking up his partys nomination, he has changed several positions to be in line with those dictated under the regime of the Emperor and Darth Vader, such as now supporting offshore drilling and flip flopping on gun show sales to cozy up to the NRA. More dues must be paid, I suspect, so we could be looking at four more years defending our environmental laws and policies that have kept our hunting tradition alive. Instead, of course, we should be moving forward, passing stronger conservation laws and regulations, which we have a much better chance of doing under President Obama.

109

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- HUNTERS

2004 proves; Republican hunters will cross lines b/c of Bushs environmental policy
Benen 04 (Steve, political consultant and writer, The Carpetbagger Report, Is the Hunter Vote Still Competitive, October 22, 2004, http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/2837.html) Larry Dwyer, Oscar Simpson and Alan Lackey are lifelong Republicans who voted for President Bush in 2000. They agree with many of the presidents policies. But they wont be voting for Mr. Bush this year, they say. All three are elk hunters who spend much of the year anticipating outdoors vacations in New Mexico and Colorado. They argue that the administration has bad conservation and wildlife policies that threaten what is dearest to them: public hunting grounds. It happens to be my biggest issue, said the 48-year-old Mr. Dwyer recently as he and his companions rode on horseback through a valley in the Carson National Forest in New Mexico. Elk season here started Oct. 1. The three represent a small group of hunters, fishermen and other outdoorsmen who are considering leaving their Republican roots this year. In this closely fought election, they are part of a larger wave of one-issue voters who intend to cross party lines for their cause, along with Democrats who support the presidents aggressive stance on terrorism and economic libertarians who dislike his conservative stand on social issues. Each may represent only a small sliver of the electorate but in an election this close, such slivers could turn out to matter. There isnt a lot of cold data, but the anecdotal evidence looks relatively encouraging. At the Outdoor Adventures Hunting and Fishing Show in Albuquerque last February, the New Mexico Wildlife Federation asked 600 sportsmen about their election choice in 2000 and their plans for November. Nearly half said they wouldnt vote for Mr. Bush in 2004, even though most said they had done so in 2000. Whats turned me off on Bush is that he is trying to force his way into wild places that should never be industrialized, says 52-year-old Karl Rappold, a rancher on Montanas Rocky Mountain Front, a spectacular meeting of mountain and prairie where the administration has pushed for drilling. Though the administration has stopped work on that plan, Mr. Rappold says he will vote against the president as will his wife, their five grown children and at least two other relatives, he says. He says they all voted for Mr. Bush in 2000.

110

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP COLORADO

Plan swings Colorado steals the most important democrat issue Kaplun, 6/3/08 (Alex, Environment and Energy Daily Reporter, Lexis) The back-and-forth on energy policy has become a staple of recent statewide political campaigns, as voters view the development of renewable energy as a potentially major economic engine for Colorado and as voters in some corners of the state have expressed concern about the impact of drilling on the environment. Pundits say that with voters worried about high gas prices in general and the economy as a whole, the candidates' ability to win the energy debate could prove to be particularly critical this time around. "As a candidate, you've got to have an economic policy and something about Iraq, but a very good way to frame it, whether you're talking about foreign and domestic issues, is through energy policy and in particular a renewable energy policy," said Republican Colorado pollster Floyd Ciruli. "It's become a very popular sort of framework for discussing everything else." Experts say that while swing voters will likely never view the former Republican congressman as being particularly strong on the environment, the campaign could find success if it can simply eliminate from the voters' minds that he is an "Big Oil" candidate. "I think he's going to try to make the case, but I really don't know if he's going to be able to make it successfully," Ciruli said. "The general rule for Republicans is while they don't need to be known as environmentalists, they need to have some environmental credentials." Ciruli pointed out that while Allard is not typically viewed as a strong environmentalist, he has been able to blunt attacks in past campaigns by highlighting his push for the creation of Great Sand Dunes National Park and a few other environmental initiatives. But officials from environmental groups say that one of their goals in the contest is to ensure that Republicans are not able to eliminate what they describe as the stark differences between the candidates on energy policy.

111

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-COLORADO

Supporting alternate energy massively popular in Colorado its the key issue Kaplun, 6/3/08 (Alex, Environment and Energy Daily Reporter, Lexis) With the Colorado Senate race heating up, both candidates and their supporters are moving quickly to stake out a positive image on renewable energy development -- an issue that is poised to play a central role in the November election. The two parties have for months eyed the contest between Rep. Mark Udall (D) and former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) as one of the pivotal Senate contests of the 2008 cycle. But the race has started to heat up over the last few weeks as the candidates formally seized their party's nomination and both camps quickly moved to establish the high ground -- or at least not fall too far behind -- in the debate over addressing the country's energy needs. Udall and Schaffer are expected to mount a highly competative battle for the seat being vacated by GOP Sen. Wayne Allard, who is stepping down after two terms. Recent polls show Udall in the lead, though the margin varies from a virtual dead heat to the Democrat leading by high single digits. Energy policy -- and in particular the development of renewable energy -- has been a major campaign topic in Colorado for several campaign cycles. And while it figures to be in play once again this time around, Democrats and their allies in particular see an opening to score major electoral points by highlighting what they describe as the Republican candidate's oil-friendly record in an era when such an image can prove to be highly damaging to a campaign.

112

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- FLORIDA

Energy key issue in florida alternate energy massively popular Business Wire, 6/12/08 A recent nonpartisan opinion poll crystallizes Floridians' concerns about the economy with energy and oil prices as top concerns. The poll shows that an overwhelming majority - 72 percent - of voters support moving forward on projects that would provide Florida with more energy at less cost. Four of every five persons (81%) polled wanted to see a proposed deep water natural gas port slated for 8 to 10 miles off the coast of Fort Lauderdale completed. "The reality of higher fuel and energy costs are hitting home for Florida residents," said Gene Ulm, professional pollster and primary researcher on the project. "Climbing fuel costs combined with worries about the economy have converged to reshape priorities for Floridians. In these times, Floridians strongly welcome any solution to short energy supplies and high costs." Key findings of the survey include: When asked which issues should be the top priorities for Florida's elected officials, 46 percent chose as their top answer either "cutting the cost of oil and energy" or "improving the job and economic situation" 64 percent of voters strongly support expanding Florida's use of natural gas for electricity generation and other forms of environmentally clean energy that are less expensive than oil When initially asked about the project, about six in 10 voters favor the building of the deepwater Liquefied Natural Gas port. After learning some basic facts about the project, support increased to a full 81 percent, with 52 percent expressing "strong support." In Broward County, the closest county to the proposed off-shore site, 47 percent of residents strongly favor the building of the Calypso Deepwater Port.

113

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP-FLORIDA

Warming is a key issue in florida National Journal, 10/6/07 Global warming could also have a high profile in California, Florida, and Minnesota, where Republican governors are aggressively backing action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Speaking at the state Republican convention earlylast month, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged th eparty faithful to embrace more-moderate policies on climate change and other domestic issues.

Pro Environmental Policies Swing Important votes in florida Grand Rapids Press, 04 (10/8)

While the top four issues to voters, according to polls, are the economy, terrorism and security, the war in Iraq and health care, the environment may be an important factor among swing voters in Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, said Mark Baldassare, research director at the institute. "Moderate and independent voters are looking for candidates whose views reflect their own on a variety of issues," he said. "Many are swing voters in the key battleground states, and they tend to have a pro-environment stances."

Alternate Energy popular in florida Florida times union, 12/30/05 Harnessing the power of the sun has long been popular in Florida, but rising fuel costs and new tax credits have many in the area looking to the alternative energy resource with increased interest. Cont With oil still hovering near $60 per barrel, renewed interest in alternative energy sources has been on the rise. American Solar Energy has been busy trying to meet new customer demands, said Bryan Wilson, an installer for the company. Wilson recently traipsed across the roof of a Julington Creek Plantation home to attach solar panels and cut pipes while installing a pool heating system.

114

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- ARIZONA

Alternative energy popular in Arizona VSI no date http://www.votesolar.org/polls.html (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)
Arizona--87% of the voters think the state should choose renewable energy sources like solar and wind over more coal, and 78% would pay at least $5 a month to make that happen. Details here (pdf). Behavior Reseach Center says environment near top of issues worrying Arizonans (pdf).

115

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY POP- BUSINESSES

Big businesses advocate alt energy policies: it allows them to capitalize on a new industry.
WSJ, 08 (Keith Johnson, Pay Me: CEOs Tell G-8 Diplomats to Get Green Subsidies Flowing, 6-20-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/20/payme-ceos-tell-g-8-diplomats-to-get-green-subsidies-flowing) // THK

<If politicians cant come up with a global climate-change strategy, world business leaders are ready to goose them into action because they stand to gain from it. CEOs from 99 of the worlds biggest companiesrepresenting about 10% of global market capitalizationurged G-8 countries to take ambitious action to fight climate change, including curbing global greenhouse-gas emissions by 50% mid 2050. Thats the first time that many high-profile international business leaders have called for concrete action on climate change. In the U.S., about 30 big corporations in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership have been clamoring for the government to fight global warming. Thats partly so theyll have a hand in designing regulations many already see as inevitable, and partly to juice their own businesses, like clean-technology. >

116

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY = MCCAIN WIN

New energy policy before the election enables the GOP to ride a tsunami into office (Free Republic, 6-19-08, How McCain and the GOP Can Ride An Energy Wave To Victory, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2033687/posts, [Ian Miller]) The energy problem in the US is lightning in a bottle for the candidate and/or party that can unleash it. The issue is there for the GOP to take advantage of as they by far have been much more on the right side of the issue. I'm no big fan of McCain. He wasn't my 1st,
2nd, or 3rd choice but it's who we have. It appears that he is getting the message about the energy crisis in the country, unlike Obama who keeps mouthing the same empty liberal rhetoric. Americans have had it with high energy prices because they know that rising food prices and rising prices of just about everything else is related to the higher energy costs. They are also learning that we have more oil available under our ground and shores than the entire Middle East. Even democrats with half a brain left are saying "it's time to drill!" Different republicans are offering different, albeit very similar solutions. McCain has some ideas. Current members of Congress have some ideas. Newt Gingrich has some ideas and has perhaps been in front on this issue with his "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." campaign. What the GOP needs to do is rally around a singular plan, much like they did in the 1992 elections with Newt's "Contract With America" plan. Here's how I think they get there and how they can "drop the bomb" on the democrats. First, McCain make ENERGY INDEPENDENCE along with national security the #1 campaign issue. There is simply NO down side to this. Energy independence means HUGE JOB GROWTH in a slumping economy, BIG DROP in energy prices, food prices, and all related industries, which all adds up to a roaring economy, and it means NO MORE RELIANCE on foreign thugs, dictators, and terrorists for our energy. These are the points that need to be stressed. Second, the way McCain brings this front and center is to pick a VP candidate to be his point man on this. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...Newt Gingrich. Again, Newt is not the perfect conservative. He has some baggage, but in this day and age, who doesn't? I think he IS the perfect VP candidate under these conditions. He knows the energy issue insideand-out and can bring instant authority and credibility to the ticket on this issue. Of course, Newt is a strong conservative on most other issues as well. Then, McCain and Newt need to have an "emergency energy conference" with GOP members of Congress and those GOP challengers running for office. You think Newt could work with Congressional GOP members? Obviously. Slam Dunk. They come up with a singular energy

plan, basically calling for the opening up of onshore and offshore oil fields, coal fields, nuclear energy, etc., AND "fasttracking" these through Congress. Similar to the "Contract with America", these candidates sign a pledge to back these measures in office. Then, a massive, coordinated ad campaign follows. They can use Newt's "Drill Here. Drill Now" slogan, and add "VOTE - " at the end. These ads will highlight how the democrats have blocked our energy independence, what the GOP plan is, how it would lead to energy independence, and all the benefits that would result. The ads then end with the slogan. If it's a Presidential ad, it ends with "DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. VOTE MCCAIN/GINGRICH.". If it's a national GOP ad, it ends with "DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. VOTE REPUBLICAN". It it's an ad for a Congressional candidate it can end with "DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. VOTE THOMPSON.", or whoever the candidate is. I believe that IF the GOP can coordinate a plan and strategy such as this, that they can ride a tsunami into office. Really, that could be the tip of the iceberg.

117

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY = MCCAIN WIN

VOTERS SHIFTING TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY POLICY- PLAN SCORES VOTES FOR MCCAIN Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, June 24, 2008 (Julian, Meg Jacobs, associate professor of history at MIT, Democrats need to learn to sell their Priorities, The Washington Independent http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/energy-talk) But there is evidence that we are in a moment of change. In certain respects, public opinion has outpaced political rhetoric. Even though Carter's speech was a flop, the environmental movement gradually influenced the way the public thought about issues like conservation of energy. With energy prices at extremely high levels, polls suggest that the public is more willing than ever to deal with environmental challenges. Building on the work of the environmental movement, former Vice President Al Gore has helped to popularize the issue of global warming through his Oscar-winning film and advocacy. More Republican politicians have started to question the Bush approach to the energy crisis. National-security concerns have also broadened electoral interest in reducing energy dependence on the Middle East. Even when the Republicans controlled Congress, the Bush team has not been able to get through a measure to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to drilling. Shifts in consumer attitudes and consumption have also helped citizens see practical steps toward reducing oil use. According to several recent reports, the high cost of fuel is persuading a large number of Americans to switch from Humvees and SUVs to smaller cars and even bicycles for daily commute. Mass transportation is experiencing stunning rider increases.

118

THE FORT PLTX A GOP FOCUS ON ENERGY POLICY WILL GRANT MCCAIN THE PRESIDENCY Caldwell, June 18, 2008 (Theo, How McCain can grease the wheels of victory, The National Post, https://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4093840883&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T4093840886&ci sb=22_T4093840885&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=10882&docNo=26) In 2008, with energy prices fixing to become the top election issue, combining foreign and domestic policy concerns into a monstrous hybrid of a problem, an understandable and workable proposal could help the GOP again. If every Republican running for office, from freshman House candidates to their presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, spoke with a single, sensible voice on this issue, they could snatch victory from defeat. A first draft might read: "We are Americans too, and we know that energy prices have gotten out of hand. We want to reduce fuel costs for all of us, and cut the number of dollars we send to hostile, oil-producing countries in the Middle East and South America. If you elect us, we will do the following three things: We will begin to tap America's vast oil reserves, using technological drilling advances that protect the environment. We will also promote alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power, to move us away from an oil-based economy. Finally, we will eliminate barriers to the import of cheaper, more efficient automotive systems that have been successful in other parts of the world." If the Republicans agree on such a platform, 2008 could be their year after all.

119

THE FORT PLTX

ALT ENERGY= OBAMA WIN

ENERGY POLICIES GIVE OBAMA OHIO- A KEY SWING STATE IN THE ELECTION Thomson Reuters UK. 7-22-08 Alternative energy a popular stop in U.S. campaign

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2143903020080722? pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
More importantly, analysts believe embracing coal-to-liquid technologies and others like it may offer Obama a way to win over white working class voters in the area, an economically depressed but culturally conservative region that supported rival Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nominating process. Obama has a track record of supporting coal, since coal mining is also a staple of his home state, Illinois. But whether that will be enough to win over voters concerned about his race or reputation as a liberal elite is not clear."Right now Obama has the more difficult challenge in this region than McCain, but the economy is in lousy shape so Democrats should be able to connect," said Herb Asher, a professor of political science at Ohio State University,"It's an important area -- only 10 percent of (Ohio's) vote but it can move back and forth. I think at this stage it's a challenge for Obama but he doesn't have to carry it -- even if he loses, the votes he gets could make the difference."Polls show Obama with a small lead over McCain in Ohio, but the state is considered too close to call.Chris Gagin knows the district can swing politically. The district director for Democratic Rep. Charlie Wilson, who supports the Baard plant, Gagin sees people every day who voted strongly for his own Democratic boss and the state's Democratic governor -- but also elected Bush in 2000 and 2004. Obama, he admitted, will be hardpressed to win over the region's working class voters."The whole Muslim issue, and race issue, is something nobody talks about, but it's there," said Gagin. "Clean coal is a way for Obama to introduce himself to these folks (to show what) they have in common, but it won't be the determining factor for most of them."

120

THE FORT PLTX

****************BIOFUELS***************

121

THE FORT PLTX

BIOFUELS BIPART
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FROM BIOFUELS

Whitman, 2006 (Christine Todd, President of the Whitman Strategy Group, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Open Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government, June 27) Similarly, representatives of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass fuels. Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment, but also promotes rural economic development and may lessen the international trade gap. American innovation, in this case to improve the environment and stimulate economic growth, can always count on bipartisan support.

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR BIOFULES IN CONGRESS

The Hill, 2007 (Rapidly Growing Investment in Biofuels Catches Markets Off-Guard, March 6) Biofuels find significant bipartisan support in the United States and a number of supportive policy ideas are being floated in and around Congress. These include raising RFS standards significantly, implementing loan guarantees or tax breaks, or improving infrastructure for ethanol use. Senators have proposed mandates in these areas rather than softer supports. The focus on distribution infrastructure reflects a fear that production capacity will grow while demand is stunted by a lack of access, leading to an ethanol glut.

122

THE FORT PLTX

BIOFUELS POP- PUBLIC

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

Energy Resource, 2006 (Majority of US Adults Would Give Thumbs Up to Candidates Who Support Biofuel Development, October 25) Four of every five U.S. adults say they are likely -- and four out of every 10 say they are very likely -- to support federal and state political candidates who favor providing incentives to promote increased national production and availability of biofuels, a new survey shows. Released today by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the survey conducted by Harris Interactive also finds that 50% of U.S. adults strongly agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels, which are made from agricultural crops or plant matter. Additionally, 82% of adults say national and state governments should provide financial incentives to biofuels producers to encourage the production and availability of biofuels. "A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote greater development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil," said Brent Erickson, executive vice president of BIO's Industrial & Environmental Section. "And they seem ready to support political candidates who support biofuels and favor such incentives."

OVERWHELMING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR BIOFUELS

BIO, 2006 (Biotechnology Industry Organization, Survey Shows U.S. Adults Support Government Incentives for Biofuels, October 18) Four in five U.S. adults (80%) strongly or somewhat agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels -- fuels made from agricultural crops or plant matter -- according to a new survey released by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of BIO, said, "Developing domestic biofuels and ending our over-reliance on foreign oil appear to be top concerns among Americans in this election year, our survey finds. Reducing dependence on oil and lessening environmental impacts are important to our nation's future economic growth and competitiveness. A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil. And they are ready to support political candidates who favor such incentives."

PUBLIC SUPPORTS BIOFUELS

SPECIFICALLY ETHANOL

Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008 (Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy, March 6) Comparable majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents also favor more funding for ethanol research, but support for this policy has slipped among all three groups since February 2006.

123

THE FORT PLTX

BIOFUELS POP- PUBLIC

Biofuels overwhelmingly popular Emerging Markets Online, 7/25/07 (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story? id=49424)
The biofuels industry in the U.S. and worldwide is experiencing internet-era, gold-rush euphoria. The two primary components of biofuels -- ethanol and biodiesel -- are businesses. However, they are also highly political in nature. An unholy alliance of characters is merging to promote biofuels. On the left, we have Woody Harrelson, Barack Obama, and Tom Daschle. On the right, we have Dubya, his brother Jeb (a founder of the Inter-Americas Ethanol Commission), the former CIA director James Woolsey, a Christian coalition for environmental protection, and yes - believe it or not - Chevron, Marathon, Shell and British Petroleum all participating and actively promoting the biofuels sector for various business and regulatory reasons. Politics makes strange bed fellows. The business side of biofuels is straight-forward and easy to understand. Produce biofuels at a competitive price, distribute to customers, gain market share, repeat. Since biodiesel and ethanol are more expensive to produce than gasoline and diesel, political support is often needed. In the U.S. and Europe, this economic support generally comes from some form of political initiative, mandate, target, or regulation in the form of a biofuels production tax incentive (U.S.), or a retail biofuels tax break (Germany). In fact, the Europeans produce and consume more than 80% of all of the biodiesel in the world. This has occurred mostly due to government mandates and tax incentives. In the U.S., these tax incentives have contributed to 150%+ growth in the biodiesel market from 25 millions produced in 2004 to 75 million in 2005 to over 250 million gallons in 2006. That is a 1000% increase from 2004 to 2006. And it is about to get bigger. Much bigger. Enter Mr. Dubya (a.k.a. President George W. Bush). Hated by liberals, loved by energy companies. He has confessed "the United States is addicted to oil." Dubya? Did he say that? Yes he did. This happened primarily because of national security (military) and economic security concerns, as well as environmental concerns. Dubya has revised our government's biofuels transportation initiative (the RFS), to stimulate growth in the ethanol and biodiesel markets by upping the ante and creating a "20 by 10" plan, or to replace 20% of our transportation fuels in the next 10 years with ethanol and biodiesel. This is the most ambitious plan in the world for biofuels. Even bigger than Brazil and Europe. Welcome to the "new normal." Dubya is now the champion of biofuels. Al Gore keeps his Oscar. Everyone wins. My company, Emerging Markets Online, has sponsored three Biodiesel Investor Conferences, as well as ethanol events. I have witnessed something strange happening as the years go by. At the biofuels conferences in 2005, there were more overalls, t-shirts and jeans than suits. In late 2006, and now 2007, I've been seeing more suits and polo-logos than t-shirts and overalls. There is a new corporate mantra in the industry. General Electric is citing their new motto "Green is Green"-the idea is catchy and growing almost as fast as the biofuels market. Celebrity status in biofuels is also a big deal. Willie Nelson's farm-friendly "BioWillie" biodiesel is going corporate, and being franchised. Celebrities like Larry Hagman (JR from Dallas), Daryll Hannah and former Dallas Cowboys coach Barry Switzer are now being hired by biodiesel and ethanol companies to promote the brands. The corporatization of biofuels is helping to drive biofuels to the pump, the consumer, and meet Dubya's (and Daschle's) ambitious plan to replace 20% of our petrol fuels with biofuels. This is roughly the same amount the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia, and almost the same amount we import from Venezuela. Each of these countries have the potential to disrupt the U.S. military and economy as we know it. And it's not likely Bush and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will kiss and make up any time soon. Next year, Hillary or Barak probably won't have much luck with Chavez either. So leading up to the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, energy independence will be a vital issue in the debates. Both parties will support it, but for perhaps different reasons. One party will cry foul about war for oil in Iraq, and cite other, environmental reasons. The other party will emphasize national security and economic security concerns, and promote biofuels trade with Brazil, Europe and Asia. Either way, biofuels will win. Or will it? Production Tax Incentives vs. Petroleum Tax Biofuels production tax incentives by the U.S. and other countries have created an internet-like investment frenzy. Under the U.S. mandate, biodiesel can be produced at up to $0.99 per gallon tax credit, and ethanol can be produced at up to $0.51 per gallon tax credit. In the next 16 months leading up to the elections, we will hear about some "villains" concerning our energy policies. These villains apparently sent us to war in Iraq, make unconscionable petrol profits, and are contributing to expensive prices at the pump to the demise of soccer moms and middle Americans everywhere. Hillary Clinton has a plan to penalize these "villains" with a petroleum tax. Cont. When the pre-election cycle starts gaining steam, and the rhetoric heats up, let's remember that renewable energy is an "everybody" issue. Voting for your team D or R is analogous to soccer-hooliganism or fighting for your favorite football team. Six days out of the week, most of us are rational, caring, friendly, loving type of people. On Saturday or Sunday, when the game is on, we turn into rabid, carnivorous, blood-thirsty beasts; put on our war paint, and go fight for our team. Literally. Energy is such an emotional and political hot potato in the U.S. that the discussion can be distorted beyond any form of cognitive reality-and send us into the stratosphere of ideological derision. This is especially true for biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel. Let's not let our emotions get the best of us when it comes to the contributions biofuels and renewable energy will make to national, economic and environmental security and clean air.

124

THE FORT PLTX

BIOFUELS POP- PUBLIC

Massive Public support for biofuel incentives Energy Resource, 2006 (Majority of US Adults Would Give Thumbs Up to Candidates Who Support Biofuel Development,
October 25) Four of every five U.S. adults say they are likely -- and four out of every 10 say they are very likely -- to support federal and state political candidates who favor providing incentives to promote increased national production and availability of biofuels, a new survey shows. Released today by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the survey conducted by Harris Interactive also finds that 50% of U.S. adults strongly agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels, which are made from agricultural crops or plant matter. Additionally, 82% of adults say national and state governments should provide financial incentives to biofuels producers to encourage the production and availability of biofuels. "A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote greater development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil," said Brent Erickson, executive vice president of BIO's Industrial & Environmental Section. "And they seem ready to support political candidates who support biofuels and favor such incentives."

overwhelming public support for government incentives for biofuels

BIO, 2006 (Biotechnology Industry Organization, Survey Shows U.S. Adults Support Government Incentives for Biofuels, October 18) Four in five U.S. adults (80%) strongly or somewhat agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels -- fuels made from agricultural crops or plant matter -- according to a new survey released by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of BIO, said, "Developing domestic biofuels and ending our over-reliance on foreign oil appear to be top concerns among Americans in this election year, our survey finds. Reducing dependence on oil and lessening environmental impacts are important to our nation's future economic growth and competitiveness. A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil. And they are ready to support political candidates who favor such incentives."

125

THE FORT PLTX

BIOMASS POP- PUBLIC

Biomass is popular Wall Street Journal, 06
(John Deutch, Biomass Movement, 5/10/06, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114722621580248526.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)

President Bush has made the welcome point that the U.S. needs "to move beyond a petroleum-based economy," and has lent his support to the need to develop energy from biomass, which refers to all bulk plant material. This is popular with the public and also enjoys significant support in Congress. Unfortunately, congressional subsidies for
biomass are driven by farm-state politics rather than by a technology-development effort that might offer a practical liquid fuel alternative to oil. Meanwhile, major oil and chemical companies are evaluating biomass and investors are chasing biomass investment opportunities. But how much of this is practicable?

126

THE FORT PLTX

BIOFUELS POP- CONGRESS

Biofuels are popular New York Times, Matthew L. Wald, 7/24/08, Gassing Up With Garbage, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/business/24fuel.html? pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=6d8750fcd5a5af75&ex=1217044800 [adit] The government is pushing to get the industry off the ground. Legislation passed last year mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels a year by 2022, less than half of it from corn ethanol. Almost all the rest is supposed to come
from nonfood sources, though the requirement could be waived if the industry faltered. One has to say upfront that what Congress has done is remarkable in its Institute for Local Self Reliance, a group in Minneapolis that advocates biofuels.

bravery, said David Morris, vice president of the

127

THE FORT PLTX

BIOFUELS POP- OBAMA

Obama will push Biofuels Crosscut, 7/24/08, Gauging the Biofuels backlash, http://www.crosscut.com/politicsgovernment/15855/Gauging+the+biofuels+backlash/ [adit] Of course, most politicians like magic bullets. Obama backs ethanol subsidies. (Of course he does. His home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production.) McCain opposes them. (Of course he does. They don't grow a whole lot of corn in Arizona.) Congress has showered ethanol subsidies on farm states since 1978. Virtually no one talks seriously about conservation. Nobody wants to be President Jimmy Carter, virtuously putting on a cardigan sweater rather than turning up the White House thermostat. But someone has to do it. Without curbing future demand, future production even if it's

based on switchgrass or wood waste rather than offshore oil won't get us where we need to go.

128

THE FORT PLTX

BIOFUELS POP- BUSH

BUSH SUPPORTS THE USE OF BIOFULES

Rohter, 2006 (Larry, With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil is Satisfying its Fuel Needs, New York Times, April 10) In his State of the Union address in January, Mr. Bush backed financing for ''cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but wood chips and stalks or switch grass'' with the goal of making ethanol competitive in six years.

INCENTIVES FOR BIOFULES HAVE THE SUPPORT OF BUSH

DOE, 2007 (U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding, February 28) Todays announcement is one part of the Bush Administrations comprehensive plan to support commercialization of scientific breakthroughs on biofuels. Specifically, these projects directly support the goals of President Bushs Twenty in Ten Initiative, which aims to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector to the equivalent of 35 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2017. Funding for these projects is an integral part of the Presidents Biofuels Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels, electricity, and other products. The solicitation, announced a year ago, was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. However, in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative, within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Section 932, Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling.

129

THE FORT PLTX

BIOFUELS POP- DEMS

DEMOCRATS SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF BIOFUELS

Bellatoni, 2006 (Christina, Democrats Push Ethanol Growth; Bills Promote Alternative Energy, Flex Fuel Vehicles, Washington Times, May 12) House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America, and they introduced bills to expand production of ethanol. "We can grow new energy here at home from American farms to American families," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota Democrat.

130

THE FORT PLTX

BIODIESEL BIPART
<Biodiesel is bipartisan- environment and the economy Whitman 06 (Christine Todd Whitman, President of the Whitman Strategy Group, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 50th governor of
the State of New Jersey; Hall Institute of Public Policy; 6-27-06, http://www.hallnj.org/cm/document_handler.jsp?dId=1000156) Similarly, representatives

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

<Biodiesel is bipartisan- tax credit proves American Soybean Association 04 (Jenna Higgins; Senate Passes Jobs Bill Including Biodiesel Tax Provisions; American Soybean Association; 5-12-04;
http://www.soygrowers.com/newsroom/releases/2004%20releases/r051204.htm) Biodiesel has strong bi-partisan support in Congress. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Grassley, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and others, the biodiesel tax credit was included in the energy bill, which the full U.S. House of Representatives approved last fall, as well as the transportation bill that the Senate approved in February. The tax credit amounts to one penny per percentage point of biodiesel blended with petroleum diesel. The incentive will be available to diesel excise taxpayers and other fuel distributors who purchase biodiesel and blend it into diesel fuel, and the savings will be passed on to consumers in both taxable and tax exempt markets. "Senate passage of this bill is an encouraging step toward enactment of key biodiesel tax incentive provisions," said Bob Metz, chairman of the National Biodiesel Board and ASA Executive Committee member from South Dakota. "Greater

biodiesel use will benefit all Americans, and we urge our leaders in Congress to act on this important measure.">

131

THE FORT PLTX

BIODIESEL- CON TO DEMS

Biofuels are a concession to key Democrats- energy bill proves Southwest Farm Press 6 (Democrats unveil comprehensive Biodiesel energy package; Southwest Farm Press; May 17, 2006;
http://southwestfarmpress.com/news/05-17-06-democrats-biodisel-package/) The energy challenges facing our nation are real, but Americans are ready to meet the challenge, said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. The answer is right here at home. From corn in the Midwest to soybeans in North Carolina, we grow the crops that can be converted into the biofuels

that power our cars. It is good for the environment, good for our economy, and it is good for our farmers. This plan is home-grown and American owned, said House Democratic Caucus Chairman James E. Clyburn. It severs the ties to foreign imports and puts American production and growth first. It provides a stark contrast to the Republican plan that I call the methadone treatment for oil dependency-replace the addiction to foreign oil with an addiction to foreign ethanol. This legislation sets a path to energy independence for the United States that is fueled by our nations rural communities, said Agriculture Committee Ranking Democrat Collin C. Peterson (D-MN). The Rural Working Groups proposal includes practical solutions that will expand ethanol and biodiesel production and will make sure that Americans can find flex-fuel vehicles at auto dealerships and biofuels at local gas stations.

132

THE FORT PLTX

BIODIESEL UNPOP- PUBLIC

Biodiesel is massively unpopular- even if people say they like it, theyre not willing to pay for it Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 8 (Robin Acton, Renewable energy unpopular at farm show, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 1-10-08,
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_546710.html) Penn State University researchers Mark Antle and Joe Perez said cost, more than anything, appears to make people less willing to embrace alternative fuels. Right now, ethanol blends and biodiesel fuels are priced about the same as regular fuels, said Antle, a crop and soil researcher in the university's science department. "I think people say they want cleaner-burning fuels and they want to reduce our

dependence on foreign oil, but then they hear the cost and that's the end of it," Antle said.

133

THE FORT PLTX

************BROWNFIELDS*********

134

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS POP- OBAMA

OBAMA SUPPORTS REDEVELOPING BROWNFIELDS WITH FEDERAL HELP Obama, 6-21-8

(Barack, Broward Politics, What Obama said today in Miami, BYLINE: Anthony Man)
That's why you need a partner in the White House. You know what happens when Washington listens to big oil and gas companies and blocks real energy reform "" because it's your budgets that are being pinched by high energy costs, and your schools that are cutting back on textbooks to keep their buses running; it's the lots in your towns and cities that are brownfields. That's why you need a partner in the White House. Now, despite the absence of leadership in Washington, we're actually seeing a rebirth in many places. I'm thinking of my friend Rich Daley, who's made a deep and lasting difference in the quality of life for millions of Chicagoans. I'm thinking of Mayor Cownie, who's working to make his city green; Mayor Bloomberg, who's fighting to turn around the nation's largest school system; Mayor Rybak, who's done an extraordinary job helping the Twin Cities recover from the bridge collapse last year; and so many other mayors across this country, who are finding new ways to lift up their communities. But you shouldn't be succeeding despite Washington "" you should be succeeding with a hand from Washington. Neglect is not a policy for America's metropolitan areas. It's time City Hall had someone in the White House you could count on the way so many Americans count on you. That's what this election is all about "" because while Senator McCain is a true patriot, he won't be that partner. His priorities are very different from yours and mine. At a time when you're facing budget deficits and looking to Washington for the support you need, he isn't proposing a strategy for America's cities. Instead, he's calling for nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans "" and yet he's actually opposed more funding for the COPS program and the Community Development Block Grant program. That's just more of the same in Washington. And few know better than you why Washington needs to change. But the truth is, what our cities need isn't just a partner. What you need is a partner who knows that the old ways of looking at our cities just won't do; who knows that our nation and our cities are undergoing a historic transformation. The change that's taking place today is as great as any we've seen in more than a century, since the time when cities grew upward and outward with immigrants escaping poverty, and tyranny, and misery abroad.

135

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS INCREASES POL CAP

THE PLAN INCREASES POLITICAL CAPITAL.

St. Petersburg Times 7 (FL newspaper, Hillsborough Board, Its Time to Give Up, NATIONAL, p. 12A, 10/29, ln)
Hillsborough County commissioners can look back on the past year with little sense of accomplishment. The board was slow to grasp the housing collapse and the clamor for tax cuts. It did little to boost the economy and avoided tackling big issues, from commuter rail and jobs to growth, local governance, urban redevelopment and environmental protection. The board's major achievement was backing away from two mistakes that sparked public uproars: a plan to open wetlands to developers and another to build a $40-million amateur sports park. Commissioners' machinations behind the scenes also raised suspicions about this board's competence and ethics. Somebody needs to grip the reins, focus the board on issues that matter and restore public confidence in county government. The recent fights over wetlands and the sports park resonated not only because the plans were so bad for taxpayers and the environment. The public also was floored that commissioners would spend so much time and political capital on pet projects as a slowing economy was forcing people and governments throughout the state to make tough decisions. Growth from the last housing boom has made congestion worse. The tax-cutting environment is reducing the revenue stream for roads, social services and other public needs. The public wants to see better priorities and a maturing in the commission's thinking.

136

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS POP- PUBLIC

REDEVELOPING BROWNFIELDS HAS POLITICAL MOMENTUM.

Eisinger 1 (Chris, GAP intern, Nov., http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/tpg_ce.html)

Brownfields are not a new topic for Congress. In fact, this is the fourth session to have addressed them, and during the 106th Congress almost 30 bills were introduced involving contaminated sites. So why hasn't a brownfields bill been passed yet? In part, brownfields legislation has simply been too low a congressional priority. Faced with more immediate problems, the leadership has relied on the fact that CERCLA does address brownfield remediation to some degree, albeit in a cumbersome, inefficient manner. Also, Congress has had to deal with environmental concerns that are hesitant about weakening the EPA's strict environmental policies regarding potentially responsible parties, and pressure by states to give them more leverage in developing their brownfield sites. But, the political momentum behind new legislation in this congressional session is very strong. Brownfield programs are currently popular among constituents, businesses, and environmental groups. Additionally, states have been developing their own initiatives, which need federal funding and support to be successful. PUBLIC HATES SPRAWL THEYLL SUPPORT A PLAN TO STOP IT.

Benfield, Raimi, and Chen 99 (F Kaid, National Resoursce Defense Council, Matthew D, land use planning firm principal, Donald DT, Smart Growth America CEO, http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartGrowth/rpave.asp)
For example, there is plenty of evidence that we place a high value on exactly those benefits that we are losing. Writer Tony Hiss describes research documenting strong human preferences for green landscapes with water, winding paths, long and sweeping vistas, and hidden natural places. Similarly, in a recent public opinion poll, 63 percent of respondents cited "the beauty of nature" as a reason for wanting to protect the environment. A New Jersey survey reported that 78 percent of respondents supported changes in development patterns in order to preserve farmland. In still another study, citizens shown slide images gave the lowest approval rating to images of "cookie cutter" subdivisions and complexes, highway strip development, and shopping plazas with large front parking lots, while they gave the highest rating to natural areas, farmland, woodlots, parks and streams.

137

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS POP- ENVIRO

ENVIRONMENTALIST OPPOSE REMOVING LIABILITY IN BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT

Reisch 2 (Mark, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division, CRS Issue Brief for Congress, 3/21,
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/766/IB10078_20020321.pdf?sequence=1)

If a cutoff date of December 31, 1980, were used, CBO said, private and federal transaction costs would fallabout 50% and 30% respectively, compared with 90% under the 1987 cutoff. The shift in cleanup costs to the federal government would come to $1.3 billion per year, and reimbursing PRPs would total about $5.5 billion for ongoing work, and $4.4 billion for past work. These high cost estimates prompted the committees to look for ways other thanfullrepealofretroactiveliability to reduce the liability burden, particularly for small businesses, lenders, and municipalities. Environmental groups have opposed liability cut-off dates, arguing that reimbursement of PRPs would contradict the polluter pays principle and leave less money to address pending site cleanups. ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE BROWNFIELD LEGISLATION THEY VIEW IT AS TOO FLEXIBLE AND LENIENT.

San Francisco Chronicle 5 (Why I am not an environmentalist, 5/19, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/19/EDG24CR5DT1.DTL)

Our legislation should have been an important priority for environmentalists because developing brownfields would take pressure off expanding construction to California's rapidly dwindling green spaces, farmlands and wilderness. And yet the Sierra Club opposed the bill, claiming that the legislation's flexibility could be abused by unscrupulous developers. We felt there were adequate safeguards, and that together, civil-rights and environmental groups would be able to protect inner-city residents from new risks while accelerating economic development. We eventually compromised on a watered-down version of the bill that was signed into law. But because the new standards remained so inflexible, we haven't seen the kind of economic redevelopment of urban brownfields that low- income and mostly communities of color desperately need. Contaminated urban sites remain contaminated, economic development and affordable housing in the inner city hasn't occurred, and California's green spaces continue to be developed. The brownfields bill failed because we have failed to construct a vision for community and economic development that speaks to our shared aspirations -- from having more urban parks for kids to play in to having jobs that pay a livable wage to protecting California's natural beauty. Civil- rights groups, economic development advocates and environmentalists today find themselves divided by technical policy when we should be united by a common vision. ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE INCREASING POLITICAL POWER.

Center for Responsive Politics 7 (nonpartisan organization researching money in politics, Big Oil, Big Influence, 11/23, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html)
Environmentalists, who had very little influence in Congress when Republicans were in control, are now seeing the lawmakers seriously consider their positions. This includes environmentalists' support of fuel efficiency standards, a mandate for electric utility companies to produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources and their opposition to coal-to-liquid fuel development. Nowhere is this change in tides more evident than in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is heavily involved in energy legislation. California Sen. Barbara Boxer, considered one of the environment's biggest champions, has chaired the committee since her party assumed control of the Senate in the 2006 election. Boxer replaced Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican who has received $572,000 from the oil and gas industry since President Bush took officemore than all but three other members of Congress. Since 2001, Boxer has received less than $13,000 from the industry and nearly 69 times more from environmental policy groups than Inhofe.

138

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS BIPART
( ) BROWNFIELDS POLICIES CREATE BIPARTISANSHIP EVEN IN TENSE CONGRESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTS

Chris Eisinger, School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, November 2001, Brownfields Legislation: Making the Grass Greener on the Other Side, The Professional Geologist, online: http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/tpg_ce.html, accessed July 10, 2008
In its first few months, the 107th Congress has eagerly addressed the topic of brownfields reform, a rare bipartisan issue. As defined by the EPA, brownfields are commercial properties where "expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination." The total number of U.S. brownfield sites is thought to be between 450,000 and 500,000, with the majority located in urban areas. Typical sites include abandoned gas stations, former factories, and commercial operations that used hazardous materials. Redevelopment of these sites can improve a local environment, create jobs, increase tax revenues, and promote economic growth and environmental health in communities. With good policy, brownfields remediation can make the grass greener for both the environment and the economy. PLAN IS BIPART - THE COMBINATION OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS MAKE CLEANUP EFFORTS APPEALING TO BOTH PARTIES

NEMW 1 (Northeast-Midwest Institute, October 2001, Federal Legislative Proposals for Industrial Site Cleanup and Redevelopment, online:
http://www.nemw.org/cmcleanb.htm)

Congressional efforts to reauthorize and reform the federal Superfund program have provided the context for ongoing discussion of brownfield cleanup and redevelopment. Because of the relationship between brownfields and the Superfund program, and the key issue of liability in particular, it is likely that brownfields legislation will face fewer obstacles as part of a successful congressional effort in moving and passing a Superfund bill than if free-standing brownfields legislation is pursued independent of Superfund. Toward that end, the brownfields issue enjoys bipartisan support in Congress, perhaps because it represents to many a viable marriage of efforts to promote both environmental protection and economic development. Federal brownfields legislative proposals, for the most part, have focused on setting standards for state brownfields programs, providing funding in the form of grants or loans to facilitate assessment or cleanup of brownfields, proscribing limits to lender liability, and offering additional financial assistance tools available to the public- and private-sectors to boost cleanup and redevelopment efforts. BROWNFIELD POLICY AND REFORM IS BI-PARTISAN.

Council on Environmental Quality 5+ [most recent reference, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/cleanlands.html]

Through public-private partnerships, Federal grants and incentives, the Bush Administration has made much progress in cleaning and restoring polluted lands. The President worked with Congress to enact historic, bipartisan brownfields reform legislation that provides State and local governments greater abilities and resources to turn environmental eyesores into productive community assets, creating jobs and billions of dollars in economic revitalization in urban areas. BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION IS EMPIRICALLY BIPARTISAN.

PEW Center on the States 1 (3/19, http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14298)

State and local leaders are calling attention to their ongoing cleanup efforts and urging the expansion of EPA partnerships in a series of hearings this month on Capitol Hill. And they have voiced strong support for Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee's S.350, the "Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000," which now has 55 co-sponsors, 21 of whom are Chafee's fellow Republicans. "The support for this bill covers the political spectrum from Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions, Sam Brownback and Jesse Helms to Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Chris Dodd and everywhere in between," said Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Robert Smith (R-N.H.).

139

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS BIPART
SUPPORT TO ENCOURAGE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT BY REMOVING LIABILITY IS BIPARTISAN.

NewsBatch 8 (news encyclopedia project, April, http://www.newsbatch.com/environment.htm)

On April 21 2001, the Senate unanimously approved a bill which would authorize $1.25 billion over the next five years to help state and local governments clean up and redevelop more than 450,000 brownfields throughout the country. The measure would also encourage the redevelopment of brownfields by granting a liability exemption to prospective purchasers who do not cause or worsen the contamination at a site. The legislation precludes the EPA from interfering in the state cleanups unless (1) a state requests assistance, (2) the contamination migrates across state lines or onto federal property, or (3) there is an "imminent and substantial endangerment" to public health or the environment and additional work needs to be done. Where do Democrats and Republicans stand on waste issues? Both parties support efforts to proper manage and clean-up wastes. Republicans tend to support measures to transfer responsibility for these processes from the EPA to state and local governments. They also tend to object to stringent liability requirements on businesses and landowners for the cost of clean-up.

140

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS POP- DEMS

Democrats support brownfield reform Matt Assad, 9-30-04, The Morning Call, Democrats in Bethlehem, Pa., attack Bush's record on brownfields Democrats stumping in south Bethlehem for John Kerry contended that water and air will be a little clearer and dormant industrial sites like the former Bethlehem Steel plant will be redeveloped a little more quickly if Kerry is elected president. Standing in front of the hulking, rusted blast furnaces that went cold in 1995, state Rep. T.J. Rooney and congressional candidate Joe Driscoll on Wednesday led a parade of Democrats bashing President Bush for reducing federal spending on brownfields cleanup and ending the Superfund tax on chemical companies. However, Republicans questioned how anyone could blame Bush for the end of a Superfund tax that expired nine years ago, or how Democrats could blame him for gutting brownfields funding that has not decreased since he took office. "We've got an endless resource of brownfields waiting to be developed," said Driscoll, who is running against state Sen. Charlie Dent, R-Lehigh, for the 15th Congressional District seat held by outgoing Republican Pat Toomey. "With John Kerry and John Edwards, we can focus our efforts on redeveloping sites like this one, and stop Bush and Cheney policies that have undermined our cities." Dent said the claims lack any ring of truth. "It's an absurd argument," Dent said. "No brownfields funding was cut. In fact, it was increased under President Bush. They really don't know what they are talking about." In each of the past two years, Bush requested a $ 40 million reduction from the $ 250 million a year authorized by brownfields legislation initiated by President Clinton in 1998. Congress has never allocated as much as the $ 210 million requested -- approving budgets with roughly $ 190 million in each of the past two years. That amount was more than the $ 150 million a year spent through 2001 when the brownfields program was still a demonstration project. The issue is similarly mixed for Bush's role in Superfund legislation. For 16 years, chemical and petroleum manufacturers paid a Superfund tax that went into a multibillion-dollar fund used to clean contaminated industrial sites. The tax expired in 1995. Clinton annually urged a Republican-controlled Congress to reinstate the tax, but every year he was denied. Bush has not continued Clinton's annual request to Congress. So, while Bush has not sought to renew the Superfund tax, he played no role in ending it. "But as a Republican President, if Bush asked to renew the tax, the Republican Congress would approve it," said Andrew McElwaine, president of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, and chairman of Pennsylvania Environmental Leaders for Kerry. "Instead, he gives chemical polluters tax breaks and leaves taxpayers to pay for the cleanup." Rooney, who is seeking re-election, said that putting aside the debate over whether Bush has anything to do with ending the Superfund tax or gutting brownfields legislation, it is clear the president has chosen to spend money elsewhere. "You cannot spend $ 200 billion on the war in Iraq with no plan to win, and still have money to develop projects like this one," Rooney said, with the Bethlehem Steel blast furnaces behind him. "The president doesn't understand that a good, strong economy and a good, healthy environment are not mutually exclusive.

141

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS POP- USCM

A. The plan is popular with the U.S. Conference of Mayors Rick Markley, 4-1-04, Rock Products, Bill Proposes Brownfield Tax Break If an Ohio Congressman gets his way, there will be a lot more brownfield redevelopment in the coming years. Rep. Michael Turner ROhio is planning to introduce a bill this spring that would provide $1 billion in federal tax credits for companies that revitalize brownfield sites. Mike Wiehe, a Turner staffer, says the Congressman is seeking bipartisan co-sponsors for the legislation. There are several Democrats with good ideas regarding brownfields, he says. Wiehe says they talked to the Bush administration's economic team. "They find the idea interesting and they are receptive to it," he says. "They didn't shoot it down." Wiehe says environmental groups are interested in the bill, but have not endorsed or opposed it. The idea already has the U.S. Conference of Mayors' endorsement. "Mayors have been looking for tools to encourage brownfield redevelopment, and the tax credits proposed in this bill will be an invaluable tool in our arsenal to encourage private sector investment for underdeveloped and abandoned properties," says Hempsted, N.Y., Mayor James Garner. Garner also is president of the Conference. The bill calls for allocating the $1 billion in tax credits among the states based on population. The tax credits would be used for as much as 50% of the demolition and remediation costs of an approved remediation plan. The remaining 50% of the cleanup costs would be evenly split between the original polluter and the current property owner or a local governing body. The potentially responsible parties that pay no less than 25% of the cleanup cost would be released from liability. Wiehe acknowledges that the national deficit may make a tax-cutting program a tough sell. However, he says it could be a no-cost proposition because it puts properties back on the tax rolls. A redeveloped brownfield could generate more tax revenue than was spent on the cleanup, especially if ancillary revenue such as sales tax and income tax are included. According to Turner's office, there are as many as 1 million brownfields that cover about 400,000 acres and can be found in each Congressional district. B. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is empirically a powerful congressional lobby Paul Soglin, 6-13-02, Capital Times, MAYORS' GET-TOGETHER ULTIMATELY BENEFITS EVERYONE In the last decade, the U.S. Conference of Mayors forged an alliance with environmentalists such as the Sierra Club and pro-transit organizations to lobby Congress successfully for ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) -- our nation's latest commitment to public transit and alternatives to petroleum engines and the road builders. Bicycles, transit riders and pedestrians all benefit from this legislation. Also in the 1990s, after Bill Clinton was first elected president and began pushing NAFTA, it was the Conference of Mayors that joined with organized labor to insist that there be minimum environmental and employment standards before entering into any treaty. As the chair of the Urban Economic Policy Committee, I met continually with labor leaders and other mayors, as we were one of the few organizations that tried to put the brakes on the ratification of NAFTA. * Throughout its long history, the Conference of Mayors has been at the forefront in working for corporate reinvestment in America's cities, particularly after World War II, when mayors began to recognize the flight of capital to the South and the suburbs with cheap land and no unions. It was the mayors who pushed for civil rights legislation and housing policies that recognized the needs of homeless people. No organization of its kind has fought with as much conviction and dedication as the Conference of Mayors when it comes to economic and social justice -particularly racial justice

142

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS POP- LOBBY

A. The realty lobby and the National Apartment Association will lobby for the plan National Apartment Association Units, 3-1-04, Environmental; NAA Capital Conference NAA/NMHC Position NAA/NMHC strongly support incentives to facilitate smart growth including the expansion of tax credits for brown fields redevelopment, such as removing barriers to allow innovative land-use planning techniques to be used in building higher density and mixed-use developments; and advocating for transportation initiatives that encourage density. Background Smart growth will be addressed in a variety of legislative contexts in the 108th Congress. As concerns rise over the negative environmental impact associated with urban sprawl, apartment communities are increasingly seen as a way to provide livable communities while making wise use of natural resources. Apartment communities are an attractive form of higher density housing, promote efficient land use, conserve open spaces, efficiently use municipal infrastructure and can provide an effective solution to regional transportation problems. Action Requested NAA/NMHC urge Congress to support policies that encourage smart growth and density, adaptive reuse of urban land and preservation of resources and open spaces. Energy and Energy Efficient Credits NAA/NMHC Position NAA/NMHC support the passage of a comprehensive Energy Policy Act containing, among other provisions, tax credits and incentives to encourage the use of energy efficient building technologies, renewable energy sources and conservation measures by multifamily property owners. Background NAA/NMHC, along with other real estate groups, have continually urged Congress to implement federal policies that encourage property' owners to incorporate energy efficient building technologies, renewable energy sources and conservation measures into use on their property,. To that end, NAA/NMHC have maintained that federal tax incentives can be a cost effective means of spurring the construction and remodeling of energy efficient buildings nationwide. In the past, NAA/NMHC have advocated for energy efficient tax incentives, and have partnered with EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy under the Energy Star Building Label Program, a voluntary; market driven and performance based partnership between the public and private sectors, to encourage the incorporation of new, energy efficient products and designs in residential buildings. In light of recent world events and energy concerns, now n]ore than ever, energy efficient building technology incentives are critical to the multifamily housing industry.

143

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS POP- LOBBY

B. Congress will pander to the realtor lobby to gain campaign money and political clout they will support the plan Christina Nuckols, 8-15-00, The Roanoke Times, ROANOKER GETS TERRITORY AT CONVENTION; DENNIS CRONK IS PRESIDENT OF POWERFUL LOBBYING GROUP Even if Clinton doesn't sit still, those two seconds are golden. Cronk doesn't get that kind of access at this week's Democratic National Convention because he's a Democrat. Nor did he get the chance to rub shoulders with members of Congress at the Republican convention because he's a Republican. Doors open for Cronk because he's president of the National Association of Realtors, which by its own account is the largest trade group in the United States. By all accounts, it is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country. Although portions of the event honoring Clinton are open to all Democratic delegates, the dinner is an exclusive gala at Paramount Studios, funded by eight groups interested in housing issues that also happen to be among the Democratic Party's top donors. "We sponsored the event and only got 15 tickets," Cronk said. The plan as of Monday afternoon was for Clinton to sit with the eight presidents from the sponsoring organizations, while their spouses sit with first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Celebrities like Goldberg and singer Sting were to be scattered around the two tables. The Realtors group endorses candidates in congressional races, and plans to give its support next month to either U.S. Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., or to his Republican challenger, former Gov. George Allen. But presidential candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush will have to live without an endorsement from the association. "We work both sides," Cronk said. "We don't support one candidate over the other." Cronk, a native Roanoker, is a broker / owner of Waldvogel, Poe and Cronk Real Estate Group. He has been active at the local, state and national levels throughout his 26 years as a Realtor. His efforts paid off when he was named president, giving him the opportunity to travel the globe and hobnob with top U.S. leaders. He introduced Bush, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a May gathering of Realtors in Washington, D.C. Clinton appointed Cronk to the U.S.-China Residential Building Council. "He's been a very aggressive president," said Alan Yassky of New York, treasurer of the NAR. The Realtors association was ranked by Fortune magazine last year as the 15th most powerful lobbying group in Washington, D.C., up two notches from 1998. Its large membership includes real estate professionals in virtually every congressional district in the country. And then there's the money. The real estate industry has given $ 2.8 million to congressional races for the 1999-2000 election cycle, and the NAR's share of that amount is $ 1.6 million. The association has given 59 percent of that amount to Republicans, but most incumbents get something. In Virginia, for example, the NAR gave $ 5,000 apiece to U.S. Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, and Rick Boucher, D-Abingdon; $ 4,000 to Virgil Goode, I-Rocky Mount; and $ 3,000 to Robb. Democrats have come out ahead in attracting soft money contributions to their political action committees from the Realtors. They have given $ 151,600 to Democratic PACs and just $ 23,250 to Republican PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Government. That helps to balance out the congressional spending patterns, but it also reflects the NAR's strategy to contribute to Democratic members of Congress who would become committee chairmen if their party recaptures control of the House of Representatives, said Lee Verstandig, a senior vice president of the Realtors group. "We need to have access no matter who the majority is," he said. But all of that is small time compared to the $ 6 million it spent in 1998 on lobbying, the most recent data available. Cronk agrees that national political conventions have turned into giant fund-raising events, but he isn't bothered by charges of influence peddling. "Every issue that we deal with, we can make a case it doesn't just help us. It helps all homeowners," he said. The group was able to reach all its goals for the GOP platform for the first time in history, he said. It didn't hurt that a Realtor from the U.S. Virgin Islands was on the committee that drafted this year's platform.

144

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS BIPART
The plan builds bipartisanship brownfield reform is the only environmental legislation that can bring democrats, republicans and environmental lobbies together Allison Stevens, 2-7-01, The Hill, Pressured, Crapo relents on brownfields bill After single-handedly blocking popular bipartisan legislation that would clean up abandoned parcels of contaminated land, Sen. Mike Crapo (R- Idaho) said he has lifted his hold on legislation in the 107th Congress that would clean up brownfields. With the support of 67 senators and a solid majority in the House, as well as President George W. Bush's endorsement on the campaign trail, Crapo's hold was the bill's only significant roadblock last year. The Idaho Republican's reversal sends a strong signal that the bill will pass early this year. "In the last Congress I agreed with a lot of people that I would hold it up then," Crapo told The Hill. "But I don't feel I have to force the issue this year in that way." Crapo and the bill's chief sponsor, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), are still working out differences on minor details of the brownfields bill, according to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Bob Smith (R-N.H.). But the differences are likely to be resolved and the bill is expected to be introduced next week, Smith said in an interview. "The prospects are outstanding and excellent," Smith said, noting that the bill could pass out of committee within 30 days. "The concerns that Crapo has on natural resources damages is something we're working on. He knows he has my commitment to work on (that.)" Crapo came under fire last year after it was reported that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) had signed a secret pact promising the Idaho Republican he would not call the brownfields legislation to the floor as a stand-alone bill in return for Crapo's support for a federal project in Mississippi. Last year, Crapo had hoped to wrap the popular brownfields issue into a larger, more contentious bill to overhaul the Superfund law and provide relief to Idaho mining companies burdened with the high cost of cleaning mine wastes. But citing an altered political landscape in a new Congress, Crapo, a member of the Superfund Subcommittee, said he would relent and allow brownfields legislation to come to the floor freed from the fetters of the complex and controversial Superfund reform legislation, which will likely remain bogged down in committee for the remainder of this Congress. " Committee members and others have said, 'Let's move brownfields separately, and move your legislation as well,'" Crapo explained. "I feel I can trust those members." With five fewer GOP colleagues in a now evenly split Senate - not to mention a Republican president who has placed brownfields cleanup at the top of a relatively short environmental agenda - Crapo has come under mounting pressure to allow the bill to pass this year, according to Chafee. " This issue is whether we slow down this good bill that is good for the country, good for so many regions," Chafee said. "And (Crapo) decided, no, that was not the best way to go." Cleaning up brownfields - moderately polluted plots of land in urban and suburban areas that do not qualify for federal funds under the Superfund law - could be the first, and only, area where environmentalists and the Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches find common ground

145

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS BIPART
Brownfield development is bipartisan Todd McAdam, 5-4-03, Press & Sun-Bulletin, ANALYSIS - There's a reason they're called politicians; 'Nonpartisan' sounds nice but rings hollow To anybody who's been laid off, or knows someone who's been laid off, or is leaving Greater Binghamton to find a better opportunity, economic development isn't a political issue, it's a personal issue. A family issue, even. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stood up last week at Broome Community College during a conference on brownfields and how they can be made viable for development and echoed that sentiment: "Brownfields are not Republican or Democratic or independent or anything else," she said. "We have to approach them in a totally nonpartisan way." Congress supports brownfield redevelopment Andrew C. Schneider, 1-23-02, Kiplinger Business Forecasts, Building Boom For Brownfields Still a Ways Off Property owners and real estate developers welcomed the recent enactment of a brownfields revitalization bill, but they won't rush to redevelop abandoned industrial sites just yet. A variety of factors, including the sluggish economy and soft real estate market, lingering liability concerns and a lag in getting new federal funds to the local level, will hold back redevelopment for a couple more years. The bill (H.R. 2869), signed into law by President Bush earlier this month, authorizes millions for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants to assess and clean up brownfields. It also offers new owners of former industrial sites some protection from Superfund liability and says that property cleaned up through a state brownfields program is exempt from Superfund enforcement in almost all cases. While the EPA rarely ever intervened in such cases in the past, the possibility that it might do so was often enough to scare off potential investors with the threat of undefined future cleanup costs. The liability relief thus will provide an incentive for people to lend private capital to rebuild blighted downtown areas and close-in suburbs. But liability relief by itself won't overcome the reluctance of developers to take on new projects particularly on contaminated land while the real estate market remains weak. "It's harder than ever, for purely economic reasons, to do projects that are not mainstream," says Roger Platt, senior vice president and counsel of the Real Estate Roundtable. "In a market like there is now, where people are highly risk adverse, [developers] are going to stay away [from brownfields]." And the law does leave one notable exception. While it provides liability relief for all manner of Superfund-covered contaminants, from acetone to zinc, the law does not cover oil contamination. That's because petroleum waste is covered by an entirely different law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Developers still will be able to get federal funds, via state and local brownfields programs, to clean up such sites as abandoned gas stations and refineries, but they won't have the same protection against EPA intervention as they would on rehabilitating other sites, such as derelict factories and dry cleaners. That's particularly unwelcome news for residential developers, because the oil-contaminated sites are generally the ones in the mostdesirable locations for new housing. "These sites tend to be in great commercial centers," explains Michael Mittelholzer, director of air, waste and wildlife for the National Association of Home Builders. "There are gas stations all over the place." By contrast, sites contaminated by Superfund-covered wastes tend to be in heavy industrial areas, where residential development might not work, he says. So when will the projected boom in brownfields redevelopment start? Not for at least another year. Bush will ask Congress to put $200 million a year into the EPA's brownfields cleanup program, more than double the current yearly funding. Given the strong support in Congress for brownfields redevelopment, the EPA is likely to get at least that much

146

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS POP- LOBBY

The plan is popular with the manufacturing lobby because it makes environmental regulations work for businesses building political capital Industry Week, January 2003, The Honor System PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH IS PLACING A BIG BET ON MANUFACturers, and I hope we don't disappoint him. Fresh from an historic mid-term election -- the first since 1934 in which the President's party did not lose seats in the House -- he's spending some of his vast political capital to push through several manufacturing friendly policies. Of course to some, he's returning dividends to his big campaign donors. Whichever way you look at it, he's looking for ways to help manufacturers (and businesses in general), and he has some expectations of what manufacturers will do once unburdened. Let's look at just two items at the top of Bush's economic agenda: deregulation, especially on the environmental front, and tax reform. Within these public policy arenas, manufacturers are lobbying hard, and Bush seems ready to fight for long lists of potential changes that will help manufacturers compete more effectively. Trouble is, though, even those who believe the reforms are needed are getting a little nervous. They fear that by delivering on this cornucopia of proposals, Bush risks overplaying his hand. So what should manufacturers do to help him avoid a backlash? Now there's a touchy question. The mere suggestion that manufacturers might hold back their efforts to win relief immediately or tread carefully in areas where regulations have been lifted might seem a bit much. Manufacturers have borne the brunt of environmental regulations and an unfavorable tax structure for so long, it's understandable that at the first sight of relief they'll grab for all they can get. But the changes Bush has been and will continue to push for aren't free gifts. Though he's not explicitly saying so, Bush expects a payoff of his own: that the changes will work, and, more importantly for you, that industry will help make sure they work. First, he's is expecting that companies won't overreach, that they'll be happy with a few key changes and not demand so many that it looks as if he's bought and paid for by special interests. This is politics, after all. More advantageous changes will certainly come later if the first round works.

147

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS POP- ENVIRO LOBBY

The environmental lobby is more powerful than the fossil fuel lobby Michael A. Mohammed, 7-17-04, Times-Picayune (New Orleans), A BREAK ON GAS PRICES; Decline comes after record summer highs In nearly 30 years, no new oil refinery has been constructed in the United States. Instead, about half the countrys refineries have closed. To keep production constant, existing refineries have been expanding, or upgrading their technology. Gillespie highlighted the clash between the oil lobby and the environmental lobby, which he said is far more powerful and has successfully shut down any oil company efforts to construct new refineries.

148

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS UNPOP- CONGRESS

The plan is unpopular pro-pollution lobbies oppose the plan and they are more powerful than brownfield lobbies U.S. Newswire, 7-12-00, Gore 2000: Al Gore Challenges "Do-Nothing-For-People" Congress to Pass Brownfields Legislation After touring a local brownfield site, Al Gore today challenged the Republican-led "do-nothing-for-people" Congress to pass legislation that would help cities like Baltimore revitalize former industrial sites that are contaminated by toxic waste. Important bipartisan legislation to clean up brownfield sites is being held hostage by Trent Lott, Senate Republican Leader, on behalf of special interest polluters. Gore also challenged George W. Bush to call Lott and encourage him to stop his blockade. "There has been broad bipartisan support for the brownfields initiative -- in Congress and all across the country," said Gore. "Unfortunately, pollution has some pretty powerful allies. There is legislation before the Congress right now that would help communities create even more success stories, but it turns out that the partisan leadership of this Congress has a different agenda."

149

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS COST POL CAP

THE PLAN COSTS POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CAN DERAIL REFORM.

Reisch 2 (Mark, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division, CRS Issue Brief for Congress, 3/21,
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/766/IB10078_20020321.pdf?sequence=1)

The Superfund reauthorization bills that were reported in the 105th and106th Congresses were not brought to the floor because of opposition by key members. While some suggested that a stand-alone brownfields bill might have had a better chance, the Republican leadership wanted to keep the popular brownfields program within a Superfund reauthorization bill to help build support for a comprehensive CERCLA rewrite. The efforts of the last four Congresses demonstrate the need for consensus to achieve significant changes in the law. The successful amendments to CERCLA during that time period have had general agreement and targeted a fairly narrow area: limiting the liability of financial institutions that had made loans to PRPs, easing the transfer of military bases to local entities (related to the Base Realignment and Closure laws), limiting the liability of recyclers, and providing a tax incentive to encourage the cleanup of brownfields. Now, however,

150

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS UNPOP
CHANGING BROWNFIELDS LIABILITY POLICY IS UNIVERSALLY UNPOPULAR.

New York Times 5 (Setting Standards for Water, 14NJ, column 1, p. 1, 1/23, ln)
State regulators are trying to answer Mayor McDonough's concerns. Last October, they released the first revision to rules governing groundwater pollution in more than a decade. The regulations, which are scheduled to take effect this spring, will adjust limits for hundreds of chemicals, from ammonia to chromium, and will establish new rules for developers planning to restore polluted areas, called brownfields. The reaction to the new rules has been nearly unanimous: almost everyone is unhappy. Business groups are concerned that the state is considering the expansion of environmental rules by saying that all state groundwater must meet standards set for
drinking water supplies. Hal Bozarth, executive director of the New Jersey Chemistry Council, an association of chemical manufacturers, said that such a move would drastically increase the cost of cleaning up former industrial sites in areas far from water supplies. 'One Size Does Not Fit All' ''One size does not fit all,'' Mr. Bozarth said. ''Applying drinking water standards at sites where it is not used for drinking water is not a good use of resources and it will slow down the cleanup of those sites.'' The state's builders say they are being hemmed in with a series of new environmental regulations that affect runoff from new building in relation to surface water, storm water, and now groundwater. Still smarting from legislation that severely restricted new building in the Highlands region -- which covers about 16 percent of the state -the builders say they are being boxed out of many parts of New Jersey. ''The state has 150 different regulatory programs,'' said Patrick J. O'Keefe, chief executive of the New Jersey Builders Association. ''The one thing no one wants to talk about: Where are people going to live?'' On the other hand, some environmental groups say the groundwater rules do not go far enough. Some, like the Sierra Club, say the new rules will weaken protections on more than 40 chemicals and will relax standards that may lead to increased development in sensitive areas. ''It is a major weakening,'' said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club. Yet most other environmental groups are not as concerned as the Sierra Club. From their perspective, the changes did not make things worse -- they just did not make them any better. ''The greatest threat to our water these days is development in the wrong places, and the groundwater standards are one of the building blocks of protection -- and they are full of holes,'' said David Pringle, campaign director of the New Jersey Environmental Federation. ''Rather than close them, the administration kicked the can down the road. They are either unable or unwilling to expend the political capital necessary to advance environmental protection.'' Susan Kraham, an attorney with the Rutgers Law Clinic, is coordinating the response to the state's proposal for several environmental groups. In general, Ms. Kraham said, regulators have simply not addressed most of the major problems facing the water supply -- like whether to forbid any pollution that would result in decreased quality of an aquifer. ''It is not a bad thing, it is just not as good as it could have been,'' she said. ''They have done the bare minimum and punted on the really important issues rather than confront them head on.'' Somewhat surprisingly, state officials generally agree. Debra Hammond, chief of water quality assessment for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said that many areas of the water rules were so important that the state set them aside for further consideration. Moreover, Ms. Hammond said the revision proposed this year was limited to several narrow aspects of the rules -- primarily involving the maximum permitted concentration of pollutants in the groundwater. She said the state needed more time to finish revisions on big topics, like whether developers should be allowed to increase the general level of groundwater pollution with new projects -- called anti-degradation rules. Other areas set aside for further consideration include whether the state should directly link groundwater and surface water regulations, and whether regulators should expand preservation areas in which no additional pollution is allowed. ''We acknowledged there were significant policy issues that we felt we were not in a position to recommend changes -- like the anti-degradation policy,'' she said. ''These are big issues, big topics, that require a lot of thought to revise.'' For now, Ms. Hammond said she could not estimate when the state would move forward with the more substantial aspects of the regulations, which are still being studied. Planning groups like NJ Future, a nonprofit statewide planning organization, say the trick is to maintain protection of the water supply without ratcheting the restrictions so high that development is choked off. ''Groundwater protections should be very strong in areas where we are trying to protect the waterways,'' said George Hawkins, the executive director of NJ Future. ''The question of whether you modify those standards in places where you want development to occur is more complicated.'' Standards Last Revised in 1993 New Jersey last revised groundwater standards in 1993, and when former Gov. James E. McGreevey took office in 2002, he promised to update the rules as part of broad plan to strengthen environmental regulation. The core of the regulation is a list of hundreds of chemicals along with the maximum concentration at which they can be discharged into the water table. In the new revision, the state has tried to bring the permitted levels of chemical contamination in line with current scientific research. That has raised concerns among many environmentalists because it has led the state to increase the allowable concentrations of more than 40 chemicals, like ammonia and nitrates. To Mr. Tittel of the Sierra Club, the move was short-sighted and resulted in ''a major weakening'' of protection for the state's drinking water. ''This is an excuse to weaken things or not strengthen things which should be strengthened,'' he said, adding that standards for ''43 chemicals are weakened and a couple of hundred others that should be strengthened are not getting strengthened.'' But Ms. Hammond said standards on some chemicals were relaxed because current research indicates they are not as harmful as once thought ''If we make a decision that it is not as hazardous to your health it is appropriate to have a new standard,'' she said. ''We are using current science and some levels are going to be less stringent and some are going to be more stringent.'' One example is the gasoline additive MTBE, which scientist have linked to increased risk of cancer. The new state guidelines would set contamination levels as 70 parts per billion. ''That is a health-based standard,'' Ms. Hammond said. ''That is a safe level for a one in a million cancer risk.'' But Mr. Tittel said it did not reflect tougher standards in such states as California and New York. ''Other states have set the level at 25,'' he said. ''This is on a chemical that is becoming a serious problem in New Jersey.'' Environmentalists also criticized the rules for setting limits on certain chemicals based on what most laboratories can detect rather than health limits. For her, however, Ms. Hammond said the criticism was unjustified, since the state is trying to determine a realistic detection level and is working with commercial lab directors to establish the standards. Debate Centers on Brownfields Much of the groundwater debate concerns cleanup and redevelopment of

old industrial sites, known as brownfield developments. The new regulation gives cleanup exemptions for developers who can prove that certain pollutants will naturally disperse over 30 years. Proponents argue that it is an environmentally sound policy and also necessary to
attract developers to old industrial areas.

151

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS UNPOP
THE PLAN WOULD BE UNPOPULAR PEOPLE HATE HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING.

Toronto Star 2 (Brownie Award recognizes brownfield redevelopmet, p. NO2, 1/10, ln)
Last month Reon Development Corp. received a "Brownie Award" from the Urban Institute and Southam Environment Group for its redevelopment of a former industrial site. Reon, which will build housing on the former Stelco Swansea Works plant at Windermere Ave. and The Queensway, took one of six awards for its outreach program and consultation with the community. The company was able to come up with a plan that merged its objectives with the requirements of the community. Demolition of existing buildings has started on the eastern portion of the site. According to Reon's Web site (www.reon.ca), the company expects to complete environmental remediation of that portion of the site by May, with construction to start toward the end of the year. Michael Peterson, Reon's president, said the firm hopes to open the sales office in the spring. The residential development will feature 130 townhouses and three slender towers, 20, 23 and 26 storeys. One tower will sit on the east side of Windermere; the remaining two on the west side. Some of the project's amenities, such as green spaces and day-care centre will be available for use by area residents. Design award for High Park project A west-end condo project that generated fierce local opposition when first proposed has received an award of Excellence from Canadian Architects magazine. Rejected by the local committee of adjustment because it called for higher density than it was zoned for, Home, a 50-unit luxury condo to be built on the edge of High Park by Context Development, was given zoning approval by the Ontario Municipal Board last year on condition the builder and residents could agree on a site plan. The project, which is designed by Peter Clewes, of Architects Alliance, also got some high praise from the OMB panel for its design. BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT IS UNPOPULAR.

News Business Reporter 4 (Ecida Backs Plan for Brownfield Redevelopment Fund, Business, p. B-9, 7/15, ln)
The redevelopment fund could help pay the tab. For instance, a portion of the funds paid by a company in Buffalo Lakeside Commerce Park under a payment in lieu of taxes agreement, or PILOT, would go into the fund. The money would be used for future phases of the business park, or to revitalize other brownfield sites in the city, said David Stebbins of the ECIDA. The ECIDA and Development Downtown would jointly administer the fund. The board also approved, by a 10-3 vote, an inducement package worth nearly $13 million related to the Electric Tower. Niagara Mohawk recently sold it to Iskalo Development for $2.35 million. The package is tied to Iskalo's acquisition and planned conversion of the building into Class A office space. The incentives include combined sales and property tax savings worth more than $1.8 million. County Executive Joel Giambra voted against the package, along with James Doherty and Fred Saia. Giambra said he wasn't opposed to efforts to revitalize the building; instead, he cited the "dangerous precedent" he believed the board was establishing, and the price tag of the incentive package. Giambra said approving the package would "open the door" to other building owners looking for help to upgrade their own properties.

152

THE FORT PLTX

BROWNFIELDS UNPOP- OIL

THE OIL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES OPPOSE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT.

Reisch 2 (Mark, CRS Resources, Science, and Industry Division, CRS Issue Brief for Congress, 3/21,
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/766/IB10078_20020321.pdf?sequence=1)

In the last Congress 28 bills with brownfields provisions were introduced. The focus of most of them generally was to codify inlaw the program EPA created, and to specify uses of the funds. While there was little opposition to the program, the oil and chemical industries in particular objected to the use of Superfund money that they say should be dedicated to cleaning up NPL sites, not redeveloping brownfields. Using money for this purpose depletes the fund and increases the need for additional taxes, they said.

153

THE FORT PLTX

**************CAF***********

154

THE FORT PLTX

CAFE BIPART
There is strong bipartisan and lobby support for CAFE Terry, 7 Republican Representative from Nebraska (Lee, The Hill, Senate CAF Plan Goes Too Far 10-26-07, http://thehill.com/op-eds/senate-cafeplan-goes-too-far-2007-10-26.html) // DCM The Hill-Terry CAFE bill requires the secretary of transportation to mandate separate CAFE standards for model year 2022 such that car standards and pickup
trucks standards will be no less than a combined 32 miles per gallon and no more than 35 mpg. H.R. 2927 keeps in place the current separation of standards for regular cars and light trucks, which includes sport utility vehicles. Alternative CAFE legislation largely calls for all automobiles to be grouped into one category. However, increasing fuel economy standards must be done right or it will have disastrous impacts for our economy. Done incorrectly, by imposing unrealistic timetables and CAFE standards such as those in the Senates energy bill, CAFE increases could result in the closing of light-truck manufacturing facilities and the loss of jobs dependent on the auto sector. The Hill-Terry proposal will protect good-paying American manufacturing jobs, preserve consumer choice in auto vehicles, and set achievable timetables for compliance. Additionally, our bill possesses the widest possible bipartisan support in the House with 172 cosponsors from every ideological

stripe in Congress. It has been endorsed by the House Democrat Blue Dog Coalition, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the United Autoworkers and the Alliance of Automobile manufacturers, and groups ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation to the National Conference of Black Mayors and the Traditional Values Coalition.>

155

THE FORT PLTX

CAFE UNPOP- AUTO LOBBIES

Increased CAFE Standards is unpopular with the auto industry lobby High costs would threaten profits Line, 7 (Chevrolet Volt Goes to Washington To Underline GM's Anti-CAFE-Increase Argument 7-19-07 http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121774) // DCM Edmuds Inside

General Motors' North American operations chief, Troy Clarke, is meeting with legislators on Capitol Hill today, and he's bringing along the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid prototype. GM hopes the Volt will help convince lawmakers that electric and alternative-fuel vehicles are the route to energy independence. The Big Three have strenuously opposed a proposed increase in CAFE standards, saying the cost of meeting higher mpg averages would take away resources that could be put toward development of alternative-energy vehicles.
While in Washington, the Volt will also be present at an Electric Power Research Institute meeting on plug-in hybrids, to be held at the National Press Club, the Detroit News reported today. Earlier this week, about 100 auto dealers visited legislators in Washington, carrying the same message. The proposed increase, already approved by the Senate, would mean cars and light trucks would have to attain an average 35 mpg by 2020. GM has said it would have to spend more than $40 billion to meet that standard.

156

THE FORT PLTX

***************CAP & TRADE***************

157

THE FORT PLTX

CAP POP- PUBLIC

Studies prove support for emission cap causes net gain in voters in every political party Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
On the McCain-Lieberman legislation, strong majorities supported the legislation regardless of party preference. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans, 85% of Democrats, and 79% of independents favored the legislation differences that are statistically significant, though minor. When people were told the bill may raise costs by $15 per month, 63% of Republicans, 72% of Democrats and 64% of independents still supported the legislation. Candidates who support such legislation benefit from a net positive effect on peoples vote, regardless of political preference, though the effect is mildest among Republicans. Democrats give strong support to environmental candidates with a 54% net positive, as do independents with a 45% net positive. Republicans, though, also gave a 19% net positive for candidates that support such legislation.

158

THE FORT PLTX

CAP POP- REPS

Strong Majority of GOP Voters support emissions cap Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
Republicans, Democrats and independents all favor, by majorities, the taking of steps to deal with climate changeeven though majorities of Republicans and independents believe that the scientific community is divided on global warming. Strong majorities across the political spectrum support the McCain-Lieberman legislation to require reduced emissions

159

THE FORT PLTX

CAP POP- PUBLIC

Emission cap massively popular supporters more likely to swing votes than opponents Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
A very large majority of Americans (8 in 10) say that they support the targets of the McCain-Lieberman legislation (Climate Stewardship Act) that call for large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. Two-thirds say they favor the legislation even if it costs $15 a month for an average household. A modest majority says that if a candidate favors legislation requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, this will increase the likelihood they will vote for that candidate; only a very small minority says that it would decrease the likelihood. Those in favor of taking steps are more likely to have their vote influenced by a candidates position than those opposed

160

THE FORT PLTX

CAP POP- CONGRESS

Its popular across the political spectrum Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
A very large majority of Americans say that they support the targets of the McCain-Lieberman legislation (Climate Stewardship Act). Respondents were introduced to the legislation and told about the targets for greenhouse gas emissions called for in one of the key drafts, for large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. An overwhelming 81% said they favored the legislation, with just 16% opposed. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans, 85% of Democrats, and 79% of independents favored the legislation.

161

THE FORT PLTX

CAP POP- PUBLIC

Its politically beneficial in an election Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
Apparently it would be advantageous for a political candidate to show support for such legislation. Respondents were asked how it would affect their likelihood to vote for a candidate for political office if he or she were to favor a law requiring large companies to gradually reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and asked to answer on a scale of +5 to -5, with +5 meaning that it will greatly increase the likelihood you will vote for the candidate, -5 meaning that it will greatly decrease the likelihood you will vote for the candidate, and 0 meaning that it will have no effect either way. A modest majority of 52% gave a score above zero; much more than the 12% which gave a score below zero, while 33% gave a score of zero. Overall the mean score was 1.12.

162

THE FORT PLTX

CAP POP- PUBLIC

Massive public support for emission cuts including mandatory controls, cap and trade and Lieberman legislation Global Public Opinion.org 07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm
A variety of poll questions finds strong majority support for taking action to address global warming. As will be discussed below large majorities favor US participation in the Kyoto Treaty and support the McCain Lieberman legislation. When respondents were simply asked in April 2005, Ipsos-Reid whether our government needs to do something about global warming right now a strong majority of 70% agreed (very much 42%). Only 26% said they disagreed (very much 13%). [23] Gallup has found 75% favoring imposing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases. Only 22% were opposed. [24] In a June 2004 PIPA poll, a strong 79% of all respondents said that the President should "develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming." Only 19% said the President should not develop a plan. This was up significantly from a March 2001 Time/CNN poll in which 67% agreed and a slightly higher 26% disagreed.[25].

Widespread majority favors mandatory emission controls Global Public Opinion.org 07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm
A strong majority of Americans favors the US abiding by and ratifying the Kyoto Treaty even when presented with the key arguments for and against the treaty. Only a minority is aware that President Bush opposes participation in the Kyoto Treaty. When respondents are told that that President Bush has decided to not abide by the Treaty approximately half oppose the decision while a fairly small minority supports it. A strong majority opposes his decision to not pursue reductions of carbon dioxide emissions and thinks he should propose develop some plan for reducing emissions. When the Kyoto Treaty was being negotiated in 1998 a strong majority supported the level of emissions cuts proposed, even when informed that the US had originally sought less-deep cuts, and a plurality leaned toward deeper cuts. A strong majority of Americans have indicated their support for the Kyoto Treaty. In June 2005, PIPA simply asked based on what you know, do you think the U.S. should or should not participate in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming. A strong majority of 73% favored participation. This was up a bit from September 2004, when only 65% favored it. Only 16% in June 2005 and September 2004 opposed participation. In July 2004 the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations asked the same question in the context of a battery and found 71% in favor and 19% opposed. This was up from CCFRs 2002 poll when 64% favored it and 21% were opposed.

163

THE FORT PLTX

CAP POP
Emission requirements are widely popular Global Public Opinion.org 07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm
Related to President Bush's decision to not support the Kyoto Treaty was his decision to not require reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, despite his campaign promise to do so. This decision was opposed by a strong majority. In an April 2001 Pew poll 67% disapproved. [9] An April 2001 Los Angeles Times poll elaborated on Bush's reasons--adding, "He said that requiring carbon dioxide controls at this time would add too much to the cost of power production and that the nation instead needs an overall national energy strategy"and found a more modest majority of 54% opposed, while 34% supported Bush's decision.[10] Asked why Bush made this decision on carbon dioxide emissions, a plurality to a majority attributed it to pressure from, or his connections to, the energy industry. The April 2001 Los Angeles Times poll found 45% saying that it was because "Bush and some of his key advisors are closely allied with the energy industry," while 36% said it was because "Bush now believes that there is not enough proof that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming to justify the costs." [11] A Newsweek poll taken the same month found 53% saying that it was because of "special interest pressures from coal producers and others in the energy industry," while just 29% said it was because of "doubts about whether there is enough hard scientific evidence for such regulation and concerns about its effect on consumer energy prices." [12] Finally, it appears that even among those who are sympathetic to Bush's opposition to the Kyoto Treaty, many feel that he should come up with some plan for addressing global warming. In a June 2004 PIPA poll, a strong 79% of all respondents said that the President should "develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming." Only 19% said the President should not develop a plan. This was up significantly from a March 2001 Time/CNN poll in which 67% agreed and a slightly higher 26% disagreed. [13]

164

THE FORT PLTX

CAP POP- PUBLIC

Massive public support for mandatory emission reductions Global Public Opinion.org 07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm
A key controversy is over whether the US should rely on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or if the US should legislate requirements for reductions. The most prominent legislation requiring such reductions of the Climate Stewardship Act, also known as the McCain-Lieberman bill named after the Senators that have sponsored it. A very large majority of Americans say that they support US legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. PIPA introduced respondents to the Climate Stewardship Act, and told them about the targets for greenhouse gas emissions called for in one of the key drafts, which requires large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. In June 2005, PIPA asked "based on what you know, do you favor or oppose having such limits on how much greenhouse gases large companies can emit" An overwhelming majority of 83% favored it with just 13% opposed. In June 2004 81% said they favored such limits with 16% opposed. [1] Americans also appear to be ready to accept significant costs in support of the legislation. First, respondents were told that "According to an estimate done by MIT, cutting greenhouse gas emissions as much as this draft of the new bill would require will increase various costs to the average American household by about $15 a month." (See Appendix A) They were then asked how they felt about this estimate. The response was neutral overall, with a plurality of 38% assuming that it is "approximately correct" and nearly as many saying that it seems on the high side (28%) as saying it seems on the low side (27%). [2] They were then asked if they would favor the bill "If in fact it appears that it would likely cost $15 a month for an average household." Two out of three (68%) said they would, while 28% said they would not. Democrats were just slightly more willing to accept the $15 cost (72%) than Republicans (67%). This support was virtually unchanged from June 2004, when 67% said they would accept costs of $15 a month. Only 28% said they would oppose it. [3]

165

THE FORT PLTX

CAP POP- PUBLIC

Emission cap boosts electoral chances Global Public Opinion.org 07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm
A modest majority says that if a candidate favors legislation requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, this will increase the likelihood they will vote for that candidate, while only a very small minority says that it would decrease the likelihood. In June 2004, PIPA also asked how it would affect the likelihood that they would vote for a candidate for political office if he or she "were to favor a law requiring large companies to gradually reduce their greenhouse gas emissions" and asked to answer "on a scale of +5 to -5, with +5 meaning that it will greatly increase the likelihood you will vote for the candidate, -5 meaning that it will greatly decrease the likelihood you will vote for the candidate, and 0 meaning that it will have no effect either way." A modest majority of 52% gave a score above zero; much more than the 12% which gave a score below zero, while 33% gave a score of zero. Overall the mean score was 1.12. [5] It is worth noting that Americans were more willing to support a candidate that favors the Climate Stewardship Act regardless of party affiliation, though as one might expect, Republicans were less likely to support such a candidate than Democrats and Independents.
Perhaps more significant, the more a person believes that the problem is real and pressing, the more likely it is to affect their vote. Among those who think global warming does not require taking steps right now, 48% say that a candidate's position on climate change will affect their position, with 31% saying that if a candidate favors emission-reducing legislation this will decrease the likelihood they will vote for the candidate and 17% saying that it will increase the likelihood-a net effect of minus 14%. Among those who think that gradual steps are required, 60% percent say that it will affect their vote, with 53% saying that favoring such legislation will make them more likely to vote for the candidate and just 7% saying it will make them less likely-a net effect of plus 46%. Among those who say that the problem requires serious action, a remarkable 85% say that it will affect their vote, with support for such legislation producing a net effect of plus 67%. When asked about hypothetical candidates Americans also show support for those who express concern and seek action on global warming. In the Mellman Group's September 1998 poll, 58% said they would view "a candidate for political office" who "spoke out in support of reducing the threat of global warming" as "forward-looking and speaking to a real problem," while only 23% said they would view such a candidate as "too interested in environmental issues and ignoring bigger problems." [6] However, it does not appear that most voters regard this issue as decisive. When asked to assume that "you agreed with a particular candidate on most issues and were of the same political party, however, that candidate voted against efforts to reduce the threat of global warming," a plurality of 41% said they would still be likely to vote for that candidate, while 38% said they would not. Nonetheless, the fact that 38% said they would change their vote over this issue is still quite high. [7

166

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE (LIEBERMAN WARNER BILL) POP- PUBLIC

Plan is overwhelmingly popular Chemical Business, 3/3/08
Also known as the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill, named after its sponsors, Senator Joseph Lieberman (Independent, Connecticut) and Senator John Warner (Republican, Virginia) - the measure would cap emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other GHGs, and auction allowance permits to individual companies. Those companies with plants that emit less GHGs than their purchased permits allow could trade their excess emission credits to firms with facilities that exceed allotted maximums. After first capping the amount of GHGs allowed to industry, the bill would then mandate a schedule of reductions to cut overall US emissions by 63% come 2050. Similar legislation is being contemplated in at least seven US states, including Maryland, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan and Kansas. In part, climate change legislation has appeal to federal legislators and is popular among states because such mandatory cap-and-trade systems would add billions of dollars to government treasuries through emission permit auctions. The apparent inevitability of climate change legislation - and the prospect of having multiple state-level emissions mandates in addition to a federal plan - has even convinced some industry leaders to argue in favor of immediate passage of a federal program. "Many of us expect that there will be more Democrats in the US Senate next year than there are now, so it might be better for us to work with this Congress this year in the hope of getting a climate control bill we can live with," said David Parker, president of the American Gas Association (AGA). Although Democrats control both the US House of Representatives and the Senate, their majority margin in the Senate is only one vote. Parker and many others expect that in the US national elections this November, Democrats will perhaps win several more seats in the Senate, retain or expand their majority margin in the House and perhaps win the White House as well. There is a growing sense of panic. The stampede to climate control legislation is happening despite growing skepticism among an increasing number of scientists about the human role in global warming - including some scientists who previously supported human causation. Even so, the legislative momentum for climate change mandates continues to build. As is so often the case in matters political, what matters is perception and popularity rather than fact and reality.

167

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- PUBLIC

Tradable Permits have growing public support JAMES I. STEWART AND M. SAMI KHAWAJA; M. Sami Khawaja is an economist and president of The Cadmus Group, an environmental and energy consulting firm based in Portland, Ore. James I. Stewart is an economist and associate at The Cadmus Group, Utilities Fortnightly, June, 08 Comprehensive GHG regulation likely will emerge before 2010 because of growing public support for emissions reductions and probable Democratic and independent gains in the U.S. Senate in 2008. If GHG regulation occurs, it likely will originate in the U.S. Congress--and not the executive branch--and almost surely will take the form of a cap-and-trade system. However, the costs to carbon producers probably will be modest initially because compromise legislation will result in small and partially-binding targeted emissions reductions and the grandfathering of permits. Cont. Growing Pressure Recent developments favor the passage of federal legislation regulating GHG emissions soon. Global warming and its economic and environmental costs are becoming increasingly self-evident. There is growing public awareness of global warming and rising concern about its effects on the environment and the economy. Concern is much greater among Democratic than Republican voters. According to a recent Economist/YouGov poll, 53 percent of Democrats cite global warming as the greatest environmental problem, whereas just eight percent of Republicans do the same. Many more Democrats are willing to impose taxes to curb GHG emissions as well. n6 Nevertheless, both parties' presumptive nominees for president support a cap-and-trade system. Many businesses now see profit opportunities in controlling GHGs, whereas before they saw only burdensome regulation. n7 Also, initiatives by the states to limit GHG emissions and recent federal court rulings that GHG emissions from automobiles can be regulated under the Clean Air Act have increased regulatory uncertainty, putting pressure on the federal government to harmonize state and federal policies. The other major industrialized nations of the world, all of which have limits on GHG emissions, are lobbying the United States to bring its emissions under control as well. Finally, the American Climate Security Act (S 2191)--generally known as Lieberman-Warner--which would limit GHG emissions through a cap-and-trade system, recently passed the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently promised the bill would be considered in the full Senate this summer. Any federal legislation regulating GHG emissions likely will resemble the 2007 version of Lieberman-Warner or one of the close variants under consideration in the U.S. Senate (see Table 1). Sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (RVA), the bill would cover electric power, transportation, and manufacturing carbon sources, which account for about 75 percent of GHG emissions in the United States. The cap would decline over time and require emissions to be four percent below their 2005 levels in 2012, 20 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 71 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. Permits sold at auction would rise gradually from 26 percent in 2012 to 70 percent after 2030. The remaining permits would be allocated between states and sectors of the economy according to a formula in the bill. To avoid price uncertainty and variability, the Lieberman-Warner bill would allow firms to increase their emissions in the short run by borrowing against future allocations of permits. The bill also would allow firms to purchase a limited number of carbon offsets in lieu of purchasing permits or reducing their emissions.

168

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC

Public Opposes Cap and trade recent vote proves times have changed Human Events Online, 6/12/08
Four and a half years ago, the U.S. Senate rejected a global-warming bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) by a decisive 43-55 vote. After the vote, McCain said, "We've lost a battle today, but we'll win over time because climate change is real. And we will overcome the influence of the special interests over time. You can only win by marshaling public opinion." But if the recent Senate vote on the Lieberman-Warner global-warming bill is any indication, public opinion is moving away from McCain's 2003 effort and Al Gore's current cadre of climate-change alarmists. After the vote last week, Lieberman claimed 54 senators had supported the bill (although only 48 bothered to actually vote to move the bill forward). A close examination of post-debate statements reveals that support for the cap-and-tax bill was the virtually unchanged from 2003. Of those 54 senators who Lieberman cited, 11 released statements indicating that they could not vote for the bill on final passage. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and James Webb (DVa.) sent a letter to the Democrat leadership saying they could not "support final passage" of the bill "in its current form." Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) released a statement saying, "It is clear by the result that serious modifications to this bill are necessary for it to clear the legislative hurdles before it." Even McCain, who has promised to implement an economically devastating cap-and-tax regime as president, issued a statement clarifying that he "could not support the legislation's final passage." With no measurable progress on the "most important issues we face in the world today," as Sen. Harry Reid (DNev.) is fond of saying, one is left wondering what happened. The simple answer is that the debate is no longer one-sided. The soaring rhetoric of radical environmentalists, liberals and some moderates is no longer gospel. It can and should be challenged with facts about the economy and the immense pain Americans would feel if such a bill were enacted. Despite the resounding defeat, proponents predict success in 2009. Fortunately the American people are becoming aware that job losses, rising prices and falling incomes are not something Congress should be mandating.

169

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE-BIPART

Cap and Trade is gaining bipartisan support in congress McCarthy, 8 (Shawn, The Globe and Mail, Cap-and-Trade push grows in U.S.; Republicans vow to battle democrats on legislation; higher oil sands costs loom April 9, 2008, Lexis-Nexis Academic) Momentum is building in the United States for adoption of a national cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it won't come without a titanic fight. Leading Democrats in Congress - with the support of some moderate Republicans - are expected to move quickly after the November election to pass climate change legislation that would impose strict caps on carbon dioxide emissions and establish rules for a national trading system for carbon credits. A unified cap and trade system is supported across party lines Dave Douglas, Chief Sustainability Officer for Sun Microsystems, 7-27-08, Environmental Leader, Data Centers and Carbon Pricing, http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/07/27/data-centers-and-carbon-pricing/ Here in the U.S. the likelihood of an official price of carbon continues to grow. Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama favor a cap and trade system, which would put a hard cap on annual emissions and use a trading system to distribute rights to emit greenhouse gasses

170

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE PART

Markey legislation (iCAP) has led for call to bring issue to table; issue is seen as key issue of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats Samuelsohn 6/5/08 (Darren, Greenwire senior reporter, House GOP spoiling for a cap-and-trade floor fight, SPOTLIGHT Vol. 10 No. 9, L/N
House Minority Leader John Boehner dared Democrats yesterday to begin a global warming floor debate to help spotlight differences between the parties headed into Election Day. Capitalizing on a chaotic week in the Senate on the same issue, the Ohio Republican wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urging her to move before the Fourth of July recess to consider a major global warming bill introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)."While I disagree fervently with the logic of raising energy costs while consumers already face astronomical prices for gasoline, I respect your prerogative as Speaker to follow through on your promise and schedule a vote on the bill," Boehner wrote, citing Pelosi's 2007 pledge to consider cap-and-trade legislation in the 110th Congress. "And frankly, I welcome the debate," Boehner added. "At a time when families are reconsidering their summer travel plans because of the recordhigh gas prices, I believe there is no clearer distinction between the two parties in Congress than on this issue." Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill did not respond directly to the Republican leader's call for a summertime climate debate. Instead, he cited the ongoing legislative process led by House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) that has so far amounted to a series of hearings and white papers over the last 17 months on the obstacles behind crafting a cap-and-trade plan. The committee is "taking the lead in developing climate change legislation in the House," Hammill said. "This is an extremely complicated issue, and we will continue to move forward as quickly as possible, regardless of the outcome of the current Senate debate." Senate action on a climate bill disintegrated this week after Republicans placed procedural hurdles in front of Democrats. The legislation is likely to fall from the chamber's floor agenda by next week. Cap-and-trade plan eludes Pelosi Pelosi came to power in January 2007 with a cap-and-trade plan on top of her agenda. But the energy bill that President Bush signed into law last December did not include it, instead focusing on the first increase in decades to the nation's automobile fuel efficiency standards. In recent weeks, Dingell and House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) have tried to engage GOP panel members on cap-and-trade legislation. But they said they have gained little ground, pinning the blame on Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the committee's ranking member and a longtime skeptic about science linking humans to global warming. "There still is not a full commitment to write the cap-and-trade bill on the Republican side," Boucher said in an April interview. "That's candidly what we need if we're going to act this year. We don't have that. I'm working to try to achieve it." Barton has countered that he is in the minority and has no control over the agenda. If Dingell and Boucher wanted to move a bill, they could, he said."I think what Dingell and Boucher both are looking at is the economy and how shaky things are and high energy prices," Barton said in an April interview. "If you were them, would you put a cap-andtrade bill together right now? I mean, I don't think they believe in political suicide. I think the steam has gone out of this issue for this Congress." Coincidentally, Markey introduced his bill yesterday calling for an 80 percent cut in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, a measure he has dubbed "iCAP." "America has been waiting for years for the Republicans to finally come to the table and discuss global warming," Markey spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said. "Before the discussion starts, hopefully the Republicans will read iCAP so they can discover that 80 percent of all American households are protected against rate hikes by the energy industry and that free market principles are used to reduce emissions."

171

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- UNIONS

Union task force identifies and supports cap and trade Baugh 08 (Robert C, Executive Director AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council and Co-chair AFL-CIO Energy Task Force, Legislative Proposals to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Overview; Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Energy and Commerce Committee June 19, 2008 http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.061908.Baughtestimony.pdf) Over the past 18 months, our interaction with Congress and many other businesses, industry, environmental and international labor organizations, has helped evolve and sharpen the thinking of the AFL-CIO Energy Task Force. The February 2007 report by the AFLCIO Energy Task Force recognized that reliable and affordable electrical energy, is the lifeblood of the manufacturing, transportation, construction and service industries; and that we must maintain diversity in the electric utility industry, by retaining all current generating options, including fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro and renewables, to ensure a stable, reliable and low-cost supply of electricity for the United States. That report was also driven by our belief that a strong and diverse manufacturing base is in the national interest. This sector is in a deep and ongoing crisis. Since 1998, some 3.9 million manufacturing jobs were lost and 35,000 manufacturing facilities closed while the nation amassed trillion of dollars in trade deficits. The offshoring of skilled work, R&D, design, engineering and more continues to erode our innovative and technical capacities. Solving the climate change crisis is an opportunity to address the manufacturing crisis The AFL-CIO supports a new industrial policy, and an environmental economic development policy, which places manufacturing and trade at the center of a green economy program. New investment in a sustainable energy infrastructure must be structured to create good jobs and ensure stable energy prices. These must be supported by effective trade policies. Without these key elements, there is a serious risk of driving good jobs offshore into nations without emission regimes and far less carbon efficient production. A set of environmental economic development principles has helped guide the Federations efforts: 1) Our Nation should embrace a balanced approach that ensures diverse, abundant, affordable energy supplies, creates good jobs for Americas workers and improves the environment. 2) Our Nation should adopt an economy-wide cap-and-trade program that is transparent and requires all sectors to come to the table to reduce their carbon emissions. It should have timetables and standards that allow for the development and deployment of new technology and should help finance the new technologies that can provide clean energy at prices close to conventional sources. 3) Energy incentives and investments by the Federal Government must be based on a set of economic development principles that clean the environment and create jobs but will not encourage offshoring of manufacturing jobs. 4) Investments must be used to identify, develop and capture cutting-edge technologies and to manufacture and build these technologies here for domestic use and export. 5) The international component of any climate change cap-and-trade program must provide both incentives and a border mechanism enforced through a trade regime, to ensure that major developing nations, such as China and India, participate. 6) There must be adequate resources to both address the transition needs of workers and communities adversely affected by legislation, as well as, financial assistance to assist low and moderate income families. The AFL-CIO is here today to reinforce these principles with the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, just as we have in every discussion held with staff and members of Congress.

172

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS

Times Have Changed Permits Unpopular Energy Costs Chemical News, 6/6/08
US popular support for climate control legislation pending in Congress has begun to wane, and passage of a draconian cap-and-trade emissions limits bill is less likely, a top chemical industry official said on Thursday. Jack Gerard, president of the [1]American Chemistry Council (ACC), told a press conference that "we're beginning to see temporizing in Congress on the cap-and-trade legislation because more and more people are beginning to see the economic impact that the bill would have". The US Senate is this week considering a massive climate control bill, [2]S-3036, the America's Climate Security Act, that would put an immediate cap or limit on the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases by US manufacturers, electric utilities, the transportation sector, refiners and natural gas producers. The emissions caps would be lowered annually until the US reach a level 75% below its 2005 emission by 2050. The bill would provide for the auction of emissions permits that companies would purchase to cover their release of greenhouse gases in excess of cap amounts. It is estimated that, if passed, the bill would raise some $7,000bn (4,550bn) in federal taxes. Most [3]chemical producers and a wide spectrum of other US manufacturers oppose the bill because of the tax burden and because the measure would put further demand and price pressure on natural gas as a cleaner burning utility fuel. Gerard said that as the economic impact of a cap-and-trade bill becomes more apparent to voters, support for the proposed bill in the US Senate is slipping. "Just six months ago it seemed that proponents of the climate bill were within just one or two votes of the 60 votes needed to ensure its passage in the Senate, but now it looks like they have only 50 votes or less," Gerard said. Gerard said the council has been working at state level to help educate voters and their representatives about the economic costs of the climate bill, noting that Senator [4]Sherrod Brown (Democrat-Ohio), once a solid supporter of cap-and-trade "is now not convinced that this is the way the nation should go" to deal with emissions. "The public are starting to wake up to the fact that this climate bill will have energy and job costs," Gerard said. "When they're asked if they think emissions controls are important, they say yes - but when they learn the costs, they say `but don't raise our energy costs or taxes'," he said. Those concerns are being conveyed to members of Congress and have resulted in diminishing support for the climate bill, Gerard said.

173

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS

Political pressures make cap and trade unpopular energy costs Oil Daily, 6/23/08
Kreutzer says it will be hard for McCain to back away from any of his positions at this point, but he notes that McCain has not voiced support for any of the specific cap-and-trade bills offered up in Congress, and that political pressure to lower energy costs is mounting in Congress. "The strongest feedback I'm getting from the Hill is that we need to find a solution to $4 gasoline," Kreutzer said.

174

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP (ENERGY COSTS)

Opponents spin cap and trade as massive hike in energy costs Washington Week, 5/21/08
Gasoline-Price Concerns May Undermine Lieberman-Warner Debate Some Republican lawmakers and industry segments are maneuvering to use high gasoline and diesel prices as a foil to undercut CO2 cap-and-trade legislation that they say would drive up the cost of transportation fuels. Industry sources suggest that political pressure may be increasing as the lines between energy and climate legislation begin to blur because of high fuel prices. Cost concerns are not new in pointing out the shortcomings of a carbon mitigation plan put forth by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). But new energy legislation principally focused on lowering energy costs provides opponents of major climate change measures an opportunity to position climate change legislation as a detriment to efforts to lower energy prices.

175

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC

Even if emission cuts have support - Cap and trade unpopular Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) Because this subject is somewhat complex, respondents were taken through a series of questions. First they were introduced to the subject with the following statement: If this bill (McCain-Lieberman legislation) were to pass, each large company would be allowed to emit a limited amount of greenhouse gasses. A controversial aspect of the bill is that it allows companies to buy and sell their allowances to each other. The idea is that it will cost some companies much more than other companies to change business practices to lower their emissions. If companies with low costs could reduce their emissions further, they could sell their emission allowances to other companies who would save money by buying those allowances. Here are some arguments on these issues. Please select whether you find them convincing or not. They were then presented a series of pro and con arguments. The con arguments were found convincing by large majorities. Seventyseven percent found convincing (45% very convincing) the argument that It is just not right for companies to buy the right to emit greenhouse gases. All companies should have to reduce their emissions. Seventy-seven percent also found convincing (22% very) the argument, Requiring all companies to lower their emission levels the same amount will force them to adopt new technologies that may be expensive in the short run but will be economically beneficial in the long run. This is consistent with the popular view (discussed above) that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will ultimately benefit the economy. At the same time though, majorities--albeit much more modest ones--found the pro arguments convincing. Fifty-five percent found convincing (14% very) that If companies are not allowed to buy and sell their emission allowances, the costs of lowering emissions will be substantially higher than presently estimated for the average American household. Similarly, 53% found convincing (11% very) the argument that If we do not let companies buy and sell emission allowances, this would be unfair to companies for whom it is more expensive to lower their emissions, and overall would make it more costly to reduce emissions. Finally, asked, Now, having considered these arguments, do you favor or oppose permitting companies to buy and sell their allowances to emit greenhouse gases? 62% said they opposed the idea while 34% said they favored it.

176

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC

Permit scheme unpopular with public support alternative strategies instead Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
3. Strategies for Reducing Emissions Very large majorities support strategies that provide tax incentives to utility companies that sell environmentally clean energy and to individuals who purchase energy-efficient appliances. Very large majorities support major efforts to reduce automobile emissions by requiring higher fuel efficiency standards in automobiles (even if this means higher costs), requiring half of all new automobiles to be hybrid-electric or similarly high-mileage by 2010, renewing the tax incentives for hybrids, and eliminating the tax incentives for large SUVs and Hummers. The strategy for reducing emissions through a system in which companies trade emissions allowances is not popular with the public, though arguments that it would reduce costs are convincing to a modest majority

177

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- PUBLIC

CAP-AND-TRADE IS UNPOPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC, MCCAIN HAS DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM IT.

Robert Tracinski, editor of TIA Daily, 5/28/2008,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/how_to_kill_capandtrade.html Since the Florida primary, when John McCain decisively pulled ahead and became the presumptive Republican nominee, I have argued that the passage of some kind of "cap-and-trade" energy rationing scheme is inevitable. Since both McCain and Obama are firm supporters of cap-and-trade, we know that when Congress convenes next year, the new president will ask it to pass the legislation. But it turns out that cap-and-trade, like Hillary Clinton, might not be inevitable after all. A few weeks ago, the Senate refused to allow a version of cap-and-trade to come to a vote. The legislation was not expected to overcome a presidential veto, but the vote was supposed to serve as a show of strength by cap-and-trade advocates. The show of strength wasn't very strong. Only 48 senators voted to allow the bill to proceed, far short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Even that number is deceptively high, because ten of the 48 votes were cast by Democrats who oppose cap-and-trade. They flipped their votes only after they knew the legislation would not go forward, in order to save the Democratic leadership from the embarrassment of having the bill fail by a 46-38 vote against it. Since then, while legislative momentum has stalled on passing "cap-and-trade," momentum is growing to lift restrictions on offshore oil drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The policy now being advocated by many politicians, including McCain, is the exact opposite of cap-and-trade: drill-and-burn. It seems that the first time Americans begin to experience anything like the economic consequences of global warming regulations -- $4-per-gallon gasoline is just a down payment on the green agenda -- they begin to have second thoughts about whether they really want to reduce their carbon footprints. Can it really be that easy to defeat cap-and-trade-just to point out, "Hey, this will raise the price of gasoline"? Why does this argument work? Invoking high gasoline prices works, not just because of the immediate pain it inflicts on politicians' constituents, but because it exploits a fundamental contradiction at the foundation of the current "green" fad

178

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- PUBLIC

Cap-and-Trade Popular with American voters- polls prove Angus Reid Global Monitor (The definitive online source for examining worldwide public opinion and democratic processes. Americans Support Cap-and-Trade Scheme June 14, 2008 http://www.angusreid.com/polls/view/americans_support_cap_and_trade_scheme/ Accessed June 28, 2008-JD) Americans Support Cap-and-Trade Scheme (June 14, 2008) Many adults in the United States would welcome a cap-andtrade scheme to reduce global warming, according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. 52 per cent of respondents support a proposal to have the government set a limit on the amount of emissions that a company could produce each year, with companies being allowed to buy credits from those who pollute less.

179

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- PUBLIC

Cap-and-trade is unpopular Margaret Ryan, Writer for Platts Coal Outlook, 11/12/07 MIT Study: Public Distrustful of System Taxing Carbon Emissions lexis His view was endorsed by Ernest Moniz, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and former undersecretary of Energy in the Clinton administration, who said MIT studies have shown many US voters are suspicious about who would benefit from increased energy costs that would result from a cap-and-trade system. CAP AND TRADE IS UNPOPULAR IN MANUFACTURING STATES Robert B. Bluey, Director of the Center for Media & Public Policy @ The Heritage Foundation, 5/19/08 McCains Global Warming Plan Threatens Economy http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed051908a.cfm Manufacturing would be among the hardest hit with 2.3 million lost jobs in 2029 as a result of government-imposed changes to the economy. Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Illinois and Maryland are forecast for the biggest losses in the short term, according to the Heritage analysis. CARBON TAX IS UNPOPULAR George F. Will, Writer for the Washington Post, 6/1/08 Carbons Power Brokers lexis A carbon tax would be too clear and candid for political comfort. It would clearly be what cap-and-trade deviously is, a tax, but one with a known cost. Therefore, taxpayers would demand a commensurate reduction of other taxes. Cap-and-trade -government auctioning permits for businesses to continue to do business -- is a huge tax hidden in a bureaucratic labyrinth of opaque permit transactions.

180

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP-PUBLIC

The public supports Cap and Trade Opinion Research Corporation , 8 (Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research Americans Support Cap-and-Trade Scheme June 14, 2008, http://www.angusreid.com/polls/view/americans_support_cap_and_trade_scheme/) Many adults in the United States would welcome a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce global warming, according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. 52 per cent of respondents support a proposal to have the government set a limit on the amount of emissions that a company could produce each year, with companies being allowed to buy credits from those who pollute less.

181

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE BIPART

CAP AND TRADE IS BIPARTISAN Nicole Gelinas, Contributing Editor to City Journal, 8/23/07 A Carbon Tax Would Be Cleaner http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118783207292706124.html The political answer to all this anxiety has arrived. Prominent politicians -- including first-tier Democratic and Republican candidates -- are embracing a national "cap and trade" program to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Powerful corporate leaders are right behind them; and even the Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is reportedly considering the costs and benefits of various cap and trade proposals after years of opposition.

182

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- REPS

GOP OPPOSES ANY CAP-AND-TRADE BILL ERIC POOLEY, WRITER FOR TIME MAGAZINE, 6/9/08 WHY THE CLIMATE BILL FAILED HTTP://WWW.TIME.COM/TIME/NATION/ARTICLE/0,8599,1812836,00.HTML In fact, the Republican leadership spent last week trying to create not just a new litmus test for climate action but a new third rail for American politics: It wants any climate bill that causes the slightest increase in energy prices to be seen as a non-starter. "Any action should not raise the cost of gasoline or energy to American families," said Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, the longtime leader of the denial-and-delay crowd, and his words were echoed by many others. That's an impossible standard to meet, and if the Republicans succeed in establishing it, Congress may never get this done. Lieberman-Warner, like any cap-and-trade bill, would increase the cost of energy derived from fossil fuels while giving clean, alternative energies an enormous boost. In other words, it would drive up gasoline prices and coal-powered electricity rates in the short term (though by smaller amounts than the doomsayers were claiming last week) while delivering far greater energy savings over the long term by unleashing a clean energy economy that creates jobs and helps free the U.S from dependence on foreign oil.

183

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- CONGRESS (A2: FIGHTS)

Cap and trade means increased energy costs wont be perceived Carbon Control News, 6/16/08
Most economists agree that a carbon tax is the most effective and efficient policy to reduce GHG emissions; however, it is not considered as politically popular as a cap-and-trade program because the costs imposed on carbon-intensive energy sources are directly applied, and thus are more transparent and visible to consumers. In contrast, a cap-and-trade program imposes costs on carbon-intensive energy in a less direct manner, through the use of allowance auctioning and trading, meaning the ultimate cost to consumers is less readily apparent.

Cap and trade avoids political backlash

JAMES I.

STEWART AND M. SAMI KHAWAJA; M. Sami Khawaja is an economist and president of The Cadmus Group, an environmental and energy consulting firm based in Portland, Ore. James I. Stewart is an economist and associate at The Cadmus Group, Utilities Fortnightly, June, 08

Although a carbon tax has many economic virtues, a tax-based system of controlling GHG emissions is unlikely to be instituted in the United States. Two characteristics of a cap-and-trade system give it an advantage over a tax in national politics. First, a cap-and-trade system avoids direct taxation while still relying on market principles. This makes it attractive to politicians wanting to avoid the stigma of raising taxes. Second, the capand-trade system gives supporters of GHG legislation a valuable bargaining chip during legislative negotiations with powerful special interest groups opposed to limits on emissions. The support of these interests and that of reluctant lawmakers may be won with agreements to distribute permits to certain industries for free on the basis of past production--i.e., grandfathering--at least on a temporary basis. This will shift more of the burden of the costs of reducing GHGs to consumers (as the government will lose tax revenues from the sale of permits that could be used to offset the higher costs of carbon-intensive goods or reduce other taxes) but it will not undermine the integrity of the caps or the price of carbon.

184

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- REPS

Cap and trade policies strengthen GOP- McCain proves Kady, May 27, 2008 (Martin, On global warming, its McCain v. GOP, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10637.html) John McCains tempestuous relationship with his own party will be on full display when the Senate dives into a major global warming debate next week.The question facing Senate Republicans: Are they ready to embrace their presidential nominees more liberal ideas for climate change ideas like a cap-and-trade system, or will they stick to the conservative, hands-off approach to global warming backed by President Bush?Its a debate that may very well divide Senate Republicans and show voters yet another fissure in an already beleaguered party. Democrats dont seem eager to offer a smooth path toward any bipartisan compromise that would give McCain political cover on the issue, and a key procedural vote has already been scheduled for June 2.On global warming and other issues, McCains office is engaged in an intensive behind-the-scenes message coordination effort with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), whose press office holds daily phone calls to map out the message of the day. Every Tuesday, McCains senior advisers meet with GOP senators at the National Republican Senatorial Committee to chart their agenda. And about once a week, McCain himself chats with McConnell. Republicans say the task of unifying GOP senators with McCain is akin to herding cats and it points to the partys larger national problem with presenting a unified message. Have you noticed its hard to coordinate anything with Sen. McCain? asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). I dont know if we can ever sing off the same sheet of music, but in terms of subject matter, we are trying to coordinate and do some of the Greek chorus stuff with him.Last week, a significant number of Senate Republicans bucked Bush by voting both to override his veto of the Farm Bill and to support a GI Bill introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). McCain didnt vote, but he made it clear that he agreed with Bushs positions on both measures. By contrast, the debate on a bipartisan climate change bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) offers McCain a chance to stake out a position different from the presidents and see if his party will follow. The catch is that many Republicans are uncomfortable with McCains talk of a cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon emissions. John McCain was into climate change before it was cool, Graham said. But thats the one issue where the majority of the conference may go the other way. Conservatives hope that McCain will back a more market-based approach rather than the government mandates on carbon emissions that are part of the central Senate proposal. Were starting to see a coming together on energy, said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Hopefully, he can help us find a position between Warner-Lieberman and where we are as conservatives. But in this internal debate, one can already see a distinct change in the Republican outlook conservatives are trying to figure out legislative options on global warming rather than simply playing defense and mocking environmentalists on the topic. The global warming deniers have taken a back seat. Youve already seen the shift on energy and climate change, said one GOP Senate aide. Youre not going to see tax breaks for oil companies. Youll see us talking more about climate change, where we didnt before. If the votes on the GI Bill and the Farm Bill were setbacks for both McCain and Bush, there have been other areas where McCains campaign has clearly been able to influence Senate Republican actions. In a separately choreographed effort, McCains campaign coordinated a Republican Senate assault on Barack Obamas proposal to raise capital gains taxes.

185

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- BOTH CANIDATES

Both Obama and McCain support cap-and-trade Ryan Randazzo, staff writer, 7/21/2008, Energy issues likely to be on voters minds, Arizona Republic, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/07/21/20080721elex-energy0721.html Both McCain and Obama support cap-and-trade programs - where a limit is set on emissions and businesses can trade permits that allow them to release those emissions - along the lines of the Lieberman-Warner bill. McCain supports giving out permits to release greenhouse gases that equal the current production from power plants and transportation fuels, and gradually reducing those allowances, forcing companies to cut back emissions or buy "offsets." Offsets mean paying for others to cut their emissions when you can't cut your own. Obama wants to auction off all the permits to emit greenhouse gases and use some of the money to fund alternative energy and help low-income families pay for weatherizing their homes or paying their energy bills. The next president will cap-and-trade Nigel Purvis, a senior State Department official responsible for environmental diplomacy, 4/2008, Paving the Way for U.S. Climate Leadership The President and Congress now have before them an important opportunity to pass legislation that creates Climate Protection Authority. A half dozen serious cap-and-trade bills are pending before Congress, and most climate policy experts predict that the United States will enact a cap-and-trade bill in the next few years. In the upcoming presidential election in November, each candidate supports cap-and-trade legislation and has declared it a top-tier priority.117 Each will have voted for similar legislation in the past.118 Recently, senior Republican Party strategists have suggested that President Bush would sign a cap-and-trade bill if it reached his desk before he leaves office, although that is not official policy.119 Any cap-andtrade bill approved by Congress should serve as the framework statute for U.S. climate change foreign policy. It should stipulate that future climate agreements will be handled by the United States as congressionalexecutive agreements and create mechanisms for strengthening coordination between Congress and the President on international negotiations. In addition, the statutes should create streamlined TPA-style procedures to allow Congress to tighten the U.S. emissions cap if Congress approves an international climate agreement that obligates other nations to do their part to address the climate challenge. The next President should call on Congress to enact Climate Protection Authority shortly after taking office. (An illustration of what the President might say on this topic shortly after the inaugural address is provided in Box 3.).

186

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- REPS

REPUBLICANS OPPOSE CAP AND TRADE REGULATION

Hunt, 2008 (Tam, Community Environmental Council, Renewable energy World.com, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story?id=52717) This brings us back to cap and trade. Any legislation that could be passed by this Congress this year and not vetoed by President Bush will have far less impact on consumer behavior than market forces are already achieving. Republicans in Congress have a decent point when they say the last thing consumers need right now is even higher prices due to federal legislation (though higher prices in the short and mid-term would likely lead to longer-term cost savings for consumers as alternatives came online in a big way).

187

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- MCCAIN

( ) MCCAIN WONT SUPPORT CAP AND TRADE WONT TAKE CREDIT

Matthew Yglesias, Political Blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, 7-12-2008, McCain and Climate, Matthew Yglesias Blog, http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_and_climate.php
I have to agree that it's incredibly unhelpful to have Bill Clinton and Al Gore praising John McCain on climate change. It's true, in a sense, that McCain is better than your average Republican on this issue. But that was much more true a couple of years ago when he was cosponsoring the McCain-Lieberman climate change half-measures bill. These days, though, that bill, inadequate as it is, has become the Lieberman-Warner bill because McCain dropped his support for it. If McCain's not even going to support the most conservative cap-and-trade bill in the mix, then what is his nominal support for cap-and-trade worth, exactly? It's hard to construct an appropriate analogy here, but if Barack Obama claimed to be "for" something, and yet opposed every concrete effort to make it happen, I doubt GOP eminences grises would be leaping forward to praise him.

188

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS CAP AND TRADE. Juliet Eilperin, Environmental reporter for the Washington Post, 10/18/2008, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thetrail/2007/10/18/mccain_and_warming.html Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) didn't sign up as a co-sponsor for the new bipartisan global warming bill that his colleagues John Warner (R-Va.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced todayThursday, but his aides said that doesn't mean he's shying away from the issue. McCain is not endorsing the Warner-Lieberman bill "because it doesn't include the nuclear issue by name," according to his spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield. "We can't effectively reduce our emissions without including nuclear energy, which is more efficient than the technologies in the bill." The new legislation, dubbed "America's Climate Security Act," aims to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 compared to current levels. McCain's bill from last year, which he authored with Lieberman, included up to $600 million in federal funding to build as many as three power plants. Warner and Lieberman did win over Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), who has voted against a carbon cap in the past but signed on as a co-sponsor of America's Climate Security Act. Even more interesting, McCain is no longer the only GOP presidential candidate who now endorses a mandatory cap on emissions linked to global warming. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee announced Saturday in a Manchester, N.H. press conference that he now supports a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. "It goes to the moral issue," Huckabee said. "We have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, to conserve energy, to find alternative forms of energy that are renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly."

189

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS A CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM

Nick Show, editor, 6/2/08, Washington Oil & Gas Journal, Campaign Aides: Motor fuel transition may be starting pg lexis //EM
McCain proposes returning US carbon emissions to 2005 levels by 2012 and to 1990 levels by 2020, she continued. "He believes that a cap-and-trade system must harness human ingenuity in pursuit of market-based alternatives to carbon-based fuels. He also believes that an effective climate policy must support rapid, sustained economic growth. This probably will be a key issue in the upcoming debates," Tallent said.

MCCAIN WILL PASS A MANDATORY CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM

I think it's important to realize that when you ask John McCain who his chief political hero is he always says the same person. He says, "Teddy Roosevelt." And he focuses not only on T.R. as a Rough Rider and as a Nobel Peace Prize winner and as sending the Great White Fleet around the world, but very much on his history of his friendship with John Muir, his founding of the national park system, and his willingness to take on large corporate and other interests in the public interest. I think that it's important to realize that during the 2000 campaign he came, through discussions with the public really more than anything else, to appreciate the importance of climate change as an issue. And, rather than just thinking about it, he went back, worked with his friend Joe Lieberman and they introduced, in 2001 I believe, McCain-Lieberman, the first mandatory carbon cap-and-trade proposal in the Congress. He was not happily received within a number of board rooms as a result of that and among some from his own party. But, he has, as is his style, stuck to his position and worked hard on it. He believes that carbon cap and trade, in a mandatory version, not a voluntary one, as this administration has supported, but a mandatory version is essential to creating, at a national and international level, a general and economically sound pressure to move away from carbon emitting sources for energy and toward far less carbon emitting sources, hopefully not emitting all, in the form, say, of renewables and others.

190

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- OBAMA

Obama wants a mandatory cap and trade system across the US Joel Wendland, PoliticalAffairs.net, 7-27-08, Obama The Greener Candidate, http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7181/ Obama, according to the E article, proposes reducing greenhouse gas emission that cause global warming by 80 percent over the next four decades, using a mandatory cap and trade system. He has also proposed sizeable investments in alternative energy research and development, increasing fuel economy standards, and new mass transit.

191

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS

CAP AND TRADE UNPOPULAR ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. CLIMATE SCIENCE WATCH 11/2/2007, HTTP://WWW.CLIMATESCIENCEWATCH.ORG/INDEX.PHP/CSW/DETAILS/CAP_AND_TRADE_BILL_ASSESSMENT_AD APTATION/ On November 1 the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committees Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection (we know thats a mouthful), chaired by Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), marked up and reported out the first major cap-and-trade bill to be considered formally in the 110th Congress. The 214-page
bill, Americas Climate Security Act (S. 2191), has nine titles and, according to Sen. Liebermans press release following Subcommittee passage, is projected to reduce total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 19% below the 2005 level (4% below the 1990 level) in 2020 and by as much as 63% below the 2005 level in 2050. Additionally, according to Lieberman, the bill contains a robust set of measures to sustain U.S. economic growth, protect American jobs, and ensure international participation in emissions reductions. When introducing the bill on the Senate floor, Sen. Lieberman expressed the sense of urgency that seems to have caught on in Congress like the California wildfires of last month: I have said before, and I will say it again, at this moment, I feel as if we had been in a race between tipping points. The challenge would be that we get to the political tipping point where we could come together and do something about global warming before we reach the environmental tipping point, after which it would be harder to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. [Quoted from Congressional Record, October 18, 2007 Page S 13081] Reflecting the jurisdiction of the Committee, the legislative proposal gives primary authority and responsibility for carrying out the greenhouse gas emissions reduction program to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but assigns roles to other agencies and departments as well. S. 2191 is a

bipartisan bill, introduced October 18 with nine cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. It is largely viewed as being centrist and has already disappointed people on both sides of the global warming battle: denialists such as Sen. James Inhofe (the Ranking Republican on the Senate Environment Committee), elected officials from coal states such as Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso (R), many in the environmental community, and some progressive Presidential candidates and activists who are calling it a corporate giveaway.

192

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN PUSHING 1990 LEVELS BY 2020, USING A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM Snow, Oil & Gas journal, Washington Editor, 6-2-8

(Nick, Oil & Gas Journal, Campaign aides: Motor fuel transition may be starting, p. 28)
McCain proposes returning US carbon emissions to 2005 levels by 2012 and to 1990 levels by 2020, she continued. "He believes that a cap-and-trade system must harness human ingenuity in pursuit of market-based alternatives to carbon-based fuels. He also believes that an effective climate policy must support rapid, sustained economic growth. This probably will be a key issue in the upcoming debates," Tallent said. [Note Tallent = Rebecca Jensen Tallent, a McCain energy advisor

McCain gets credit for cap and trade Environmental News, 08 (7/2/08, McCain and Obama's Plans to Combat Climate Change, http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37541)
Cap and trade is being implemented in Europe and they have stumbled and theyve had problems but it is still the right thing to do, said John McCain. It is what we did in relation to acid rain. McCain is calling for a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. One of the reasons McCain supports this approach is because it encourages the market to respond with the lowest cost approach. He believes the market will correct itself with the use of cleaner technologies without the need for intervention, such as a tax credit or major investment from the government. One challenge with this plan is that we dont operate in a truly free market, which is needed for the market to correct
the problem. Large subsidies exist for all sources of energy, although renewable energy has had less consistent ones. Many of the hidden costs of pollution are not accounted for, even under a cap and trade system. For example, who is paying for the hospital visits when a child has an asthma attack from air pollution?

193

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP- MCCAIN McCain sponsored Cap-and-Trade bill, he gets credit for policy Nordhaus, Robert R, and Danish, Kyle W; teaches energy law at George Washington University Law School, and co-chair
of the American Bar Association's Committee on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. ASSESSING THE OPTIONS FOR DESIGNING A MANDATORY U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PROGRAM. 2005 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3816/is_200501/ai_n13633946/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

While voluntary programs, the CAFE program, tax incentives, and product efficiency standards have contributed to reductions in GHGs that would not otherwise have occurred, they neither individually nor collectively are likely to achieve significant economy-wide reductions in GHG emissions from current levels.80 Substantial attention has been given to formulating and evaluating a range of alternative mechanisms for controlling U.S. GHG emissions.81 For example, several bills have been introduced that would establish a CO2 cap-and-trade program for electric utilities, modeled on the SO^sub 2^ program under Title IV of the CAA.82 In January 2003, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) introduced legislation that would establish an economy-wide GHG cap-and-trade program.83 In March 2004, a companion version of the McCain-Lieberman bill was introduced.

194

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP-REPS

Republicans oppose cap and trade Glicksman, 8 Professor of law at University of Kansas (Robert, The Wichita Eagle, Conservatives Flip-Flopped on Cap and Trade June 28, 2008, http://www.kansas.com/205/story/447780.html) This month, the Senate debated such a bill, with bipartisan sponsorship by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.. The hue and cry against the bill from industry and its conservative allies in Congress was deafening. Notably, their arguments against cap-and-trade echoed the ones they made about "command-and-control" approaches. Suddenly, the market-based approach they'd championed in the past was a manifestation of economy-wrecking, "big government," tax-and-spend liberalism. The plain truth is that these critics will find something to attack no matter what form environmental protection legislation takes. They are more concerned with protecting what they regard as the property "right" of polluters to make a profit by fouling our air, land and water than they are with controlling polluting activities that threaten our health and destroy the environment.

195

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE POP-DEMS

Democrats want a cap and trade policy National Journal 11/13/04 l/n The White House is pushing Congress to rewrite the Clean Air Act by adopting President Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative." His plan would create an emissions-trading program to reduce power-plant emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. White House aides say, however, that the administration has no plans to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions linked to global warming. During past debates, Democrats and moderate Republicans have pushed to include carbon dioxide in any new emissions-trading program. Cap and trade popular with democrats and moderate republicans National Journal 2/14/04 l/n This administration's effort to rewrite the landmark act hasn't gotten far. Congressional Democrats and GOP moderates want the emissions-trading plan to include carbon dioxide, which is widely linked to global warming. But Bush has steadfastly refused to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The only progress made on the bill so far came in June 2002, when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a version more palatable to environmentalists. Republicans killed that measure on the Senate floor. Now GOP leaders concede that they don't have the votes to get Bush's original package through the Republican-controlled Senate.

196

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE PART

Passage of emissions trading schemes requires political horsetrading Hsu 01, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University School of Law
[Shi-Ling, Reducing Emissions from the Electricity Generation Industry, Tulane Environmental Law Journal, Summer, 14 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 427, LN]

Can we finally reverse course and reduce emissions from the electricity generation industry? Even the incomplete lessons of the SO<2> cap-andtrade program suggest that engaging certain members of the regulated industries can yield surprising successes. From a societal viewpoint, a cap-andtrade program offers at least four distinct advantages: (1) it produces a market incentive to reduce emissions, (2) it stimulates innovation and competition in methods of emissions reduction, (3) it allows emissions reductions to occur in the most cost-effective way, and (4) it provides a mechanism for offsetting the competitive advantage to high-emitting firms that take advantage of the subsidy by also creating a valuable asset in the hands of low-emitting firms. Even though economists have been touting these benefits for decades, passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which provided for SO<2> emissions trading under the Acid Rain Program was difficult and required a unique set of circumstances - the steadfast commitment of a Republican president, the bipartisan support of key lawmakers and extensive horse-trading. n138 Prospects for the kind of bipartisanship necessary for a comprehensive pollution control program appear quite slim in this divided Congress. A subsidy program thus plays the perfect complementary role: it can be used to overcome [*457]opposition from electricity generation firms that have resisted cap-andtrade programs because they feared that their stock of coal-fired power plants were a losing hand in a cap-and-trade program. These two policy instruments need each other.

197

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE COST POL CAP

CAP AND TRADE WONT PASS CONGRESS WITHOUT A FIGHT Garber, U.S. News & World Report, 7-21-8

(Kent, US News & World Report, Protecting Mother Nature, Pg. 29 Vol. 145 No. 2)
Neither candidate's plan would pass Congress without a fight. Until recently, the Bush administration vigorously opposed even the idea of government-mandated emissions reductions, and leaders in the Republican Party continue to warn that stringent emissions caps could drain the economy of trillions of dollars. "They're both too much," Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst David Kreutzer says of the candidates' proposals. "In the Democratic primaries, it seems like there was a game of who can trump the other person. When you get to the environment, it's, 'Who is going to propose the greatest cut?'" CAP AND TRADE IS CONTROVERSIAL.

Tam Hunt, Energy Program Director of the Environmental Council, 6/25/2008

Congress got hot under the collar in early June as it debated national climate change legislation. The Warner-Lieberman bill went down in flames, however, because Democrats couldn't muster the 60 votes needed to break a Senate filibuster. But this isn't really bad news because the whole idea of a national cap and trade isn't very good to begin with, considering the new economic reality surrounding energy. Oil reached US $135 a barrel in late May and has stayed above US $120 since then. Many analysts are predicting US $150-200 oil within two years. Natural gas prices have surged to records not seen since Hurricane Katrina and Rita locked in significant Gulf of Mexico production. Coal prices are at records and have doubled over the last year. Utility bills will soon follow as utility companies are forced to pay far higher prices and pass those prices along to ratepayers. Gasoline keeps rising and has breached US $4/gallon nationally and is over US $4.50/gallon in places like California (and over US $4.70/gallon at some stations in my hometown of Santa Barbara). Diesel prices are even higher, topping US $5/gallon.

198

THE FORT PLTX

CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS

CAP AND TRADE PROGRAMS ARE UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS AND HAVE BEEN DEFEATED. Parker and Holt, Congressional Brief Energy Researchers, 7.

(Larry and Mark, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service, Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors, CRS Report for Congress, March 9, 2007, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf accessed 7-8-08)
Despite strong Bush Administration opposition to mandatory greenhouse gas reduction programs, a number of congressional proposals to advance programs designed to reduce greenhouse gases were introduced in the 109th Congress, and similar efforts have continued in the 110th Congress. None of these proposal have passed either house of Congress. The first effort to pass a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program failed in 2003 on a 43-55 vote in the Senate. A similar effort was defeated in 2005 during the debate on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on a 38-60 vote. This second, less favorable vote reflects the changed votes of four Senators who reportedly objected to the addition of nuclear power incentives to the 2005 version of the proposed legislation. The proposals would have placed a cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions based on a 2001 baseline. The cap would have been implemented through a tradeable permit program to encourage efficient reductions.

199

THE FORT PLTX

SAFETY VALVE POP- CONGRESS

Safety Valve perception is more positive
Henry D. Jacoby, A. Denny Ellerman, Harvard Environmental Systems Program, executive director of MIT's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. The safety valve and climate policy, Energy Policy 32 (2004) 481491 Proposals for a safety valve in the context of the Kyoto commitments appear to have been aimed at these two targets: both avoiding excessive cost by relaxing the emissions target and moving from quantity target to a price penalty. In the US at least, the Kyoto target was widely viewed as overly stringent, and advocates of the safety valve proposed starting its implementation with looser goals than are required by the Protocol, and with the suggestion that this loosening could be achieved through the manipulation of a safety valve price (e.g., Pizer, 1999; Kopp et al., 1998). Analyses carried out in the late 1990s estimated that the carbon price required to achieve the Kyoto targets would be in the range of $50 to over $200 per ton C, depending on the assumption about Annex I trading (Weyant and Hill, 1999). Meanwhile, other studies taking a longer-term perspective, with a focus on benefitcost considerations (e.g., Nordhaus and Boyer, 2000) or cost effective approaches to atmospheric stabilization (e.g., Manne and Richels, 1999) indicated that an appropriate nearfuture period price was much lower, in the range of $5 to $14 per ton C. Although the safety valve proposal did not draw explicitly on the latter studies, the proposed safety level, $25 per ton C (Kopp et al., 1999; Barnes, 2001), would have kept marginal costs close to the range they indicated as appropriate in the early years of greenhouse gas control.

200

THE FORT PLTX

SAFETY VALVE POP- LOBBIES AND ENVIRO

Safety valve increases Household confidence
Nordhaus, Robert R, and Danish, Kyle W; teaches energy law at George Washington University Law School, and co-chair of the American Bar Association's Committee on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. ASSESSING THE OPTIONS FOR DESIGNING A MANDATORY U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PROGRAM. 2005Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3816/is_200501/ai_n13633946/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 Some commentators argue that a safety valve mechanism inevitably would be an "easy out," diminishing incentives for firms to innovate or to build a bank of early reductions, both of which are key factors in driving down the long-term costs of reducing emissions.210 However, other commentators have argued that a safety valve option could make risk-averse households and firms willing to accept a more aggressive emissions cap-and therefore higher emissions price-than otherwise would be the case, because they would have assurances that their costs would not exceed the safety valve level

Progressive Safety Valve gets political support from business and environmental groups
William Pizer, July 1999 CHOOSING PRICE OR QUANTITY CONTROLS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES Climate Issues Brief No. 17 Resources for the Future While the safety valve approach is potentially appealing to businesses concerned about the uncertainty surrounding future permit prices, environmental groups will be wary of giving up the commitment to a fixed emission target. Such a commitment is already an integral part of the Kyoto Protocol. Ultimately, however, a strict target policy may lack political credibility and viability. Although a low trigger price would clearly rankle environmentalists as an undesirable loosening of the commitment to reduce emissions, a higher trigger price could allay those fears while still providing insurance against high costs.

201

THE FORT PLTX

SAFETY VALVE MEANS NO EFFECT

Addition of Safety Valve decreases the political capital of Cap-and-Trade
Sen. Pete V. Domenici and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, February 2006 Pew Center on Global Climate Change Response to: "Design Elements of a Mandatory Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Regulatory System www.pewclimate.org/policy_ center/analyses/sec/cost_containment.cfm One company notes that mere inclusion of some reasonable cost limit may be more important for getting legislation enacted than the limits specific level. The presence of a safety valve, even at a high dollar level, could undercut assertions that GHG regulation will bring about the end of the economy, since it would remove from consideration the modeling results that posit extreme cases of unlimited cost. Another company notes that, when GHG regulation is viewed as inevitable and may affect upstream energy producers, financial structuring for large new oil and gas production projects may not be possible without a price cap, since otherwise these projects would involve a large unknown liability that constrains equity value and cash flows.

Safety Valve decreases an emission trading system affect an the election

Daniel Bodansky, professor of law at the University of Washington. Bonn Voyage Kyotos Uncertain Revival Fall 2001

A domestic climate policy could take several forms. Although economists tell us that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would probably be the most efficient policy instrument, it would violate the political orthodoxy of no new taxes and hence is probably a non-starter. A system of mandatory domestic targets and emissions trading (usually referred to as cap and trade), combined with a safety valve to limit the potential costs of compliance, is more viable politically. The level of initial effort could be comparatively modest. What is crucial is not so much the precise level of effort, which could be ratcheted up later if necessary, but a sound architecture that achieves significant buy-in from both industry and environmentalists and hence would not be subject to the vagaries of election cycles or media fads.

202

THE FORT PLTX

SAFETY VALVE UNPOP-CONGRESS Emission Trading System more attractive to Public than any Price Mechanism

Nordhaus, Robert R, and Danish, Kyle W; teaches energy law at George Washington University Law School, and co-chair of the American Bar Association's
Committee on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. ASSESSING THE OPTIONS FOR DESIGNING A MANDATORY U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PROGRAM. 2005Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3816/is_200501/ai_n13633946/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

For example, twenty-five years of environmental and energy policy experience suggests that it is difficult to gain public support for a program that relies principally on direct increases in the price of energy-either through taxes or regulatory measureseven where such a program arguably is more cost-effective or will result in a more equitable distribution of regulatory burdens than other approaches. Even in times of most compelling national circumstances, such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo, Congress was unwilling to vise energy price increases to rein in consumer demand.117 On the other hand, program designs involving emissions trading or emission charges offer the opportunity to develop what may be a politically attractive policy package-using the revenue raised from regulation of GHG emissions as a basis for reducing taxes on income.

203

THE FORT PLTX

UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP

Upstream Cap and trade scheme will face mass political opposition-our evidence is specific Greenwire 5 / 16 / 03
Pew researchers considered several options for a domestic GHG reduction program. One option would address virtually all sources of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions through an "upstream" cap-and-trade system, researchers said. Under such a program, fuel suppliers would be required to hold emissions allowances equal to the amount of carbon in the fossil fuels they supply. Fuel suppliers would have to buy the allowances from the government though an auction system, and companies could buy and sell allowances to meet their emissions targets. Because of its relative low cost and potential environmental benefits, "this alternative may be the best one if it can be in place," wrote the report's authors, Robert Nordhaus and Kyle Danish. The upstream cap and trade system would likely face tough political opposition, however, because it would drive up energy prices for consumers. "Even in times of most compelling national circumstances, such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo, Congress was unwilling to use energy price increases to rein in consumer demand," the report said.

204

THE FORT PLTX

UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP- CONGRESS

UPSTREAM CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR BECAUSE IT WILL INCREASE GASOLINE PRICES

Nordhaus and Danish, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2003 (Robert R. and Kyle W., Designing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for the US, http://ww.pewclimate.org/docUploads/AspenProceedings_PolicyFramework.pdf#page=19 p. iv, accessed July 08)
Upstream cap-and-trade. An economy-wide upstream cap-and-trade program would be environmentally effective, could attain costeffective compliance if it incorporates flexibility measures, and would be administratively feasible. Its distributional consequences would depend on how allowances were allocated and, if auctioned, how the auction revenues were recycled back into the economy. These allocation and recycling decisions can also affect overall compliance costs, because some methods of allocating allowances may be less economically efficient than an auction, and according to some economists, using auction revenues to reduce distortionary taxes on capital or labor can reduce the net costs of the program. Finally, because an economy-wide upstream cap-and-trade program would rive up the cost of gasoline and home heating fuels, it is likely to present a political challenge.

205

THE FORT PLTX

UPSTREAM CAP & TRADE UNPOP/DWNSTRM POP - CONGRESS

LARGE-SOURCE DOWNSTREAM CAP-AND-TRADE MORE POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE THAN UPSTREAM CAPAND-TRADE Nordhaus and Danish, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2003 (Robert R. and Kyle W., Designing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for the US, http://ww.pewclimate.org/docUploads/AspenProceedings_PolicyFramework.pdf#page=19 p. iv, accessed July 08) Large-source downstream cap-and-trade. A large-source downstream program (i.e., one applicable only to electricity generators and large industrial sources of greenhouse gases) is administratively feasible and could be environmentally effective with respect to the sectors it covered. To be fully effective, however, such an approach would have to be coupled with a program to cover other sectors. A large-source downstream program might be more acceptable politically than an upstream economy-wide program because it would not result in price increases for gasoline and home heating fuels (though it still would result in price increases for electricity.)

206

THE FORT PLTX

*********CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE**********

207

THE FORT PLTX

CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE POP- MCCAIN

McCain supports carbon capture and storage Platts.com, 6-18-8

(McCain campaigns on energy plan, http://www.platts.com/Electric%20Power/Resources/News %20Features/uselection08/3.xml, accessed 6-29-8)

McCain said he would put $2 billion/year toward developing carbon capture and storage on a commercial scale, which he argued would also help developing countries such as China and India to tap their coal reserves while polluting less. He also laid out his goal to boost nuclear power, saying that he would "set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030."

208

THE FORT PLTX

*************CLEAN COAL*********

209

THE FORT PLTX

CLEAN COAL POP- MCCAIN

McCain supports clean coal Environmental News, 08 (7/2/08, McCain and Obama's Plans to Combat Climate Change, http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37541) McCain has expressed support for clean coal and concern about the construction of additional conventional coal powered plants. He recently told a Missouri State University audience that he will pledge $2 billion to make clean coal a reality. McCain had supported a moratorium on offshore oil drilling until recently. He now is showing increasing support for opening up offshore areas to drilling. "I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use," McCain said in June. "As a matter of fairness to the American people and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production."

210

THE FORT PLTX

*************EPA***************

211

THE FORT PLTX

EPA POP- WHITE HOUSE

Presidential hopefuls are all pro-environment anJ EPA Deborah Zabarenko, July 2, 2008 Environment Correspondent; Reuters report; http://www.planetarkorg/dailynewsstory.cfmlnewsid/49 1 1 3/story.htm] The Bush administration has opposed economy-wide steps to curb greenhouse as emissions, notably, carbon dioxide, which is emitted by fossil-fueled vehicles and coal-tired power plains among other sources. Both major presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barrack Obama, have vowed to tackle the problem if elected. The EPA is also in a long running tussle with the Defense Department over cleaning up toxic pollution at three military bases, and on Monday. members of Congress questioned why the Pentagon is defying orders from the environment agency. Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce called on the EPA to offer a full accounting of actions taken to ensure the Defense Department cleans up Fort Meade in Maryland, McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey and Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida.

212

THE FORT PLTX

EPA UNPOP- WHITE HOUSE

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS IGNORE THE EPA

Deborah Zabarenko, ] July 2, 2008 [Environment Correspondent; reuters report; http://www.planetark.org! dailynewsstory.cfmlnewsid/49 I I 3/story.htm WASHINGTON - White House officials refused to on e-mail from the Environmental Protection Agency that said global warming threatens public welfare and urged more fuel-efficient cars, congressional staff said MondayThe e-mailed documents were sent to the White I-louse Office of Management and Budget in December. staff on the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming said, This was part of the environment agencys response to a landmark 2007 Supreme Court ruling that for the first time found that greenhouse gases can be regulated as a pollutant under the US Clean Air Act. The documents include two key findings, the staff members said in a telephone interview, speaking on condition of anonymity: First, that climate change is a threat to public welfare and second, that boosting fuel-efficiency in motor vehicles would help address the problem. The idea that climate-warming greenhouse emissions threaten public welfare or public health is an essential part of the Clean Air Act; policymakers must find that a substance poses this kind of threat to be designated as a pollutant, and EPA said in its documents that greenhouse gases do this. But Bush administration officials at the Office of Management and Budget said they would not accept the e-mailed documents, the congressional staff said.
BUSH AND THE EPA DO NOT MIX

Deborah Zabarenko, July 2, 2008 [Environment Correspondent; reuters report; http;//www.planctark.orgdftynewsstorycfrn/newsidJ49l 1 3/story.htrn The EPAs conclusion and analysis in December would have received a passing grade falling in line with both the environmental science and the law, but it is clear the enemy of progress is in the white house said Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who heads the committee. Their decision to ignore and redirect the EPA ensures the Bush administration will achieve a perfect record on global warming: a zero, Markey said in a statement. An administration official said EPA cannot conclude that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled without giving public notice and seeking public comment. Beyond that, the official said, EPAs informal e-mail did not follow long-standing procedures for submitting regulations. Three months after the EPAs e-mailed documents were rebuffed by the White House, the agencys chief, Stephen Johnson, offered an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject of greenhouse pollution. This is an early and tentative step in the policy process that will Likely push any action into the next US presidential administration. The Bush administration has opposed economy-wide steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, notably carbon dioxide, which is emitted by fossil-fueled vehicles and coal-fired power plants among other sources.

213

THE FORT PLTX

***************ETHANOL**************

214

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF- BIPART

Removing the Brazilian tariff on ethanol is bipartisan- new bill proves Wcax-TV 8 (Gregg introduces bipartisan bill to reduce tariff on imported ethanol, Wcax-TV, Associated Press, 6-5-08, http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?
S=8434638) WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg has introduced a bipartisan measure with Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California to reduce the tariff on imported ethanol. If it passes, Gregg says the legislation would allow US refiners to buy cheaper and more climate-friendly ethanol from foreign sources, which could then help lower gas prices. Gregg says imported ethanol is especially important for coastal states since almost all domestic ethanol is produced in the Midwest and is costly to transport because it can't be moved through a pipeline. He says ethanol from

Brazil and other friendly nations can be provided to coastal states more easily and at a lower cost. REDUCING THE ETHANOL TARIFF HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS. US Federal News Service 6-5-08 (Grocery Manufacturers Association Statement Regarding Feinstein Bill To Lower Ethanol Tariff, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1494990211&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=1566&RQT=309&VName=PQD) The Grocery Manufacturers Association today issued the following statement by Vice President for Federal Affairs Scott Faber in regard to Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) introduction of the Imported Ethanol Parity Act, legislation intended to reduce the tariff on imported ethanol. Co-sponsored by Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Wayne Allard (R-CO), and Susan Collins (R-ME) the bill would reduce the 54-cent ethanol tariff to 45 cents, matching the 45-cent tax credit to blenders as mandated by the new Farm Bill. "This week in Rome, there was broad agreement that U.S. food-to-fuel mandates and subsidies have greatly contributed to distortions in the world grain market and have led to skyrocketing food prices here and around the globe. We applaud Senators Feinstein, Gregg, Cantwell, Allard and Collins for taking another step in the right direction by proposing the reconsideration of the tariff on imported ethanol. However, the current food crisis will not be solved by incremental change alone; urgent Congressional action is needed to examine the full economic and environmental impacts of these food-to-fuel taxes and subsidies immediately."Contact: Scott Openshaw, Director, Communications, 202/295-3957,

215

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF PART

Repealing the tariff on Brazilian ethanol is partisan- neither side agrees on it Ethanol Producer Magazine 1-31 (Kris Bevill, Senators discuss ethanol tariff, Ethanol Producer Magazine, 1-31-08, http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article-print.jsp?article_id=3670) The Bush administration will

send its proposed 2009 U.S. budget to Congress next week, and it may include changes to the current 54cent tariff on ethanol imports. Senators on both sides of the aisle have strong opinions on the ethanol tariff and have been vocal on this issue. By lifting the ethanol tariff, wed end up subsidizing Brazilian ethanol, said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. I cant figure out why [Energy
Secretary Samual] Bodman would want the United States to risk becoming dependent on Brazilian ethanol when were already dependent on Middle East oil. Bodman said the administration will start to deal with that question after the budget is sent to Congress. Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Last year, he and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., cosponsored a measure to extend the tariff until Jan. 1, 2011. A tariff extension was included and passed as part of the Senate Farm Bill. It is now in conference with the House. A spokesman for Thune said the

senator also strongly supports the retention of the ethanol tariff in order to provide continued assistance to farmers in the United States. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-N.E., said at a breakfast meeting in Washington this week that the ethanol tariff would be repealed over my dead body. Nelson serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee and is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Early today, Nelson further commented on the possible repeal of the ethanol duty. Among farm state senators, the idea of eliminating the tariff is at best unpopular," he said. "Its likely Congress will reinstate the tariff if its not included in the budget and defeat any effort to repeal it. In fact, Ive proposed legislation that would direct the proceeds to a biofuels investment trust fund to spur research and development of biofuels in the United States. Im not interested in trading our dependence on foreign oil fields for a dependence on South American sugarcane fields. Congress taking this administrations advice on agriculture issues would be like the New England Patriots adopting the Miami Dolphins playbook for the Super Bowl.

216

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- LOBBIES

REDUCTION OF TARIFFS ON FOREIGN ETHANOL PISSES OFF THE FARM LOBY EDMUND L. ANDREWS is a reporter for the New York Times, and LARRY ROHTER

is is an American journalist who was a South American bureau chief for the New York Times, U.S. and Brazil Seek to Promote Ethanol in West The New York Times, March 3 2007, lexis
Senior Brazilian government officials said the most important effect of a collaboration with the United States would be in promoting a broader international market for Brazilian ethanol technology. Brazil and the United States account for a total of more than 70 percent of global ethanol production. The agreement is aimed at encouraging other countries, especially small and poor sugar cane producing countries in the Caribbean and Central America, to become producers. ''This is more than a document, it's a point of convergence in the relationship that is denser and more intense than anything we've seen in the last 20 or 30 years,'' Antonio Simoes, the director of the energy division of the Foreign Ministry of Brazil, said in a telephone interview from New York. ''Brazil will profit, the United States will profit, and so will third countries. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved.'' ''The good thing is that a poor country can reduce what it pays for imported oil and earn money exporting this,'' Mr. Simoes said. ''That way they will have more money to invest in social programs, and the production of energy will be democratized in the world, with 100 countries producing energy instead of just 15 or 20.'' Eventually, the two countries hope to use their accord to spur production of renewable fuels beyond the hemisphere. Brazil is interested in encouraging sugar-cane-based ethanol production in Africa, where it has extensive trade and cultural ties, and in Asian nations like Thailand. Brazil's own direct exports of ethanol reached a record last year. But demand for the fuel is growing so rapidly within Brazil that the government's immediate priority is to satisfy its domestic market. But Brazilian business groups see commercial opportunities in supplying advanced equipment to other countries setting up their own ethanol distilleries. ''We want ethanol to become a global commodity, and for that to happen, Brazil can't be the only producer,'' said Jose Luiz Oliverio, vice president for operations at Dedini Industries, Brazil's leading manufacturer of equipment for sugar cane and ethanol mills. ''We've been growing and processing sugar for 500 years, and we are confident of our ability to maintain our leadership in this sector.'' American officials expressed a similar enthusiasm for making ethanol and ethanol-producing equipment on a huge scale. The biggest area of cooperation, they said, will be in helping countries identify and remove obstacles to building their own ethanol production capacity. Mindful of protests from domestic ethanol producers and from the powerful American farm lobby, administration officials are not expected to even hint at a reduction in American tariffs on foreign ethanol.

THE PLAN ILL CAUSE A POLITICAL BACKLASH FROM US ETHANOL LOBBIES.

Wall Street Journal 5-8-06 (A Good Gas Idea, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb? did=1033361251&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=1566&RQT=309&VName=PQD)

We'd note that Mr. Shadegg introduced his bill at no small political risk, since the powerful U.S. ethanol lobby is already targeting any politician who dares to suggest that this heavily subsidized industry face greater foreign competition. But late last week he finally got some political cover from President Bush, who said on CNBC that suspending the ethanol tariff "makes sense . . . when there's a time of shortage of a product that's needed."

217

THE FORT PLTX

218

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- PUBLIC

THE PLAN IS UNPOPULAR BECAUSE IT FORCES TAXES ON THE PUBLIC AND REDUCES DOMESTIC ETHANOL. Renewable Fuels Association, 2005 (THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THE SECONDARY TARIFF ON ETHANOL, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pdf/Ethanol_ Tariff_Position_Paper.pdf</span><span Renewable fuels are produced only in countries where programs have been created to assist in their production. Thus, any reduction in the U.S. secondary tariff on ethanol would result in U.S. taxpayers further subsidizing imported ethanol beyond the subsidies that are already be given in the country of production. Since imported ethanol receives the 51cent per gallon tax credit, if the U.S. tariff on ethanol is removed or dips below 51 cents, then U.S. taxpayers would be effectively subsidizing imported ethanol. The subsidy would be equal to the difference between the tax credit and the amount of any reduced tariff. For example, if the ethanol tariff were reduced to ten cents a gallon, then U.S. taxpayers would be paying an additional 41-cent incentive for every gallon of imported ethanol. U.S. taxpayers should not be required to subsidize imported ethanol because it is counter to the purpose and many benefits of the U.S. ethanol program to foster the domestic production of a renewable fuel.

219

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN

McCain gets cred on Brazilian Ethanol-prior support Biofuels Digest, 08
(McCain supports ending of ethanol subsidies, Brazilian ethanol tariff, 6/16/08, http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/06/16/mccain-supports-ending-of-ethanolsubsidies-brazilian-ethanol-tariff/) U.S. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain

said that he supports the ending of ethanol subsidies, would back a repeal of the ethanol tariff, and would support the inclusion of Brazil and India into a larger G8 group. McCain was
quoted in Estato de Sao Paulo saying that he favors the removal of Russia from the G8. Recently, McCain, who introduced the first proposed cap-and-trade bill in the Senate in 2003, said: The

facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple common sense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly, he said. I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy. McCain was speaking at the Vestas Wind Technology plant in Portland, Oregon. Recently, Sen. McCain led a revolt of 24 Senate Republicans have asked the EPA to waive, or restructure, the Renewable Fuel Standard passed in
December. In a statement, Sen. John McCain said that This subsidized (ethanol) program paid for by taxpayer dollars has contributed to pain at the cash register, at the dining room table, and a devastating food crisis throughout the world. The Senators said that waiving the ethanol mandate would encourage farmers to grow other crops, as opposed to growing corn for food markets.

MCCAIN SUPPORTS SUGAR ETHANOL AND DOESNT LIKE CORN ETHANOL Ed Morrissey June 23, 2008 Obama opposes lobbyists? Thats just cornpone! http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/obamaopposes-lobbyists-thats just-cornpone/ McCain wants to drop subsidies for corn ethanol and drop tariffs on cane-sugar ethanol. While that still has the drawbacks of using up food supplies for transportation fuels, cane-sugar ethanol has four times more energy efficiency than corn ethanol. If alternate-fuels backers want to be taken seriously, the cheaper and more efficient version of ethanol looks like a much better solution and the tariffs on it and subsidies for corn two large impediments to it. Obama keeps talking about innovation, but he supports blocking cane-sugar ethanol with tariffs and propping up corn ethanol with subsidies.

220

THE FORT PLTX

221

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS REPEAL OF TARIFFSPLAN ALLOWS HIM TO ACCESS THE MODERATES

The Seattle Times, 7/26/2008, Where's the other John McCain?, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008073469_froma26.html, BB
Occasionally, McCain 2008 is more progressive on taxes than Obama 2008. McCain would repeal the 54-cent-a-gallon tax on imported sugar-based ethanol. (Most of it comes from Brazil.) Obama supports the tariff, and a cornucopia of other corporate subsidies for the domestic corn-based ethanol industry, which so generously fills his coffers. Corn ethanol is a very mixed bag. It plays a large role in rising food prices. And it is less energy-efficient than the kind made with sugar cane. McCain positions like this one especially gutsy when advanced in corn-producing states keep the spark going for moderates through the dark hours. And again, we have our memories. MCCAIN IS FOR THE PLAN, OBAMA IS AGAINST

Cattle Network 7/15/2008, US Election Season Freezes Ethanol Tariff Talk, http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=236873, BB
Although the tariff's opponents are increasingly optimistic about their long-term chances, the outlook beyond November is unclear. Republican presidential frontrunner Sen. John McCain supports removing the tariff, but Sen. Barack Obama, his Democratic rival from Illinois, doesn't.

222

THE FORT PLTX

223

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS REMOVAL OF THE ETHANOL TARIFF HIGH OIL AND FOOD PRICES MEANS IT MAKES HIM POPULAR WITH THE ELECTORATE

RIBEIRO PRETO, 6-26-08, Lean, green and not mean, http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11632886 When John McCain laid out his plans for reducing Americas dependence on oil to an audience in California on June 23rd, the candidates keenest listeners were 6,000 miles away in So Paulo. Mr McCain argued that the tariff on imported ethanol of 54 cents per gallon should be scrapped. Others in the Senate (though not Barack Obama) are pushing for it to be reduced. Either way, the case against the tariff has been strengthened by high oil prices and by the June floods that damaged the mid-western corn (maize) crop. That sent corn prices soaring and made subsidising corn to produce ethanol look like an even worse idea than it did before, given the greener, cheaper ethanol that the United States could buy from Brazil instead.
MCCAINS STANCE ON THE TARIFF WOULD BRING HIM BROAD PUBLIC SUPPORT NOBODY LIKES THE TARIFF

Biofuels Digest, 7-15-08, Zero US public support for eliminating Brazilian ethanol tariff, Fed survey finds, http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/07/15/zero-us-public-support-for-eliminating-brazilian-ethanoltariff-fed-survey-finds/ According to a survey by The Regional Economist magazine (published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis), 73% of survey respondents support the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks for oil and ethanol companies, and zero percent of respondents supported the elimination of the Brazilian ethanol tariff. Tariff background U.S. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said that he supports the ending of ethanol subsidies, would back a repeal of the ethanol tariff, and would support the inclusion of Brazil and India into a larger G8 group. McCain was quoted in Estato de Sao Paulo saying that he favors the removal of Russia from the G8.

224

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- MCCAIN

PLAN IS A WIN FOR MCCAIN CO-OPTS OBAMAS ANTI-SUGAR SWING STATE STRATEGY

Investors Business Daily, 08, Obama's Corn Fake, http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp? secid=1501&status=article&id=299286762937609

Barack Obama says he represents change. He also criticizes John McCain for trying to drill our way to energy independence to add to the profits of Big Oil. But it's Obama who's playing politics by trying to plant our way to energy independence, buying votes with alternative fuel subsidies that benefit ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland. ADM is based in Illinois, the second-largest corn-producing state. Not long after arriving in the U.S. Senate, Obama flew twice on corporate jets owned by the nation's largest ethanol producer. Imagine if McCain flew on the corporate jets of Exxon Mobil. Corn-based ethanol gets a 51cents-a-gallon tax subsidy that will cost taxpayers $4.5 billion this year. McCain opposes ethanol subsidies while Obama supports them. McCain opposed them even though Iowa is the first caucus state. Obama, touted by Caroline Kennedy as another JFK, was no profile in
courage in Iowa. That subsidy was cut to 45 cents a gallon in the new farm bill, but more money was pushed toward other biofuels such as switch grass. The Democrats can't wait for offshore oil or ANWR, but they can wait for switch grass. The tariff on imported ethanol was extended.

Neither candidate voted on the bill, but Obama said he supported it. McCain said as president he would have vetoed it. If Obama is sincere about alternative fuels, why does he oppose imported sugar-based ethanol from countries like Brazil? He supports not only the domestic subsidy, but a 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. McCain opposes both. Corn ethanol is less energy-efficient
and costs more. It generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it. Ethanol made from sugar cane has an energy ratio of more than 8-to-1. Production costs and land prices are cheaper in the countries that produce it. This year, according to John Lott Jr., senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, 34% of U.S. corn some 3.65 billion bushels will be used for fuel. Putting this much food into our gas tanks hasn't reduced gas prices, but it has raised food prices. Farmers in vote-rich farm states plant corn for fuel,

not only raising the price of corn, but also milk, eggs, meat and even bread as wheat fields are converted to corn. Last year, as President Bush was about to sign an energy cooperation agreement with Brazil, Obama said the move would hurt "our country's drive toward energy independence."

225

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP- BUSH

BUSH PUSHES THE PLAN

Kaylan Lytle, Staff Writer for the Energy Law Journal at the Energy Bar Association, 08 DRIVING THE MARKET: THE EFFECTS ON THE UNITED STATES ETHANOL INDUSTRY IF THE FOREIGN ETHANOL TARIFF IS LIFTED, 28 Energy L. J. 693, l/n B. The Tariff Opposition A major opponent of the tariff is the President of the United States. n110 This may conflict with his goals to increase domestic ethanol production. In the 2006 State of the Union, President Bush announced a goal to make "ethanol practical and competitive within six years." n111 In this speech, the President stressed the need for alternative fuel as a means of attaining energy independence. Similarly, upon signing the EPAct in 2005, President Bush emphasized how the Act is a step towards energy independence. When discussing the RFS portion of the EPAct, President Bush touted it as accomplishing many things, including reducing dependency on foreign energy. n112 The emphasis, however, is specifically placed on being independent from Middle Eastern energy sources. n113

226

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- OBAMA

OBAMAS TARIFF POSITION ALLOWS THE GOP TO STEP IN

Alexandre Marinis, political economist and founding partner of Mosaico Economia Politica, is a Bloomberg News columnist, Bloomberg 7/2/2008, Obama Skeptics Are Near, Admirers Far Away: Alexandre Marinis, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_marinis&sid=a0K0kflNpmSM
Obama voted in favor of the 2008 Farm Bill, a $289 billion tribute to protectionism that maintained the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff the U.S. levies on imported ethanol. Obama rejects lowering this tariff, even though U.S. consumers are paying more than $4 a gallon for gasoline. Ethanol could help lower those costs, reduce pollution and reduce U.S. dependency on oil imported from unstable nations.

227

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP-MCCAIN/UNPOP- OBAMA

OBAMAS QUESTIONABLE STANCE ON ETHANOL GIVES MCCAIN AN OPENING

The New York Times 6/23/2008, Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html, BB
Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve energy security while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts. Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce. We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de So Paulo. Besides, it is wrong, he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, which is much more efficient than corn ethanol. Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build energy independence, he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organizations rules but which his advisers say is not.

228

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF POP-LUGAR

LUGAR SUPPORTS THE PLAN

Wall Street Journal 7/1/2008, Biofuels Battle: Tear Down The Brazilian Wall, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/01/biofuels-battle-tear-down-the-brazilian-wall/, BB
Biofuels have few friends lately. But Brazils biofuel industry found a big oneU.S. Senator Richard Lugar. Brazils ethanol lobby Unica is breaking out the fireworks for its Fourth of July pro-sugarcane ethanol campaign called, with a nod to Papa Smurf, Are We There Yet?. Sen. Lugar thinks Brazilian ethanolmade from sugarcane rather than corncould help lower U.S. gasoline prices, which have reached record levels. Unica, not surprisingly, thinks the same, and blames Washingtons $0.54 per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol for American pain at the pump. Sen. Lugar will keynote a conference at the conservative American Enterprise Institute Wednesday, focusing on high prices for energy and food. Hell recommend to President Bush that G8 countries, meeting in Japan next week, tear down those walls. Says Sen. Lugar: [I]ncreased political interference puts upward pressure on price and could eventually cause shortages in countries least able to cope. To demonstrate leadership, the United States should lift its tariff on Brazilian ethanol that now shelters the U.S. (corn ethanol) industry.

229

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP-FARMS

STRONG FARM INDUSTRY OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN

Southwest Farm Press 6/5/2006, Corn growers unite to oppose lifting import tariff on ethanol, http://southwestfarmpress.com/news/06-05-06-corn-unite-tariffs/< BB
Its not often that the National Corn Growers Association and the American Corn Growers Association come down on the same side of an issue. When they do, you can bet that farmers may be getting gored by somebody. In this case, the conservative NCGA and the more progressive ACGA, along with Farm Bureau and the Renewable Fuels Association, are opposing efforts by House leaders and the Bush administration to suspend import tariffs on ethanol to supposedly bring down prices of the alternative fuel. Both the NCGA and the ACGA said that not only would removing the tariff reduce corn prices and negatively impact a growing U.S. industry, but it would also subsidize ethanol producers in countries like Brazil.

230

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- CONGRESS

CONGRESS WONT SUPPORT THE PLAN

Anna Gangadharan and Albert Larcadas , COHA Research Associates, 27/8/2007US Lifting of Tariff on Brazil Ethanol Might Spell Trouble for Amazon and Sugarcane Cutters, http://www.brazzil.com/articles/182august-2007/9960.html, BB
He explained, "I don't see the political landscape changing anytime in the foreseeable future. Politicians and American citizens alike seem content with the way things are." To date, there has been no realistic threat to the survival of the ethanol tariff in the House or the Senate. Most members of Congress believe that releasing the import tariff would be a disservice to American corn farmers more than it would abet the welfare of the American public, as rationalized by the recurring refusal to cancel the ethanol tariff.

231

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF UNPOP- CONGRESS

BIPART OPPOSITION TO LIFTING THE TARIFF POLITICAL CLIMATE PROVES Anna Gangadharan and Albert Larcadas, writers for Brazzil, 8-27-07, US Lifting of Tariff on Brazil Ethanol Might Spell Trouble for Amazon and Sugarcane Cutters, http://www.brazzil.com/articles/182-august-2007/9960.html He explained, "I don't see the political landscape changing anytime in the foreseeable future. Politicians and American citizens alike seem content with the way things are." To date, there has been no realistic threat to the survival of the ethanol tariff in the House or the Senate. Most members of Congress believe that releasing the import tariff would be a disservice to American corn farmers more than it would abet the welfare of the American public, as rationalized by the recurring refusal to cancel the ethanol tariff.

PLAN IS UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS EMPIRICALLY PROVEN

Evan Stallcup, Sociologist, 6-13-08, Midwest floods may send gas up 15%, http://overpopulationthreat.blogspot.com Energy industry experts say lifting the tariff entirely will likely lower gas prices by 10 cents a gallon, but legislation that proposed canceling the tax found little support in Congress. As a result, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H., recently introduced a compromise bill to reduce the tariff to 45 cents.
KEY CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OPPOSE REMOVAL OF THE TARIFF Glenn Hess, Chemical & Engineering News, 06, Dropping the duty on imports of the fuel additive is not the answer to high gasoline prices, industry insist, http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i20/8420ethanol.html However, any attempt to remove the tariff will face vigorous opposition from farm-state lawmakers, including some of the most powerful leaders on Capitol Hill.

232

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF COST POL CAP

SUGAR ETHANOL KILL POLCAP (CONGRESS) EDMUND L. ANDREWS is a reporter for the New

York Times, and LARRY ROHTER is is an American journalist who was a South American bureau chief for the New York Times, U.S. and Brazil Seek to Promote Ethanol in West The New York Times, March 3 2007, lexis
President Bush, hoping to reduce demand for oil in the Western Hemisphere, is preparing to finish an agreement with Brazil next week to promote the production and use of ethanol throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, according to administration officials. The agreement could lead to substantial growth in the ethanol industry in Brazil as technology and manufacturing equipment developed there is exported to other countries in the region. Much of the ethanol produced there is made from sugar cane and is far cheaper to produce than the corn-based ethanol that has been nurtured by protective tariffs and government mandates in the United States. But the agreement has already begun to prompt complaints from politicians from corn-producing regions of the United States. They fear that the plan would lead to an increase in imports of cheap foreign ethanol and undercut American producers. THE PLAN IS MASSIVELY UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS THEY PREFER DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED ETHANOL. Fortenberry Nebraska Rep. Senator 5-19-06 (John, REP. FORTENBERRY OPPOSES ETHANOL TARIFF

REDUCTION. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb? did=1078767121&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=1566&RQT=309&VName=PQD)

As a result of recent congressional action, domestic producers have significantly increased production of ethanol and other renewables. New facilities continue to open to meet the rising demand. By including a Renewable Fuels Standard provision in last year's Energy Bill, Congress sent a powerful message in support of domestically produced ethanol, biodiesel and other renewables. Suspending the tariff on ethanol imports, even temporarily, would send a devastating signal and call into question congressional support of domestic production of renewable fuels. Clearly, the use of such renewable energy sources helps meet multiple public policy objectives. Renewables reduce our dependence on foreign energy, are environmentally sensitive, and create economic opportunities for farmers and rural America. We must maintain our support for domestic producers of ethanol and resist the calls for suspending the import tariff.

THE PLAN WILL BE A POLITICAL BATTLE. Wall Street Journal 5-5-06 (Laura Meckler, Politics

& Economics: Pressure to Lift Ethanol Tariff Rises in Congress, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb? did=1032293151&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=1566&RQT=309&VName=PQD)
But it won't be simple to eliminate the tariff. It is backed by many Midwestern lawmakers, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, who want to protect the domestic ethanol industry. In a statement, Mr. Grassley and Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.) said lifting the tariff "would be counterproductive to the widely supported goal of promoting home-grown renewable sources of energy."

233

THE FORT PLTX

BRAZILIAN TARIFF COST POL CAP

REMOVING TARIFF VERY CONTROVERSIAL IN ELECTIONS Chemical News & Intelligence, 2008

(US energy chief hints at ethanol subsidy cut Chemical News & Intelligence, January 29, 2008, Lexis)
With enactment of that massive new federal stimulus for biofuels production, some critics have charged that federal subsidies for and tariffs to protect domestic ethanol production are a [3]luxury that an energy-starved US can ill afford to continue. However, the ethanol subsidy and tariff have [4]strong support among both Democrat and Republican members of Congress from farm states, and any effort to cut federal support for domestic ethanol in the midst of the US election year would be very controversial. The plan would be a political battle Congress is empirically opposed to changing the ethanol tariff. Gangadharan and Larcada COHA Research Associates, a think tank concerned with inter-American relations 8-27-07 (Anna and Albert, US Lifting of Tariff on Brazil Ethanol Might Spell Trouble for Amazon and Sugarcane Cutters, http://www.brazzil.com/articles/182-august-2007/9960.html) However, the measure affecting ethanol, known on Capitol Hill as part of the "farm bill," was shot down in the Senate by a vote of 5636 in favor of continuing the tariff, thus protecting the price of U.S. corn. Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota explained his nay vote: "Eliminating the ethanol tariff would send a mixed signal to producers, investors and farmers who sell their products to ethanol plants." Senator Thune's thoughts appear to be the prevailing sentiment within the U.S. Congress. Lewis Perelman, a senior fellow at the Homeland Security Policy Institute in Washington, is not very optimistic that any transformation will be revealed in the short term. He explained, "I don't see the political landscape changing anytime in the foreseeable future. Politicians and American citizens alike seem content with the way things are." To date, there has been no realistic threat to the survival of the ethanol tariff in the House or the Senate. Most members of Congress believe that releasing the import tariff would be a disservice to American corn farmers more than it would abet the welfare of the American public, as rationalized by the recurring refusal to cancel the ethanol tariff.

234

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL BIPART

Cellulosic ethanol is bipartisan- new biofuels bill proves U.S. Senate 7 (Bipartisan Group of Senators Fights for Economic & Energy Security, U.S. Senate, 6-15-07,
http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/070615enrgjnt.htm) WASHINGTON, D.C. Americas energy independence is a pressing issue of not only economic and environmental security, but also national security: roughly 22 percent of the worlds oil is in the hands of countries under U.S. or U.N. sanctions, and by some accounts only nine percent of the worlds oil is in the hands of free countries. To help secure Americas energy future, a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Ken Salazar (D-CO), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Wayne Allard (R-CO), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Larry Craig (R-ID) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) have introduced a bill to increase Americas production of biofuels derived from cellulosic biofuels. Senators Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) are also co-sponsors.

235

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL POP- CONGRESS

Congress likes cellulosic ethanol- they want to mandate 250 million gallons by 2013 Renewable Energy World 6 (David Morris, The Strange Legislative History of the Cellulosic Ethanol Mandate, Renewable Energy World Online, 12-4-06,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=46712) To overcome this barrier, Congress developed a simple strategy. Mandate the production of 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2013, a level of production requiring six to ten plants. To attract investors, Congress guaranteed a significant market years in advance. By not

establishing financial incentives, Congress expected competition to minimize any price premium. And the second wave of cellulosic ethanol plants should be cost competitive with grain ethanol.

236

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL POP-BUSH

Bush is already pushing for cellulosic ethanol Auto Observer 2-29 (Dale Buss, Bush Comments Lend Another Boost to Cellulosic Ethanol, Auto Observer, 2-29-08,
http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/02/bush-comments-lend-another-boost-to-cellulosic-ethanol.html)

Remaining presidential candidates have made a point of touting cellulosic ethanol which can be made from a number of sources other than corn as an important alternative fuel. On Thursday morning President Bush added to the chorus of support at his White House news conference. He emphasized cellulosic ethanol as a crucial part of the short-term answer to problems of fuel pricing and availability, as well as a longterm solution. Answering a reporters question about tax breaks for renewable forms of energy, Bush referred to the growing pressure under worldwide food prices that is being created by a rise in competing demand for U.S. corn stocks by ethanol producers. If you look at whats happened with corn out there, youre beginning to see the food issue and the energy issue collide, the president said. And so, to me, the best dollar spent is to continue to deal with cellulosic ethanol in order to deal with this bottleneck right now. He also said the best way to deal with renewables is to focus on research and development that will enable us to use other raw material to produce ethanol.

237

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL LOBBIES SUPPORT

POWERFUL POLITICAL INTEREST GROUPS SUPPORT CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

Lashinsky and Schwartz, 2004 (Adam and Nelson D., How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline, Forever, Fortune Magazine, January 26) What's more, powerful political lobbies in Washington that never used to concern themselves with botanical affairs are suddenly focusing on ethanol. "Energy dependence is America's economic, environmental, and security Achilles' heel," says Nathanael Greene of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a mainstream environmental group. National- security hawks agree. Says former CIA chief James Woolsey: "We've got a coalition of tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, hawks, and evangelicals." (Yes, he did say "evangelicals"--some have found common ground with greens in the notion of environmental stewardship.)

238

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL BUSH SUPPORTS

BUSH SUPPORTS THE TRANSITION TO CELLULOSIC ETHANOL

DOE, 2007 (U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding, February 28) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385 million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. This production will help further President Bushs goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012 and, along with increased automobile fuel efficiency, reduce Americas gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years.

239

THE FORT PLTX

CELLULISTIC ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC

cellulistic ethanol popular growing support Chemical news and intelligence, 07 (1/24)
Ron Miller, chairman of the Renewable Fuels Association, said the technical breakthroughs needed to reach commercially viable cellulosic ethanol production "are exceedingly achievable with continued and consistent federal support". US ethanol is subsidised with various taxsupported funding programmes for corn production and for ethanol blending in gasoline by refiners. Miller said that the goal of 35bn gal/year of ethanol output can be reached, "but it will require an investment by Americans in all walksof life". That backing is seen, he added, "in the growing drumbeat of support from Congress, President Bush and the public."

Its super popular and high profile Connelly, 06 (Tom, Chief science officer @ Dupont, Fair Disclosure, 4/10)
TOM CONNELLY, SVP, CHIEF SCIENCE & TECH. OFFICER, DUPONT: Yes, this is Tom Connelly to respond. We did enter into the integrated corn bio-refinery project with the DOE and other partners. We're in year three of a four-year program, that continues to go well and we're talking about, with the DOE and others, about what comes next. As you'll recall, the central thrust of the integrated corn bio-refinery is the idea of cellulosic carbon feedstocks going into fuel ethanol, a subject that since 2003 has become very, very popular and we read so much about it today -- much more than we did back then.

Cellulistic ethanol perceived as most environmentally friendly NY Sun, 06 (2/2)

Mr. Woolsey praised the president's advocacy of "cellulosic ethanol," or ethanol derived from non-oil plant products, such as leaves and stalks. The fuel's popularity among environmentalists, observers said yesterday, was likely the reason for its inclusion in the State of the Union This included Mr. Bush's mention of "switch grass," a prairie grass that grows throughout much of America. Mr. Woolsey said that switch grass grows on about two-thirds of the 30 million acres of soil bank set aside in America to prevent dust-bowl conditions. It is preferred over corn as a source of ethanol, because corn must be cultivated using petroleum-driven machinery and using petroleum-derived fertilizer. Since switch grass grows naturally, "all you have to do is mow it," Mr. Woolsey said. Prairie grass and stalks are also preferred because their growth for energy has minimal impact on global carbon dioxide levels, also of concern to environmentalists.

240

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC

People overwhelmingly support corn ethanol Pollingreport .com May 2008 http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm
"Some people say that using ethanol, which is manufactured from corn, is a good idea because it is an American-made substitute for foreign oil that causes less air pollution. Other people say ethanol is a bad idea because it drives up food prices and has less energy. What do you think -- is using ethanol mostly a good idea or mostly a bad idea?"

Good
% 4/20-24/07

Bad %

Unsure % 23 7

70

241

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL UNPOP-PUBLIC

PUBLIC OPPOSES THE MANDATE FOR CORN ETHANOL

National Center for Public Policy Research, 2008 (Farm-Belt Voters Favor Eliminating or Reducing Corn Ethanol Mandate, Poll Finds, June 10) Most Americans, including those living in the Farm Belt, want Congress to reduce or eliminate the corn ethanol mandate, according to a new poll released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The poll, published by the Public Opinion and Policy Center of the National Center for Public Policy Research, found that 41% of Americans want Congress to repeal the corn ethanol mandate entirely, while 35% want Congress to repeal the law it passed just last December, which will double it. Just 6% want the mandate to increase as planned while 5% want it to be even expanded further.

242

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL GOP OPPOSES

REPUBLICANS OPPOSED GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CORN ETHANOL

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

243

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL UNPOP- CONGRESS

Opposition to corn ethanol is gaining in Congress. Hebert, 2008 (H. Josef, May 7, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, p D3, Rising Food Costs Turn Tide Against Ethanol) But now with skyrocketing food costs - even U.S. senators are complaining about seeing shocking prices at the supermarket - and hunger spreading across the globe, some lawmakers are wondering if they made a mistake. "Our enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. That's all I'm saying, a second look," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing. The dramatic reversal has stunned ethanol producers and its supporters in Washington as they have seen their product shift from being an object of praise to one of derision. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the Senate's two working farmers and a longtime ethanol booster, said he finds it hard to believe that ethanol could be "clobbered the way it's being clobbered right now" over the issue of food costs. What does the cost of corn have to do with the price of wheat or rice, he is telling people. The uproar over ethanol is clearly gaining momentum. Two governors - Texas and Connecticut - and 26 senators, including the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee John McCain, are asking the Environmental Protection Agency to cut this year's mandate for 9 billion gallons of corn ethanol in half to ease, they say, food costs. Robert Meyers, an EPA deputy assistant administrator, told a House hearing Tuesday the agency will respond to the request as quickly as possible, but doubts anything will be forthcoming for about three months. There's a regulatory process to follow, he said. But lawmakers, even those who enthusiastically supported the requirement for refiners to ramp up ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 from about 7 billion gallons last year, have begun to have qualms.

244

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL DEMOCRATS ARE SPLIT

DEMOCRATS ARE SPLIT ON CORN ETHANOL

LA Times, 2007 (November 28) But a plan to dramatically increase ethanol production has become a major sticking point in congressional negotiations to complete work on the bill. And it has created a challenge for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose Democratic caucus has split over the issue. Pro-ethanol Democrats and farm groups want the bill to require a nearly fivefold increase by 2022 in the amount of home-grown alternative fuels that must be blended into gasoline. They say the mandate would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and help Americas farmers. Democrats on the other side, joined by environmental and foodindustry groups, think the mandate could raise the price of corn used for food; harm the environment by using more land to produce biofuels; and gouge taxpayers by expanding ethanol subsidie.

245

THE FORT PLTX

246

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL UNPOP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS ENERGY SECURITY BUT ALSO WANTS TO GET RID OF SUBSIDIES FOR CORN-BASED ETHANOL, ITS THE KEY DIFFERENTIAL LARRY ROHTER, chief of the Rio de Janeiro bureau of The Times, 6/23/08, Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve energy security while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts. Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce. We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de So Paulo. Besides, it is wrong, he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, which is much more efficient than corn ethanol. MCCAIN OPENLY OPPOSES CORN-BASED ETHANOL SUBSIDIES Associated Press, 6/15/08, Report: McCain Calls for End to Corn Subsidies for Ethanol, Fox News, http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/15/report-mccain-calls-for-end-to-corn-subsidies-for-ethanol/ U.S. presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain supports ending subsidies for U.S. ethanol production and would back Brazils inclusion on an expanded United Nations Security Council, a Brazilian newspaper reported Sunday. In comments published by the Estado de S. Paulo newspaper, McCain also said he would support Brazils addition to the Group of Eight industrialized nations and lauded the nations drive to find clean energy sources. The United States has committed a series of errors in not adopting a sustainable energy policy, McCain was quoted as saying. One of those is the subsidies for ethanol from corn. McCain blamed the price supports for destroying the market and causing a serious problem with inflation. The Republican also blasted U.S. tariffs on Brazilian ethanol imports, saying that the Brazilian product made from sugarcane is much more efficient than ethanol from corn. Critics of the U.S. subsidies say spurring the planting of corn for use in ethanol has added to a sharp spike in global food prices.

247

THE FORT PLTX

CORN ETHANOL POP- OBAMA

OBAMA SUPPORTS CORN-BASED ETHANOL CONSTITUENTS IN CORN BELT LARRY ROHTER, chief of the Rio de Janeiro bureau of The Times, 6/23/08, Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industrys most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon and so did Senator Barack Obama. Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the countrys second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel. Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates. In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol ultimately helps our national security, because right now were sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth. Americas oil dependence, he added, makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.

248

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL POP- PUBLIC

ETHANOL GOES HAND IN HAND WITH WIND AND SOLAR AS RELIABLE FORMS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Victor, Stanford Law School professor & Freeman Spogli Institute's Program on Energy & Sustainable Development director, 8

(David G., 3-3-8, Why the United States is doomed to be an energy outlaw, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/id/118087/output/print, Accessed July 8-08)
The only policies that survive in this political vacuum are those that target narrower political interests with more staying power. Thus America has a highly credible policy to promote corn-based ethanol, because that policy really has nothing to do with energy; it is a chameleon that takes on whatever colors are needed to survive. It is a farm program that masquerades as energy policy; at times, it has been a farm program that masquerades as rural development. As an energy policy it is a very costly and ineffective way to cut dependence on oil. As a global warming policy it is even less cost effective, since large-scale ethanol doesn't help much in cutting CO2 and other warming gases. Similarly, the United States has a stiff subsidy for renewable electricitymainly wind and solar plants-because environmentalists are well organized in their support for it. The coal industry periodically gets money for its favored technologies, as in FutureGen, but even that powerful lobby has a hard time getting the government to stay the course. Europe is in danger of contracting the same affliction. To be sure, most European countries long ago started taxing energy as a convenient way to raise revenues, which fortuitously also makes energy more costly and creates a strong incentive for efficiency. That approach did not originate as an energy policy, but it has emerged as a keystone of Europe's more successful efforts to tame energy consumption. And Europe is in the midst of shifting policymaking from the individual countries to Brussels, which may create a more coherent approach. But despite these advantages, Europe is notable for its inability to be strategic. For example, Brussels is touting a new pipeline called Nabucco that would help Europe cut its dependence on Russia for its natural gas. So far, Brussels is good at talking about the Nabucco dream but can't agree on a route, financing, or even on where to get the gas that would replace Russia's.

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANTAGES INCREASING POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR ETHANOL IN THE US

Pernick & Wilder, Clean Edge, Inc., (research & publishing firm) 2007 (Ron and Clint, The Clean Tech Revolution: the next big growth and investment opportunity, p. 92) Ethanol provides similar improvements. According to an Argonne National Laboratory study, ethanol blends of just 10% reduce global GHG emissions, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) by 12% to 19%, compared with conventional gasoline. The Renewable Fuels Association says that ethanol reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 30% and tailpipe fine particulate matter emissions by 50%. For the United States, a nation that uses a quarter of the worlds oil output but has only 3% of the worlds remaining petroleum reserves, biofuels are gaining political steam.

249

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL POP-PUBLIC
Public Support for Ethanol Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, 08
(Political Research Institution, Public Support for Ethanol, 7/10/08, http://www.greenbergresearch.com/articles/2216/4489_RFA%20%20_public%20survey %20analysis_%20m3%200610.pdf) The on-going campaign to force the nation to revisit and reduce its commitment to ethanol has failed to move most American voters. A recent bi-partisan survey of 1,200 registered voters shows that by a 2:1 margin, the

public supports increased use of ethanol in our nations fuel supply. This majority crosses party lines, capturing conservatives and environmentalists alike. Voters largely blame the rising cost of food on fuel prices; less than one in ten blame the expanded use of ethanol. Between June 23 and July 1, the
Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies conducted a survey of 1,200 registered voters, including oversamples of environmentalists and opinion formers.1 The overall margin of error for this survey is +/- 2.83. This survey was commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association. The

pro-ethanol majority is bigand broad. Asked if they favor or oppose continuing to increase use of ethanol, an impressive 59 percent come out in favor, while just 30 percent oppose. Support is even higher (63 percent) among environmentalists. Men and women, older voters and younger voters, high school educated and college graduates, and voters from all
regions in the country support this alternative fuel. Most impressive, though, at a time when Democrats and Republicans cannot seem to agree on anything, they agree on the increased use of ethanol.

250

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL UNPOP- PUBLIC

MASSIVE PUBLIC RESISTANCE to ethanol Kate Galbraith, staff writer of the International Herald Tribune, July 25, 2008 "Backlash brewing against ethanol in United States" http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/25/business/ethanol.php?page=2 Along the highways of this city, and elsewhere in the United States, a mutiny is growing against energy policies that heavily support and subsidize the blending of ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, generally made from corn, into gasoline.Many consumers complain that ethanol, which constitutes as much as 10 percent of the fuel they buy in most states, hurts the efficiency of their cars and chokes the engines of their boats and motorcycles.

251

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL UNPOP- PUBLIC

PUBLIC HATRED TOWARDS ETHANOL StormWire http://stormwire.stormexchange.com/2008/06/ethanol-popularity-running-on-empty.html Tuesday, 6/10/08 Ethanol Popularity Running on Empty BOTTOM LINE WEATHER POINTS During the last 12 months, frustrated air-travelers avoided up to 41-million trips. Economy lost more than $26 billion including $4.2 billion in federal and state taxes. Industry losses: Airlines-$9.4 billion, hotels-$5.6 billion and restaurants $3.1 billion. The ethanol industry could be headed for hard times driven by soaring food prices and a worldwide food shortage. Congress is facing increasing pressure to roll back the federal requirement that increases the amount of ethanol and other biofuels blended with the nation's gasoline supply. Opponents say food prices are on the rise because too much corn is being used produce ethanol, when it should be feeding people and livestock. Investors are also running out of patience because they aren't seeing the returns they had hoped for, according to the Associated Press. "Consumers are starting to get restless and Washington is starting to listen," said Morningstar analyst Ann Gilpin, who follows Decatur, Ill.-based Archer Daniels Midland, the country's second-largest ethanol producer. The ethanol market would be severely limited if Congress rolled back the federal mandate that calls for annual increases in the amount of biofuels added to the fuel supply -- 9 billion gallons by the end of this year, increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The odds of Congress changing that mandate this year are slim because the 10 states -- mostly in the Midwest -- that produce more than 80 percent of all American ethanol have almost half of the 270 electoral votes needed to win a presidential election, said analyst Kevin Book, of Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. After the election, though, sentiment could change. "I think we're still a long ways from anything actually being done on it, but at the same time there is a lot more serious support than there was at this time two or three years ago," said Rick Kment, an ethanol-industry analyst for agricultural data company DTN. Investor disappointment also is weighing on ethanol-only companies, particularly those that are smaller and privately held, Kment said. On the other hand, analysts say ethanol producers like ADM that distill the fuel additive as just one of many businesses appear better prepared to weather whatever's coming their way. ADM doesn't break out the profit it makes from ethanol, but the division that includes the fuel additive operations accounted for about 20 percent of the company's earnings last year. In the most recent quarter, when profit in that division fell by almost a third, companywide profit increased 42 percent on the strength of ADM's other businesses.

252

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL =MCCAIN FLIP FLOP

The plans a flip flop for McCain
Styles 08
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, an energy and environmental strategy consulting firm. Since 2002 he has served as a consultant, advisor and communicator, helping organizations and executives address systems-level policy. His industry experience includes leadership roles at Texaco Inc. in strategy development and scenario planning, alliance management, and energy trading, at both the corporate center and with business units involved in global oil refining & marketing, transportation, and alternative energy. He has an MBA and a BS in Chemical Engineering. Friday, January 18, 2008 http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2008/01/candidates-energy-mccain.html

Ethanol is one aspect of energy policy on which McCain differs with many of his rivals. You have to admire someone who campaigns seriously in Iowa on a platform of ending subsidies for corn ethanol, and in Michigan on higher fuel economy standards. Still, when confronted with the charge that he has "flip-flopped" on this issue--that he was entirely against ethanol previously but now only opposes subsidies for it--his response was somewhat less convincing than it might have been. In any case, his aversion to subsidies is apparently not confined to ethanol, extending beyond energy to agricultural commodities, consistent with his overall emphasis on free markets and fiscal conservatism. He expects alternative energy to advance on a "level playing field"--leveled further by monetizing the climate externality via market-based mechanisms.

Kills his popularity

Wall Street Journal, 4-1-2002 These sellouts of principle can be excused, if you have the right tastes, by crass politics. Vetoing the campaign finance bill would be throwing
down the gauntlet to John McCain, who might decide to play Ross Perot in the 2004 campaign. The steel decision is aimed at a few congressional seats in Pennsylvania and West Virginia deemed crucial to continued Republican control of the House in this falls elections. I tend to doubt this rationale even on political grounds. Public

reversals on principle, even if less dramatic than renouncing a read my lips pledge, erode a presidents standing and credibility

253

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL POP- DEMS

Democrats empirically love ethanol Washington Times 6 (Democrats push ethanol growth, Washington Times, 5-12-06, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/11/20060511-1125337723r/) House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America, and they introduced bills to expand production of ethanol. "We can grow new energy here at home from American farms to American families," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, South

Dakota Democrat. Democrats on the Rural Working Group introduced bills that call for doubling the percentage of renewable fuels, such as ethanol, sold in the U.S. by 2012 and increasing the percentage of so-called "flex-fuel" cars capable of running partly on ethanol. The legislation would require that 75 percent of all U.S. cars be flex-fuel models by 2013. Flex-fuel cars would cost the same as regular cars, the Democrats said. The bills also extend the tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel production through 2015 and increase tax benefits to small ethanol producers. The legislation also boosts incentives for increasing the number of stations that pump ethanol and
biodiesel and calls for greater investment in biofuel research.

254

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL UNPOP- OBAMA

OBAMA DISTANCING HIMSELF FROM ETHANOL http://www.newsweek.com/id/118087 Obama hates ethanol Associated Press, 3/4, 2008 Candidates Question Expansion of Ethanol Development http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/04/candidates-question-expansion-of-ethanol-development/ WASHINGTON Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday the federal government might need to rethink its support for corn ethanol because of rising food prices, a stance similar to Republican John McCain's but at odds with farm states considered important to the November election."What I've said is my top priority is making sure people are able to get enough to eat. If it turns out we need to make changes in our ethanol policy to help people get something to eat, that has got to be the step we take," said Obama, D-Ill., on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We have rising food prices around the United States. In other countries, we're seeing riots because of the lack of food supply, so this is something we're going to have to deal with," he said

255

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL BIPART
Ethanol is bipartisan- Democrats, Republicans, economists, and environmentalists all support it Cilion 8 (Broad Support for Ethanol, Cilion: Fueling Change, 4-6-08, http://www.cilion.com/broadsupport.html)
The ethanol industry benefits from broad bi-partisan support in the United States. Rural farming communities support the increased opportunity to market feed and energy crops. Macroeconomists look to ethanol to reduce the energy portion of the growing U.S. trade

deficit. Environmentalists appreciate ethanols improvement of air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Political leaders, as well as recognized candidates for the 2008 Presidential Office, acknowledge that ethanol offers a rare win-win policy scenario.

256

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL UNPOP- CONGRESS

Congress hates ethanol- subsumes their bipartisanship warrants WTOP News 8 (H. Josef Hebert, With food costs rising, ethanol benefits now questioned, WTOP News, Associated Press, 5-6-08, http://www.wtopnews.com/?
nid=116&pid=0&sid=1399271&page=2) WASHINGTON (AP) - Just months ago, ethanol was the Holy Grail to energy independence and a "green fuel" that would help nudge the country away from climate-changing fossil energy. Democrats and Republicans cheered its benefits as Congress directed a fivefold increase in ethanol use as a motor fuel. President Bush called it key to his strategy to cut gasoline use by 20 percent by 2010. But now with skyrocketing food costs _ even U.S. senators are complaining about seeing shocking prices at the supermarket _ and hunger spreading across the globe, some lawmakers are wondering if they made a mistake. "Our enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. That's all I'm saying, a second look," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing. In a dramatic reversal,

ethanol has shifted from being an object of widespread, bipartisan praise to one of derision, even among some of its past supporters.

257

THE FORT PLTX

ETHANOL PART
Ethanol is partisan- GOP wants to reduce and Democrats wont give up WTOP News 5-6 (H. Josef Hebert, With food costs rising, ethanol benefits now questioned, WTOP News, Associated Press, 5-6-08,
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=116&pid=0&sid=1399271&page=2)

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he will introduce a bill to abandon the ethanol requirement passed just before last Christmas and go back to the one Congress enacted in 2005 that would call for a more modest ethanol increase. But Barton is not so naive to think his bill has a chance. House Democratic leaders have given no indication of retreating from the ethanol requirement. Still, said Barton, "it's worth putting in." And congressional unease about the food-for-fuel debate is showing itself in a number of places.

258

THE FORT PLTX

**************FED BUILDINGS**********

259

THE FORT PLTX

FED BUILDINGS BIPART/POP-PUBLIC

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FOR FEDERAL BUILDINGS IS BIPART AND POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC

Aaron Sadler [staff writer, The Morning News], 6/30/07, Arkansas Lawmakers Find It Easy Being Green, http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/07/01/news/070107dcgreen.txt
An Arkansas environmentalist said last week that he thinks so-called "green" legislation will catch on, even among lawmakers with abysmal environmental voting records, because of growing public outcry over climate change. Glen Hooks of the state Sierra Club chapter said corporations like Wal-Mart have announced environmental initiatives, signaling momentum in the green movement. "It's almost becoming a bad thing politically to be anti-environmentalist, even in Arkansas," Hooks said. Environmentalists applauded the Senate's June 21 passage of a bipartisan energy bill that would raise automobile fuel efficiency standards to an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent jump from the current requirement. The measure would also require energy
producers to increase use of alternative fuels. Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both D-Ark., voted for final passage of the bill, though Pryor supported a less stringent fuel efficiency measure backed by the automobile industry. Hooks pointed to last year's environmental scorecard from the League of Conservation Voters as an indicator of how Arkansas lawmakers stand on environmental issues. The scores ran the gamut, from a 92 out of 100 for Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Little Rock, to an 8 for Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers. But Boozman this year has endorsed "green" legislation from his position on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And his record improved last year compared to 2005, when his environmental score was zero.

Boozman said he wants the transportation panel to spearhead an initiative to make federal buildings more energy efficient. The committee has oversight of federal buildings. Boozman also said he believes federal agencies can save taxpayer money by installing dimmer switches for lights or erecting solar panels to harness energy from the sun. "Federal buildings are a tremendous amount of square feet," Boozman said. "We can save a lot of money and not use nearly as much energy."
In similar fashion, Pryor has proposed energy audits for all federal buildings. The proposal was included as an amendment to the energy bill that was approved in the Senate. Pryor's bill requires federal agencies to implement energy- and water-saving measures that have verifiable cost savings once the audits are completed. Pryor, too, has introduced the Smart Buildings Act of 2007, legislation that provides tax incentives to owners of commercial buildings who replace outdated heating and air-conditioning units. Newer models of HVAC units are 70 percent more efficient than those made just a decade ago, he said. In addition, 3,500 Fort Smith workers manufacture HVAC units. Pryor identified the legislation as boon to Fort Smith industry. Residents in the economically disadvantaged Delta can also cash in on the environmental movement through biofuels production, lawmakers say. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Prescott, said his southern Arkansas district is particularly appropriate for biofuels research and development. Ross secured in a House committee last month $5 million for the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff for the study of cellulosic biofuels. They are defined as fuels derived from plant and wood wastes such as sawdust or from commercially grown switchgrass "We have real opportunities in the Delta by investing in cellulosic ethanol," Ross said. Lincoln supported the extension until at least 2010 a tax incentive that encouraged production and use of biodiesel. It was not included in the energy bill, but Lincoln said she would continue to look for ways to pass the provision during this Congress. The current tax credit expires in 2008. "Without the biodiesel tax credit ... it will be difficult for this exciting industry to continue to grow," Lincoln said. Ross supports energy policy that relies on a variety of sources to fuel the United States, biofuels among them. Coal, hydroelectric, nuclear and geothermal energy should also be cultivated as part of the broad U.S. energy policy, according to the platform of the Blue Dog Coalition. Ross is a co-chairman of the group of fiscally conservative Democrats. Rep. Marion Berry, D-Gillett, is also a Blue Dog. "One of my biggest priorities is increasing the production of biofuels because I believe alternative energy is the bridge to a cleaner and better future," Berry said. "It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have a significant impact in mitigating climate change." Both Ross and Berry scored 25 on last year's environmental report card from the League of Conservation Voters.

Despite that record - which Ross disputes as one of dozens of meaningless reports from special-interest groups - the scorecards show that environmentalism knows no partisan boundaries, Hooks said.

260

THE FORT PLTX

FED BUILDINGS POP- PUBLIC

Public loves the plan polls prove RK STEWART, President of the American Institute of Architects, 2/12/07. ENERGY EFFICIENT FEDERAL BUILDINGS, Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy, http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/RKStewart_WrittenTestimony_SenateEnergy.pdf Finally, the American public believes the time is now to reduce energy usage and reduce the impacts of climate change. The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners recently conducted a nationwide poll of voters and found that 74 percent of those polled agreed that the government should take the lead in promoting real estate development that conserves our natural resources. In addition, 71 percent of voters agreed that the government should immediately put into effect new energy policies that drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The American public supports conserving our precious resources, and believes that it is in the best interests of our nation and the world to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel produced energy and move towards a sustainable future. Reducing energy use in federal buildings would be a major step towards that goal.

261

THE FORT PLTX

FED BUILDINGS POP- OBAMA

A major part of Obamas environmental policy is carbon neutral federal buildings Concord Monitor, 10/9/07. Obama rolls out energy plan http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20071009/NEWS01/710090373/1217/NEWS98 Obama also said he would invest $150 billion over 10 years to develop clean energy, including corn ethanol and other advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from wood chips. He would invest $50 billion over five years in a new venture capital fund to bring clean energy technologies into the market through partnership between the public and private sectors. Obama said the increased investment will allow the U.S. to set standards requiring 25 percent of all the country's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. That figure is lower than the standards set in Richardson's plan, equal to those set by Edwards and higher than the other Democrats, according to the League of Conservation Voters. A third major component of the plan would be trying to make the country 50 percent more energy efficient by 2030 by updating building codes for efficiency, making federal buildings carbon neutral, offering efficiency incentives, updating the national utility grid and phasing out traditional incandescent light bulbs by 2014. The other Democrats have called for reducing energy consumption by 10 percent to 20 percent by 2020, but none has projected as aggressively as Obama. If Obama wins hes promised to set standards on buildings. Washington post [Juliet Eilperin and Lyndsey Layton McCain Pledges Greener Government Washington Post: Republican Candidate Says Federal Government Would Buy Fuel-Efficient Vehicles, Retrofit Office Space Comments 56 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/25/politics/washingtonpost/main4206931.shtml?source=RSS&attr=_4206931] June 25, 2008 Obama, who first set his targets last October, has promised that he would make all new federal buildings 40 percent more efficient than current ones within five years, and carbon-neutral by 2025. He has also pledged to increase efficiency of existing federal buildings by 25 percent within five years and to ensure that the government derives 30 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020 -- none of which McCain has promised to do.

262

THE FORT PLTX

FED BUILDINGS POP- MCCAIN

McCain supports plan vowed to decrease federal emissions Washington post [Juliet Eilperin and Lyndsey Layton McCain Pledges Greener Government Washington Post: Republican Candidate Says Federal Government Would Buy Fuel-Efficient Vehicles, Retrofit Office Space Comments 56] June 25, 2008 In a speech in Santa Barbara, Calif., McCain (R-Ariz.) vowed to "put the purchasing power of the United States government on the side of green technology" by buying fuel-efficient vehicles for its civilian fleet of cars and trucks and by retrofitting federal office space. The pledge comes months after Obama (D-Ill.) outlined a more detailed and ambitious proposal on the subject, virtually ensuring that the next administration will take significant steps to lower the government's output of energy and pollution. A greening of the government would probably have a major impact on the Washington region, as the modernizing of buildings would spark a mini-construction boom and ease energy demands. Cleaner vehicles would also reduce harmful auto emissions, environmentalists say. "Every year, the federal government buys upwards of 60,000 cars and other vehicles, not including military or law enforcement vehicles," McCain said as he campaigned with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a prominent GOP environmentalist. "From now on, we're going to make those civilian vehicles flex-fuel capable, plug-in hybrid, or cars fueled by clean natural gas." Saying that the U.S. government ranks as "the single largest consumer of electricity in the world" because it holds sway over "3.3 billion square feet of federal office space" worldwide, McCain said he plans to reduce the government's carbon footprint by updating its buildings and demanding better standards in new ones.

263

THE FORT PLTX

FEMP UNPOP- REPS

Republicans hate FEMP ClimateProgress, 7/7/08, McCain on energy efficiency: He is Cheneys third term! http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/07/mccain-on-energy-efficiency-he-is-cheneys-third-term/
Good luck. Conservatives like McCain, including Newt Gingrich in the 1990s and President Bush this decade, have been blocking progressive efforts to significantly increase the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) budget for decades. Note to McCain: the construction market has already swung heavily in the direction of green technology in the past decade thanks mainly to the US Green Building Council.

264

THE FORT PLTX

**********GAS RATIONING***********

265

THE FORT PLTX

GAS RATIONING UNPOP- DEMS

Gas Rationing is unpopular with Democrats The Topeka Capital Journal Online 5-20-2001 [Energy plans come without sacrifice, http://www.cjonline.com/stories/052101/new_energyplans.shtml] Concepts like sacrifice, rationing, austerity -- maybe turn down the air conditioning or even give up the sport utility vehicle -- are missing in President Bush's plan to deal with the crunch. They are missing in Democratic plans, too. Conservation," says Bush, "does not mean doing without." Bush's blueprint relies on more energy supplies and a basket of enticements for greater energy efficiency. In his speech introducing it, he called conservation "the result of millions of good choices made across our land on a daily basis," and asked for no hard choices in particular. Rozanne Weissman, speaking for the Alliance to Save Energy, wasn't surprised. "Americans do not want sacrifice and deprivation," she said. "This administration doesn't want to look like the Jimmy Carter administration -- telling people to turn their thermostats down and then not getting re-elected." Congressional Democrats have proposed a variety of steps to shelter Americans from sky-high costs. Like Bush, they don't question the idea that people can continue to have it all. "Democrats do not advocate energy policies that will require rationing or reductions in our standard of living," says the House Democrats' energy plan.

266

THE FORT PLTX

**************GEOTHERMAL*************

267

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL BIPART
Geothermal has strong bipartisan support GEA 08 (Geothermal Energy Association, Renewable Industry Association Asks Congress to Direct DOE to Follow New Law, March 19,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=51930) At issue is the Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 passed as part of the 2007 energy bill. The legislation defines a bold new vision of public-private partnerships and federal research and information initiatives that could help bring substantial new geothermal energy sources online to meet national energy needs, according to GEA. Congressional action on geothermal research was at least in part a response to efforts by the Administration to terminate all federal geothermal research, as proposed in their FY 2007 and FY 2008 budgets. But, Congress rejected the Administrations proposals to close the program. Last December Congress approved $20 million for DOEs geothermal research efforts in FY 2008 as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. A few days earlier Congress passed national energy legislation, H.R.6, which contained the new research program for advanced geothermal technologies. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told his colleagues ...with the Senate's passage of the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 and H.R. 6, the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007, the Department of Energy must now finally understand that its irrational hostility toward geothermal energy research and development has come to an end. Last month, a bipartisan group of a dozen Senators led by Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Murkowski (R-AK) sent Secretary Bodman a letter urging DOE to move forward immediately with the new geothermal research law. An important part of the

Energy Independence and Security Act, HR 6, are the provisions that authorize and direct the Department of Energy to undertake a broad, new advanced geothermal energy research program, the Senators told Bodman. These provisions were based upon legislation that had strong, bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate... they added. In their statement today, GEA urged
Congress to direct the DOE to implement the new law and to provide adequate funding to achieve its goals. The association proposed funding for the program should be $77.5 million in FY 2009. While DOEs budget proposal for FY 2009 included funding for geothermal research, it would fund only work on enhanced geothermal systems and ignore many other opportunities to expand geothermal energy production, according to GEA.

268

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL POP-REID
Reid supports geothermal energy called for more funding Washington Post 07 (In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served, May 24, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301782_pf.html)

Reid, as a senator from the electricity-needy West, noted that the legislation set aside $300 million in new money for research in energy efficiency and renewable energy and suggested that some money be used to reverse the administration's original plan to end its geothermal-energy research program. Reid demanded that the administration fund the geothermal program at 2006 levels or higher. "Geothermal energy has the potential to cleanly and renewably satisfy the new electricity needs of the West," he wrote. Reid also asked the administration to expand a federal loan program to include geothermal research projects. Other
lawmakers, from both parties, inundated the Energy Department with similar requests. Democrats slammed such practices when Republicans ruled the House, but such calls and letters have not let up in the Democratic Congress, executive branch officials said. "Certainly, we have heard from various members of Congress this year to express their support for various projects and groups seeking funding from the department," said Energy Department spokeswoman Anne Womack Kolton. "There's no difference from previous years." Another key Democratic reform requires House members seeking earmarks to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in the project.

269

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL POP-DEMS
Democrats are pushing geothermal Roll Call 07 (In '09, Democrats Would Test Appetite for Change, November 27,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/in_09_democrats_would_test_app.html) A second major priority will be control of global warming and development of alternative energy sources. Clinton

proposes to create a $50 billion strategic energy fund, paid for by ending oil and gas subsidies and taxing oil company profits, to develop alternative clean-fuel technology. Democrats show a distinct partiality toward solar, wind, geothermal and agricultural sources of energy - and increased fuel economy standards for automobiles - as opposed to coal and nuclear power. On the regulatory front, Clinton and other Democratic candidates all are promising stricter environmental controls, such as requirements that utilities generate at least 20 percent of electric power using renewable fuels by 2020. They are likely to be more aggressive in enforcing occupational health and
safety laws and oversight of corporate governance, including CEO pay. On spending, Clinton calculates that her health insurance proposal will cost $110 billion a year - half to be paid for by making the health system more efficient, half by raising taxes on the wealthy. She is proposing to double the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation and to establish a government-matched 401(k) savings program for all citizens costing $25 billion per year, paid for by limiting the tax exemption on estates valued at more than $7 million.

270

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL POP- PUBLIC

Geothermal technologys popularity has increased rapidly
Driscoll, 07 (Emily, reporter for NYU science and environmental project, Drilling for Energy- But not Oil, 10/19/07, http://scienceline.org/2007/10/19/env-driscoll-geothermal) The popularity of geothermal heating and cooling has increased rapidlyeven President George W. Bush has a geothermal system at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. In addition, experts are looking towards the technology as a way to provide clean electricity. Although geothermal energy makes up just half of one percent of the total energy consumption in the United States, demand jumped 13 percent from 2001 to 2005, according to the federal Department of Energy. In January, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released the most extensive report on the geothermal power generation in thirty years.

Public loves geothermal Inside energy 98 (11/2)

Meanwhile, the Sustainable Energy Coalition released a survey of registered voters that showed 97% of the respondents believe the United States should increase its use of new energy technologies that improve fuel efficiency and conserve energy. Ninety-three percent support increasing the use of renewable energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and hydroelectric power. The poll of 1,000 voters also indicated that a majority of Americans believe they are seeing changes in their local weather caused by global warming, with three-quarters of them saying the changes are for the worse, the coalition, which represents 35 business, environmental, consumer and energy policy organizations, said at a press conference Wednesday.

Geothermal overwhelmingly popular San Fransisco Chronicle, 06 (9/24)

Most involved in the energy industry believe a significant increase in wind, solar and geothermal power is possible in California. Renewable energy is incredibly popular -- a Public Policy Institute of California poll earlier this year showed that 83 percent of adults interviewed supported more government spending to boost renewable energy. The state has plenty of sun and wind -- experts suggest the Tehachapi region could generate enough wind power to light 3 million homes. And, with the price of natural gas having tripled in the last few years, wind power is cheaper to produce than electricity supplied by a natural-gas-fueled power plant.

271

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- CONGRESS

Congress oppose funding geothermal programs empirically proven CSM 06 (Christian Science Monitor, US TO CUT FUNDS FOR TWO RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, September 15,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0915/p02s01-uspo.html) Out at the Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River, a new turbine is being tested that generates more electricity, but won't kill so many fish - thanks to research dollars from Uncle Sam. Down in California's Long Valley, on the Sierra Nevada range, federal researchers are working to boost efficiency of geothermal energy, which uses the earth's natural heat to generate power. But renewable energy advocates may have to kiss goodbye those and other research projects. The US Department of Energy (DOE) is quitting the hydropower and geothermal power research business - if Congress will let it. Declaring them "mature technologies" that need no further funding, the Bush administration in its FY 2007 budget request eliminates hydropower and geothermal research, venerable programs with roots in the energy crises of the 1970s. "What we do well is research and funding of new, novel technologies," says Craig Stevens, chief spokesman for the DOE. "From a policy perspective, geothermal and hydro are mature technologies. We believe the market can take the lead on this at this point." Still, "zeroing out" such research could end up being a penny-wise, pound-foolish move, some energy advocates say. Any savings from the cuts would be nil since all of the nearly $24 million ($1 million from hydropower and $23 million from geothermal) research funding would go to other programs such as biofuels.

272

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- REPS

Republicans are opposed to funding for geothermal Grist News 08 (No renewal for renewables, June 10, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/10/11530/1857)
The second bill, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, was the Senate partner to the tax-extenders legislation that passed in the House last month. The $54 billion package would have extended tax breaks for renewable energy that are set to expire at the end of this year. It includes a six-year

extension of the investment tax credit for solar energy; a three-year extension of the production tax credit for biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas, and solid waste; and a one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind energy.
The bill also has incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and cellulosic biofuels, incentives for companies that produce energyefficient products, and incentives to improve efficiency in commercial and residential buildings. Funding for the tax credits would come from closing loopholes for hedge-fund managers and multinational corporations. Republicans Smith, Snowe, and Bob Corker (Tenn.) voted in favor of

cloture on the bill, as did all of the Democrats present for the vote. The tax-break extensions have stalled in the Senate several times before, and folks in the renewables industry are starting to get nervous as we near the expiration of those credits at the end of this year. More than ever, with record energy prices, record unemployment, and grave concerns about global warming, Congress needs to work out
differences so we can stabilize energy costs for consumers and businesses, improve our nations energy security, and create tens of thousands of quality, greencollar jobs, said Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch following the vote. Green groups rushed to chastise GOP leaders for

the obstruction. By once again blocking efforts to extend these crucial clean energy tax incentives that are in danger of expiring, this minority is responsible for kicking the economy while its down, said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope in a written
statement. Jobs are already being lost in the renewable-energy industry and at least 100,000 more could disappear unless Congress acts to immediately renew these tax incentives.

273

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- BUSH

Bush oppose increase funding for geothermal LA Times 07 (Priority changes on green policies, August 21, http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/21/nation/na-green21)
While legislation to raise vehicle miles-per-gallon standards and cap emissions from power plants has been slower moving because of resistance from some lawmakers Democrats have turned to the budget to advance their environmental priorities by increasing spending on a variety of

lower-profile programs. That is likely to set up a showdown this fall between Congress and President Bush, who wants to spend less on climate-change initiatives. The White House budget office, which has criticized excessive spending in the overall appropriations bills, noted that the presidents proposed
budget provides for a 3% increase in spending for climate-change activities. Congress is putting its money where its mouth is, said Lowell Ungar, senior policy analyst at the Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington coalition of business, consumer, environmental and government leaders. They are devoting real resources to trying to address the problem of climate change. Lawmakers from both parties also see the publics heightened interest in climate change and energy security as an opportunity to steer federal money to their states through earmarks billed as environmentally friendly. Money has been set aside for scores of home-state research initiatives and construction projects, including $1 million for a plug-in hybrid vehicle demonstration project at Southern Californias South Coast Air Quality Management District. Green is becoming very fashionable, said Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), a senior appropriator who secured $500,000 for a geothermal demonstration project. I think members are going to be challenged in their district about how they are responding to concerns about climate change and U.S. dependence on foreign oil, he said. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), for example, got $500,000 for a fuel-cell project by Superprotonic, a Pasadena company started by Caltech scientists. America needs to wean itself off of foreign oil, Schiff said in a statement. This is as much a national security imperative as it is an environmental one. And federal support for innovative new technologies is part of the answer. Early this year, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee asked scientists how government efforts could be cranked up to combat global warming and reduce oil use. The question then became: How do we get the biggest bang for our buck? said Kirstin Brost, spokeswoman for committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) Weve only accomplished a small first step, but it is a step in the right direction. Environmental initiatives are scattered throughout the 12 House appropriations bills for the federal fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. Kei Koizumi, research and development policy program director of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, said money for addressing climate change had been added even in areas where you might not expect to find it. The bill funding foreign-aid programs calls on the U.S. Export-Import Bank to increase investment in renewable energy projects a provision that its sponsors, Schiff and Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), say could lead to about $1 billion in additional green exports in 2008. The bill funding the Department of Housing and Urban Development requires it to incorporate robust green building standards. And the bill funding Congress provides $3.9 million to the Green the Capitol initiative that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is pushing to make the House carbon neutral by the end of next year. Some of the largest increases are in the bill that funds the Department of Energy. The House provided about $1.9 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, about 52% more than the administration requested. Just two years ago under the Republican-controlled Congress, the programs received about $1.2 billion. The Senate has yet to complete its spending bills, but its appropriations committee has recommended about $1.7 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

The House energy appropriations bill also provides $44 million to promote geothermal energy, a ninefold increase compared with current spending. The Bush administration, on the other hand, has proposed doing away with spending on the geothermal energy program, contending that it is a mature industry.

274

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL UNPOP- BUSH

BUSH OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

Butler, 2007 (Rhett A., Bush Administration Cuts Funding for Geothermal Energy, Mongabay.com an Environmental Science and Conservation News Site, March 13) The Bush Administration is seeking to eliminate federal funding for geothermal energy research according to a report from Reuters. Oddly, the move comes as the White House has made a push for renewable energy to reduce dependence on foreign oil imports. Apparently the administration appears to be focused on biofuels as liquid fuels and nuclear for electricity generation. "The Department of Energy has not requested funds for geothermal research in our fiscal-year 2008 budget," Reuters quoted Christina Kielich, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, as saying. "Geothermal is a mature technology. Our focus is on breakthrough energy research and development."

275

THE FORT PLTX

GEOTHERMAL POP- PUBLIC

Geothermal energy is popular with the public Driscoll 7 Driscoll, 2007, Emily V. Geothermal wells increase in popularity as a fossil fuel alternativeOctober 19th, http://scienceline.org/2007/10/19/env-driscoll-geothermal/ The popularity of geothermal heating and cooling has increased rapidlyeven President George W. Bush has a geothermal system at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. In addition, experts are looking towards the technology as a way to provide clean electricity. Although geothermal energy makes up just half of one percent of the total energy consumption in the United States, demand jumped 13 percent from 2001 to 2005, according to the federal Department of Energy. In January, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released the most extensive report on the geothermal power generation in thirty years. New York is no exception to the trend. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which gives money and technical help to builders who use alternative energy sources, reports that 63 geothermal projects have been completed since its aid program began in 1999. Forty-six more projects are in the works. The number of applications and installments continues to go up, said Gregory Lampman, a project manager with the state authority

276

THE FORT PLTX

*************GLOBAL WARMING***********

277

THE FORT PLTX

GW POP- PUBLIC
AFTER WEATHER AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS WORRIED ABOUT THE CLIMATE. O'RIORDIN, EDITOR FOR ENVIRONMENT, 2007. (TIMOTHY, "GRASSROOTS ENERGY AND CARBON INITIATIVES", MARCH, 49.2) To the European mind, the U.S. approach to climate change is shaped by the oil, gas, and coal lobbies coupled to an intransigent yet paradoxically lobby-sensitive White House. In practice, Americans now worry about climate change, recognizing the emergence of new and unusual weather patterns with huge consequences for the local economy (unpredictable snowfalls, avalanches, floods, excessive summer heat, and storms and the costly infrastructure, roof, and other building damages that result). In addition, all manner of initiatives are emerging at regional, state, and municipal levels and in the day-to-day behavior of U.S. citizens.

Plan massively popular Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)

Three in four Americans embrace the idea that global warming is a real problem that requires action. However, this majority divides on the question of whether the problem is pressing and should include steps with significant costs, or whether the problem can be dealt with more gradually through low- cost steps. A majority is optimistic that steps taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will actually benefit the US economy. The public is split on whether or not there is a consensus in the scientific community about the reality of global warming. Nonetheless, nearly eight in ten say that President Bush should develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming

Action to prevent warming overwhelmingly popular Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
It is, of course, interesting that even though there is lack of clarity about the scientific consensus, almost eight in ten favor taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, 79% say that President Bush should develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming. This is up a bit from March 2001, when CNN asked the same question and 67% said that he should.

278

THE FORT PLTX

GW POP- PUBLIC
Action on global warming popular VSI no date http://www.votesolar.org/polls.html (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)
Global Warming--the Yale Center for Environmental Law an Policy did a survey (March 2007) on Americans' attitudes towards global warming. 83%

say it is a serious problem, up from 70% in 2004. Website with poll results here.

Massive Public Support for action to prevent warming Global Public Opinion.org 07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm
Virtually all polls taken have found a very strong majority believes that global warming is a real problem. Only a very small minority -- less than a quarter of the public -- doubts the reality and significance of global warming. However, since the beginning of the Bush administration, the percentage showing doubts may have increased. --In May 2005, 79% said global warming represented an extremely important (41%) or an important (38%) threat to the US in the next ten years. Only 18% said it was not an important threat. (German Marshall Fund) [1]
--In August 2004, Greenberg-Quinlin-Rosner found 68% saying global warming is a very serious (36%) or important (32%) problem, with another 18% saying that was a small problem. Only 10% said global warming was not a problem. These numbers are not significantly different from when the question was asked in April 2004. [2] --In July 2004, 84% said global warming represented a critical threat (37%) or an important but not critical threat (47%) to the US in the next ten years, while only 14% said it was not an important threat at all. This was up slightly from 79% in June 2002. Those saying global warming is a critical threat was down from 46% though this was counter-balanced by a sharp upward movement among those saying important but not critical threat (33%). Those saying it was not an important threat at all was down from 18%. (CCFR) [3]

when Princeton Survey Research asked how much of a priority global warming should be to the US long-range foreign policy goals, only 12% who thought global warming had no priority, while 82% said it had at least some priority (46%) or was a top priority (36%). [4]
--In July 2004, -- In September 2002, 74% said they "believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures"; 19% said they did not believe this (Harris Interactive). [5] --In March 2001, 64% said they "believe that emissions of gases like carbon dioxide are causing global temperature increases"; 23% did not (Time/CNN). In the same poll 75% thought global warming a very serious (43%) or fairly serious (32%) problem; 21% thought it a not very serious (14%) or not at all serious (7%) problem. [6] --In an August 2000 Harris poll, 72% said they "believe[d] the theory" of global warming, while 20% said they did not--up from December 1997 when in response to the same question 67% said they believed it and 21% said they did not. In the same poll 85% thought global warming was a "very serious" (46%) or "somewhat serious" (39%) threat; only 13% said it was "not serious at all." [7] --In a July 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, only 11% took the position that "concern about global climate change is unwarranted." [8] --In a September 1998 Wirthlin poll, 74% embraced the belief that "global warming is real" even when the belief was defined in terms of global warming having "catastrophic consequences," while just 22% said they did not believe in it.[9] --An October 1997 Ohio State University survey asked about "the idea that the world's temperature may have been going up slowly over the last 100 years" and found that 77% thought "this has probably been happening," while 20% thought "it probably hasn't been happening." Likewise, 74% thought the world's average temperature would go up in the future, while 22% thought it would not. [10] When PIPA in 2004 and 2005 offered respondents three possible positions on global warming, with one of the options being that global warming is real but does not require high cost steps, more than three quarters chose an option that endorsed the reality of global warming (see below). This is down slightly from 1998 and 2000 when more than 80% made such assessments. The finding that most lends itself to a contrary interpretation is a September 2005 ABC/Washington Post poll that asked how convinced respondents were that global warming or the greenhouse effect is actually happening. A majority of 56% said they were either completely convinced (23%) or mostly convinced (33%). An additional 22% said they were not so convinced and 17% said they were not at all convinced that global warming or the greenhouse effect is actually happening. Similar results were obtained in June 2005. It is possible to combine the 22% saying not so convinced with the 17% saying not at all convinced to say that 39% are not convinced. However in light of the abundance of other evidence suggesting a much smaller number, it is more likely that those answering not so convinced were trying to characterize the level of their knowledge. Many respondents may indeed be quite uncertain about their knowledge. However, as we have seen above, and will

when asked on what basis they favor making policy, a large majoritymuch larger than 56%-advocate taking action on the basis that global warming is a problem that requires a significant response. [11]
see even more below,

279

THE FORT PLTX

GW POP- RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Religious right supports action to stop climate change Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University, May 2008, Global Climate Change National Security Implications
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf

Within the religious right, a large number of evangelical leaders have recently broken with their peers to argue that global warming is indeed happening, that humans are at least partly responsible, and that this is a moral issue that Christians are called to confront. These leaders justify this new position by arguing that in the book of Genesis, God commanded human beings to till and tend his garden, and that the environment is part of our stewardship
responsibilities on the earth, to care for Gods creation. Thus global warming is a moral imperative. Secondly, many argue that action on global warming flows directly from their longstanding missions to help the poor and needy, such as famine and poverty relief around the world. To paraphrase, How can Christians devoted to these acts of mercy in good conscience ignore a problem that is going to push millions of people into the same kind of circumstances that we are there to help them with? Importantly, these are arguments that resonate within the religious rights own strongly-held value system. Yet these specifically Christian arguments may not resonate with other audiences. There are, however, many roads to Damascus. Different people, starting from very different moral and ethical standpoints, can at times reach the same conclusions and work together in common action, albeit sometimes for different reasons.

280

THE FORT PLTX

GW UNPOP- OIL LOBBIES

Oil Lobbies dislike action to curb global warming
Brown 2
Anthony Browne, Times of London. August 16th, 2002http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3531

Conservative lobbyists in the US funded by Esso have urged President Bush to derail the Earth summit in Johannesburg because it is antifreedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western.

The lobbyists, funded by the oil company that was also a big donor to the Presidents election campaign, urged Mr Bush to make sure that global warming was kept off the agenda at the summit, which starts later this month. In a letter leaked to Friends of Earth in the US, the lobbyists tell Mr Bush: We applaud your decision not to attend in person . . . the summit will provide a global media stage for many of the most irresponsible and destructive elements in critical economic and environmental issues. Your presence would only help publicize various anti-freedom, anti-people, anti-globalization and anti-Western agendas, it said. Among others, the letter was signed by representatives of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the American Enterprise Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis, all of which received funding from ExxonMobil, Essos parent company. The letter, dated August 2, adds: The least important global environmental issue is potential global warming and we hope that your negotiators can keep it off the table and out of the spotlight. The World Summit on Sustainable Development will be attended by 100 world leaders. However, the US Government has already made clear that it will not sign any internationally binding agreements.

281

THE FORT PLTX

************HEMP**********

282

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- PUBLIC

Hemp Popular/Support Angelique van Engelen, @ Triple Pundit, 5/28/8 [US Hemp Lobby Grows Stronger, Books Successes, http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/us-hemp-lobby-grows-stronger-b-003183.php]
The US food market alone annually imports over USD12 million worth of hemp based products and the lobby to get hemp legalized in the US is set to grow stronger in years to come because hemp is not only about the most nutricious plant around, it's also likely to gain attention due to the battle against greenhouse gas. Environmentalists also argue hemp can be used to combat deforestated areas and in the looming food crisis. Take in these facts; hemp scrubs the atmosphere of more carbon dioxide than any other plant because it has the highest known quantities of cellulose for annuals. Hemp has at least four times (some sources suggest 50-100x) the biomass potential of similar plants (cornstalks, sugarcane, kernaf and trees). It grows at a phenomenal speed, so is an excellent solution to the deforestated areas of the Amazon and Asia. The carbon dioxide that hemp absorbs is turned into incredibly rich wood and massively strong fibers. There's also attention for hemp from scientists worried about the looming food crisis. Only one acre of hemp creates 1,000 gallons of methanol, which is an astounding amount. Henry Ford ran the first car fuelled by hemp seed. Hemp is now known to be suitable for creating various substitutes for coal based products, acetone, ethyl, tar pitch and creosote. The US market for hemp based food and healthcare products is vibrant and it's mostly the Canadians and Europeans that are happy with this. Canada legalized the growth of hemp in 1998 and the owner of Ruth's Hemp Foods, Ruth Shamai, was an active part of the lobby there. Canadian production of hemp increased from 4,000 acres in 2002 to over 24,000 acres in 2005. Farmers have fun cultivating the crop because it has a high market value and the plant does not need herbicides or pesticides. According to a report in an Australian newspaper the US healthcare market was $30 million in 2004. In Europe demand from the housing sector is massive too and this set to grow in the US too. Hemp plants can be ground up and made into bricks. These have better insulating qualities than traditional bricks. The US lobby to get hemp legalized is particularly strong in North Dakota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Vermont. Some farms in North Dakota were issued individual licenses early last year to become the first US farms grow industrial hemp. And in Vermont, earlier this month a bill was passed 25 votes to one which legalizes hemp. Yet the farmers are still faced with massive risks because at federal level there's a long way to go before all is okay. The first step toward fully reinstating hemp as an industrial crop was taken last year when congress amended the controlled substances act. Now industrial hemp is no longer included in the definition of marijuana. The state of Oregon also has a powerful lobby in favor of hemp. Check out the Cannabis Tax Act, the Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp, and Vote Hemp to find out more information about the US lobby.

283

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- PUBLIC

PLAN POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC

Daniel Stanaway, Mississippi State University, 2003, http://www.carrs.msu.edu/greenpieces/2003/stanaway.pdf

Demand for hemp is rising again. In this time of high ambient pollution, declining forest, agricultural monopolism, and green house gases, alternatives to the way humans acquire goods is necessitated. People of the United States have three main reasons for the cultivation of the hemp plant; environmental concern, the impending need of alternative energy sources, and economic opportunities. Ecocentric people, acting as agents for the environment, seek the hemp plant because of the eco-friendly means for attainment of industrial goods. With the supply of fossil fuels and forest products both on the decline, another option must be recognized to meet the needs of this world. The conventional method of powering this planet does not come from a non-exhaustible source, and someday this will be depleted. Although that time is far from now, it is not too early to begin to find alternative ways to fuel life. Beyond environmental reasoning, farmers and entrepreneurs spurred by economic opportunity are interested in the hemp plant. Americans are hungry enough for hemp products to spur a 200 million dollar a year industry that must be supplied outside the borders of the United States (Armstrong, 2002). The present low farm value contrasted by this lucrative industry, make hemp production a desirable market for farmers. Americans have many reasons to want the prohibition of the hemp plant to end.

PLAN POPULAR IN MANY STATES

Robin Lash, Third-year student, University of Oklahoma College of Law, 2003, Lexis, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? start=2&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T4235158880
While Canada has broken step with the United States by legalizing hemp production, the United States adamantly refuses to lift its ban. Many Americans are very interested in pursuing legalization of industrial hemp. A recent study shows that nineteen states are currently taking action to bring back the commercial hemp industry. n95 States which have passed pro-hemp resolutions or have hemp legislation pending include Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and Virginia. n96

284

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- PUBLIC

Hemp is a growing national interestVermont and North Dakota prove The Earth Times, 7-1-08, Controversy Resolved by Opinion of Attorney General's Office, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/vermont-hemp-farming-bill-becomes-law,454181.shtml Vermont grows an average of 90,000 acres of corn per year, a small amount compared to Midwest states; however, the need for a good rotation crop exists nationwide. From candle makers to dairymen to retailers, Vermont voters strongly support hemp farming. Admittedly a niche market now, hemp is becoming more common in stores and products across the country every day. Over the past ten years, farmers in Canada have grown an average of 16,500 acres of hemp per year, primarily for use in food products. In Vermont, the interest in hemp includes for use in food products, as well as in quality and affordable animal bedding for the state's estimated 140,000 cows. "Vermont's federal delegation can now take this law to the U.S. Congress and call for a fix to this problem of farmers missing out on a very useful and profitable crop," comments Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp. "North Dakota farmers who want to grow hemp per state law are currently appealing their lawsuit in the federal courts. The real question is whether these hemp-friendly state congressional delegations feel compelled to act," adds Steenstra. Rural Vermont's Shollenberger states that "the Vermont law is significant for two reasons. First, no other state until now has followed North Dakota's lead by creating real-world regulations for farmers to grow industrial hemp. Second, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as a member of the Committee on Agriculture -- both relevant committees that could consider legislation. We also have a friend at the USDA in new Secretary Ed Schaffer who signed North Dakota's hemp bill as Governor. I plan to visit Washington, DC and try to figure out what Congress and the Administration intend to do."

Hemps popularity is growingThe Cannibis Tax Act proves Shikole Struber, OhMyGov, 7-11-08, Marijuana may become legal in Oregon, http://ohmygov.com/blogs/state_and_local/archive/2008/07/11/marijuana-may-become-legal-in-oregon.aspx The fight for medical marijuana has been long, arduous, and continues on despite the fact marijuana has been proven effective for battling the pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by illnesses like multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS. But who needs medical marijuana when Oregon is going to have it available in liquor stores for anyone 21 and over? The Cannabis Tax Act would make cannabis (aka Mary Jane, marijuana, pot, grass) products legal and available in a retail environment in the state of Oregon for those old enough to purchase alcohol, which is also a drug for those unaware of it. Proponents of the Act claim that the state will have more control over the substance by taking it off the black market. It will, in theory, take it out of the hands of children. If you don't follow this rationale, go ask a few teenagers what is easier to buy, marijuana or alcohol. Advocates of the act - and presumably the product - also tout the potential tax revenue to be gleaned from sales of the green stuff, potentially stabilizing budget shortfalls from the rocky economy. And then there's the Oregon farmer, who will have another cash crop to grow as well - assuming they can part with it once grown.

285

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- PUBLIC

Hemp products are growing in popularitycollege campuses prove Newswise, 7-11-08, Going 'Green' At College? St. Lawrence U Tells You How, http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/542371/ But St. Lawrence University, in Canton, New York, offers an alternative a green alternative. The University is a leader in the campus sustainability movement, and has developed a different kind of shopping list for new students, especially those interested in living an environmentally responsible lifestyle. The first thing suggested? Don't buy so much stuff. Students can start their eco-aware lives at college by sharing items with their roommates. Heres more: The Green Shopping List Only purchase ENERGY STAR logo TVs, DVD players, computers and microwaves because they use 10 to 50 percent less energy. There are fewer options for compact refrigerators, so be sure you buy MicroFridge, Danby Millenium (DAR254, DAR482). Of course, not having one of these products is even better -- most dorms have common area TVs and refrigerators If you must buy one of these items, but dont want to purchase an ENERGY STAR item, consider a used model. The production of new models adds to carbon emissions, too. Mind the phantom load of computers, gaming systems, stereos, TVs, cell phones, cameras and iPod chargers that draw electricity even when turned off. Unplug them when not in use, or plug them all into a power strip and unplug the strip when not using them. Flipping that switch off is probably the most important energy-saving measure you can take. Buy only compact fluorescent light bulbs, which use 75 percent less energy and last 10 times longer than standard incandescent light bulbs. Make sure the desk lamp you bring with you uses the compact bulbs. We love our cars, but a bike comes in handy around campus and for town use. St. Lawrences library loans out bikes, just like books. Bring your own reusable mug/coffee cup. Some schools, like St. Lawrence, offer free refills on beverages, and help reduce disposable cup production. Bring reusable bags to carry books, groceries and other items you buy. Use organic fibers for your sheets, rugs and curtains produced without toxic chemicals. Hemp and bamboo fiber are becoming more popular. And many of the companies using organic fibers recycle and use fair labor practices. Washington D.C. recently obtained its first hemp store Annys Shin, WashingtonPost.com, 4-7-08, D.C. Gets a (Perfectly Legal) Hemp Store, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/04/06/AR2008040601452.html Like most social change, the District's first all-hemp emporium arose from years of complaining. The chief complainer: Adam Eidinger, professional protester and erstwhile political candidate.His complaint: "We're the last major metropolitan area in the U.S. that doesn't have a hemp store." Determined to see Washington join places like New York, Boston and even Burlington, Vt., Eidinger decided to open his own store, Capitol Hemp.Until now, Eidinger has not been known as a businessman but as a spokesman for antiwar activists, stadium protesters, angry bicyclists and people who frequent natural-food stores. Capitol Hemp grew out of his work for Vote Hemp, a District-based group devoted to lifting restrictions on hemp farming. (Hemp is legal to import into the United States but cannot legally be grown here.) He found that a lot of people still confuse the industrial variety of cannabis with the recreational variety. By showcasing hemp clothing, shoes and food, Eidinger said he hopes to dispel misconceptions about hemp." Just because it's a maligned plant doesn't mean it's dangerous," he said.

286

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- DEMS

MARIJUANA POPULAR WITH THE DEMS

The Boston Globe, 3-23-08, Lexis http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? start=11&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb=21_T4208125261

Representative Barney Frank News, Most Recent 60 Days said he plans to file a bill to legalize "small amounts" of marijuana. "I'm going to file a bill as soon as we go back to remove all federal penalties for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana," Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said late Friday on the HBO show "Real Time," hosted by Bill Maher. Frank said he'd filed a similar bill in the Legislature in the 1970s, but hasn't tried since he was elected to Congress. "I finally got to the point where I think I can get away with it," he said. (AP)

287

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- FARMERS

PLAN IS POPULAR FARM LOBBY

Linda Clark, staff writer for the UKIAH DAILY. 16 Nov 1999 THE HYPE OVER HEMP http://www.lightparty.com/Economic/TimeToLegalizeHemp.html But all beauty aside, in the mid-western states, farmers are extremely interested in hemp. "Family farms are going bankrupt faster than ever before because agribusiness is taking over," said John Schaeffer, president of Real Goods Trading Corporation."Hemp gives them an alternative crop that saves them money because it doesn't need any chemicals to grow it." Schaeffer said in places like Germany and Canada, hemp is being used "more and more now" in the auto industry for interior parts. "Fiber glass, door panels, carpet and dashboards can all be replaced with hemp," he said. He noted that hemp is "cheaper, recyclable, weighs less, is non-toxic and is much more energy efficient." Schaeffer said they sell hemp products at Real Goods retail stores, including the one in Hopland, because they want to support the industry. "It's replacing hydrocarbons, which are polluting the atmosphere, with carbohydrates, which support family farming," he said. According to Roulac, "China was the first region in the world to cultivate and use hemp. The plant was used for making rope and fishnets as early as 4500 B.C." And today, he said, they are still "the world's largest consumer and exporter of hemp seed, paper, and textiles." As for the United States, there have been no permits given to grow hemp since the 1950s, Roulac said. But in time that will change, according to Schaeffer. "It's just a matter of a few years. I think it's insane that it's illegal," Schaeffer said. "And that America is the only country that's backward enough to equate hemp with marijuana." LEGALIZE IT

288

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- CALI, MONTANA AND ND

California, Montana, North Dakota love hemp David Goodner, @Des Moines Register, 7 [January 14, Licensing farmers to grow hemp would be a boon to Iowa, energy revolution, http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=3978]
On January 1, North Dakota became the first state in the country to license industrial hemp farmers, according to the Missoula Independent. The North Dakota law requires a background check, fingerprinting, and a $200 fee to become a licensed grower. The approval of the Drug Enforcement Administration is also required. In 2001, Montana passed a similar law permitting industrial hemp farming dependent on federal approval. At least 12 other states, including California, currently have hemp-related farming laws in effect.

289

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP= CULVER WIN

Plan wins Culver David Goodner, @Des Moines Register, 7 [January 14, Licensing farmers to grow hemp would be a boon to Iowa, energy revolution, http://blogs.dmregister.com/?p=3978]
Many Iowans are now looking to Governor Culver and the Democratic majority in the state legislature for some bold new initiatives to light the way for the 21st Century Iowa Expedition. Licensing Iowa farmers to grow industrial hemp would be a real trailblazer.

290

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP UNPOP- PUBLIC

The public is misinformed and afraid of hemp productsmarijuana statistics prove Jeremy Bare, Gauardian.co.uk, 7-20-08, This volte-face on cannabis is iniquitous and ignorant, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/20/drugspolicy.drugsandalcohol Cannabis is a certainly a harmful drug that can cause dependency and exacerbates existing mental health problems. But since David Blunkett's pragmatic decision in 2004 to regularise drug laws with the existing police practice of issuing warnings, the media have deliberately and wildly exaggerated the dangers of "weed". The government has abandoned its reason and thrown its lot in with hysterical and largely ignorant commentators. The figures used by the home secretary Jacqui Smith in May to justify "popular support" for a volte-face to class B concealed that 32% of the public support making it a class A drug alongside heroin and crack.

Both federal and local agencies are cracking down on marijuana useCalifornia proves Kylie Mendoca, New Times, 7-25-08, Why worry?, http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/651/why-worry-/ Between 2005 and 2007, there were about 60 DEA raids in California and about as many convictions in federal courts. Although most prosecuted dispensary owners forgo jury trials and take pleas, the raids, the investigations, and the court time cost tax payers dearly. Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group, estimates that between 2005 and 2007 the DEA spent more than $10 million on dispensary raids in California alone. That doesnt take into account the cost of investigations leading up to the busts.

291

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP COST POL CAP

PLAN DRAINS POLITICAL CAPITAL

Daniel Stanaway, Mississippi State University, 2003, http://www.carrs.msu.edu/greenpieces/2003/stanaway.pdf

This political battle is fought in the legislative branch of both Federal and State government. Grassroot organizations lead the battle for the pro-legalize advocates. These organizations are at a disadvantage because of lack of political power and lack of resources. Lobbying for this cause comes in the form of citizen involvement. Individuals have to attend legislative hearings, write letters, make phone calls, and be active in the pursuit of legalizing hemp. Information on these organizations can be found on the internet, as this type of media is used very efficiently. Pressure for legalization is also coming from international sources. A Canadian company, Kenex Ltd., was shipping sterilized hemp seed across the Canadian-United States border. The shipment was delayed for three days by U.S. Costumes, but was finally allowed through. Kenex Ltd. is filing a North American Free Trade Agreement Notice of Arbitration with the U.S. State Department. The three member Arbitration committee will decide whether Kenex is entitled to 20 million dollars in compensation for the DEAs attempt to ban hemp seed food (U.S. Newswire, 2002).

292

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP COST POL CAP

Plan is extremely divisive perceived as undermining the war on drugs Donna Leinwand, USA Today, 05, 'Industrial' hemp support takes root, l/n Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Montana and West Virginia also have passed hemp-farming bills. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced such a bill in Congress in June, but it hasn't advanced in the face of opposition by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the White House's anti-drug office. The DEA says allowing farmers to grow hemp in the USA would undermine the war on drugs. It says marijuana growers would be able to camouflage their crop with similarlooking hemp plants, and that DEA agents would have difficulty quickly telling the difference.

293

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP UNPOP- AGENCY

Strong opposition from the Drug Enforcement Agency T. Randall Fortenbery and Michael Bennett, Professors of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 7/01 (Is Industrial Hemp
Worth Further Study in the U.S.? A Survey of the Literature University of Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economies Staff Paper No. 443 < http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap443.pdf>) In addition to estimates of industrial hemps market potential and profitability, the Drug Enforcement Agencys (DEA) strong opposition to industrial hemp cultivation in the US is an important consideration regarding its commercial viability. Industrial hemp remains classified as a Schedule I Controlled Substance under the Controlled Substances Act in the US, and the DEA remains adamantly opposed to cultivation of industrial hemp for the following reasons (Vantreese, 1998): It is very difficult to distinguish between industrial hemp, which has low THC content, and marijuana. It has been suggested that industrial hemp advocates have a hidden agenda of supporting the legalization of marijuana.

294

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP POP- BUSH

Bush pushes and gets credit for the plan DOE 2/28/07 (DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding Department of Energy
< http://www.doe.gov/news/4827.htm>) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385 million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. This production will help further President Bushs goal of making cellulosic ethanol costcompetitive with gasoline by 2012 and, along with increased automobile fuel efficiency, reduce Americas gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years. These biorefineries will play a critical role in helping to bring cellulosic ethanol to market, and teaching us how we can produce it in a more cost effective manner, Secretary Bodman said. Ultimately, success in producing inexpensive cellulosic ethanol could be a key to eliminating our nations addiction to oil. By relying on American ingenuity and on American farmers for fuel, we will enhance our nations energy and economic security. Todays announcement is one part of the Bush Administrations comprehensive plan to support commercialization of scientific breakthroughs on biofuels. Specifically, these projects directly support the goals of President Bushs Twenty in Ten Initiative, which aims to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector to the equivalent of 35 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2017. Funding for these projects is an integral part of the Presidents Biofuels Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels, electricity, and other products. The solicitation, announced a year ago, was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. However, in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative, within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Section 932, Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling.

295

THE FORT PLTX

HEMP UNPOP- BUSINESS

CORPORATIONS FEAR HEMP WHILE CONTROLLING CONGRESS

Daniel Stanaway, graduate student in the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies at Michigan State University.Nov 2002. The Political Hemp
The second influence in the prohibition of industrial hemp is Corporate America. Major supporters of the MTA included players that had influential roles in the government. As Conrad (1994) states The promise that hemp held for the rest of the world was quickly perceived as a threat by a small core of powerful people in the elite special-interest oligarchy dominated by the Du Pont petrochemical company and its major financial backer and key political ally, oil man and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (37). Just a few years before the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, Du Pont had created synthetic, petrochemical compounds that could substitute natures remedies. These include rayon, plastics, nylon, and a variety of chemicals. Hemp would destroy the synthetic market, along with the booming oil and timber businesses. That was sixty five years ago. Imagine the multi-billion dollar industry that has been created through big plastic, big timber and big oil industries at the expense of the hemp plant. With increasing environmental concern, these special interest groups are continually under fire, creating a niche for hemp once again. Allowing the hemp industry to commence would be economically disastrous for many influential figures in Big Business. Corporate America, so intricately tied to the United States government, has great influence in the policies of this country. In order to ensure that the conventional pathway is complied with, Big Business sponsors political allies who in turn create a sort of a monopolistic market for products that are capable of being produced in more than one way. It is in Big Business best interest for hemp to remain illegal, and in this country, Corporate America gets what Corporate America wants. DUPONTS TERRIFIED OF THE HEMP THREATINITIAL CRIMINALIZATION PROVES

Jack Herer, national director and founder of H.E.M.P., former presidential candidate and internationally recognized Emperor of hemp, February 1992 "The Emperor Wears No Clothes: Hemp and the Marijuana Conspiracy"
In the mid-1930s, when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the-art, available and affordable, the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis - and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies - stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt. Coincidentally, in 1937, DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont's own corporate records and historians,* these processes accounted for over 80 percent of all the company's railroad carloadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s. If hemp had not been made illegal, 80 percent of DuPont's business would never have materialized and the great majority of the pollution which has poisoned our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers would not have occurred. In an open marketplace, hemp would have saved the majority of America's vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers, despite the Great Depression of the 1930s. But competing against environmentally-sane hemp paper and natural plastic technology would have jeopardized the lucrative financial schemes of Hearst, DuPont and DuPont's chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh.

296

THE FORT PLTX

*************HYBRID CARS*********

297

THE FORT PLTX

SUVS POP- PUBLIC

SUVS ARE WIDELY POPULAR Esmarts.com, no date

(Spotlight: SUVs http://www.esmarts.com/cars/suv/suv.htm, accessed 7-18-8)

Why are SUVs so Popular? An SUV is popular for many reasons: * Large cabins and higher ride height create additional comfort and safety. * A full-size SUV can tow trailers, RVs, and boats. * More women are attracted to the styling of an SUV, which looks cooler than a mini-van while still allowing them to transport a lot of kids, groceries, and sports gear. * The external size of an SUV makes driver feel safer on the road than in a small sedan or other type of passenger car.

298

THE FORT PLTX

HYBRID CARS BIPART

Lobbying and public support has fueled bipartisan support in Congress for hybrid cars Whitman, 6 President of the Whitman Strategy Group, a management consulting/strategic planning partnership servicing both government and business clients,
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Bush, 50th Governor of the State of New Jersey (Christine, Hall Institue of Public Policy, Open Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government 6-27-06 http://www.hallnj.org/cm/document_handler.jsp?dId=1000156) // DCM

With gasoline prices at record highs, Americans have a renewed interest in the development of more fuel-efficient cars. Majorities of voters in both parties would like to see auto manufacturers create cars that use less fuel and produce less pollution. As such, the tax credits for hybrid cars, recently signed into law by President Bush, received strong bipartisan support in the Congress. The policy was so forwardlooking and logical that it even received the enthusiastic support of the environmental lobby and the auto industry. There is increased bipartisan interest in Congress to encourage hybrid technology Hopson, 6 Washington Representative for Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program (Eli, Hybrids on the Hill 2006 Legislative Look 1-192006, http://www.hybridcenter.org/best-of-the-blog/best-blog-consumer-2006-legislative-look.html) // DCM
<So I thought Id give you a bit of an inside look at whats happening on Capitol Hill. In addition to Congressman Rahm Emanuels (D-IL) domestic hybrid tax credit expansion bill Scott mentioned earlier, there are several other bills that would either remove the unproductive 60,000 vehicle cap on the tax credit, or provide an incentive to manufacturers to retool existing plants to produce efficient vehicles that use new technologies, including hybrids. Two of these are comprehensive oil savings bills that set oil savings targets for federal agencies to meet. Both the House bill (H.R. 4409) and the Senate version (S. 2025) include several provisions that would help reduce oil usage for certain vehicles, but there is still no guarantee that the entire oil savings goals would actually be met. Theyre popular, at least in concept, as these bills have drawn together a diverse collection of supporters, from conservatives like Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jack Kingston (R-GA), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to moderate to liberal members such as Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Elliot Engel (D-NY). This newly formed collaboration on both sides of the aisle is a sign of increasing support for reducing our use of petroleum and increasing advanced technology vehicle availability through a variety of policy approaches. Representative Chris Shays (R-CT) introduced a comprehensive bill that would provide incentives to manufacturers to produce advanced technology vehicles, and remove the cap on the hybrid tax credits. Rep. Shayss bill (H.R. 4384) also provides incentives to businesses and consumers to use natural gas and electricity more efficiently, and to increase there use of renewables. Other bills include Representative Jim Gerlachs (R-PA) oil savings bill that would provide incentives to manufacturers to produce efficient vehicles, and require that the improvements to the overall vehicle fleet are over and above existing fuel economy requirements. Senator Barak Obama (D-IL) and Congressman Jay Inslee (DWA) also introduced bills (S.2045 and H.R. 4370, respectively) that would assist manufacturers with increasingly burdensome health care costs in exchange for the manufacturers agreement to produce advanced vehicles, including hybrids. Finally, there are a couple of bills that place a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and use that revenue to either encourage manufacturers or consumers to produce more efficient automobiles. Senator Richard Durbins (D-IL) bill would focus on automobile manufacturers and suppliers, while Representative Pallones (D-NJ) bill would provide a tax credit to consumers of $1,000 for purchasing a vehicle that gets over 30 miles per gallon. So as you can see, theres a lot of interest in Congress in trying to address oil usage and encourage hybrid technology (if you want to look at the specific text of any/all of these bills you can head to the Thomas website), but its still too early to tell if any of these bills will become law in the near future. With all of these bills its important to focus on the details to make sure that any federal dollars spent will actually encourage advanced technology AND decrease overall oil usage, which is not an easy thing to accomplish. Well keep delving into the minutiae, and let you know if any of these look likely to move.>

299

THE FORT PLTX

HYBRID CARS POP- ENVIRO & AUTO LOBBIES

Automakers and environmental groups back tax incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles San Francisco Chronicle 01
[Automakers, environmentalists agree on clean vehicle tax credits, Apr 24, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/04/24/national1643EDT0692.DTL] bg

Several major automakers and environmental groups have joined forces for the first time to support tax credits to promote cleaner vehicles and reduce fuel consumption. Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., along with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups, announced support Tuesday for legislation offering credits to people who buy cleaner motor vehicles.

Auto and environmental lobbies back the CLEAR Act Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition 03
[The CLEAR ACT: Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies, http://www.ngvc.org/ngv/ngvc.nsf/bytitle/clearact2003summary.html] bg

A broad and diverse group that includes representatives from automobile manufacturers, the environmental community and alternative fuel groups support the [CLEAR Act] proposed legislation.

300

THE FORT PLTX

HYBRID CARS POP- DEMS

Democratic support for green cars and alternative fuels Fezziwig, 6 Administrator for GreenCarsNow.Com, a website promoting fuel efficient cars and cleaner alternative energy (Democrats Good for Hybrid Cars 1119-06 http://www.hybridcars.com/node/23006) // DCM
<Americans demonstrated their dissapointment over middle eastern energy dependence on fossil fuels and rising gas prices with a resounding defeat of Bushs energy policies. These concerns are inextricably linked to hybrid cars and cleaner alternative fuels. The Democrats big win was a major bolster to green cars and

alternative fuels. Fuel efficient standards are emerging as a major political topic. Fuel-efficiency has declined during the past decade for nine of the 13 major
manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States, according to a new study by the Consumer Federation of America. Democrat Edward Markey has proposed raising combined light truck-car standards to an average of 33 miles per gallon by 2016 models. Democrat Barack Obama proposed increasing the average to 40.5 mpg for passenger vehicles and 32.6 mpg for the light-truck category, which includes SUVs, by 2020. Jerry McNerney, who defeated Pombo in California, says he will "dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of new vehicles.">

301

THE FORT PLTX

***************HYDROPOWER*************

302

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROPOWER POP- CONGRESS

Congress loves hydropower: 402-9 House vote proves NHA, 7 (National Hydropower Association, Congress overwhelmingly supports hydropower as renewable, 8-8-2007,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=49602) // THK

In a stunning 402-9 vote, the House sent a clear message of support for the nation's hydropower resources when it voted to reaffirm its recognition of hydropower as a renewable energy resource. In his speech on the floor, Sali reminded colleagues that hydropower is a clean, renewable,
domestic source of energyone that provides the largest amount of renewable energy generation in the U.S. today. NHA is extremely pleased with the House vote. Hydroelectric energy, along with the many benefits it provides, is a vital component of the nations energy portfolio, said Linda Church Ciocci, NHAs Executive Director. This recognition is well-deserved, and NHA is gratified by the tremendous show of support. As the nations largest renewable energy, hydropower is

one of the key tools in combating climate change. The hydropower vote came during debate of H.R 3321, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, on an amendment offered by Representative William Sali (R-ID) seeking support for both large- and small-scale conventional hydropower technologies. In his speech on the floor, Sali reminded colleagues that hydropower is a clean, renewable, domestic source of energyone that provides the largest amount of renewable energy generation in the U.S. today.

303

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROPOWER POP- REPS

Republicans want to lower gas prices and relieve foreign oil dependence by investing in hydropower.
Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor 8 (Susan, Rupublicans Blame Democrats for A Nation of $$ Gasoline, 6-9-2008) // THK <"House

Republicans have put forth a comprehensive plan to help lower gas prices by harnessing new technologies and unlocking America's natural energy resources in an environmentally responsible way," Boehner said. "Every American has a right to ask: What will it take for
the Democrat-controlled Congress to finally take action and help ease the pain of the Pelosi Premium on behalf of struggling families and small businesses? Speaker Pelosi has the power to schedule a vote on our plan to begin breaking America's costly dependence on foreign sources of energy. She should not wait another day to do so." Republicans are reminding the American people average gas prices under the Democrat-controlled Congress have risen from $2.33 a gallon on January 4, 2007 -the first day of the Democratic Majority -- to the current $4.00 a gallon. (But Pelosi, on her official Web site, notes that gasoline prices have "more than doubled since President Bush took office.") Republicans say they are committed to boosting supplies of all forms of energy "right here at home" to reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil. They insist oil drilling in the U.S. can be done without damage to the environment. Republicans also are promoting "advanced" nuclear power and next-generation coal as well as renewable energy from wind and hydroelectric power.>

304

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROPOWER BIPART
Hydropower has bipartisan support: House vote proves Hoffman, 7 ( Wayne Hoffman, 8-4-2007, Sali Gets Congress to Support Hydropower; Freshman Idaho Congressman's Proposal Approved Overwhelmingly by House of Representatives, http://sali.house.gov/News/DocumentSingledf36.shtml? DocumentID=70957 // THK Congressman Bill Sali won overwhelming bipartisan approval in U.S. House of Representatives for a proposal in support of hydropower as America looks for new sources of energy. The House voted 402-9 in favor of Sali's proposal. The vote took came in a rare Saturday session as the House finished business ahead of the August recess. Sali's amendment to a House Democrat energy bill calls for the development of clean, consistent, pollution free large and small scale hydropower. Without Sali's amendment, the legislation made no reference to hydropower."If we are going to discuss
renewable energy, then we need to include hydropower," Sali told the Congress. "Hydropower for America means no greenhouse gas emissions. Hydropower offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy resources combined." It is estimated that last year, Americans avoided around 160 million tons of carbon emissions by using hydropower. More than 60 percent of power in the Pacific Northwest comes from hydropower. Sali's amendment is now part of the energy bill that cleared the House, although Sali voted against the total bill because, apart from his amendment, it does nothing to encourage development of new energy sources.

305

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROPOWER UNPOP- CONGRESS

Congress hates funding hydropower: they slashed 100% of funding when they passed the Continuing Resolution. Kagel - works for the Geothermal Energy Association 6 (Alyssa, 10-23-2006, Congressional Inaction Causes Renewable Energy Programs to
Suffer, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46308) // THK
<When

Congress left town to stand for re-election, it left without finishing the business of funding national energy programs. Instead, it put in place a stop-gap bill called a Continuing Resolution (CR), which leaves hydropower research at zero, slashes geothermal research
80%, reduces Electricity R&D funding by nearly a quarter, and decimates building code efficiency programs -- to name just a few of the federal energy programs left by the wayside. What Congress will do when it reconvenes November 14th is anyone's guess. In the meantime, numerous renewable energy and energy efficiency programs have had their budgets cut. Congressional action -- or inaction, as the case may be -- will decide the fate of many critical energy programs. -- Alyssa Kagel With Congress planning to return for only a few days in November, after the elections, it's hard to imagine how lawmakers will complete the many unfinished appropriations bills before the end of the year. Considering the growing public awareness about climate change, depleting oil reserves, and the need for more renewable energy, one would think members of Congress would be pressing hard to expand these programs. "Not so," said Ken Bossong, Coordinator of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and Director of the Sun Day Campaign, a national network of grassroots organizations promoting renewable energy technologies and improved energy efficiency. "We've heard a lot about carbon taxes and auto fuel efficiency legislation -- two directives that could make a real difference -- but we've seen no Congressional action," Bossong said. Significant Cuts in
the Continuing Resolution (CR) The appropriations process starts when the administration releases its budget recommendations, usually in January. Then the House and Senate each review the recommendations and vote on funding proposals for the agency programs. They work out their differences by producing a Conference Report that takes into consideration the House, Senate, and Administration recommendations. This Conference Report sets final funding amounts that, once approved by the House and Senate, are sent to the President to become law. But this year, Congress hasn't even begun to produce a Conference Report for the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill -- the one that includes the Department of Energy's (DOE) programs -- nor has a Conference Report been produced for the nine other bills whose programs remain suspended in uncertainty under the Continuing Resolution (CR). While the President's budget proposed some renewable program increases, it also included some serious renewable and efficiency program cuts. Yet for the past several months it looked like the tides were turning. The House and Senate each restored some of the programmatic budget cuts proposed by the Administration, particularly the geothermal and hydropower research programs. It looked like a Conference agreement could maintain or expand many renewable and efficiency programs. But Congress never finished most of the regular appropriations bills, and now the CR is changing that forward momentum. The CR could wipe out any gains made. When ten of twelve annually required appropriations bills -- bills that approve funding for federal agencies -- were not completed before Congress adjourned, the CR was passed to cover the gap. One of these ten bills, the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, contains funding for all renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at DOE. A CR allows federal agencies and programs to operate, usually based upon historic funding levels, until Congress signs a bill with final budget numbers. But not this year's CR. This

year's CR, good through November 17, 2006, allows federal agencies and programs to operate at the lower of the two funding levels set by the House and Senate. So, if either House has cut a program, it is reduced to the lowest funding level -- which could be zero. While the CR is usually a short-term stopgap measure, this time it may be extended for six months or more, program cuts that will have a devastating impact on federal renewable energy efforts. A number of worthwhile programs are being terminated or reduced under the CR. Take the Geothermal DOE Program, for example: funded at $ 24 million last year, the
Administration recommended terminating the program, the House recommended restoring $5 million, and the Senate recommended nearly full restoration. Under the CR, geothermal receives only $5 million in 2007.

Programs that have had funding partially or fully restored by the House or Senate, but that now face cuts compared with FY '06 levels under the terms of the CR, include: Renewable Energy Programs: -- Geothermal (78% decrease) -- Hydropower (100% decrease) Efficiency Programs: -- Industrial Technologies (16%
decrease) -- Industries of the Future (30% decrease) -- Vehicle Technologies (5% decrease) -- Clean Cities (19% decrease) -- Federal Energy Management (12% decrease) -- State Energy Program (30% decrease) -- Weatherization Assistance Program (16% decrease) -- Electricity R&D (22% decrease) Inaction Spells Continuing Confusion for Renewable Energy Without federal investment in research and demonstration projects, new technologies will not reach their full potential, said Linda Church Ciocci, Executive Director of the National Hydropower Association. "Cutting hydropower funding within the DOE is

extremely short-sighted when there is so much to be gained in bringing these clean, non-polluting technologies to the market at a time when our nation needs greater diversity and
more home grown energy," she said. Similarly, the geothermal industry believes DOE research support is critical to achieving future potential. "We are tapping only one or two percent of the U.S. geothermal resource base," said Karl Gawell, Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association. Not all programs were cut, however. Some received temporary increases. The Solar, Building Technology and Biomass programs have both received more funding. But these programs have only short-term budgets, making long-term program planning nearly impossible. As Congress adjourned, the Appropriations Committee leadership took a strong stand against pulling together the unfinished bills into one "omnibus" measure. As Congress Daily reported, House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) sent a written appeal to GOP leaders to avoid bundling together unfinished FY 2007 spending bills into a collective package after the elections. "It is our belief that omnibus legislation that bypasses the regular order is not in the best interests of the Congress, or ultimately the taxpayer," Lewis and Cochran wrote in a letter Monday to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). Many factors make the passage of an appropriations bill uncertain. Congress won't return until November 14, 2006, so that leaves four days in which ten bills must be passed. That is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Even if Congress can sort through the bills, some are skeptical about how the '07 appropriations numbers will finally turn out. "We're

worried our programs will get hit hard in conference," said Kara Rinaldi, Director of Policy at the Alliance to Save Energy. "Because Congress increased funding for defense, a great deal of money could be taken out of important domestic spending programs." If Congress doesn't pass all the remaining appropriations bills before adjourning for the
holidays, some say that another CR might be passed. That CR would likely extend through January or February. That could cause chaos in the next Congress. When Congress adjourns, bills that have not passed must start at the beginning of the legislative process. If

Congress cannot complete action on the appropriations bills in the twelve months of this year, it is unlikely that new leadership will be able to pass them in a matter of weeks.This has been on the minds of many agency
officials, as planning for the FY 2008 budget is already well underway and funding decisions for FY 2007 still have not been made. According to insiders at DOE, the current CR budget numbers are being used to plan for 2007 and 2008. Therefore, some programs will be forced to operate as if their budgets have been terminated or reduced until Congress can finish its business. When Congress adjourned, Senate Democrats blasted the Republican leadership for failing to adopt a fiscal 2007 budget resolution or complete 10 out of 12 appropriations bills.

"This Republican Conrad (D-ND).>

leadership is in total gridlock -- refusing to act, refusing to compromise, and refusing to govern," said Senator Kent

306

THE FORT PLTX

************HYDROGEN***********

307

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROGEN BIPART
There is bipartisan support for incentives in hydrogen innovation House vote proves Epstein, 6 Chronicle Washington Bureau (Edward, SFC, Congress Considers Hydrogen Prize House OKs program to reward researchers who find ways to end fossil-fuel dependence 05-11-2006, http://inglis.house.gov/sections/news/pdf_news_coverage/SFC_05_11_06.pdf) // DCM
A group of congressmen think they know the right recipe for getting America started down the hydrogen highway to a new energy epoch -take a helping of good-old American know-how and throw in the lure of millions of dollars. The result is the H-Prize, a $50 million program of awards for researchers who come up with breakthrough technologies that will free America from the polluting fossil fuels used in motor vehicles. On Wednesday, the House voted 416-6, with one member voting present, to create the program, which features a $10 million grand prize. The Senate version of the legislation is due to be introduced today. "Perhaps one day we'll look back on this day as the day that led to a cleaner, more secure America,'' said Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., one of the prize competition's creators. The bill directs the energy secretary to contract with a private foundation to create criteria for the prizes and administer the contest. The grand prize, to be awarded within the next 10 years, would go for creating a "transformational technology'' that brings hydrogen fuel or hydrogen vehicles or the infrastructure to distribute hydrogen fuel closer to reality. The congressional sponsors also hope to hook up the grand prize winners with private financiers armed with millions of dollars to commercially exploit the winning idea. Prizes of $1 million or $4 million would be awarded every two years for lesser technical advances or prototypes of vehicles. The proposed prize money is separate from government-awarded research funds for creating hydrogen vehicles, which President Bush has made a centerpiece of long-range energy research. And it is also separate from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to develop 200 hydrogen fueling stations for what he hopes will be mass-produced hydrogen vehicles. "This is an exciting opportunity to do for hydrogen what the X Prize did for spaceflight,'' said Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., the bill's main sponsor. Inglis was referring to the $10 million Ansari X Prize, which was won in October 2004 by a group that managed to privately build and fly a space vehicle that could carry three people to an altitude of about 66 miles, return to Earth, and do it again within two weeks. Previous prizes, public and private, have helped develop other technologies. Charles Lindbergh flew nonstop from New York to Paris in 1927 to win the $25,000 Orteig Prize, which had been offered since 1919 for the first pilot to pull off the feat. And in the 1860s, Congress and President Abraham Lincoln made railroad companies an audacious offer to create a transcontinental railroad. The rail companies got a subsidy for every mile of rail they laid, along with land grants along the right of way. By 1869, they had finished the monumental task. "We can do it now,'' Inglis said, "because we did it before.'' House Republican leaders cited the legislation as proof they are serious about addressing high gasoline prices, even though any dividends from hydrogen breakthroughs would be years away. Inglis initially wanted a much more generous prize of $100 million, but negotiations in the House Science Committee whittled away the amount. Some of Inglis' fellow GOP conservatives questioned why Congress should offer multimillion-dollar prizes at all. But Inglis said he pointed out that the money will be awarded only if researchers reach the goals set by the judges. "This is actually fiscally conservative,'' he said, "because I believe the reinvention of the car can do the same thing as the tech boom'' of the late 1990s, when the stock market and the economy took off, flooding the federal government's coffers with tax receipts. Besides, Inglis said, if nobody is awarded the prizes, the government won't spend the money. Inglis also said the prize program is designed to get people involved who have never received government research grants and to encourage teams of researchers across disciplines to work together on problems that have defied solution by hydrogen researchers, who so far have produced prototype hydrogen vehicles that cost almost $2 million. "Prizes make sense. They incentivize people,'' said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., the Science Committee's chairman. One hydrogen researcher who agrees is Anthony Eggert of UC Davis' Hydrogen Pathways Program. He said a prize competition inspires people. "People develop a passion to achieve the goal of winning a competition. Team members give more when the opportunity for recognition is greater, and for the money,'' said Eggert. "Each team believes it can win. ... You get much greater leverage than from just funding research.'' The competition is open to anyone, including non-Americans, providing their research for the competition is done in this country. Researchers who receive federal grants are eligible, provided their work for the contest is done separately from their federally funded work. Even if the legislation becomes law, the money for the prizes will have to be appropriated separately later in Congress, always a tricky process.

308

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROGEN POP- BUSH

Bush already extremely supportive of hydrogen initiatives budget proposal proves CNN, 3 (Bush Hydrogen Initative Fuels Debate February 9, 2003 http://www.theblackvault.com/article-print-6134.html) // DCM <After drawing attention to the potentials of hydrogen, which can power everything from cars to cell phones, in his State of the Union address, Bush said Thursday he considered his $1.5 billion hydrogen development plan a legacy for future generations and key to the nation's energy security. "I don't know if you or I are going to be driving one of these cars, but our grandkids will. And we can say we did our duty (and) ... proposed some initiatives," the president told hydrogen and auto industry leaders who had come to Washington, at White House request, to show off their latest technology. Bush wants to double federal research money to develop hydrogen, map out a fuel distribution system and help auto companies overcome some of the remaining barriers to making affordable cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells. >

309

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROGEN POP- BUSH

BUSH SUPPORTS HYDROGEN PAST INITIATIVES PROVE. Paula Dobriansky, Associate at the American Enterprise Institute, 11/26/03 http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.19525.filter.economic/pub_detail.asp The Presidents Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCAR Partnership launched last year will provide $1.7 billion over the next 5 years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, a hydrogen infrastructure, and advanced automobile technologies, allowing for commercialization by 2020. Tomorrow, we are holding a ministerial meeting of the International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy here in Washingon that will include thirteen other nations and the European Commission. In February 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would sponsor, with international and private-sector partners, a $1 billion, 10-year demonstration project to create the worlds first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and hydrogen power plant called FutureGen. This project is designed to reduce dramatically air pollution and capture and store greenhouse gas emissions. BUSH TRIPLED GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON HYDROGEN. CQ Congressional Testimony, 7/16/06 Implementation of the Energy Policy Act, Capitol Hill Hearing Testimony Lexis. More than three years after he announced the Initiative, the Presidents commitment to hydrogen continues to be strong: the $289 million request before Congress reflects a tripling of the budget compared to pre-Initative levels, and it directly supports the Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative goal to help break our Nations dependence on foreign energy sources and our addiction to oil.

310

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROGEN POP- CONGRESS

THERE IS OVERWHELMING CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR HYDROGEN FUNDING US Fed News, 8/6/07, Rep. Lipinski Calls for Continued Federal Support for Alternative Energy Lexis. Vice Chairman Lipinski has been a leader in Congress in promoting alternative energy research, especially for hydrogen. Hydrogen vehicles have the same capabilities as fossil fuel-powered vehicles, and their only emission is water vapor. Earlier this year Rep. Lipinski introduced H.R. 632, the H-Prize Act of 2007 which establishes $50 million in cash prizes for advances in hydrogen energy technology. This bill passed the House of Representative by a vote of 408-8 on June 6, 2007, and was included in the comprehensive energy bill passed by the House this past weekend, H.R. 3221. As set forth in H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security and Consumer Protection Act, federal funding levels for alternative energy programs will dramatically increase starting in Fiscal Year 2008. Specifically, this legislation includes $2.3 billion towards research and development of hydrogen, ethanol, bioenergy, solar, geothermal, and hydro energy. These funding levels were previously approved in legislation passed by the House Committee on Science and Technology. CONGRESS SUPPORTS BUSHS HYDROGEN INITIATIVES USA Today, 2/6/07, Requests may get mixed reception Lexis. Bush proposal: Spending would remain steady at $23 billion. The major focus is on reducing dependence on foreign oil Bush seeks to reduce US consumption of gasoline by 20% in 10 years. The budget aims for breakthroughs in clean technology such as biomass, hydrogen and solar energy. Outlook in Congress: Congress shares the goals, but Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and other Democrats say Bush doesnt invest enough in alternative fuels. The House has voted to cut oil firms tax breaks and invest proceeds in renewable fuels. The Senate is likely to follow.

311

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROGEN POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS HYDROGEN VOTING RECORD. Hydro Kevin, technical writer and publisher of Hydrogen Cars Now, 3/14/08 Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain on Hydrogen http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/political-issues/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-and-john-mccain-onhydrogen/ [Mills] In December 2007, John McCain took a trip to South Carolina and proposed hydrogen and nuclear power as alternatives going forward. As Ive stated before, outside of California, South Carolina right now is a hotbed of hydrogen research and development. Like Hillary, John McCain also voted yes on 100,000 hydrogen cars by 2010. MCCAIN VOTED TO PRODUCE 100,000 HYDROGEN VEHICLES BY 2010. OnTheIssues.org, list of stance on various issues for each political leader, 3/31/08 John McCain on Energy & Oil http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm [Mills] In 2003, McCain said that ethanol "does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." Campaigning in Iowa in August 2006, he described ethanol as a "vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse reduction effects." Yesterday, in Massachusetts, he reverted to his antiethanol position. Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. Dorgan Amdt. No. 865; To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill; this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress.

312

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROGEN POP- OBAMA

OBAMA SUPPORTS HYDROGEN- EMPIRICALLY PROVEN. Hydro Kevin, technical writer and publisher of Hydrogen Cars Now, 3/14/08 Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain on Hydrogen http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/political-issues/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-and-john-mccain-onhydrogen/ [Mills] In October 2007, Barack Obama mentioned that hydrogen R&D would be part of a broader $150 billion research and development package he was proposing about alternative energy. On the official Barack Obama Senate site, it mentions that the Illinois Senator along with Congressman Rahm Emanuel helped establish the first ethanol-to-hydrogen fueling station in the Chicago area. OBAMA BELIEVES HYDROGEN HOLDS PROMISE AND WANTS TO EXPAND INVESTMENT. Jason Spencer, staff reporter for the Herald Journal, 10/11/07 Obama: Hydrogen Holds Promise as Energy Source republished by Fuel Cell Works http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage7954.html [Mills] Though he failed to mention it during a major energy policy speech Monday, presidential hopeful Barack Obama said hydrogen holds promise in the future of alternative fuels. Giving an address in Portsmouth, N.H., Obama announced a plan that includes implementing a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gases: investing $150 billion over the next decade to develop new energy sources and create new jobs; improving energy efficiency by 2030; and reducing the United States dependence on foreign oil 35 percent by 2030. In a conference call afterward with reporters from early voting states, Obama said hydrogen research would be included in the $150 billion he proposed for research and development. So far we dont have a magic bullet when it comes to energy solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, hydrogenall of them have great potential, but there have been various technological limits, Obama said. Thats part of the reason we want to make sure were spurring the kind of investment and innovation and experimentation throughout the economy on all fronts, and hydrogen certainly would be included in that mix.

313

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROGEN CARS POP- PUBLIC

AMERICAN PUBLIC INCREASINGLY SUPPORTS HYDROGEN POWERED VEHICLES

Nguyen, 2008 (Daisy, Associated Press, Hydrogen Fuel Station Opens in LA, July 3) Although there are few hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles on the road, supporters hope the station will show the public that hydrogen can become a mainstream, eco-friendly alternative to petroleum. California officials see it as part of the Hydrogen Highway, a developing network of fueling stations to promote commercialization of hydrogen-powered cars. "It was only a few years ago that this was just a concept; now you can see it, touch it and feel it," Fred Joseck, technology analyst of the U.S. Department of Energy's hydrogen program, said at the opening ceremony. People want a way out of oil dependencythey want hydrogen cars The Gazette, 7-15-08, WE CAN DRILL OUR WAY OUT, http://www.gazette.com/opinion/oil_38253___article.html/drilling_prices.html Maybe some politicians and extreme environmental activists don't want abundant oil, even though it has helped the United States thrive for the past century. Maybe they're so convinced of a need to protect the environment that no cost to the United States could be too high. Perhaps a few citizens view American abundance as an entitlement, and something not linked to productivity and transportation powered by crude. Most Americans long for the day they can drive an electric car that really works, or a car that runs on hydrogen or the sun. Nobody much cares for the sight, smell or price volatility of gasoline. But it's likely we'll remain dependent on oil for decades to come.

314

THE FORT PLTX

HYDROGEN CARS POP- PUBLIC

Hydrogen is high profile and overwhelmingly popular Salon.com, 03 (2/23)
Hydrogen fuel-cell cars have long been popular with environmentalists eager to escape fossil fuel nastiness, and earlier this year President Bush boosted hydrogen's public profile when he lent the cause his bully pulpit and promised federal budgetary support to these "pollution free" cars. Cars that run on electricity generated from hydrogen fuel are a dream that easily draws bipartisan support: a futuristic, technocratic cure for the country's overdependence on foreign oil and environmental problems.

90% of public supports fuel cell incentives

But as the pollsters discovered, Americans aren't quite ready to embrace Cheney's no-nonsense prescription. We still want to believe that we can tap solar panels, windmills and fuel cells for our ever-growing energy appetite. A USA Today /Gallup poll, for instance, found 91 percent support for increased investment in these alternative energy sources, while just 48 percent supported increased use of nuclear power and 38 percent supported drilling in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

315

THE FORT PLTX

**************LCFS*************

316

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS BIPART/BOTH CANIDATES

Obama and McCain both support LCFS. Reuters 07 ("Barack Obama endorses low carbon fuel standard" Reuters. June 12, 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1229186820070613) LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed a federal low-carbon fuel standard patterned on California's ambitious goals. Obama also called on U.S. automakers to double gas mileage of cars and trucks over the next two decades. Obama assumed the stance of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who earlier this year proposed cutting carbon emissions in auto and truck fuels by 5 percent by 2015 and 10 percent by 2020. "We know that
transportation fuels account for a third of America's global warming pollution," the Illinois Senator said at a press event at a Brentwood gasoline station in Los Angeles. "And we know there are fuels available that emit less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere, fuels like biodiesel and ethanol." Schwarzenegger signed a groundbreaking executive order in January mandating the carbon dioxide cuts in fuels. In February, Republican presidential

. John McCain and Schwarzenegger appeared together in Long Beach, California, to say they wanted to expand the California proposals nationwide. Obama's low-carbon fuel standard would rely on "the market" to decide which fuels would be used by distributors and blenders. Such a standard would spur business to develop more flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol and gasoline as well as help foster growth of plug-in hybrid vehicles, Obama said.
candidate Arizona Sen

317

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS BIPART
LCFS has bipartisan support. Renewable Energy Access, 2007 (Obama introduces national low-carbon fuel standard http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48427, May 9 ) "Expanding the renewable fuels market in the United States will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, revitalize our agricultural sector, and provide a sustainable means to combat global warming. A homegrown solution to the international climate crisis lies in America's fields and farms," said Senator Obama. The National Low Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007 introduced by Obama and Harkin on Monday is just one in a growing list of similar bipartisan legislation.

318

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS POP- BOTH CANIDATES

No matter who wins the presidential election a LCFS will be adopted. The National Post, June 06, 2008 (Shaun Polczer, Canadian oil sure to be American election issue http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=569322) "With high oil prices, the energy is back on the political radar in a way that it hasn't been in a long time. The debate is going to be very real and Canada is going to be a part of it, no question. "No matter who wins the U.S. presidential election in November, there's a stronger chance the American government will adopt a "low-carbon fuel standard" that could penalize Canadian oilsands exports to the U.S., said Matt Price, the Alberta-British Columbia project manager for Environmental Defence Canada. Although he stressed that his group is nonpartisan and makes no endorsement of candidates, Price admitted that environmental groups feel a particular affinity for Obama to champion environmental causes. "He's introduced into the Senate basically what Arnold (Schwarzenegger) has proposed in California," he said. However, Price noted that Republican contender John McCain has also expressed concerns over global warming and America's dependence on fossil fuels. "You could see this come to pass no matter who wins the White House. "Regardless of whoever wins in November, there will be a major shift in the status quo," he said.

319

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS PART
LCFS will incite partisanship. Whitten, 2007 (Daniel, Platts Inside Energy, Energy Information Literacy Magazine produced by McGraw Hill, p.4, House talks on bill expose divisions in Democrats views on energy security) Earlier in the week, Boucher said he would add to the eventual "energy independence" bill that House leaders foresee in July a lowcarbon fuel standard and provisions encouraging flexible fuel vehicles and E-85 infrastructure. The transportation sections, which will include a target for alternative fuels to be reached by 2017 and possibly revisions to automobile fuel economy standards, are still under development, Boucher told reporters. The transportation measures would be added to four sections of the planned Boucher bill, which he unveiled earlier this month. Those sections would improve energy efficiency, upgrade the electricity transmission grid, encourage biofuels development and correct problems in the Energy Department's loan guarantee program (IE, 21 May, 3). "Those sections may be controversial," the subcommittee's ranking Republican, Representative Dennis Hastert, said of Boucher's latest fuels and infrastructure ideas. Dingell has aggressively opposed new Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, saying it was time for a different type of debate on fuel economy. But several Democrats, including Allen and Representatives Jay Inslee of Washington and Edward Markey of Massachusetts all said that CAFE upgrades are needed, a view that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic House leaders share.

320

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS POP- OBAMA

Obama supports LCFS. Reuters 2007 (June 12, Barack Obama endorses low carbon fuel standard, http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1229186820070613) Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed a federal low-carbon fuel standard patterned on California's ambitious goals. Obama also called on U.S. automakers to double gas mileage of cars and trucks over the next two decades. Obama assumed the stance of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who earlier this year proposed cutting carbon emissions in auto and truck fuels by 5 percent by 2015 and 10 percent by 2020. "We know that transportation fuels account for a third of America's global warming pollution," the Illinois Senator said at a press event at a Brentwood gasoline station in Los Angeles. "And we know there are fuels available that emit less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere, fuels like biodiesel and ethanol."

321

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS POP- OBAMA

Obama will create a national LCFS. Renewable Energy Access, 2007 (Obama introduces national low-carbon fuel standard http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48427, May 9 ) U.S. presidential-hopeful Senator Barack Obama, along with Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, introduced legislation this week calling for a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (NLCFS). The bill recognizes the steady growth of the U.S. renewable fuels market, including corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel as key components in the fight against global warming. "Expanding the renewable fuels market in the United States will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, revitalize our agricultural sector, and provide a sustainable means to combat global warming. A homegrown solution to the international climate crisis lies in America's fields and farms." The proposed National Low Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007 would require fuel refiners to reduce the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation fuels sold in the U.S. by 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020.

322

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS POP- DEMS

Democrats support LCFS. Schmidt, 2007 (Michael, Platts Inside Energy, Platts is a energy information agency owned by McGraw Hill, House Dems Talk Up Low Fuels, indicate flex-fuel mandate coming) The top Democrats on the House's energy committee last week spoke in favor of turning the widely popular renewable fuels standard into a low-carbon standard and establishing a single biodiesel specification to encourage clean diesel vehicles.

323

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS POP- MCCAIN

McCain supports the LCFS. The Washington Times 2008 (Stephen Dinan, June 20, McCain oil plan fosters reliance on Middle East; U.S., Canadian sources dirty, Lexis) Mr. McCain, who just this week praised Canada as a secure source of oil, embraced a national fuel standard plan last year at a press conference with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Mr. McCain has made his support for environmental issues a major part of his presidential campaign, and uses it as a key issue where he breaks with many other Republicans. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers responded with the following statement late last night: "The concept behind California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard is to use less oil in our transportation sector. Canada joined in to this agreement self-imposing emissions standards on the extracting of their oil resources. Ultimately, an international cap and trade system will allow us to regularize the system by which countries offset and reduce their emissions, but in the short term we should look for a cleaner and more efficient way to extra to oil resources from the tar sands."

324

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS POP- MCCAIN

McCain is pushing for LCFS. The Washington Times, June 20, 2008 (Stephen Dinan McCain oil plan relies on the Middle East http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/20/mccain-oil-plan-fosters-reliance-on-middle-east/) Sen. John McCain caps his weeklong push for U.S. energy independence with a trip Friday to Canada, but his own environmental plan discourages use of Canadian oil and drastically increases American reliance on oil from the Middle East and other potentially unfriendly places. The presumed Republican presidential nominee called last year to expand California's low carbon fuel standard, which measures the amount of greenhouse gases needed to produce fuel and punishes use of "dirty" heavy crude oil in favor of conventional light crude or alternative fuels.

325

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS POP- BUSINESS

Businesses like the plan they see it as an alternative to more stringent climate policy. International Herald Tribune, 6-2 (Climate Change Clash in U.S. 'A Battle Over the Economics' http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/1411785/climate_change_clash_in_us_a_battle_over_the_economics/) Companies that rely on coal to generate power say that allowances should be given out for free so that customers in the regions where coal is mostly used are not penalized. Coal still accounts for half of U.S. power generation, and executives, like Rogers of Duke, say these customers should not have to bear the brunt of a climate policy. But not everyone wants to see allowances doled out for free, especially among power producers that are less dependent on coal than Duke. Lew Hays, chairman of FPL Group, a Florida power company, says carbon emitters should have to pay for their emissions. "There is just going to be a giant fight over the free allowances," Hays said. "People are going to fight like dogs and cats over it." Oil companies are also unhappy with the Senate plan. While the transportation sector represents around 35 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, oil companies and refiners would be granted just 4 percent of total allowances. That would force them to make up the difference by buying carbon credits, which would drive up the price of gasoline and diesel fuels. At a time of sharply rising prices, oil executives say this is not the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Better, they argue, to raise fuel efficiency requirements or set up a low-carbon fuel standard.

326

THE FORT PLTX

LCFS UNPOP- BUSINESS

LCFS legislation will catalyze opposition from industry. Wisconsin Global Warming Task Force, 2008 (Low Carbon Fuel Standard Policy Option http://dnr.wi.gov/environmentprotect/gtfgw/templates/TRAN_low_carbon_fuel_standard_rev1.pdf, 3-5) Barriers to Implementation: Legislation will be required to enact a standard. Opposition may come from producers and marketers of petroleum-derived transportation fuels. Administrative costs, uncertainty regarding the future price and availability of credits, and/or production of products meeting the standard are potential barriers. The lack of certainty regarding low-carbon fuels costs may result in confusion over what variables and cost estimators should be used.

327

THE FORT PLTX

**********MASS TRANSIT**********

328

THE FORT PLTX

MASS TRANSIT BIPART

Plan has bipartisan support the House just overwhelmingly passed a bill to expand mass transit. Los Angeles Times, House approves more funds for thriving public transit, 6/27/08 WASHINGTON -- As commuters increasingly turn to bus and rail lines because of soaring gasoline prices, public transit, long the poor relation of American travel, is finally getting respect -- and money. In an effort to make riding bus and rail lines even more appealing, the House on Thursday moved to provide $1.7 billion to help transit agencies pay higher fuel costs, limit fare hikes and expand service. California would receive about $266 million. That's on top of a record $10 billion -- a $1-billion increase -- a congressional committee recently recommended for expanding transit nationwide in the next year. A bipartisan measure also has been introduced to expand tax credits to encourage more workers to ride public transit. "Americans are flocking onto mass transit at rates not seen in half a century in the United States," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (DOre.). The new appreciation for the services comes as politically anxious lawmakers have scrambled for ways to respond to high gas prices. But as they head home for the July 4 recess, a number of representatives are worried about facing voters without a better record on energy. Although the transit measure passed overwhelmingly, on a 322-98 vote, some Republican lawmakers ridiculed it as a poor substitute for expanded domestic oil drilling.

329

THE FORT PLTX

MASS TRANSIT BIPART

Dems and Republicans would support the plan Congress loves giving money for mass transit expansion. Associated Press, 6/26/08, House OKs Funding for Mass Transit Systems http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/congress.energy.ap/ WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House approved financial help Thursday for mass transit systems facing a surge in riders because of high gas prices. But Republicans blocked Democrats from requiring oil and gas companies to drill on the millions of acres of government land and water on which they already own federal leases. The House voted 322-98 to authorize $1.7 billion over the next two years to lower fares and expand operations as more riders flock to public transit. The transit measure, which must be considered by the Senate, marks the first time federal money would be used to support local mass transit operating costs.

330

THE FORT PLTX

MASS TRANSIT POP- CONGRESS

Plan is popular; house passed by wide margin. PUBLIC TRANSIT CRITICAL FOR WORKING AMERICANS IN WAKE OF RECORD GAS PRICES, States News Service, July 8, 2008. Standing before a Kalamazoo Metro Transit bus, Congressman Fred Upton (R-St. Joseph) joined Kalamazoo Transportation Director Bill Schomisch today to underscore the importance of public transit in the wake of record fuel prices. To address the strain caused by rising fuel costs on public transit, the U.S. House approved legislation on June 26th by a vote of 322 to 98 that will provide a financial boost to public transit systems, ensuring that they will continue to provide reliable and affordable transportation for working Americans. Upton is hopeful that the Senate will consider the measure to help working families in the next few weeks. Upton also strongly supported legislation that passed the House in mid-June to fund Amtrak through 2013 and also establish a grant program to encourage the deployment of high-speed rail.

331

THE FORT PLTX

MASS TRANSIT POP- REPS

Republicans support transit programs. Paul Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, Conservatives and many voters support mass transit, RenewAmerica, 11/14/06 http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/061115 The voter approval of bond issues and of increased taxes demonstrates that conservatives, too, support rail transit. In 2004 the huge transit program in Denver, promising 118 miles of new rail lines, passed with support from Republican counties. The Democratic counties in the transit district voted no. Before any more propaganda is put forth by libertarians on the issue of support for public transit, folks ought to look at the facts. Who has voted for transit? And who is riding it once it is built? When those facts are evaluated the libertarian arguments go up in smoke.

332

THE FORT PLTX

MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- BUSH

Plan unpopular with Bush American Public Transport Association, 7/3/08, public transit advocacy and information group, http://www.apta.com/government_affairs/washrep/2008july03.cfm On June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008" (H.R. 6052) by a vote of 322-98. Representatives James L. Oberstar (D-MN), Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, John L. Mica (R-FL), Ranking Member of the Committee, and Peter M. DeFazio (D-OR), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, are the bill's original co-sponsors. The legislation authorizes $850 million for both Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 and 2009 to help transit systems cope with rising fuel costs and to promote public transportation ridership as a means to reduce domestic fuel consumption. Of the amounts authorized in the bill, $750 million would be distributed through the urbanized area formula program and $100 million would be added to the rural transit formula program each year. The funds can be used by transit agencies for operating or capital costs to expand service or reduce fares, to avoid fare increases or service cuts that would otherwise result from increased costs for fuel, or to meet additional transportation-related equipment or facility maintenance expenses caused by increased ridership.If enacted, the legislation would not make funds immediately available. Chairman DeFazio had drafted an amendment that would have made funding immediately available by drawing down balances from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, but the amendment was not allowed under the rule. As a result, if the bill is enacted, House and Senate Appropriations Committees would need to provide general funds in a future appropriations measure. During debate on the House floor, two amendments supported by APTA were added to the bill. First, an amendment offered by Chairman Oberstar expanded the eligible use of the funds to help transit agencies defray the high cost fuel without having to raise fares or reduce service. The second amendment, offered by Representatives James McGovern (D-MA) and Tom Davis (R-VA), equalizes the transit tax benefit, which provides federal tax incentives for transit riders and employers that subsidize employee transit trips, with the federal tax benefit for parking. Further action by Congress on the bill is not certain. The Senate is not expected to consider a similar measure, and the Bush Administration has stated opposition to the bill based on the use of federal funds for the operating purposes outlined in the bill.

333

THE FORT PLTX

MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- CONGRESS

NO ONE NEAR CONGRESS LIKES MASS TRANSIT Robert Bullard, Glen Johnson, and Angel O. Terres, Published 2004 Highway Robbery: Transportation Racism & New Routs to Equity, (pg. 179)

334

THE FORT PLTX

MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- REPS

RAIL POLICY ANGERS FISCAL CONSERATIVES AND THE PROFESSIONAL LEVEL Anthony Perl, 2002 (New Departures: Rethinking Rail Passenger Policy in the twenty-first century, pg. 10)

335

THE FORT PLTX

MASS TRANSIT UNPOP- REPS

MASS TRANSIT ANGERS CONSERVATIVES Robert D. Atkinson, vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute and director of its Technology & New Economy Project Blueprint Magazine | September 10, 2001 ( Blueprint Magazine, ebsco) The key to solving America's growing mobility crisis is political: We must rebuild a public consensus for policies that will restore to Americans the mobility they've lost in recent years. The loss of that mobility is directly related to the rise of differing coalitions opposing transportation policy. A new breed of conservatives emerged that saw in public transport policies the wasteful and market-distorting hand of big government. And on the left a new alliance of environmentalists, urban planners, and academics blamed U.S. transport policies for engendering sprawl, excessive reliance on cars, and the rapid disappearance of green spaces. This coalition has achieved considerable success in shifting the focus of transportation policy from expanding supply to restraining demand. Their idea is that growing congestion can be solved by getting people out of cars and planes and into buses and trains. This has led to polarizing -- and paralyzing -battles over policy. The lack of consensus on transportation is reflected in how the political parties approach the issue. In their zeal for tax cuts, many Republicans would cut the gas tax, which would starve transportation funding.

336

THE FORT PLTX

**************MILITARY*********

337

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY UNPOP- ENVIROS

Renewable energy projects at military bases will anger environmentalists who believe that resources will be wasted Bowles, 8 Writer about environmental issues for the Press-Enterprise since 1999, attended a year-long fellowship at the University of Colorado, Boulder, where
she studied natural resources law, policy and science (Jennifer, Press Enterprise, Renewable Energy Projects Meet Opposition from Environmentalists http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_renewable03.3cc481c.html) // DCM

<A rush to build environmentally friendly renewable energy in the windy, sunny Inland region has stirred up some unlikely foes: environmentalists. They say the projects mean new transmission lines and towers across some of the very mountains and desert vistas people have fought to protect.
"It seems kind of silly to have a solar project in Blythe (in eastern Riverside County) and send it along transmission lines," said Jeff Morgan, chairman of the Sierra Club group in the Coachella Valley. "They should put them on the roofs of Los Angeles. It's best and most efficient when it's used where it is generated." It's not just environmentalists who are objecting. A Riverside County supervisor said he opposes plans to erect 400-foot-tall wind turbines for the first time on the 4,000-foot elevation of Mount San Jacinto, near Palm Springs. And a San Bernardino County supervisor has strongly urged Los Angeles to abandon plans to string new transmission lines to carry renewable energy through the Morongo Basin east of Joshua Tree National Park. Apple Valley leaders passed a resolution in April opposing plans to erect wind turbines along the ridgeline of the Granite Mountain range east of town. "There's almost a Gold Rush type of thing happening in the Inland Empire and up in the desert to capture what we have here," said Scott Nassif, an Apple Valley town councilman. "They're great resources," Nassif said of the wind and sun, "but we need to make sure we're approaching it the right way and know the impacts on the communities." He noted that while the projects might be located in the Inland region, they benefit much of Southern California by feeding into the electricity grid. Mike Marelli, power contract manager for Southern California Edison, said the state's utility companies may not have much choice about building new transmission lines. Edison and other utilities must meet a legislative mandate to have 20 percent of their energy production from renewable sources by 2010. "For renewable energy to really move forward," Marelli said, "there has to a significant investment in transmission." The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has received so many applications for solar energy projects that the agency last week put new applications on hold and launched an environmental review for such projects on public land in six Western states. In California's desert, which includes eastern Riverside County and much of San Bernardino County, the agency has 66 applications for solar projects on more than 518,573 acres, BLM spokeswoman Jan Bedrosian said. The agency will host hearings this month to gather public input on what environmental and socioeconomic issues should be considered. Besides the potential for the renewable-energy projects to change the landscape, Bedrosian said, a number of threatened and endangered species, including the desert tortoise, live on the land where companies want to build. San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt said the review will help decide where such projects are appropriate and where they should be restricted. "At a time when the desert has become smaller because of urban growth, set-asides for (endangered species) habitat and wilderness, and expansion of military bases, we cannot surrender huge areas of public land without a serious discussion about which resources we can sacrifice and which need to be protected," he said in a statement.

338

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY UNPOP- DOD/LOBBIES/DEMS

The use of alternative energy in the military and Air Force faces opposition from environmentalists, the DOD, community groups and lobbies, and Democrats Energy Washington Week, 6 (DOD Emerging as Key Proving Ground for New Energy Alternatives 01-11-2006, Volume 3 Number 2 http://members.communityfuels.com/InTheMedia/tabid/53/EntryID/55/Default.aspx) // DCM While the efforts to cut energy consumption and greenhouse gases generally win praise from environmentalists and energy efficiency advocates, some DOD efforts face criticisms. For example, environmentalists are challenging claims by DOD and some states that a controversial technology for producing diesel fuel from coal does not provide the kinds of environmental benefits that proponents claim. Congressional efforts to use DOD resources to increase energy supply have also drawn criticism, in some cases from DOD. Similar plans by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), chairman of the House energy committee, and Senate environment committee chief James Inhofe (R-OK) to encourage construction of new refineries on closed bases has drawn significant opposition from community groups and Democratic lawmakers.

339

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY POP- BUSH

Bush already supports alternative energy policies for the military budget plan proves Bloomberg News, 7 (Military and Alternative Energy Sectors Win in the Proposed U.S. Budget http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/05/business/spend.php) // DCM
<Military

contractors like Boeing and companies developing alternative fuels like VeraSun Energy stand to gain from President George W. Bush's 2008 budget plan. But some health care companies and drug makers may be pinched by plans for Medicare and Medicaid benefit programs for elderly and lowincome Americans.

Bush's spending plan of $2.9 trillion, which he sent to the Congress on Monday, contains money for grants, loans, programs or changes in the law worth tens of billions of dollars to U.S. businesses. The budget will benefit a cross- section of basic U.S. industries, said Michael Darda, chief economist at
MKM Partners in Greenwich, Connecticut. "The winners are still going to be the industrials, because of a strong economy, high profits and a war on terror in which there's no end in sight," Darda said. Bush said the spending plan would lead to a balanced budget in five years through continued U.S. economic growth and cutting spending on government programs outside the military. For the first time in his presidency, Bush is submitting his budget to a Congress controlled by Democrats. "We've been able to manage our budget after five years of war behind us and we will manage our budget in the out-years," Bush said Monday following a meeting with his cabinet. Bush said the military sector was his top priority, and the Pentagon budget reflects that. Core military spending would rise to a record $481 billion, an increase of 11.3 percent. In addition, the president sought an extra $100 billion this year and $145 billion next year for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader war against terrorism. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Textron, Boeing and European Aeronautic Defense & Space all would get a lift. The largest programs of Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland and the world's top military contractor, would be almost fully financed under the budget. That includes $6.1 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter, its largest weapons program and $4.6 billion to buy 20 Lockheed F-22A Raptor fighters. The U.S. Air Force will also formally open an aerial refueling competition that is likely to pit Boeing against a team of Northrop and EADS, the parent of Airbus. The budget includes $314.5 million for research and development. The U.S. economy has "been so strong, its given us a bit more flexibility in terms of our ability keep our expenditure levels consistent with funding the global war on terror and still have the deficit coming down," Edward Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on C-Span's "Newsmaker" program broadcast Sunday. Another area where Bush plans to spend more money is alternative energy, including $9 billion in loan guarantees to support a mandate for the country to use 35 billion gallons, or 132.5 billion liters, of renewable fuels annually in the next decade and to lower emissions.>

340

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY POP- OBAMA Obama Supports Military Technology

Barack Obama No Date Given (http://obama.3cdn.net/6a8c7431eb3adfa18b_of2bmv4dv.pdf Cite Accessed 7-25-08) We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats. But while sustaining our technological edge will always be central to our national security, the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face. This is why our countrys greatest military asset is the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States.

341

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY POP- MCCAIN McCain loves Military Technology

JohnMcCain.com 08 (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-896454fcf66a1e68.htm Cite Accessed 7-25-08) In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

McCain has been a long time advocate of military tech

JohnMcCain.com 08 (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-896454fcf66a1e68.htm Cite Accessed 7-25-08) John McCain has been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation's obligations both at home and abroad. He has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.

342

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY BIPART
THE PLAN IS BIPART ENERGY AND TAX EXTENDERS ACT OF 2008 PROVES Money Rx, 5/22/08, "Washington Fuels Alternative Energy Drive," http://www.money-rx.com/blog/2008/05/washington-fuelsalternative-energy.html And, now that everybody and his uncle wants an instant solution to the oil crisis, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 6049 (pdf file), the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008, by a 263-160 vote. The $54 billion tax package is a wide-ranging bill that includes $17 billion in tax incentives for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, carbon capture and sequestration projects, plug-in cars and technology for green buildings. In addition it provides $8.8 billion over 10 years to renew the research and development tax credit and creates a new category of tax credit bonds to finance state and local government initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's on its way to the Senate, where Senate Republicans indicate they might filibuster the bill, and the Bush Administration has already indicated that it plans to veto the bill, because it contains measures to increase tax revenue meant to balance the Democrats' pay-go system. Inspite of all these partisan hurdles, the very fact that Congress is concerned enough about the oil situation that it has started looking seriously at alternative energy, and is providing $8.8 billion to promote research and green initiatives at the state and local level, is good news for the alternative energy sector. Put together, the U.S. Military's embrace and funding of green products and solutions, coupled with 'bipartisan' support from Congress, is enough to make independence from fossil fuels a credible reality in the next few years. Let's hope they have the sense to push it through.

343

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY BIPART
PLAN IS BIPART GOP AND DEMS CAN BOND OVER THE SECURITY THREAT CLIMATE CHANGE POSES Bryan Walsh [staff writer, Time Magazine], 4/16/08, "Does Global Warming Compromise National Security?," http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html Climate change is usually characterized as an environmental threat, but it wasn't melting icebergs or endangered polar bears that made Warner change his mind. "I have focused above all on issues of national security," Warner said after the bill passed committee. "I see the problem of global climate change fitting squarely within that focus." For Warner, unchecked global warming could create a world that is inherently more dangerous for the U.S. Acting to mitigate climate change was another way of keeping America safe. It's a message that resonates with Americans who would sooner log a tree than hug it, and raises the possibility that conservatives and liberals might find common ground on climate change. "I find [conservatives] skeptical on this issue," says James Woolsey, a rightleaning Democrat who was director of the Central Intelligence Agency between 1993 and 1995, under former President Bill Clinton. "But when I mention the connection to security, suddenly things like solar power start looking a lot better."

344

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY BIPART
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR MILITARY OPERATIONSEMPIRICALLY PROVEN

ALL AMERICAN PATRIOTS, July 26, 2004. Bush Praises Bipartisan Support for Military Spending http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/2002203__bush_praises_bipartisan_support_military_spending [Sharma] Congress sends $416 billion defense bill to president's desk23 July 2004
[W] acknowledged congressional passage of a $416.2 billion defense bill July 22 by expressing his pleasure that "a bipartisan majority in the Congress" stood with him in support of the military. With the United States still at war, President Bush said the legislation -- which includes the $25 billion the administration sought for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- ensures that U.S. service personnel will remain well equipped, trained and paid. He commended members of Congress "for continuing to provide the resources necessary to support the critical mission ... in Afghanistan and Iraq." The legislation stipulates that the president must report to Congress on the estimated costs of operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom for future fiscal years 2006 through 2011; on any related military operations that may occur in and around those two countries; and on estimated reconstruction, security and economic costs in support of those two missions. The report is due on January 1, 2005, unless President Bush asks to be exempted from the reporting requirement for national security reasons.

345

THE FORT PLTX

DOD BIPART
THE AFF IS BIPARTISAN Boston Globe, Environmental Defense, 5-27-2007 (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/05/27/environmental_defense/) Increasingly, the military sees energy efficiency -- and moving away from oil -- as part of its national security mission. Does that mean the Pentagon is turning green? By Drake Bennett | May 27, 2007 Over the next three years, the US Air Force plans to add an important new class of vehicles to its fleet. They can't fly. They have no weaponry. They look like golf carts, and none of them can break 25 miles per hour. What they can do is save fuel. Although the Air Force hasn't decided exactly which models to buy, some of the candidates are electric-powered, others run on ethanol, and even those that use traditional gasoline boast fuel economies between 40 and 50 miles per gallon. By 2010, the Air Force promises, it will have replaced nearly a third of the cars and trucks currently used on bases to transport airmen and supplies. These "low-speed vehicles" are just one part of a broad effort by the American military to drastically reduce its use of traditional fossil fuels at a time when global oil markets are unstable, gas prices are approaching historic highs, and climate change is increasingly a matter of bipartisan political concern. In scale and coordination the effort is not the Manhattan Project some critics say is needed. But as a loose collection of initiatives, it is impressive in its breadth, encompassing the everyday and the exotic: from energy efficient windows and light bulbs and geothermal plants to research into jet fuel that can be made from weeds, portable generators that run on plastic waste, and even a fleet of satellites to harvest solar power from space. Unanimous support for the aff Geman, E&E Daily senior reporter, 2006 [Ben, Senate-passed defense bill nudges DOD on renewables, Environment and Energy Daily, June 26, Vol. 10 No. 9, lexis] Expanded use of power derived from renewable sources of energy and alternative transportation fuels received a good deal of attention in a fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill approved unanimously last week in the Senate. Amendments to S. 2766 accepted before final passage include: Language by Bingaman and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) that says DOD shall seek to buy or produce no less than 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and thereafter. It says DOD must seek to buy or produce electricity from renewables when it is "life-cycle cost effective to do so." A measure offered by Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) requiring the Defense Department, to the extent possible, to use energy efficient products when constructing military installations. It calls for use of products that meet or exceed specifications of the federal Energy Star
program or products listed on the Energy Department's "Federal Energy Management Program Product Energy Efficiency Recommendations" product list. A measure offered by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Jim Talent (R-Mo.) requiring a new Defense Department study on military use of alternative fuels, including "any measures that can be taken to increase the use of such fuels by the Department of Defense and the Defense agencies." The amendment says the study must address ethanol, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and other bio-based fuels. A Bingaman amendment that requires DOD to consider use of fuel cells as replacements for current backup power systems in operations such as "telecommunications networks, perimeter security and remote facilities." The goal, according to the amendment, is to increase the

longevity of backup and standby power systems. Bingaman and Menendez also offered a successful amendment that requires a new
DOD report on actions to cut use of oil-based fuels by DOD. The report is to include updates on provisions addressing the issue in last year's broad energy bill, 1992 energy policy legislation and two Clinton-era executive orders -- "Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy Management" and "Greening the Government Through Federal Fleet and Transportation Efficiency." Sens. Bingaman and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) offered a successful amendment that says DOD must seek to improve the fuel efficiency of weapons

platforms. The goals of the amendment, the text states, are to enhance platform performance; cut the size of fuel logistics systems; reduce the burdens high fuel consumption places on agility; cut costs; and reduce the financial impact of volatile oil prices.

346

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY POP- GREEN HAWKS

Green Hawks strongly support the aff and have significant clout in Congress Sohlman, Swedish journalist and writer formerly the editor of Vrlden i Fokus, 2008 [Eva, also reporter for Reuters, The Economist,, The New York Times and The Washington Post Green Hawks in the Pentagon: the American Army Is on a Green Mission, March 17 http://www.thewip.net/contributors/2008/03/green_hawks_in_the_pentagon_th.html] The United States dependence on oil makes us very vulnerable from a security and environmental perspective. Why buy oil from Islamic theocracies, which sponsor terrorism against us? We are fighting a war against terror, but are paying for both sides. How smart is that? asks the sprightly 66-year-old Woolsey. Green Hawk Jim Woolsey. Photograph courtesy of Warner Independent Pictures. Woolsey is one of the Green Hawks in the Pentagon a new movement of tree-huggers, activists, researchers, inventors, army people and neoconservative hawks who are leading the way toward alternative energy and energy conservation in America. Their motivation is the security of the nation, since they see terrorism and climate change as the greatest threats against the US as a superpower. The goal is to become energy independent, but to get there we have to shift to green energy, says Woolsey who has been engaged in this question since the oil crises in the 1970s. But according to estimates, the US, the worlds biggest consumer of oil, will continue to increase its oil consumption. Unless something is done to counter this trend it will probably mean that the country, which already imports around 60% of its oil, will become even more dependent on the oil-rich Middle East. In order to stop this scenario and find new solutions, the Green Hawks hold open meetings in the Pentagon. These meetings, which have already acquired legendary status, attract people from the Pentagon, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Department for Homeland Security, the State Department, Congress, embassies, think tanks, environmental organizations, security firms and the weapons industry, all seeking to make new connections and exchange information, knowledge and experiences. A senior European security analyst who attended one of these meetings described it as bustling with people from all kinds of groups and interests. Very dynamic. Ironically, it was the Iraq war which many believe was a US attempt to secure its access to oil which made the Pentagon realize the advantages alternative energy would offer. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers have been killed in attacks during transports of fuel and water. Dan Nolan, who oversees energy projects for the US Army's Rapid Equipping Force, explains it was not until the cost of fuel was measured in blood (American blood) that the commanders started to understand. Our transports have never been as vulnerable and exposed as they are in Iraq. More oil is not the solution, it is the problem. As a consequence the Army now tries to generate what is needed on site; it uses fuel cells which produce water as a byproduct. It uses tents that need 40 percent less air-conditioning, which in turn is now increasingly run on green energy instead of diesel. The diesel generators emit heat, which is easily spotted with infrared detection.

347

THE FORT PLTX

DOD PART
The aff is partisan -- evokes a political fight Eisman, Washington Correspondent for the Virginian-Pilot, 6/26/08 [Dale, Congress approaches holiday with no gas plan,
June 26, http://hamptonroads.com/2008/06/congress-approaches-holiday-no-gas-plan]

A group of House Republicans, including Rep. Thelma Drake of Norfolk, above, kept up the pressure for drilling on Wednesday. The Defense Departments energy costs, a particular concern in her military-heavy district, have more than doubled since 2003, Drake noted, even as military consumption of fuel has declined. With gasoline prices pushing toward $4.25 a gallon throughout much of the country, an uneasy Congress prepared for a summer holiday on Wednesday with no sign that Democrats and Republicans are anywhere near a consensus on what they can do about the problem. In hastily convened hearings and a string of news conferences on Capitol Hill, the two parties traded barbs over what or who is responsible for energy price spikes and whether finding more oil, or using less, is the key to controlling costs. Neither side has it exactly right, a few members acknowledged. "There's been bipartisan neglect on energy," said Rep. John Peterson, a Pennsylvania Republican who is Congress' most vocal advocate of more aggressive exploitation of U.S. energy resources, including offshore drilling along the Eastern Seaboard. Peterson and a group of House Republicans, including Rep. Thelma Drake of Norfolk, on Wednesday kept up the pressure for drilling. The Defense Department's energy costs, a particular concern in her military-heavy district, have more than doubled since 2003, Drake said, even as military consumption of fuel has declined. "Our national security is endangered," she said. But Democrats warned that offshore drilling wouldn't produce oil for a decade or more and argued that profiteering oil companies and speculation on petroleum futures markets are the immediate culprits as gas prices rise. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who heads Congress' Joint Economic Committee, said he's for more drilling, too, at least in the western Gulf of Mexico. "You still can't drill your way out of the problem," he said. "If you don't do conservation, if you don't do alternative energy, and you don't tell the big oil companies they can no longer run energy policy in America, we won't succeed, plain and simple." Peterson insisted that some offshore oil could be available in as little as five years once Congress and the White House let energy companies go after it. Prodded by environmentalists, Congress and a series of presidents have imposed a moratorium on most offshore drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts since the 1980s. Virginia officials signaled last year that they're willing to support exploration to determine the extent of reserves more than 50 miles off the state's shores. No decision about actual production should be made before exploration, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine argues. The proceeds from leases for offshore oil fields could pump up to $200 million annually into Virginia's treasury, according to one estimate. Rep. Randy Forbes, a Chesapeake Republican, said Democrats are prone to look at how gas prices have climbed during the presidency of George W. Bush and blame him. His fellow Republicans prefer to focus on dramatic increases since the Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007 and place blame there, he said.

348

THE FORT PLTX

DOD UNPOP- LOBBIES

ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY IS SKEPTICAL OF THE MILITARY -- THE PLAN DOES NOT ELICIT A WAVE OF SUPPORT FROM THEM Boston Globe, Environmental Defense, 5-27-2007 (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/05/27/environmental_defense/)
"In terms of alternative energy, the Department of Defense is big enough, in certain sectors, to be the tipping point," says Stuart Funk, an energy specialist at LMI who was once the Pentagon official responsible for fuel operations. The effort has its skeptics. Even supporters are quick to point out that the Department of Defense is unlikely to accomplish much unless it better organizes its far-flung initiatives. And environmentalists are dubious of an institution that has more often been an adversary. They point out, for example, that some of the ideas -- such as increasing the use of coal to make synthetic fuel -- could actually be more environmentally damaging than the status quo.

THE AFF SPLITS THE ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY -- ESTABLISHED RENEWABLE PRODUCERS FEAR THEIR TECH WOULD BE UNDERCUT Sohlman, Swedish journalist and writer formerly the editor of Vrlden i Fokus, 2008 [Eva, also reporter for Reuters, The Economist,, The New York Times and The Washington Post Green Hawks in the Pentagon: the American Army Is on a Green Mission, March 17 http://www.thewip.net/contributors/2008/03/green_hawks_in_the_pentagon_th.html] The Department of Defense is therefore investing an estimated $500-$600 million dollars on research and development of solar, wave, biomass and wind energy, as well as conventional green energy sources. A new law demanding better energy efficiency has been passed, so by 2025 the Army will have to take a quarter of its energy from renewable sources. But that is far too little, far too late, say hawks like Todd Hathaway, a major in the Army who is writing his PhD thesis on nuclear science, focusing on new environmentally friendly technology. We cant afford to not fix this now, and that can only be done with cutting-edge technology, says the fast-paced 36-year-old outside the Pentagon, whose front boasts a vast field of solar cells. Unfortunately there is a strong resistance against new technology from the multi-billion industry for established green energy. We inventors, scientists, retired Army people and professors have to invest our own money to get the projects going. This is serious, as these are the kind of technologies that will make this planet survive.

349

THE FORT PLTX

DOD POP- OHIO

Plan is an economic boon for Ohio Gilbert, Toledo Blade Staff Writer, 2007 [Meghan, Wind, solar to help fuel 2 National Guard bases, July 24, http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=1405] The U.S. Department of Defense is investing the money for research and implementation of the renewable energy sources to fuel the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing, based at Toledo Express Airport, and the 200th Red Horse squadron, based at Camp Perry near Port Clinton, U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) announced yesterday. "Toledo can help America become energy-independent again," Miss Kaptur said. "Our country is strategically vulnerable because we import two-thirds of the energy that we use, the petroleum we use. And we're getting it from the most dangerous and undemocratic places in the world." The University of Toledo's Wright Center for Photovoltaics Innovation and Commercialization will
help with the research and implementation. At the 180th, the plan is to focus on solar energy to power the base, which already has replaced about 20 percent of its streetlights with solarpowered models, Lt. Col. Bill Giezie said. The idea is to build a ground-mounted photovoltaic array on the base that would convert solar energy directly into electricity, said Robert Collins, interim co-director of the Wright Center and a professor of physics at UT. The array would be similar to the one at the corner of Dorr Street and Westwood Avenue at UT's alternative energy incubator. However, that array produces 12 kilowatts of energy, and the one planned for the 180th would generate 1 megawatt, Mr. Collins said. That means the array at the 180th would be about 80 times the size, but the base has acres of land to accommodate it, he said. "Projects like this, if they can be done at low cost, they're demonstrations that show what can be done on all scales from the small homeowner to the large businesses in the area," he said. Further east, the 200th at Camp Perry will look at how winds off Lake Erie could help power that base. The studies will include wind monitoring, wetland evaluation, and avian and bat risks, among other factors. Based on those findings, the base could install a 600 kilowatt wind turbine. But a back-

This is really a cutting edge project," Major Hrynciw said. "We've done a lot of energy reduction, but now we will be producing energy." Making these bases energy self-sufficient is a two-part process. Phase one will evaluate the operational, safety, environmental, and energy requirements of the alternative energy sources. The bases hope to have that complete by the end of the year, paving the way for the second phase in spring or summer of next year in which they would implement the plans, Colonel Giezie said. Of the $7.1 million in federal funding, $5.1 million is directed to the 180th project and $2 million to the 200th. Toledo's history in the glass business makes it a natural leader in solar energy production, Miss
up plan for solar technologies also will be included in the project, Maj. Michael Hrynciw said. "

Kaptur said, adding that not

only will these projects help reduce utility costs and our dependence on petroleum, but that this could create new opportunities and new jobs in related fields in northwest Ohio. "We literally are inventing the future," she said.

350

THE FORT PLTX

DOD POP- NEVADA

DoD alternative energy will build support in Nevada Edwards, Nevada State Democratic Party, 2007 [John G., No military objection will blow in wind, ReviewJournal http://www.nvdems.com/go/in-the-media/no-military-objection-will-blow-in-wind/] Defense Secretary Robert Gates has informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the military will not object to wind farms in an area of eastern Nevada, moving a $1 billion project closer to reality. Tim Carlson, a renewable energy developer, plans to build a 450-megawatt wind farm in the Wilson Creek Range area 40 miles north of Pioche. The Defense Department's agreement is "another step forward" to developing what would be Nevada's first utility-size wind farm, Carlson said. Carlson's company, Nevada Wind, is in talks with a partner for the project. He declined to identify the partner. Hill Air Force Base in Utah has been concerned about windpower projects in the area because wind turbines can interfere with radar. But Reid received assurances from Gates that the department will not object to wind farms in the Wilson Creek area, spokesman Jon Summers said Tuesday. Reid has been arguing that Nevada should cancel plans for coal-fired power projects that emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming. This announcement shows that Reid also is working to support renewable energy projects, Carlson said. Carlson, a former head of the Nevada Development Authority and long-time friend of Reid, previously tried to develop a $130 million wind farm on the Nevada Test Site, but Nellis Air Force Base objected and the project died in 2002. The developer said he enjoyed working with Air Force representatives on concerns about the Wilson Creek project and noted that the Air Force uses more renewable energy than any other part of the federal government. Carlson said the project could provide the Air Force with information about flying in areas where wind turbines interfere with radar signals. While the Defense Department said it would not oppose wind turbines at Wilson Creek, Gates is believed to oppose wind projects near Goldfield. "The Department of Defense plays a very important role in this state," Carlson said. "You've got to work with them. You can't fight them." Reid, D-Nev., has been talking with military officials in an effort to find ways that the state can tap wind power, a form of renewable energy. In February, for example, Reid met with area base commanders and members of the Nevada Renewable Energy Task Force about finding ways to build wind farms that do not cause problem for Navy and Air Force pilots. Nevada Wind has been monitoring the wind in the Wilson Creek area for four years. The site is close to a transmission line that Sierra Pacific Resources proposes to build connecting utilities to a planned coal-fired project near Ely and also to a transmission line that LS Power Group wants to build to its proposed coal-fired power project near Ely. Carlson said he also has been talking with the Southern Nevada Water Authority about connecting the Wilson Creek project to a power line that the water authority will use to supply electricity to pumps for a water pipeline linking Northern and Southern Nevada. "I think it's a great location," Carlson said. The wind power facility's first priority, Carlson said, would be to sell power to Nevada users, including Nevada Power Co., electric cooperatives or the water authority.

351

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY UNPOP- CONGRESS

Military spending unpopular -- the only priority is ground force in Iraq -- everything else is just perceived as trading off with that Frost & Sullivan, research firm, 2008 [Published as a news service by IHS, U.S. DoD to Procure Additional Equipment to Maintain, Improve Defense Capability, Feb 5 http://aero-defense.ihs.com/news/2008/frost-dodequipment.htm] Air transport, tanker, fighter aircraft and some classes of ships nearing the end of their life cycle will also likely require investments. Analysts said the expansion of the Army and U.S. Marine Corps will necessitate a greater budget allocation for equipment procurement. "The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) called for the creation of 117 regular Army, 106 National Guard and 58 Reserve modular brigades," said Curran. "This would require an Army end-strength of 482,400 active and 533,000 reserve troops in 2011, while the addition of Marine Corps Special Operations Command will ensure that the Marine Corps increases to 175,000 active and 39,000 reserve." With the 2008 U.S. presidential election looming, it appears a point of debate among candidates will be the siphoning of funds from naval and air assets to the ground forces, analysts said. "Though air and naval weapons systems usually enjoy bipartisan support due to the large number of jobs generated, the need to keep the Army and Marines well-equipped has deferred new air and naval weapons programs," said Curran. "However, the government will continue to focus on anti-terrorism operations with an emphasis on command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) and special operations capabilities."

352

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY POP- REPS

CONSERVATIVES SUPPORT THE MILITARY

Wynton C. HALL AND Peter SCHWEIZER are research fellows at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the editors of a new book, Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement. What's missing in the GOP field? the right message, 6/7/07 http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/06/whats_missing_i.html [Sharma]
Conservatives are feeling glum about the crop of Republican presidential contenders. It's not the individual messengers conservatives dislike, it's their message.Across the great arc of historic conservative speeches, three core themes emerge. These have been the "rocket fuel" of Republican causes. The reason GOP candidates appear to be sputtering is that no GOP presidential candidate is firing on all three cylinders.(Photo -- Reagan: Saw "spiritual" crisis. / 1990 AP photo)The first conservative principle is an unyielding support of a strong military. The way conservatives see it, civil liberties don't amount to much if an individual ceases to exist; Republicans believe that security is the wellspring from which freedom flows. And that's why Republican oratory has often bulged with military muscularity.Just listen to Barry Goldwater accepting the GOP presidential nomination on July 16, 1964: "It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the illusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression and this is hogwash. It is further the cause of Republicanism to remind ourselves, and the world, that only the strong can remain free, that only the strong can keep the peace."

353

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY UNPOP- OBAMA

OBAMA AGAINST MILITARY

Ben SHAPIRO is a student at Harvard Law School. He is the author of author of "Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House", "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future", May 28, 2008, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26707 [Sharma]
Notice anything missing in that list of public service jobs Obama will push? How about the men and women who protect us abroad? Obama's brash omission of servicemen and women shouldn't be a surprise. After all, this is the man who stated in February 2007, "We ended up launching a war (in Iraq) that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged, and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." This is the man who employed Demond Mullins, a radical ex-Marine who has slandered the troops as adulterers and murderous occupiers. This is the man who, in August 2007, remarked, "We've got to get the job done [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

354

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY UNPOP- PUBLIC

MILITARY UNPOPULAR WITH PUBLIC IRAQ PROVES

THE SIDETRACK, July 2, 2008. GOP losing support from military voters http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2008/07/gop-losing-support-from-military-voters.html [Sharma]
Five years into an unpopular war in Iraq, many US military voters are eschewing their traditional Republican ties to support Democrat Barack Obama for president against John McCain, observers say. "Ever since the end of the war in Vietnam and the creation of the volunteer military back in 1973, the military has tended more and more to vote for the Republicans," said Lawrence Korb, director of military strategy for the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "I think now you're going to see -- not that it's going to be overwhelming -- but a back away from the Republican Party ... At least (the military vote will) be split this year rather than overwhelmingly Republican," said Korb, a deputy defense secretary under president Ronald Reagan. He predicted that McCain, the 71-year-old Republican senator for Arizona, will get "at most half of the military votes," instead of the three-to-one ratio that Republican President George W. Bush won in 2004.

355

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY UNPOP- CONGRESS

CONGRESS AGAINST THE PLAN

POLITICO, December 10, 2007, Congress makes the unkindest cuts on defense http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7292.html [Sharma]
The vast majority of Congress is fundamentally anti-military. That was amply demonstrated on Nov. 8 by an overwhelming 400-15 vote in the House, and an unopposed unanimous voice vote in the Senate, on a new Department of Defense Appropriations Act to fund peacetime Pentagon programs for the current fiscal year. That makes 520 of a total of 535 members of Congress who thought this bill was just dandy, most of whom said so in their press releases ballyhooing the passage of the measure. President Bush joined the anti-defense horde Nov. 13 when he signed this legislative monstrosity into law. As Congress continues to bicker with Bush on the war and much else, both it and the president assume probably safely that the piles of garbage they inserted and endorsed in the defense bill will be ignored. Anti-military monstrosity? Piles of garbage? Doesnt that seem a bit strong? After all, whats wrong with voting for defense spending? Let me count the ways. Consider the following, which members of Congress from both parties and the president forgot to include in their press releases: Congress cut the Pentagons military personnel account, the basic payroll for military men and women, by $500 million.

356

THE FORT PLTX

AIR FORCE POP- PRIVATE LOBBIES

Private industry lobby supports alternative fuels for the Air Force they see a potential for profit Wall Street Jounal, 8 (Keith Johnson Wild Green Yonder: How the Pentagon Could Push Alternative Fuels 05-21-2008
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/21/wild-green-yonder-how-the-pentagon-could-push-alternative-fuels/)

Alternative energy isnt just for greensits also for the folks who wear dress greens. And like computers or the Internet, when the military plants the seeds, civilian industry often reaps the rewards. The WSJs Yochi Dreazen reports today on the Pentagons latest experiment with alternative fuels, a supersonic synthetic-fuel flight by a B-1 bomber. As with commercial aviation, the alternative-energy drive is part of a push to reduce fuel bills,
of coursethe Air Forces gas bill has tripled to $6 billion since 2003. But finding an alternative to petroleum is also increasingly a matter of national security for the Pentagon, which alone uses 1.5% of oil in the U.S. Strategic planners are edging closer to the peak oil thesisand getting nervous. The Pentagons push could

be a way to break the chicken-and-egg stalemate that has plagued alternative-energy development so far, a solution supported by many in private industry, like GE boss Jeff Immelt. The Air Force is working with companies like Boeing and Pratt and Whitney, which make planes and jet engines. More importantly, the Pentagon, notorious for $400 toilet seats, can operate outside economic restraints in a way Silicon Valleyor
commercial aviationcant. The paper notes: In late 2006, Baard Energy of Vancouver had said it would build the first commercial-scale synthetic-fuel refinery in the U.S., to be completed in 2012. Chief Executive John Baardson says he decided to roll the dice on the $6 billion plant because of the militarys interest. There isnt a market for this right now, so it takes a little bit of faith to get these plants going, he says. Knowing the military was out there took one huge risk factor out of the decision-making process.

357

THE FORT PLTX

AIR FORCE (CLEAN COAL) UNPOP- ENVIROS

Environmentalists are opposed to using clean coal for Air Force Fuel, claiming that it will still produce heavy pollution Boston Globe, 6 (John Donnelly, Military Wants a More Fuel Efficient Humvee 10-02-2006, p.A1, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // DCM
Last year, the Air Force won a "Green Power" award from the Environmental Protection Agency as the largest US purchaser of renewable energy. It accounted for 41 percent of the government's renewable energy purchases, by buying gas made from landfill refuse, and by wind and solar power. But two years ago, the EPA also gave the Defense Department a "national security exemption" that allowed it to use trucks that did not meet emissions standards for commercial trucks. The department's most promising initiatives are mostly several years away from starting, Defense officials say. A Humvee replacement will not be ready for at least three years. Last week, a B-52 bomber made two test runs using a synthetic fuel made with natural gas. In the future, the same type of fuel will be made with coal. While officials reported no problems with the new fuel, the cost brought looks of astonishment from members of Congress at a hearing last week: $23 a gallon, almost 10 times the cost at the pump. Greg G. Jenkins, executive vice president of Syntroleum, a Tulsa, Okla., company that helped produce the fuel for the demonstration project, said that once the process was commercialized on a large scale, the cost of turning coal into a gas mixture would be less than $3 a gallon. Told of the price estimate, Michael Aimone, who helps oversee the Air Force's energy savings plans, said: "He said that? Put that in print. We don't know what the cost will eventually be." Aimone said the industry has promised that it could deliver 650 million gallons of synthetic fuel from coal by 2016. That figure would be roughly 25 percent of the Air Force's consumption. Environmentalists, though, have criticized coal-based fuel, saying that it will produce as much carbon dioxide pollution as gas. Aimone argued that there would be a "marginal improvement in greenhouse gases," because coal-based fuel would not generate sulfur dioxide, but acknowledged that coal is far from clean.

358

THE FORT PLTX

AIRFORCE BIPART
AIR FORCE SYNFUEL LEGISLATION BIPARTISAN Ben Geman, Greenwire senior reporter, 3-9, 2007, Rep. Rahall wants coal-to-liquids included in House energy package, p.lexis [Cowboy] The Air Force is seeking to use synthetic fuels to displace oil-based fuels to help meet its massive energy needs. William Anderson, the Air Force's assistant secretary for installations, environment and logistics, said he was hopeful lawmakers could help the military's effort. "It [the legislation] has got bipartisan support and it has got support in both houses of Congress, and for us that is great news," he told the conference.

359

THE FORT PLTX

AIR FORCE= MCCAIN WIN

Coal to Liquid fuel in the air force means McCain wins (Timothy Ryan, Timothy Ryan is a geographer, statistician, and research coordinator at Infotech Information and Research Consultants in Los Angeles, CA. He is a Fellow of the American Geographical Society and a member of its Writers Circle., 6/25/2008, Coal, Not Oil, Could Be Defining Issue of 2008 Election, [Miller]) We think of coal as a 19th century fuel, but it could well be an important part in solving one of the most pressing problems of the 21st century the growing demand for energy in a time when there are severe constraints on the production of petroleum fuel stocks. At a time when Energy Independence is a political issue of increasing importance, the United States sits on the world's largest coal deposits our nation has been called the Saudi Arabia of Coal - and the Air Force has developed technology for converting coal to liquid fuel that is highly efficient. Indeed, the Air Force hopes to convert its entire fleet to CTL (Coal To Liquid) fuel blends, and hopes to be flying half of its missions with the blend by 2016. Such an achievement would have tremendous positive impact on national security, energy security, and the economy as a whole. In addition to its use by the military, CTL based jet fuels could provide an important price break to the struggling commercial airline industry. If the Air Force and the airline industry two extremely large energy consumers - converted to CTL, there would likely be significant downward pressure on fuel prices across the entire industry, including the prices we pay at the pump. It would provide a significant boost to the coal industry, to the states where the conversion plants would be built (where new jobs constructing the plants and running them after they are built would be created), and to the airline and tourism industries. CTL fuels burn as clean as or cleaner than traditional fuels. However, the conversion process creates additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that make CTLs greater GHG emitters than petroleum based fuels. For this reason, environmentalists oppose CTL and their powerful allies in the Congress, led by House Oversight Chairman Henry Waxman, refuse to grant the Air Force a waiver to pursue their CTL goals, despite the Air Force's insistence that technology that can capture and sequester the CO2 emissions exists, and even better technology is nearing development. Another roadblock are the significant startup costs in creating the fuel a new plant would cost $4 to $5 billion to construct, and multiple plants would be required. A possible political compromise would surmount this particular obstacle acquiescing to Democrats' desire for a form of windfall profits tax on oil companies so long as the revenue was spent on building CTL plants (and other alternative fuel projects). In an election year, the CTL issue could be a deciding one for a candidate who takes the lead on the issue. Barack Obama could use CTL to get to the right of John McCain on the energy issue. It would require that he buck the environmental establishment that is strong in his party, but that might be a good thing in the current electoral climate. Also, as opposed as the environmentalists are to coal, it provides a solution that does not rely on nuclear power or offshore drilling, which are other energy choices that McCain is championing. That being said, CTL is a much more obvious issue and a much stronger one - for John McCain. McCain could use the issue to decisive advantage in an Electoral College race, not only in such well known coal-mining states as West Virginia and Pennsylvania, but also in potential swing states in the 2008 election such as New Mexico, Colorado and Ohio which are, respectively, the 9th, 12th and 13th largest coal producing states in the Union. If CTL provided him with a winning margin in all five of these states, it would be very difficult if not impossible for Senator Obama to put together a winning electoral coalition.

360

THE FORT PLTX

AIRFORCE POP- OBAMA

Obama gets credit empirically supports military synfuels. Gregory J. Lengyel, U.S. Air Force Colonel, August 2007, Department of Defense Energy Strategy Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks, The Brookings Institution Foreign Policy Studies, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf
Senators Jim Bunning and Barack Obama have introduced legislation to address the need to pull together the investors and the billions of dollars need to build a synthetic fuel plant by expanding and enhancing the DOE loan guarantee program included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; providing a new program of matching loans to address funding shortages for front-end engineering and design (capped at $20 million and must be matched by non-federal money); expanding investment tax credit and expensing provisions, and extending the fuel excise tax credit; providing funding for the DOD to purchase, test, and integrate synfuels into the military; authorizing a study on synfuel storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and perhaps most importantly to reduce financial risk associated with starting a US synthetic fuel industry, extending existing DOD contracting authority for up to 25 years.41

361

THE FORT PLTX

AIRFORCE UNPOP(LOBBIES)
Plans unpopular warming lobby. Carlo Kopp, AUS staff writer, January 2008, The US Air Force Synthetic Fuels Program, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-USAF-SynFuels.html
The radical environmental and Global Warming lobbies are intensely hostile to the prospect of increased synthetic fuel use, as it it seen to an escape path from the escalating costs of natural crude oil, which is seen to be desirable as a force which retards global carbon based fuel consumption. If the world shifts to synthetic fuels as crude reserves are drained, the result will be, in the minds of the Global Warming lobby, further acceleration of global warming and resulting environmental doom.

362

THE FORT PLTX

AIRFORCE BIPART
Plans bipartisan house bill proves. Lincoln Tribune, 7/15/2008, McHenry Signs Petition to Force Vote on Clean Coal-to-Liquid, http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9282
WASHINGTON Congressman Patrick McHenry has signed a discharge petition to force a floor vote in the U.S House of Representatives on H.R. 2208, the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act. The bipartisan legislation written by Representatives John Shimkus (R-IL) and Rick Boucher (D-VA), would promote the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology to produce alternative energy sources. "This is a bipartisan, common sense plan to utilize our countrys most abundant energy resource, in a clean and environmentally-safe way, to help move us toward energy independence and lower gas prices. Congressman McHenry stated.

363

THE FORT PLTX

AIRFORCE UNPOP- OBAMA

Obama doesnt support changed his stance for the election. Peter Wallsten, LA Times staff, 6/13/2007, Obama yields to a greener side, http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/13/nation/na-energypol13
With pressure mounting on Democratic presidential candidates to adopt hard-line positions on curbing global warming, Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday backtracked from his long-held support for a controversial plan to promote the use of coal as an alternative fuel to power motor vehicles. The Illinois Democrat made his announcement with little fanfare in a dryly worded and technical-sounding e-mail sent late in the day from his Senate office to environmental advocacy groups and did not mention the issue during an appearance at a Brentwood gas station designed to shore up his green bona fides with a renewed call to nationalize Californias ambitious goals for reducing carbon levels in fuel. At issue is legislation, introduced in January, that would give the coal industry tax breaks and other incentives to harness the abundant natural resource as an alternative fuel. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Obama and Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), promoted the idea as a way to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. But environmentalists charged that coal would produce a dirty fuel and exacerbate global warming, putting Obama in the awkward position of balancing the desires of an industry with a strong presence in his home state against those of a key voting bloc in the Democratic presidential primaries. With his statement Tuesday, Obama seemed to be making his choice clear: pledging to oppose any plan to turn coal into liquid fuel unless it adhered to strict environmental safeguards. Senator Obama supports research into all technologies to help solve our climate change and energy dependence problems, including shifting our energy use to renewable fuels and investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy, the email said. However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-toliquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.

364

THE FORT PLTX

MILITARY UNPOP- CONGRESS

Military funding massively unpopularlobbies protest
Huffington post, Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military Confrontation With Iran, 6/24/08 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/anti-war-movement-success_b_114545.html [adit]s

Who says there's no anti-war movement in the United States? In the past two months, the anti-war movement has taken on one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States in an important fight. And so far, the anti-war movement is winning.
Here's the story: On May 22, a bill was introduced into Congress that effectively called for a blockade of Iran, H. Con. Res. 362. Among other expressions of hostility, the bill calls for: "prohibiting

the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran..."
This sounded an awful lot like it was calling for a blockade, which is an act of war. A dangerous proposition, especially given all the efforts that the Bush-Cheney administration has taken to move us closer to a military confrontation with Iran, the bluster and the threats, and the refusal to engage in direct talks with the Iranian government. The last thing we need is for the war party to

get encouragement from Congress to initiate more illegal and extremely dangerous hostilities in the Persian Gulf. If the bill were to pass, the Bush Administration could take it as a green light for a blockade. It's hard to imagine the Iranians
passively watching their economy strangled for lack of gasoline (which they import), without at least firing a few missiles at the blockaders. Whereupon all hell could break loose. By June 20 this bill was zipping through Congress, with 169 co-sponsors, soon to accumulate more than 200 Representatives. Amazingly, it was projected to appear quickly on the House Suspension Calendar. This is a special procedure that allows

the House of Representatives to pass non-controversial legislation by a super-majority. It allows the bill to avoid amendments and other procedural votes, as well as normal debate. An aide to the Democratic leadership said the resolution would pass Congress like a "hot knife through butter." Groups opposed to military confrontation with Iran sprang into action, including Peace Action, United for Peace and
Justice, the National Iranian-American Council, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Code Pink, and Just Foreign Policy.

They generated tens of thousands of emails, letters, phone calls, and other contacts with members of Congress and their staff. The first co-sponsor to change his position on the bill was Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), an influential member of Congress who chairs the powerful House Financial Services Committee. He apologized for "not having read [the bill] more carefully," and pledged that he would not support the bill with the blockade language.

365

THE FORT PLTX

***************NANOTECH*************

366

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC

Nanotech is overwhelmingly unpopular By Rob Beschizza writer for wired.com February 18, 2008 Study: Only 1/3 Of Americans Think Nanotechnology Is Morally Acceptable http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/02/two-thirds-of-a.html Nanotechnologymaterials, machines and other products fabricated with nanometer-sized components such as single atoms or moleculesis morally unacceptable to most Americans, according to a sampling taken by the University of Winconsin-Madison. Of 1,015 adult Americans polled, only 29.5 agreed that it was acceptable, compared to more than half in European countries. Dietram Scheufele, the university's proferssor of life sciences communication, claims its due to religious beliefs which inculcate people with a generalized mistrust of science. In this view, even when scientific endeavor produces results with no clear religious implications (unlike, say, evolution or human cloning) it's simply not on to go around thinking empirically about the natural world. Scheufele insists that it's not a matter of misunderstanding what nanotechnology is the respondents knew what they were rejecting. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people," he told Science Daily. "They are informed." I think he's hyping an angle: religious belief merges neatly into irreligious fear of the new and other objections to science. He specifically chooses to forget about the science-skeptical nature of postmodernists, feminists, environmentalists and countless other non-religious factions. Only about 60 percent of Brits are happy with nanotech, for example, and they're about as religious as cement.

367

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC

Nanotech is unpopular-religious beliefs Dietram Scheufele University of Wisconsin-Madison survey center 15-Feb-2008 Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology MADISON -- Is nanotechnology morally acceptable? For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small. Addressing scientists here today (Feb. 15, 2008) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe. "Our data show a much lower percentage of people who agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable in the U.S. than in Europe," says Scheufele, an expert on public opinion and science and technology. Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules. The ability to engineer matter at that scale has the potential to produce a vast array of new technologies that could influence everything from computers to medicine. Already, dozens of products containing nanoscale materials or devices are on the market. In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable. In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology. "There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology," says Scheufele. Why the big difference? The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective." The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele. He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU. The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits. "They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed." The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, Scheufele says. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.

368

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH IS POP- PUBLIC

Nanotech is popular William Sims Bainbridge Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2003 Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology http://mysite.verizon.net/wsbainbridge/dl/nanotech.htm Data from 3909 respondents to an Internet survey questionnaire provide the first insights into public perceptions of nanotechnology. Quantitative analysis of statistics about agreement and disagreement with two statements, one positive and the other negative, reveals high levels of enthusiasm for the potential benefits of nanotechnology and little concern about possible dangers. The respondents mentally connect nanotechnology with the space program, nuclear power, and cloning research, but rate it more favorably. In contrast, they do not associate nanotechnology with pseudoscience, despite its imaginative exploitation by science fiction writers. Qualitative analysis of written comments from 598 respondents indicates that many ideas about the value of nanotechnology have entered popular culture, and it provides material for an additional 108 questionnaire items that can be used in future surveys on the topic. The findings of this exploratory study can serve as benchmarks against which to compare results of future research on the evolving status of nanotechnology in society. Public supports nanotech, especially environmental nanotech aimed at managing risks The Pew Charitable Trusts serves the public interest by informing the public, advancing policy solutions and supporting civic life. 09/08/2005 Nanotechnology and Public Attitudes http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=19602 Americans welcome new potential life-saving and -enhancing applications promised by nanotechnology. But at the same time, they voice concern over a lack of research into nanotechnologys potential longterm human health and environmental effects and want to ensure that the government and private sectors are equipped and willing to effectively manage any would-be risks. These are some of the findings in a new study released today by The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars was created in partnership with The Pew Charitable Trusts in April 2005.

369

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH BIPART
Nanotech is bipart Chemical Engineering Progress, May 2003 Congressional initiatives support nanotechnology http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5350/is_200305/ai_n21330586 Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the House and the Senate to spur nanotechnology research and development activities. In addition, the White House shares Congress' opinion that nanotechnology R&D should continue to be a high priority on the federal research agenda.

370

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH BIPART/POP- MCCAIN

Mccain supports bipart nanotech Chemical Engineering Progress, May 2003 Congressional initiatives support nanotechnology http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5350/is_200305/ai_n21330586 Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the House and the Senate to spur nanotechnology research and development activities. In addition, the White House shares Congress' opinion that nanotechnology R&D should continue to be a high priority on the federal research agenda. The Senate bill Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and 11 co-sponsors introduced S. 189, the "21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act," in January 2003. The bill is based on Wyden's bill, S. 2945, from the last Congress, which received strong support and was unanimously approved by the Senate Commerce Committee only two days after its introduction. Senate Commerce Committee Chair John McCain (R-AZ) has put S. 189 on the "fast track" for approval this year.

371

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH UNPOP-CONGESS/POP-MCCAIN
McCain empirically supports unpopular nanotechnology legislation Small times online news source March 20, 2003 Nanotech hearing gets Congress thinking on a grand small scale http://www.smalltimes.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=268615&p=109 Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, plans to make the nanotechnology legislation in the Senate a priority in his committee, Wyden said. In coming months, there likely will be several hearings in both houses of Congress exploring the policy issues implicit in nanotechnology research and development. Boehlert said he will
schedule another nanotechnology hearing in early April. The bill is not controversial, and the people who testified, as well as most of the lawmakers who spoke, championed the legislation as the right next step for nanotechnology. "IBM believes that nanotechnology has a big place in the future of the company, and in the future of society," said Tom Theis, director of physical sciences in the IBM Research Division of the Thomas J. Watson Research Center. "We urge the committee to pass this legislation." Concern about the pace of nanotechnology investment among foreign governments dominated a chunk of the testimony. "With a plethora of products in the market and more on the way, it's not longer prudent to think of nanotechnology as just a science," said Alan Marty, who is responsible for leading nanotechnology investments for JP Morgan Partners, an investment firm. "Our focus must be widened to include commercialization and the global race." The international competition, he said, is focused much more on driving nanotechnology economic development than the U.S. government. Marty said one valuable step government could take would be ensuring that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) "is the very best in the world when it comes to nanotechnology." The USPTO is "challenged" right

Another big topic during the hearing was potential trouble with ethical and environmental issues associated with nanotechnology. "I do urge the committee to anticipate that there will be societal implications, not every one of them positive and comfortable," Theis said. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., asked whether, "in light of the recent bill we passed in the House banning human cloning," there were any similarly explosive problems with nanotechnology. "Some individuals have suggested that nanotechnology developments may raise concerns," he said. Members of the panel rejected the idea that nanotechnology was riddled with ethical land mines, but they all championed the idea of dealing with potential problems aggressively and often. There is a danger that people will associate
now by nanotechnology, he said, because of its interdisciplinary nature and the rapid pace of developments in the field. nanotechnology with "guys in scary suits" making mysterious concoctions in the deserts of New Mexico, said Carl Batt, co-director of the Nanobiotechnology Center at Cornell University. "Until we broaden the education base of the general public, the arguments are between academic scientists on one end, and the fringe on the other, which is not productive."

372

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH POP- MCCAIN

Mccain supports nanotech Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955 June 19, 2008 Obama, McCain Can Help Advance Energy, Competitiveness Now And McCain, in his energy speech Tuesday in Houston, declared that he would lead "a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America" involving an eventual "great turn" from carbon to alternative fuels -- for which, he said "we will need all the inventive genius of which America is capable." And yet, right now, the United States is being forced by Department of Energy budget cuts to withdraw from ITER, the international project -- based in France -- to investigate whether nuclear fusion is a potential source of energy. More than 2,700 workers at the DOE's national laboratories already have been laid off and 200 planned university research programs have been canceled, according to City College of New York professor Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society. Also in danger is U.S. participation in an international high-energy physics project based in Geneva, Switzerland, and development of work in U.S. labs on high-intensity X-rays useful for biomedical research, nanotechnology and computer-chip design -all keys to competitiveness.

373

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH POP- OBAMA

Obama supports nanotech Physics Today, the flagship publication of The American Institute of Physics, is the most influential and closely followed physics magazine in the world January 2, 2008 Barack Obama on science education http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/barack_obama/ Barack Obama will emphasize the importance of technology literacy, ensuring that all public school children are equipped with the necessary science, technology and math skills to succeed in the 21st century economy. Access to computers and broadband connections in public schools must be coupled with qualified teachers, engaging curricula, and a commitment to developing skills in the field of technology. This is central to the competitiveness of our nation's technology sector and of our citizens. Obama also believes that we must strengthen math and science education to help develop a skilled workforce and promote innovation. He will work to increase our number of science and engineering graduates, encourage undergraduates studying math and science to pursue graduate studies, and work to increase the representation of minorities and women in the science and technology pipeline, tapping the diversity of America to meet the increasing demand for a skilled workforce. If we export our best software and engineering jobs to developing countries, it is less likely that America will benefit from the next generation innovations in nanotechnology, electronics, and biotechnology. We must have a skilled workforce so that we can retain and grow jobs requiring 21st century skills rather than forcing employers to find skilled workers abroad.

374

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH BIPART
NANOTECHS BIPARTISANLY SUPPORTED House Committee on Science and Technology May 7, 2008 Press Releases :: Committee Passes Legislation to Reauthorize NNI http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2185 (Washington, DC) Today, House Science and Technology Committee approved H.R. 5940, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation amends the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act to make several changes to the implementation process and priorities of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). It is based in part on recommendations from the formal reviews of NNI by the National Academy of Sciences and the NNI Advisory Panel. "H.R. 5940 is a bipartisan bill which I and Ranking Member Hall jointly introduced, along with 23 additional Democratic and Republican Members of the Committee," said Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN). "This Committee was instrumental in establishing the National Nanotechnology Initiative through legislation enacted in 2003."

CONGRESS LOVES NANOTECHRECENT BILL PROVES Industry Week June 9, 2008 Alliance Commends House Passage of Nanotechnology Bill http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=16491 NanoBusiness Alliance Executive Chairman Sean Murdock on June 5 commended the House of Representatives for passing the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 5940). The bill, which reauthorizes and updates the successful federal interagency nanotechnology research and development program, passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin. "We are pleased that Congress continues to recognize the importance of nanotechnology," said Murdock. "It is imperative that the United States maintain its lead in the global nanotechnology race, and this bill will help make that happen."

375

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH BIPART
NANOTECH IS BI-PARTISAN The Technology Administration. November 30, 2003. Bond Praises Passage of Historic Nanotech Legislation http://www.technology.gov/PRel/pr031120.htm Like many technology issues, nanotechnology enjoys tremendous bi-partisan support, continued Bond. Senators George Allen (R-VA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) deserve much credit for their perseverance, leadership and dedication to this important innovation issue. Nanotech has bi-partisan support COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. 12-19-2005. REMARKS BY THE HON. MIKE HONDA ON THE RELEASE OF THE WHITE PAPER OF THE BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE ON NANOTECHNOLOGY. HTTP://SCIENCE.HOUSE.GOV/PRESS/PRARTICLE.ASPX?NEWSID=1020 It isnt a partisan issue nanotech also fits in well with the bipartisan legislation based on the National Innovation Initiative that Senators Ensign and Lieberman recently introduced, and it also dovetails with the Summit on Innovation held by Chairmen Boehlert, Wolf, and Ehlers this month. Know that Congress IS paying attention.The Science Committee held three hearings on nanotech this year: In May we heard testimony about the challenges facing companies, universities, and national labs that are trying to commercialize nanotechnology. CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR NANOTECH IS BIPARTISAN Scott E. Rickert. 12-6-06 Chief executive of Nanofilm, Ltd, located in Valley View, Ohio. Taking The NanoPulse -Nanotechnology In 2007 -- No Ostriches Allowed. http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=13166 I've been vocal in my support an open sharing of information to expedite environmental, health and safety research and the development of reasonable standards. I joined a session of the Environmental Protection Agency's Nanotechnology Work Group, which was charged with leading the discussion on nanotechnology regulation. I've also met with various publications and foundations on the topic. I was heartened to see that in a bi-partisan statement, the House Science Committee is urging the Bush Administration and key federal agencies to "quickly put together a plan and a budget to implement recommendations" put forward in a report by concerned scientists. I couldn't agree more.

376

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH BIPART
THE NNI SHARES STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT John F. Sargent, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division, 05/18/08, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf The federal government has played a central role in catalyzing U.S. R&D efforts. In 2000, President Clinton launched the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the worlds first integrated national effort focused on nanotechnology. The NNI has enjoyed strong, bipartisan support from the executive branch, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Each year, the President has proposed increased funding for federal nanotechnology R&D, and each year Congress has provided additional funding. Since the inception of the NNI, Congress has appropriated a total of $8.4 billion for nanotechnology R&D intended to foster continued U.S. technological leadership and to support the technologys development, with the long-term goals of: creating high-wage jobs, economic growth, and wealth creation; addressing critical national needs; renewing U.S. manufacturing leadership; and improving health, the environment, and the overall quality of life. NANOTECH IS BIPARTISAN Committee on Science and Technology. 12-19-2005. Remarks by the Hon. Mike Honda on the Release of the White Paper of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Nanotechnology. http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1020 Let me assure you that on the Congressional side, nanotechnology has remained a priority throughout this year that you have been working on this report. Some of you that are here today were with us last week when I held a forum on innovation with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Zoe Lofgren. We had folks talk about a number of things that we need to do to make sure that America continues to lead the world in innovation. One of the topics discussed that day was nanotechnology. As a growing field where global leadership is still up for grabs, nanotech fits in well with the Innovation Agenda that Democrats announced last month, which is a strategy for keeping the US competitive in the global economy.

377

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH BIPART
Nanotech is bipartisan Business Wire 6-5-08 (NanoBusiness Alliance Commends House Passage of Nanotechnology Bill pLn) NanoBusiness Alliance Executive Chairman Sean Murdock today commended the House of Representatives for passing the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 5940). The bill, which reauthorizes and updates the successful federal interagency nanotechnology research and development program, passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin. "We are pleased that Congress continues to recognize the importance of nanotechnology," said Murdock. "It is imperative that the United States maintain its lead in the global nanotechnology race, and this bill will help make that happen."

378

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH POP- DEMS

DEMOCRATS SUPPORT NANOTECH DESPITE REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION TODAY NEWS UPDATE - 5/1/2008 DEMOCRATS DROP BID TO BOLSTER NANOTECH STUDY FUNDS AMID GOP RESISTANCE Facing Republican and White House opposition, Democrats have dropped plans to mandate a funding increase for research into the environmental, health and safety (EHS) risks of nanotechnology, which the Democrats had hoped to include in a pending bill to reauthorize nanotechnology research funding, sources say. NANOTECH POPULAR FOR DEMOCRATS TODAY News Update - 3/28/2008 Democrats Eye Risk Research Funding Boost In Nano Reauthorization Bill Democrats are drafting legislation that would significantly boost spending to research the environmental, health and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology, and would also appoint what one environmentalist describes as a cheerleader in the presidents office to lobby across the administration for future nanotech research funds.

379

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC

Empirically, government funding of nanotech has fostered public fear Sara Buscher, Free Press Staff Writer, 6-30-08, Burlington Free Press, Chemical Society Opens Up, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/20080630/NEWS02/806300309/1007/NEWS02 Case says it's up to chemists to keep the public up to speed on what's happening in the field, a lesson she's learned from experience in her own field of nanotechnology in foods. She said in recent years, government funding for the science concerned with matter on the molecular scale not only raised public awareness, but also fostered the spread of misinformation.

380

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH UNPOP- CONGRESS

Both federal and state governments are racing to put up barriers to nanotech development TransWorldNews.com, 7-1-08, Stricter Federal regulations for nanotech companies must be put into place to ensure safety of suppliers and general public, http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx? StoryID=52184 In the absence of clear guidelines from Washington, the states are being left to fill in the gaps, stated Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Federal government has recently called for risk assessments that would be used to create standards related to nanotechnology, but with a serious lack of active monitoring, no standards have been put into place thus far. A lack of information about the risks and potential health hazards related to this technology is a cause for concern, as is the little information available about U.S. companies that utilize nanotechnology in their research or in the development of various products.

381

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH POP- PUBLIC

Currently, there is a gap in the market for nanotechnology, and citizens are taking notice Wayne Heilman, The Colorado Springs Gazette, 7-5-08, Paving way with good inventions, http://www.gazette.com/articles/good_37949___article.html/inventions_paving.html If there is a need for technology in a certain market, you have to fill it as quickly as possible or someone else will," Salazar said. "I have thought about getting involved in energy conservation and nanotechnology because I always have about 10 products floating around in my head. My goal is to get three of them licensed a year."

NANOTECHNOLOGY IS PUBLICLY POPULAR National Cancer Institute; 12-12-05; How the Public makes sense of Nanotechnology Nanotech News http://nano.cancer.gov/news_center/nanotech_news_2005-12-12d.asp Ever since nanotechnology began attracting public attention, various experts have voiced concern that the publics acceptance of nanotechnology will play an increasingly important role in determining the ultimate impact that nanotechnology has across society. As a result, U.S. government efforts aimed at promoting the development of nanotechnology have also included funds for studying environmental, health and safety issues relating to nanoscale materials. Two recent studies suggest it will be important to continue educating the public about these new technologies and their ultimate safety in order to develop support, but that more general personal beliefs, about which little can be done, will also play a role. To better gauge the publics knowledge about and attitudes toward nanotechnology, Dietram Scheufele, Ph.D., at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Bruce Lewenstein, Ph.D., at Cornell University, conducted a national telephone survey of over 700 adults in the fall of 2004. The investigators asked a series of questions aimed at determining general attitudes toward nanotechnology, understanding of risk-benefit assessments, nanotechnology literacy, and how the public learns about nanotechnology. The survey also included questions designed to tease out the roles that education and personal beliefs play in forming attitudes toward nanotechnology. The researchers found that most Americans today know little about nanotechnology, though what they do know they have learned through the mass media. They also found that most Americans have a positive attitude toward nanotechnology, largely, the researchers believe, because most media coverage to date has focused on the bright promise that nanotechnology has for society. Indeed, while only fewer than half of those polled knew the difference between a nanometer and an atom, well over half had an appreciation of the economic implications of nanotechnology. One interesting finding from these studies was that negative feelings towards nanotechnology were stronger in women, older individuals, and among ethnic minorities. The investigators also found that past controversies in science and an individuals positive or negative feelings about those areas of science think genetic engineering and stem cell research - correlated strongly with how that person felt about nanotechnology. Public outreach efforts may therefore have to overcome previous failures in science communication.

382

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH POP- PUBLIC

NANOTECHNOLOGY WILL BE IMPORTANT TO THE PUBLIC North Carolina State University; 7-16-08; Study shows that increased education on nanotech, human enhancement increases public concerns http://www.physorg.com/news135423871.html A new study by researchers at North Carolina State University on public attitudes towards nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies shows that educating people about the new technologies results in those people becoming more concerned about the potential impact of the technologies. The researchers, Dr. Michael D. Cobb, assistant professor of political science, and Dr. Patrick Hamlett, associate professor of science, technology and society and political science, gave questionnaires to study participants around the country to determine their position on emerging technologies with "human enhancement" applications such as using nanotechnology to improve therapies for injuries and degenerative diseases. Nanotechnology is generally defined as technology that uses substances having a size of 100 nanometers or less (thousands of times thinner than a human hair), and is expected to have widespread uses in medicine, consumer products and industrial processes. Cobb and Hamlett then put the participants through a deliberative forum in March 2008 that provided structured discussions and educational background on the technologies. The participants were then asked to fill out the same questionnaire they had been given before the deliberative forum and asked to provide policy recommendations on how to handle the emerging science. In a recent presentation to the 10th Conference on Public Communication of Science, in Malmo, Sweden, Cobb noted that, compared to their pre-deliberation opinions, panelists "became more worried and cautious about the prospective benefits" of the human enhancement technologies. Prior to the deliberation, 82 percent of the participants were at least somewhat certain that the benefits of the technologies outweighed the risks but that number dropped to 66 percent after the deliberation. Cobb and Hamlett conducted the study, called the 2008 National Citizens' Forum on Human Enhancement, under a subcontract from the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University. The study was conducted at sites in Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Cobb says the study is also important because it shows that deliberative forums are a viable tool for encouraging informed public engagement in the development of governmental policies. This is significant because there have been questions in the past about whether "ordinary citizens" are able to engage in useful deliberation or whether collective opinions developed during group deliberation are worse than if the deliberation had never taken place. The driver for the study was to develop a format for informed interaction about the trajectories of science and technology policies as those policies are being developed, Cobb says, so that the public's concerns are incorporated into the policy development process.

383

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH POP- PELOSI

Increased nanotech increases jobs in the U.S. which is exactly what Pelosi wants Ken Krizner, Managing Editor, 6-22-05 (Federal, State Governments Are Investing Heavily Into Nanotechnology http://www.expansionmanagement.com/cmd/articledetail/articleid/16492/default.asp) Multiple stakeholders including state and local officials, federal representatives, large corporations, startups, investors and universities have a vested interest in making nanotechnology efforts succeed," Modzelewski said. Biotechnology created more than 400,000 jobs from 1979 to 1999. Nanotechnology promises a far greater economic impact because it can affect not just biologically derived products, but all manufactured goods. Also, its not just new jobs that are at risk from nanotechnology; existing ones in industries impacted by nanoscale science are on the line as well.

384

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC

NANOTECH IS UNPOPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC

Sharon M. Friedman Winter 2005. Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media Professor and Director of the Science &
Environmental Writing Program in the Department of Journalism & Communication, Lehigh University. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/44/33181/01563496.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1563496 Another major concern almost from the birth of nanotechnology among U.S. scientists and government officials has been fear that some members of the public would react to nanotechnology in the same way many reacted to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) [20], [24]. Anti-GMO sentiments are particularly strong in Europe, affecting sales of GMO products and blackening reputations of companies associated with the technology [8], [15]. Indeed, some environmental groups active in the GMO debate, particularly the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), have turned their scrutiny to nanotech. Concerned about the nanotechs potential societal and health impacts, the ETC Group called for a moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in any new commercial products until governments adopt "best practices" for research [6]. NEGATIVE PRESS ON NANOTECH HAS INFLUENCED PUBLIC OPINION

Sharon M. Friedman Winter 2005. Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media Professor and Director of the Science &
Environmental Writing Program in the Department of Journalism & Communication, Lehigh University. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/44/33181/01563496.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1563496 While the paragraphs provided an overall balanced vfocus, article headlines did not. Close to half of them were negative: 48 percent of the U.S. and 44 percent of the U.K. articles. Only about 23 percent of the U.S. and 14 percent of the U.K. headlines were positive, with the rest either neutral or mixed. Interesting, the U.S. publications had both the most negative and positive headlines, with twice as many negative as positive ones. The U.K. negative headlines were more than three times the number of positive headlines, but U.K. newspapers included more neutral and mixed headlines (20 and 22 percent) compared to U.S. headlines (15.5 and 14 percent). Negative headlines partially reflect the need of headline writers (not reporters) to attract readers and sometimes do not reflect the focus of the articles themselves. Coders in this study often found that negative headlines did not reflect the articles they topped. Unfortunately, readers often glance at headlines but do not read the accompanying articles, so people could have taken away a more negative impression about nanotechs health and environmental risks than the articles.

385

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC

PUBLIC HAS NEGATIVE OPINION OF NANOTECH DUE TO PRESS

Sharon M. Friedman Winter 2005. Nanotechnology: Risks and the Media Professor and Director of the Science &
Environmental Writing Program in the Department of Journalism & Communication, Lehigh University. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/44/33181/01563496.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1563496 Media coverage that compares nanotechnology to other technologies that have bad reputations could negatively impact peoples opinions of nanotech. In particular, U.S. scientists and government officials have been concerned about whether the media would link risks from GMOs to those of nanotechnology, leading to calls for more government regulation. Only 31 percent of U.S. and 40 percent of U.K. articles included any mention of risk similarities between nanotechnology and GMOs or biotechnology. Less that 40 percent of the U.S. and U.K. articles discussed a need for new or tightened regulations about nanotechnology.

386

THE FORT PLTX

NANOTECH UNPOP- PUBLIC

NANOTECHNOLOGY IS UNPOPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC

Michael Berger; 5-8-07; Food nanotechnology and public acceptance Nano Werk; http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1899.php
(Nanowerk Spotlight) Having written in this space about the (possibly) good and the (possibly) bad of food nanotechnology before, here is now a scientific approach to assessing how the public perceives nanotechnology in food and food packaging. Swiss social psychologist Michael Siegrist has looked into the issues of trust, risk and the public acceptance of nanotechnology before. Now, he and his colleagues have taken the area of nanofoods and tried to understand what factors influence the willingness to buy food that has been produced, processed or packaged with nanotechnology. Their conclusion: Perceived benefits seems to be the most important predictor for willingness to buy. "Our study was a first attempt to examine public reactions toward nanotechnology foods" Siegrist explains to Nanowerk. "More research is necessary to better understand the willingness to buy such new food products. An important factor that we came across, and that should be included in future studies, is perceived naturalness." Previous findings from research on genetically modified foods ("Societal aspects of genetically modified (GM) foods") indicate that nanotechnology foods with tangible benefits for the consumer will be easier to market than nanotechnology foods without obvious consumer benefits. But even novel foods that have clear health benefits may not be appealing to all consumers. "It seems that the introduction of novel nanotechnology foods is unlikely to result, generally, in more positive attitudes toward nanotechnology food" says Siegrist. "It is more likely that, for some products, nanotechnology food is accepted, but not for other products." For their study, the Swiss researchers constructed a sample of 153 people who are responsible for grocery shopping in their household . The participants had a mean age of 38 years and their education level was above average compared to the Swiss population. One limitation of the study obviously was that it examined the willingness to buy and not the actual buying behavior. (Previous, similar studies on GM foods showed a difference in what people said they were willing to do and what they actually did.) Participants were given basic descriptions of potential food nanotechnology applications in bread, tomatoes, juice and packaging before being asked a series of questions. A sample description: A nanotechnology coating protects tomatoes from humidity and oxygen. Coated tomatoes have a longer shelf life. Another advantage is that tomatoes can be harvested when they are ripe, resulting in more tasty tomatoes. Disadvantages include the uncertainty of experts about the effects of this material on human health and the environment. "Our results suggest that nanotechnology packaging is perceived as being substantially more beneficial than nanotechnology foods" says Siegrist. " These results also support our hypothesis that nanoinside (e.g., foods) is perceived as less acceptable than nanooutside (e.g., packaging)." It should also be noted that participants were generally hesitant to buy nanotechnology foods or food with nanotechnology packaging. Results suggest, therefore, that the benefits associated with many upcoming nanotechnology food applications may not provide enough additional value for consumers to induce them to buy these products." This of course would assume that nanofoods are labelled as such; something that is not required under current regulations. If a food manufacturer decides not to tout the nanotechnology aspects of their food product it would be very difficult for the consumer to find out. Given that almost all of the large food conglomerates are working on nanotechnology R&D but have gone very quiet on it publicly (when you search for the term 'nano' or nanotechnology' on the websites of Kraft, Nestle, Heinz and Altria you get exactly zero results) this seems a realistic scenario. Siegrist's findings are in line with recent studies suggesting that benefit alone does not guarantee acceptance. In one of these studies, participants showed a low intention to consume GM food, even though clear benefits to the consumer had been communicated. Siegrist emphasizes that consumers are not a homogenous group; they differ in what they perceive as benefits. "In sum, perceived benefits have an impact on how nanotechnology foods are assessed. However, the acceptance of nanotechnology foods cannot be reduced to perceived benefits." Rather than just the product itself, it seems that social trust in institutions producing nanotechnology foods is an important factor directly influencing the willingness to buy. The importance of trust for the perception of nanotechnology foods consequently raises the question of how trust is created. "We have shown previously that shared values constitute the foundations of trust" says Siegrist. "If an institutions behavior is judged to reflect a persons values, the institution will be seen as trustworthy. The importance of social trust suggests that an event with significant negative consequences could have a disastrous impact on trust in the industry. Acceptance of nanotechnology foods could be substantially reduced. The industry should, therefore, promote voluntary initiatives and regulations designed to prevent unwanted side effects." In conclusion, Siegrist mentions a recent study that suggests that the more a product is seen as natural, the less acceptable will be a genetically engineered version of that product. "Perceived naturalness or lack of naturalness could be a factor that also influences attitudes toward nanotechnology foods" he says.

387

THE FORT PLTX

**************NATIVES************

388

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- PUBLIC

Public supports economic development for Native Americans. Business Wire, April 21, 2006, New Poll Finds Popular Opposition to Off-Reservation Casinos; Tribal Coalition Calls on Federal Agency for List of Tribes Applying for Off-Reservation Casinos http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_April_21/ai_n16131689
With Congress considering tighter regulations on off-reservation gaming, a poll to be released Tuesday, April 25, finds voters strongly opposed to reservation shopping(1). This practice entails tribes partnering with developers, lobbyists and elected officials to obtain property outside their ancestral lands for the purpose of establishing a casino. The two firms responsible for the poll, Hart Research Associates, Inc. and Public Opinion Strategies, will present their research in an April 25 meeting with tribal leaders and Congressional staffers. Their findings include: --Fifty-five percent of Americans oppose Indian tribes acquiring lands far from their historic homelands to build casinos. --Seventy-nine percent expressed concerns that casino companies and developers are exploiting the special historical status of Native Americans. --Eighty percent of voters said the possibility of developers and lobbyists contributing money to politicians in exchange for land recognition is of personal concern to them --Eighty-five percent of participants said they would like to see the government assist Native Americans in economic development other than casinos. To promote further discussion of this issue the tribal Coalition Against Reservation Shopping is calling on the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to release an updated list of land-trust applications. The BIA has been unresponsive to requests for this public record, which is believed to contain several new applications.

389

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- BOTH CANIDATES

Obama supports talks and federal action concerning Native Americans about their current situation Jackie Jones, BlackAmericaWeb.com, 7-28-08, Barack Obama Talks Immigration, Intolerance with Journalists of Color at First Post-Trip Forum, http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/movingamerica08/obamaunityconfab728 Asked if an Obama administration would issue an apology to Native Americans for centuries of mistreatment by the American government, the Illinois senator said he would want to look at the nations historic treatment of all groups of color and that he would consult with those impacted before crafting a blanket statement. Further, he said, the more important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds, noting that by every socio-economic indicator Native Americans are doing worse than other Americans.

Both candidates are vying for the Native American vote Martin Griffith, Associate Press, 7-14-08, Young Native Americans mull Obama, McCain at event, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glorPeYbVNfQ7Si2wvXl0nIAOapQD91THI4O0 Hundreds of young Native Americans gathering for a five-day conference here are being urged to become politically active because the American Indian vote could make a difference in this year's presidential election.Jackson Slim Brossy, legislative associate of the nonpartisan National Congress of American Indians, said the Indian vote which traditionally has been Democratic is up for grabs this year as Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain both try to woo it.He said the Indian vote was a factor in Obama's defeat of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in June's Montana primary, as well as in past victories of U.S. Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M."The Native American vote has been overlooked in the past, but there's a trend of it making a difference and I think 2008 will continue the trend," Brossy told The Associated Press."The vote will go to the candidate who reaches out more to Indian country and has the best policies for Indian country," he added.Both McCain and Obama tried to do just that with messages for the 1,000-odd attendees at the annual United National Indian Tribal Youth conference in Reno. The gathering ends Tuesday.

390

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- OBAMA

OBAMA LOVES THE PLAN.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/firstamsecondev
American Indians experience some of the most severe socioeconomic conditions in the United States. Poverty and its effects are pervasive, with more than a quarter of all American Indians living in poverty and unemployment rates reaching 80 percent on some reservations. Obama's experience as a community organizer working in poor neighborhoods plagued by high unemployment has taught him that there is no single solution to community poverty. Therefore, he supports using a comprehensive approach that includes investment in physical, human and institutional infrastructure, increased access to capital, the removal of barriers to development, and above all, authentic government-to-government relationships between the federal government and tribes. Infrastructure Housing: American Indians suffer from some of the deplorable housing conditions in the nation. Some 14 percent of all reservation homes have no electricity, and on some reservations, as many as 20 people are forced to live in a single-family home. Barack Obama supports providing adequate levels of funding for the Indian Housing Block Grant and other Indian housing programs as well as working to increase the effectiveness of these programs. Roads: Safe, reliable roads are a basic component of economic development. Unfortunately, the federal government is failing in its commitment to help tribes maintain tribal road systems. Many reservation roads are unsafe and under-maintained, impacting not only economic development but health and safety as well. Motor vehicle fatality rates for American Indians are nearly twice as high other races. As president Barack Obama would support increased resources for tribes to maintain their road systems, like the Indian Roads Reservation Program and the BIA Indian Road Maintenance program. Energy:Tribal nations have joined in America's quest for alternative, renewable energy. Because of their rural land bases and access to natural resources, many tribes have made great strides in economic development in the energy sector. Tribes have successful operations producing gas, solar, and wind energy. In addition to harnessing and producing energy, tribes have an interest in energy rights-of-way across tribal lands. Obama supports the production and mobility of sustainable energy in all communities, and recognizes the potential for energy development in Indian country. He also encourages energy companies and Indian tribes to negotiate in good faith to ensure tribes receive just compensation. Additionally, tribes are effectively unable to use the renewable energy Production Tax Credit, which provides tax incentives for the operation of renewable energy facilities. Obama supports creation of a Joint Venture Production Tax Credit that allows tribes to partner with private companies and fully utilize vast tribal energy resources.

391

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- CONGRESS

There is congressional support for Native American aid Shana Starkand, online independent writer for news organizations such as market watch, 7/9/08 American diabetes association applauds us, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/american-diabetes-association-applauds-us/story.aspx?guid={0D98D83B1E7A-49D6-BB4B-465ACAE3B556}&dist=hppr , [T-Jacob] The American Diabetes Association (ADA) applauds the U.S. Congress for voting in favor of extending the Special Diabetes Programs (SDP) for two more years. Today, the U.S. Senate voted in support of a Medicare package that included a two-year extension of the Special Diabetes Programs. The measure recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives as well. These programs consist of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) and the Special Statutory Funding Program for Type 1 Diabetes Research (SDP-type1) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Both require periodic joint Congressional re-authorization and will now continue through September 2011. "We applaud Congress for their vote to extend the Special Diabetes Programs," said R. Stewart Perry, Chair of the Board of the American Diabetes Association. "We know the value of these programs and the real difference they make in the quality of life for millions of people with diabetes and, in changing the future for all people with diabetes." 23.6 million Americans -- or 7.8 percent of the population -- have diabetes. Diabetes is among the leading causes of death by disease in the United States. SDPI helps to implement prevention, education and treatment programs in Native American communities. At 17 percent, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes among all U.S. racial and ethnic groups. Recent government studies have demonstrated that the program's prevention and treatment efforts have contributed to significant reductions in diabetes complications in these targeted populations. Native American aid is popular, Obama and McCain want their vote MARTIN GRIFFITH, Writer for the LA times and Associated Press, 7/14/08, Young Native Americans mull Obama, McCain at Event http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glorPeYbVNfQ7Si2wvXl0nIAOapQD91THI4O0 Hundreds of young Native Americans gathering for a five-day conference here are being urged to become politically active because the American Indian vote could make a difference in this year's presidential election. Jackson Slim Brossy, legislative associate of the nonpartisan National Congress of American Indians, said the Indian vote which traditionally has been Democratic is up for grabs this year as Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain both try to woo it. He said the Indian vote was a factor in Obama's defeat of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in June's Montana primary, as well as in past victories of U.S. Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M. "The Native American vote has been overlooked in the past, but there's a trend of it making a difference and I think 2008 will continue the trend," Brossy told The Associated Press. "The vote will go to the candidate who reaches out more to Indian country and has the best policies for Indian country," he added. Both McCain and Obama tried to do just that with messages for the 1,000-odd attendees at the annual United National Indian Tribal Youth conference in Reno. The gathering ends Tuesday. Jose Martinez Jr., 17, a Pima from Arizona's Salt River Reservation, praised McCain after hearing the Arizona senator's videotaped message. He said the Republican is better plugged into the concerns of Native Americans because he represents a state with more than 15 reservations and is former chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "He has to live beside us and he understands how we live and think," Martinez said. "He's a simple man and simplicity has a way of winning the heart of people. He offers us stuff that he can actually deliver on." But Mykhal Colelay Mendoza, 16, of Arizona's White Mountain Apache Reservation, said she supports Obama because she thinks his commitment to Indians and the environment is more sincere. The concerns of the nation's 11.9 million American Indians gained renewed attention in May as Obama visited Montana's Crow Indian reservation and was adopted into the nation during a private ceremony. In Reno, a surrogate delivered a message from the Democratic candidate. "He inspires me a lot because he's not white," Mendoza said. "Maybe this country would change with a person of color in the White House. We've been doing the same routine and it's getting boring." But Mendoza added: "Both of my parents think the country is not ready for a person of color yet." J.R. Cook, a Cherokee who is director of nonpartisan UNITY based in Oklahoma City, Okla., said neither candidate is automatically assured of the Indian vote. "Either way, it's a win-win for Native Americans because of the commitments of McCain and Obama to provide a greater voice for Native Americans in their administration," Cook said.

392

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES UNPOP- CONGRESS

Native Americans are being ignored in congress Jessica Lee, independent writer for various online current event databases, 7/19/08 walking for the earth, http://www.indypendent.org/2008/07/18/walking-for-the-earth/ [T-Jacob] The long trek gathered firsthand accounts of how Nations are grappling with adverse affects of 500 years of colonization, borders, capitalism, environmental injustice and racism. We have witnessed the desecration of sacred sites by the United States government, corporations, developers and individual citizens, said Jimbo Simmons, a Longest Walk 2 organizer. Millions of Native Americans live on the front lines of U.S. energy policy and warefare, coping with the effects of the extraction, processing, and dumping of coal, natural gas and uranium. Since 1940, it is estimated that more than 50 percent of all uranium extracted for nuclear energy and weapons has been mined from indigenous lands, leaving massive radioactive contamination. To a traditional indigenous person, land means life. Today they call those things resources, says Western Shoshone grandmother Carrie Dann, quoted in the Manifesto. The current debate about clean coal fails to address myriad environmental justice concerns regarding the toxic reality of coal mining, processing and burning. In the Navajo and Hopi Nations, the community continues to fight Peabody Coals strip mining, which has forced people off their ancestral lands, depleted a pristine aquifer and caused toxic spills. For over 500 years, those holding economic power backed with weaponry have imposed upon us their agenda, says the Manifesto. there must be a systemic radical change so that those who pray the land and those who have lived on the land for thousands of years determine the destiny of their lands. Despite elections, congress perceives that natives dont need aid Dave Palermo, (Dave Palermo is a freelance writer and president of Native First Communications) 7/11/08, Palermo: We can sway perception and policy, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417707. About two years ago, tribal leaders gathered at Portland State University to discuss how tribal government gaming and the evolving image of Native America was impacting American Indian policy on Capitol Hill. The gathering took place as convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff was dominating headlines, the 109th U.S. Congress was taking shots at tribal sovereignty, and there was a growing concern tribal gaming was tarnishing the public perception of American Indians. ''Public polls seem to suggest our support has eroded in recent years due to the backlash created by the Abramoff scandal and negative images surrounding tribal gaming,'' said Alan Parker, professor of Native American law and a citizen of the Chippewa Cree Tribal Nation. ''It seems a large segment of the public believe that what Indian people are about is operating casinos.'' ''Casinos ... are not who we are,'' Nisqually tribal elder Billy Frank Jr. told those at the meeting. ''We are our languages, our culture, our natural resources, our spirituality and our prayers.'' That was two years ago. Abramoff has since faded from the front pages of the Washington Post and New York Times. The Senate Indian Affairs and House Resources committees are focusing on more urgent, non-gaming tribal issues such as education, health care and natural resources. And tribes can rejoice at the attention the presumptive Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are giving to tribal issues. ''We're seeing for the first time, the candidates are reaching out,'' Kalyn Free, founder of the Indigenous Democratic Network and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, told the Denver Post. ''They are recognizing the power of the Indian vote and that Indians could be pivotal in this election.'' But many remain concerned about the nationwide, public perception of American Indians, particularly the notion that, thanks to tribal government gaming, indigenous Americans are no longer economically and socially disadvantaged. There is a nagging fear the ''myth of the rich Indian'' is prompting Congress, federal policy makers and bureaucrats with the U.S. Department of Interior and BIA to ignore the nation's trust responsibility for the more than 2.4 million citizens of more than 560 federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native villages; promises etched in treaties made in exchange for Native lives and lands. Statistics show economic growth on tribal lands is three times the national average, a trend that to a large degree can be attributed to a federal policy of tribal self-determination introduced in 1975, U.S. Supreme Court rulings upholding the right to game on tribal lands, and enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.

393

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- DEMS

Democrats support the plan. Democrats.org, 2008, Ten Reasons Why Native Americans, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians are Democrats http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/reasons_for_ind.php
Democrats stand for the issues important to American Indians. Tribal governments know what it means to meet the unmet needs of their citizens with unmet resources -- providing care and services to those less fortunate. 1. Democrats support and respect tribal sovereignty 2. Democrats stand for the protection of families and communities 3. Democrats stand for working families who pay their fare share, not just those few born into wealth 4. Democrats support full funding of programs that are critical to Native Americans crucial health care and education programs 5. Democrats have historically fought for and continue to fight for the same things that Indian Tribes believe in: providing for our children, our elderly, our veterans and those less fortunate 6. Democrats believe in the protection of the environment and preservation of our natural resources. The Democratic Party respects tribes as the original stewards of the environment 7. Democrats support federal assistance for public safety programs in tribal communities 8. Democrats understand the federal government has a fiduciary trust responsibility to tribes that must be managed openly, honestly and responsibly and support a resolution of the trust fund case affecting thousands of Native citizens 9. The Democratic Party focuses on policies that promote the economic development strides that strengthen tribal governments in Indian Country 10. Like Tribes the Democratic Party knows the value of community Democrats are about "We" Not "Me."

394

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- KYL

Republican Senator Kyl supports Indian Rights. Senator Jon Kyl, Assistant Republican Leader and serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees. 7/22/08 Helping Native Americans http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272621683.shtml
While fighting HIV/AIDS outside of this country is clearly a worthy cause, Congress must also meet its obligation to citizens here at home. Especially with such high fuel and food prices and the mortgage crisis, I did not believe we could afford to spend $50 billion abroad. I, therefore, supported amendments to reduce and restrict the spending (they were unsuccessful) and offered the amendment to at least divert $2 billion of the $50 billion to fund critical needs of Native Americans. Native Americans are facing a public safety and health crisis because of a lack of federal funding. A 2004 report by the Interior Department Inspector General stated that some [Indian detention] facilities we visited were egregiously unsafe, unsanitary, and a hazard to both inmates and staff alike. [Bureau of Indian Affairss] detention program is riddled with problems . . . and is a national disgrace. A 2008 Interior report confirms that tribal jails are still grossly insufficient, stating that: [o]nly half of the offenders are being incarcerated who should be incarcerated, the remaining are released through a variety of informal practices due to severe overcrowding in existing detention facilities. In the Navajo Nation, a number of detention facilities have been closed for health and safety reasons. In 2007, it only had bed space for 59 inmates to serve a total of 50,947 inmates booked into its facilities. The overcrowding that has resulted has caused the majority of tribal court judges to defer or reduce sentences, and often they must release and return serious offenders to their community within hours. Federal funding is also needed to meet critical water needs. According to the Indian Health Service, about 11 percent of Native Americans lack adequate water supply and waste disposal facilities in their homes. In Arizona, almost a third of households on the Navajo Nation do not have a public water system and are forced to haul water long distances to provide drinking water to their families. Specifically, my amendment will direct up to $1 billion toward law enforcement and health projects. That amount will go towards, for example, detention facility construction, rehabilitation, and replacement, as well as safe drinking water and sanitation facilities. The measure also provides up to $1 billion for Indian water supply projects approved by Congress; this funding could be very helpful in implementing Indian water settlements in Arizona. I am pleased that I was able to redirect $2 billion to help Native American communities; but I could not, in the end, support the larger PEPFAR bill that still authorized $48 billion for the foreign aid. Its just too much to spend at a time when Americans are feeling pain at the gas pump, in the housing market, and at the grocery store

395

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES PART
Plan causes a fight in Congress Democrats will tie it to roll backs in oil industry subsidies
Alexander Duncan, writer Inside Energy with Federal Lands, 3-10-08 Karsner scolds Democrats for linking renewable measure to oil tax package, l/n [Ades] A top Energy Department official scolded Democratic lawmakers last week for the way they have tried to extend a popular tax credit for producers of wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy. Alexander Karsner, DOE's assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, blasted Democrats for continually linking the extension legislation to a controversial provision that would roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks for the oil and natural gas industry. Democrats should "stop playing games and tricks," Karsner told reporters Thursday at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. Democrats should drop the oil-industry provision, he said, and pass "clean, simple, uncomplicated, uncontingent legislation, and stop holding the candy hostage to political arguments and games and distractions." President Bush supports the extension of the renewable-energy tax credits, but he has vowed to veto any bill that would pay for the extensions by rescinding tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. Democrats have tried that strategy several times in recent months, but they have yet to get a bill out of Congress and to the president's desk. The federal renewable production tax credits are slated to expire at the end of 2008. The PTC has been credited with helping advance the entire renewable energy industry in the US, ranging from biofuels to power production. The PTC has, on several occasions in recent months, been linked with the oil company tax provision. Democrats have also linked the extensions to legislation that would require electric utilities to generate a certain percentage of their power from wind and other renewable sources. The White House opposes this so-called "renewable portfolio standard" as well. So far, Senate Republicans have managed to beat back the Democrats' efforts to link the popular PTC extensions to the controversial RPS and oil-company rollback provisions. Republicans have argued that encouraging state-by-state renewable portfolio standards is the best way to advance the technologies, given regional differences in wind, solar and other renewable resources. Karsner noted the success of the 26 state renewable portfolio standards and the maturing markets that have grown around the local policies and tax frameworks. These states produce about three quarters of the nation's power, making a federal program invasive to the progress already made, he said. "The states are reconciling the tax credits and monetizing them in ways that the market is used to and without interruption," he said. "Most people in the renewable industry would agree with me, myself being a former wind power developer, that the urgency is now." He pointed out that the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, proposed the PTC as part of the enacted economic stimulus package. But the move was thwarted when most Senate Republicans voted to keep the PTC out of the package.

396

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES = OBAMA WIN

SHIFTING TRIBAL FOCUS TO THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD GIVE OBAMA THEIR VOTE.

ASSOCIATED PRESS. MARTIN GRIFFITH Jul 14, 2008. Young Native Americans mull Obama, McCain at event. [Alex Kats-Rubin] http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glorPeYbVNfQ7Si2wvXl0nIAOapQD91THI4O0
But Mykhal Colelay Mendoza, 16, of Arizona's White Mountain Apache Reservation, said she supports Obama because she thinks his commitment to Indians and the environment is more sincere. The concerns of the nation's 11.9 million American Indians gained renewed attention in May as Obama visited Montana's Crow Indian reservation and was adopted into the nation during a private ceremony. In Reno, a surrogate delivered a message from the Democratic candidate. "He inspires me a lot because he's not white," Mendoza said. "Maybe this country would change with a person of color in the White House. We've been doing the same routine and it's getting boring."

397

THE FORT PLTX

398

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- MONTANA

Natives popular in Montana ASSOCIATED PRESS. MARTIN GRIFFITH Jul 14, 2008. Young Native Americans mull Obama, McCain at event. [Alex Kats-Rubin] http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5glorPeYbVNfQ7Si2wvXl0nIAOapQD91THI4O0
Hundreds of young Native Americans gathering for a five-day conference here are being urged to become politically active because the American Indian vote could make a difference in this year's presidential election. Jackson Slim Brossy, legislative associate of the nonpartisan National Congress of American Indians, said the Indian vote which traditionally has been Democratic is up for grabs this year as Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain both try to woo it. He said the Indian vote was a factor in Obama's defeat of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in June's Montana primary, as well as in past victories of U.S. Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M. "The Native American vote has been overlooked in the past, but there's a trend of it making a difference and I think 2008 will continue the trend," Brossy told The Associated Press.

399

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- OBAMA

OBAMA HAS SPOKEN OUT FOR FEDERAL INCENTIVES FOR MORE WIND POWER HED GET THE CREDIT

Iodinews.com, June 4th, 2008. McNerney supports Obama. < http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/06/04/news/10_mcnerney_080604.txt>

The federal government needs to take responsibility for building transmission lines to encourage the development of wind power in South Dakota, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said during an interview Friday with the Argus Leader. Obama says wind power could provide up to half the nations electricity needs, but federal tax incentives must be extended to keep that development in the United States. If we dont get those tax incentives, those federal tax breaks in place, then youre going to see a whole lot of wind power generation and industry moving to Europe, he said. Its already starting to happen.

400

THE FORT PLTX

401

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES UNPOP-MCCAIN
MCCAIN WONT TAKE CREDIT FOR THE PLAN, HE HATES PTCS

US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008
Legislation McCain Opposed Included Investment Set To Expire Next Year For Generators Of Geothermal, Wind And Solar Power. "Compromises that won passage for a major energy bill in the Senate this week left investors for geothermal, wind and solar resources out in the cold. After a long struggle, the Senate passed the bill late Thursday. It increases vehicle fuel mileage standards and encourages energy efficiency in federal buildings and in electricity-guzzling appliances. The House is expected to take a final vote next week. But passage was assured only after negotiators removed provisions that would set a requirement that 15 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. Also gone were extensions for investment and production tax credits set to expire next year for generators of geothermal, wind and solar power. 'From the standpoint of renewable energy, the compromises were certainly a missed opportunity, and they were out of step with much of the support we get from across the country,' said Gregory Wetsone, director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association."

402

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- DEMS

DEMOCRATS ADVOCATE FOR NATIVE AMERICAN POLICY COURTING THEIR VOTE

Francisco Tharp, intern for High Country News, 7/16/08, Dems reach out to Native Americans, High Country News, http://www.hcn.org/articles/17590 Women and African-Americans arent the only demographics receiving extra attention from Democrats this year. The party has also been reaching out to Native Americans. In the past, Native American voters have been ignored, or thought of in the last minute, says Laura Harris of the Comanche Tribe. What (Democratic National Committee Chairman) Howard Dean has done is incorporate us into the process, not just for our vote, but for our participation and economic support, too. Its an exciting time to be a Native American and take our place in the political process of the U.S. Harris, who serves as the executive director of the nonprofit Americans for Indian Opportunity, is one of an unprecedented six Native Americans appointed to the Democratic National Conventions standing committees. Shes just one example of how the Democratic Party is recognizing Native American issues and courting Indian voters. When Dean took his seat as chairman of the Democratic Party in February 2005, he initiated the partys 50 State Plan, in order to not write off voters who we didnt expect to win, and not take for granted voters we thought we already had, according to Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera. The national party is working with state parties to hire full-time staff to reach out at a state level, rather than engaging only voters in key demographics or during election years. Every state, says LaVera, now has at least three full-time party employees. And four states Arizona, Oklahoma, Alaska and New Mexico -- have fulltime Native American party organizers. The 50 State Plan also encourages American Indians to seek office. The Democratic Party has always said everyone deserves a place at the table, says La Vera. But Chairman Dean said that wasnt enough. He said Native Americans needed a place on the ballots. The plan is working, he adds, noting that in 2006, a record 64 Native Americans were elected to state legislatures in 14 different states. Democrats are also helping Native Americans financially. Last August, the party chose the Native American Bank in Denver, which is owned by 26 federally recognized Indian tribes, as the depository of $2 million in federal grant funds. The money provides the Native American Bank with a little bit of publicity and support for the great work theyve been doing, says Natalie Wyeth, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Convention Committee. They have a long track record of working with tribal and other underprivileged communities, and helping them in start-up efforts. The partys convention committee has recently begun depositing a portion of its federal grant funds in minority and woman-owned banks in the conventions host city, instead of keeping it in New York or Washington, D.C., says Wyeth. In Boston in 2004, the party used OneUnited, the largest African-American bank in the U.S., and Asian American Bank, which provides financial support to small business owners and the Asian American community. Democrats hope that by the time the funds are withdrawn -- a few months before the convention begins in late August -- their economic and political support will have encouraged Native American voters to continue supporting Democratic candidates.

403

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES UNPOP- REPS

TURN AMERICAN INDIAN ASSISTANCE IS UNPOPULAR, THERES NO WAY MCCAIN COULD SPIN IT AS A WIN FOR HIM

Mike Graham, citizen of the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation, 8/04/06, Republican party declares economic war against Native Americans, American Chronicles, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/12126 Although the U.S. Federal Government today does not issue bounties for Indian scalps and calling for their extermination, the Republican party is waging a national political economic war against the Native American community through their anti-Indian politics. Republican party elected representatives, state and federal are fully supporting anti-Indian groups like "One Nation United" and "Citizen's Equal Rights Foundation" by enacting new legislation and changing laws to block Native Americans' economic well being and advancement.
TURN ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO NATIVES IS WAY UNPOPULAR WITH REPUBLICANS

Mike Graham, citizen of the Oklahoma Cherokee Nation, 8/04/06, Republican party declares economic war against Native Americans, American Chronicles, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/12126 The republican party's attitude toward Native Americans' economic well being is "Why can't Indians live in Death Valley and be happy?" While federal and state governments offer well endowed financial incentives for businesses to operate in America, that attitude is not offered to the Native American community. The federal government has failed miserably in it's lawful duties to ensure the economic well being of all Native Americans! The Indian Federal Trust Fund has been robbed of around one hundred billion dollars. The federal government wants Indians to settle for eight billion. Americans are not hearing about this issue on CNN & Fox national TV news for a good reason. Our government wants the myth "Indians don't pay taxes." to continue.

404

THE FORT PLTX

PTC PART
Dispate bipart veneer, disagreement over how to fund PTCs creates partisan divisions
Jean Chemnick, writer Global Power Report, 7-3-08, Senate Republicans revive efforts to extend renewable energy credits, l/n [Ades] Production tax credits for wind, biomass and other technologies and investment tax credits for solar energy and fuel cells are set to expire at the end of 2008. While there is bipartisan consensus that these should be extended, there is disagreement over how and whether to pay for them. Republicans have insisted that since the tax credits already exist, they need not be paid for with reductions in spending or new taxes somewhere else. Under the Republican-controlled 111th Congress, similar tax cuts were extended without revenue raising provisions, and Senate Republicans in this Congress have consistently blocked attempts by majority Democrats to bring bills to the floor that include such provisions. Republicans stymied the most recent Housepassed bill, H.R. 6049, in June. It would have paid for the extensions by changing the tax rules for employees of offshore corporations, including hedge funds. Democrats, meanwhile, continue to point to the Congressional Budget Office, which counts the incentives as revenue lost to the federal treasury. They demand that the incentives be offset with new federal income, as was the case with an extension bill enacted last year. The House Blue Dog Coalition, which is composed of 39 fiscally conservative Democrats from swing districts, has made enforcing congressional budget rules its top priority since its members helped their party take control of that chamber in 2007. The House leadership has said repeatedly that it has no plans to cross the Blue Dogs by passing an incentives package that relies on deficit spending. "House Democratic leaders have made it clear that they will not approve an extenders bill that increases the deficit," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus in a June letter to McConnell and Grassley. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland has said repeatedly that he will not bring such a bill to the floor if it lacks offsets, even after the November elections. Republicans, however, wonder if the House will really hold that hard a line on offsets into the fall. A Republican aide on July 1 said that Hoyer seemed unwilling to pass an extension for the alternative minimum tax credit in 2007 without including payfor provisions, right up until he did. "Hoyer has a history on this issue of holding to the party line up until he's not," said the aide. Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who heads the Finance subcommittee responsible for the tax bill, said he had seen little evidence that the House was likely to accept an unpaid for bill. "There's a building pressure to get this done with or without offsets" from the banking and business community, said Wicker. He said that as an observer of the process, he thought it was likely that the McConnell-Grassley letter was just another attempt to remind Senate leadership that the Republicans still preferred not to pay for the extensions.

Funding PTCs is the key, divisive issue surrounding the plan

Cathy Cash, Eletric Utility Week, 5-5-08, Renewables incentives may have to wait for a new year, some say, as gridlock rules, l/n [Ades] The Finance Committee bill "is the next-best chance," said one industry source who spoke not for attribution. But the pay-for problem remains. "It goes back to the Senate Republicans that don't want to pay for [the tax credits] and the Senate Democrats that want to pay for [the tax credits]. It's an impasse at this point. That transcends [the tax credit extensions] whether they're in the extenders bill, the supplemental or an energy bill."

405

THE FORT PLTX

PTC POP- CONGRESS

Their evidence assumes unpopular packages tax credits themselves have bipart support
Cathy Cash, Electric Utility Weekly, 1-21-08, Wind industry reports huge gains in capacity, even as it fights for extension of its tax credits, l/n [Ades] Late last year, Congress jettisoned credit extensions from an energy policy bill, H.R. 6, amid a veto threat over other provisions of the tax package, including repeal of about $13 billion in tax credits for large oil and natural gas companies. If the renewable tax credits are not part of a big package, they can still move forward, Wetstone said, because they have bipartisan support.

Plan is popular in Congress not perceived as major energy legislation Global Power Report, 1-10-08, Energy, environment laws to make little headway in 2008, but will lay groundwork, say
analysts, l/n [Ades] With a new energy law on the books and a national election around the corner, Congress appears unlikely to pass major energy and environmental laws in 2008, even with oil prices flirting at or near $100/barrel, Washington analysts say. Still, actions that lawmakers take this year could help set the tone for breakthroughs once voters choose a new president and Congress in November, the analysts add. "The first week of 2008 brought a taste of $100[/barrel] oil and the Iowa caucuses, leaving little doubt that would-be presidents and returning legislators will keep petroleum prices and the need for 'energy security' at the forefront of debate," Kevin Book, an analyst with the investment firm Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, said in a report. "Does this mean another energy bill is on its way? Not so fast," Book added. Recent history shows how difficult it is for Congress to pass energy laws, even when there are supply interruptions and a single party controls Capitol Hill and the White House, Book said. "This year, the odds are even worse," he said. "Democrats command a narrow margin in Congress; a wide-open presidential race could ignite a partisan brawl as soon as mid-February, if clear front-runners emerge from early state primary elections and Democrats appear determined to continue 'pay-as-you-go' fiscal strictures, pitting Big Oil against clean and green power in a battle for subsidy dollars." Moreover, Book said, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which Congress passed and President Bush signed in December, "encapsulated virtually all areas of energy policy consensus among Washington's warring factions." Frank Verrastro, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' energy program ? one of several analysts interviewed on the House and Senate agendas for energy and the environment ? offered a similar assessment. "I'm thinking it's going to be very bare bones," he said. "I don't think anything new is going to come unless they're responding to some sort of crisis." Still, some analysts say Congress likely will at least enact bills extending production tax credits for renewable energy production, which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2008, and the Senate and the House may give more attention to climate change legislation, although probably will not pass such bills.

Widespread support for PTCs in Congress deferments of passage only because of technicalities Inside Energy, 1-7-08, 2008 seen as 'table-setter' year for energy issues, l/n [Ades]
Book predicted that the production tax credits for renewable energy would be extended this year, and envisioned this happening one of two ways. Either the item would be added to a farm bill reauthorization with offsets, as required under House rules, or would be approved late in the year, when he said the rules for "pay-as-you-go will be like legwarmers in the 1990s ? no one will remember that it ever existed." Similarly, Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, predicted House and Senate votes this year on the tax package, which failed by one vote in the Senate, the RES and gasoline price-gouging language. "That will all be back," Lieberman said. "Those things still have a lot of supporters in the House and Senate." Verrastro disagreed, however, saying because scaled-down versions of those three measures could not pass muster in the Senate last year, they would not be back this year. "There are gaps that have to be filled in, but my sense is that the congressional leaders will defer to the presidential candidates," he said.

406

THE FORT PLTX

PTC POP- CONGRESS

Wind Energy PTCs are popular with Congress address industry concerns E and E Daily 04 [Environment and Energy Daily, ENERGY POLICY: Corporate tax conference leaves door open for energy tax package, September 30, 2004, Mary ODriscoll and Ben Geman, E&E Daily reporters, lexis] To their version of the bill, Senate lawmakers attached the $19 billion energy tax package, targeting the oil and gas, coal, renewable power and alternative fuels industries in an effort to get some part of the stalled-out comprehensive energy bill through Congress this year. The House version of the bill only extended the popular wind power tax credit -- which was included in the family tax cut bill passed last week -- as well as extensions of marginal oil and gas production tax credits for research and development. Also in the House bill are some some nuclear import-related measures addressing the industry's need for steam generators and reactor vessel heads for nuclear power plants. Wind Energy PTCs are popular with Congress E and E Daily 04 [Environment and Energy Daily, BUDGET: Funding fight poised to dominate both chambers' weekly agenda, March 10, 2008, Alex Kaplun, Ben Geman and Allison Winter, E&E Daily reporters, lexis] The House recently passed a roughly $18 billion tax package that provides multi-year extensions for a host of renewable energy and energy efficiency tax incentives and offsets the costs with higher taxes on major oil producers. But this approach has failed -- albeit narrowly -- on repeated occasions in the Senate last year in the face of GOP-led filibusters and White House veto threat due to the taxes on oil companies. Renewable energy industry officials are pressing Congress for fast action to extend the availability of popular credits for wind, solar and other projects that expire at year's end, warning that plans for new projects are already starting to dry up. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who is among the Senate Democrats' leaders on energy policy, told E&E Daily last week that she is adopting a two-fold strategy: pressing for a vote to provide short-term extensions of credits, while continuing to seek the support for the broader type of package that has fallen short thus far.

407

THE FORT PLTX

PTC BIPART
This congress recently renewed the PTC and enacted portions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 both are consistent with the mandates of the plan. American Indian Law Review 2008 [Mark Shahinian, third-year law student at the University of Michigan] SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267. The PTC is a tax credit Congress created to foster the production of renewable energy. The PTC is a broad incentive - it has aided renewable energy developments from California to Maine. An examination of the record of congressional debates surrounding the renewal of the PTC in 2005 makes clear Congress was interested in both reducing dependence on foreign fossil [*286] fuels 78 and stimulating the growth of domestic renewable energy businesses. 79 To this end, Congress decided to enact a tax incentive (the PTC) that will cost taxpayers over $ 300 million a year over the next decade. 80 Congress has acted on its goals of increasing renewable energy production by enacting the PTC - Congress has also acted on its goals of increasing tribal energy resource production by enacting parts of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Congress would like tribal corporations to work toward resource development in the same manner as non-reservation businesses. The 2005 Energy Policy Act articulates Congress' intent to foster energy development on tribal lands. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in its report on the bill, wrote "There are abundant energy resources available for production on Indian lands. Development of those resources must be encouraged." 82 Making the PTC tradable would merge those two goals. Congress should - and, the record indicates, does - want Indian tribes to face the same set of incentives as non-Indian business entities. Both logic and congressional action indicate that the government would want all economic activity within the boundaries of the United States to face the same incentive system, in order to broadly encourage the activities targeted by tax credits. Congress has articulated its goals of energy security and clean energy production. Tribes, given the proper incentives, and a tradable PTC, can help the U.S. meet those goals.
81

408

THE FORT PLTX

PTC BIPART
Wind PTCs have bipartisan support in Congress NPR 03 [National Public Radio, Talk of the Nation/Science Friday, Development of wind power in Texas, Ira Flatow and Russell Smith, Executive Director, Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association, September 19, 2003, lexis] And throughout the United States, the production tax credit is a critical element that's driven the development of wind projects, and no less so in Texas. If that's not renewed and it comes to an end this time at the end of this year, if Congress does not renew it, then that changes the whole picture for the development of wind. We feel fairly confident, I think, that it will be renewed. You should understand that wind does enjoy very strong bipartisan support in Congress and has for some time. And this production tax credit has been extended--I guess this is going on the third time. And we're confident that it will be again.

409

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES BIPART
THERE HAS BEEN BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR OVER A CENTURY TO LESSEN TRIBAL DEPENDENCE ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--ENERGY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES LIKE THE PLAN ARE EMPIRICALLY POPULAR.

American Indian Law Review 2008 [Mark Shahinian, third-year law student at the University of Michigan] SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267. Increasing tribal revenues from wind energy production - or any other economic activity that prospers offreservation in a tax-credit environment and could benefit tribes if tax credits are made tradable - is a good way to meet federal goals of reducing tribal dependence. The reduction of tribal dependence has been a congressional goal since the nineteenth century. Even during the passage of the Allotment Acts in the late nineteenth century, the twisted logic of the time said that forcing tribal members into farming would push the Indians toward "real and permanent progress." This goal of reduced tribal dependence was first codified in the economic development context nearly 100 years ago - in the Buy Indian Act of 1908. 84 The Act directs the Department of Interior to give preference to Indians as far as is practicable in hiring and procurement. The Buy Indian Act has been expanded over the years. In 1974, it was made to apply to all federal contracts. Congress has been willing to extend the same type of support evinced by the Buy Indian Act to tribal energy programs. For example, in 2001, the full House of Representatives passed the Hayworth amendment to the proposed energy bill adding "energy products and energy by-products" to the categories of materials covered under the Buy Indian Act. That bill, House Bill 4, died in conference committee in 2002. However, the ideas from the Hayworth amendment are incorporated into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 - the Act provides for federal purchases of power generated by Indian tribes. Even outside the energy development or economic development contexts, the Federal Government has made clear through the years that it would like to see the tribes less dependent on direct grants of federal dollars. The Reagan administration advocated reduced tribal dependence in an important policy statement issued in 1983. "It is important to the concept of self-government that tribes reduce their dependence on federal funds by providing a greater percentage of the cost of their selfgovernment," the administration wrote. Any measures that give the tribes a leg up in the economic development game reduce their economic dependency on the federal government. Wind power development could play a role in this economic development, but only if tribes have access to the PTC. Wind power development would provide the "greater percentage of the cost of [tribal] self government" that the Reagan administration sought and it would push the tribes toward "real and permanent progress".
83 85 86 87 88 89

LEGISLATION TO AID NATIVE AMERICANS IS BIPARTISAN Justin Kitsch February 26 2008 [accessed via lexis nexis] The United States Senate gave overwhelming final approval to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2008 Tuesday. U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said the legislation, which passed with a vote of 83-10, is the first update of this critical Indian Health Care legislation in 16 years. The legislation creates important new Indian health programs and improves existing successful programs. It expands cancer screenings, improves communicable and infectious disease monitoring, and enhances recruitment and scholarship programs for Indian health professionals. The United States government has a legal trust responsibility, based on treaties, statutes and long-standing practice, to provide health care to the estimated 1.9 million Native Americans. "Today marks a major step in health care for Native Americans. The bill includes several programs that will help combat the most serious health issues facing American Indians and it contains programs to promote Native Americans entering the health care field," Dorgan said. "But we have to remember that this is just a start to the work that needs to be done to meet and pay for the health care obligations that we have to American Indians and Alaska Natives."

410

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- CONGRESS

PLAN POP - ENERGY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ON RESERVATIONS GIVE NATIVE AMERICANS THE PUSH THEY NEED TO REDUCE TRIBAL DEPENDENCE, CENTRAL CONGRESSIONAL GOAL Mark Shahinian, [third-year law student at the University of Michigan], 2008 American Indian Law Review SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267. Increasing tribal revenues from wind energy production - or any other economic activity that prospers off-reservation in a tax-credit environment and could benefit tribes if tax credits are made tradable - is a good way to meet federal goals of reducing tribal dependence. The reduction of tribal dependence has been a congressional goal since the nineteenth century. Even during the passage of the Allotment Acts in the late nineteenth century, the twisted logic of the time said that forcing tribal members into farming would push the Indians toward "real and permanent progress." n83 This goal of reduced tribal dependence was first codified in the economic development context nearly 100 years ago - in the Buy Indian Act of 1908. n84 The Act directs the Department of Interior to give preference to Indians as far as is practicable in hiring and procurement. n85 The Buy Indian Act has been expanded over the years. In 1974, it was made to apply to all federal contracts. n86 Congress has been willing to extend the same type of support evinced by the Buy Indian Act to tribal energy programs. For example, in 2001, the full House of Representatives passed the Hayworth amendment to the proposed energy bill adding "energy products and energy by-products" to the categories of materials covered under the Buy Indian Act. n87 That bill, House Bill 4, died in conference committee in 2002. However, the ideas from the Hayworth amendment are incorporated into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 - the Act provides for federal purchases of power generated by Indian tribes. n88 Even outside the energy development or economic development contexts, the Federal Government has made clear through the years that it would like to see the tribes less dependent on direct grants of federal dollars. The Reagan administration advocated reduced tribal dependence in an important policy statement issued in 1983. "It is important to the concept of self-government that tribes reduce their dependence on federal funds by providing a greater percentage of the cost of their self-government," the administration wrote. n89 [*288] Any measures that give the tribes a leg up in the economic development game reduce their economic dependency on the federal government. Wind power development could play a role in this economic development, but only if tribes have access to the PTC. Wind power development would provide the "greater percentage of the cost of [tribal] self government" that the Reagan administration sought and it would push the tribes toward "real and permanent progress".

411

THE FORT PLTX

NATIVES POP- CONGRESS

CONGRESS SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT OF NATIVE AMERICAN RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Mark Shahinian, [third-year law student at the University of Michigan], 2008 American Indian Law Review SPECIAL FEATURE: THE TAX MAN COMETH NOT: HOW THE NON-TRANSFERABILITY OF TAX CREDITS HARMS INDIAN TRIBES American Indian Law Review 2007 / 200832 Am. Indian L. Rev. 267. The PTC is a tax credit Congress created to foster the production of renewable energy. The PTC is a broad incentive - it has aided renewable energy developments from California to Maine. An examination of the record of congressional debates surrounding the renewal of the PTC in 2005 makes clear Congress was interested in both reducing dependence on foreign fossil [*286] fuels n78 and stimulating the growth of domestic renewable energy businesses. n79 To this end, Congress decided to enact a tax incentive (the PTC) that will cost taxpayers over $ 300 million a year over the next decade. n80 Congress has acted on its goals of increasing renewable energy production by enacting the PTC - Congress has also acted on its goals of increasing tribal energy resource production by enacting parts of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Congress would like tribal corporations to work toward resource development in the same manner as non-reservation businesses. The 2005 Energy Policy Act articulates Congress' intent to foster energy development on tribal lands. n81 The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in its report on the bill, wrote "There are abundant energy resources available for production on Indian lands. Development of those resources must be encouraged." n82 Making the PTC tradable would merge those two goals. Congress should - and, the record indicates, does - want Indian tribes to face the same set of incentives as non-Indian business entities. Both logic and congressional action indicate that the government would want all economic activity within the boundaries of the United States to face the same incentive system, in order to broadly encourage the activities targeted by tax credits. Congress has articulated its goals of energy security and clean energy production. Tribes, given the proper incentives, and a tradable PTC, can help the U.S. meet those goals.

412

THE FORT PLTX

PTC POP- DEMS

DEMS SUPPORT PTC BUDGET RESOLUTION PROVES
Daniel Whitten, writer Inside Energy with Federal Lands, 3-26-07, Senate makes room for long-term renewable credit, l/n [Ades] The Senate last week voted to make room in the fiscal 2008 federal budget for a long-term extension of the renewable power production tax credit and a $600-million increase in science spending at the Energy Department. The chamber Friday approved its budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21), which although it does not set taxes and spending, points to the priorities of the Democrats in charge.

413

THE FORT PLTX

PTC POP- DEMS

TAX CREDITS FOR WIND ENERGY HAS DEMOCRATIC BACKING

Chemnick 2008 (Jean, House votes again to rescind big oil tax breaks, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?
docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4074194610&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4074191955&cisb=22_T4074194612&treeMax =true&treeWidth=0&csi=7989&docNo=1) With oil prices hovering around $100 a barrel last week, the Democratic-led House once again passed legislation to redirect tax breaks for big oil companies to producers of ethanol, wind and other green forms of energy. The House approved the bill Thursday by a vote of 236 to 182. It now moves to the Senate, where its prospects for passage are much less certain. The $18.1 billion tax bill (H.R. 5351) would extend production and investment tax credits for wind, solar, biomass and other technologies that are set to expire at the end of 2008. It would pay for the extensions by rolling back billions of dollars in tax incentives for the largest US oil companies. The package is similar to one that Senate Republicans successfully kept out of the comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6) that Congress passed in December (IE, 24 December, 1). House Democrats said last week that with the cost of oil skyrocketing, making a shift from conventional to renewable energy was more crucial than ever. "The price at the pump has increased 17 cents just in the past two weeks," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DemocratCalifornia. "Seventy-five cents since we first took up this legislation ?imagine what that means to a household's income. This is at a time when oil companies are making record profits." Republicans, meanwhile, argued that the bill would have little effect on oil company profits, because the extra costs would simply be passed along to the consumer exacerbating high fuel costs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that although similar proposals had failed twice in his chamber, leading proponents of renewable energy were working to secure the needed 60 votes to overcome another Republican filibuster. "I

feel we have a fighting chance to get another vote," Reid said last week. The package would have succeeded last December if it had drawn one additional vote. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, have both said they would consider attaching the extensions with offsets to a budget resolution package due out this week. The budget bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate, so 51 votes would be sufficient to pass it. It could be vetoed by the president, however, which could
only be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both chambers. If the measure passes both chambers of Congress, a veto is likely. Last week, the Bush administration issued a statement saying that while the president supports the renewable energy tax credits, he does not approve of the House bill because "it would use the tax code to target tax increases on a specific industry in a way that will lead to higher energy costs to US consumers and businesses." If the bill was sent to his desk in its current form, the statement said, his advisors would advise him to veto it. As passed by the House last week, H.R. 5351 would extend the PTC for wind, biomass, geothermal and some hydropower through 2011. Investors could only receive credit for up to 35% of the value of their investment, a limitation that is not popular with Congress' most ardent wind energy advocates, including Senate Finance Committee Ranking Republican Charles Grassley. The measure would also extend solar and fuel cell ITCs through 2016. A variety of residential energy efficiency credits would be extended and expanded, including a credit for improvements to the efficiency of existing homes that expired on January 1. It would be extended through 2009. It would also establish a new 50 per gallon production tax break for cellulosic ethanol producers, which would be authorized through 2010. A new plug-in hybrid incentive would give consumers a $4,000 credit for qualifying hybrid vehicle purchases, with increases for energy efficiency. Rather than having an expiration date, the plug-in hybrid credit would be good for one quarter after a manufacturer records 60,000 vehicles sold. These credits would be paid for with a corresponding $18.1- billion cut in petroleum incentives. The measure would exclude five large, integrated oil companies from the "section 199" manufacturers' tax incentive, which allows manufacturers to deduct a portion of income garnered from domestic production activities. It would cap the incentive at 6% for the rest of the industry. The measure also would change the rules for how petroleum companies calculate their foreign production taxes. A House Ways and Means Committee memo on H.R. 5351 says that under current law, "there is a potential for oil and gas companies to manipulate their extraction income in order to achieve beneficial results under US foreign tax credit rules." The memo said the bill would require oil and gas companies to calculate their foreign income based on "ascertainable independent market values" where they drill. The committee estimated that this "clarification" would bring in about $4 billion over ten years.

414

THE FORT PLTX

PTC UNPOP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN OPPOSES PERMANENT PTC NEVADA PROVES US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008 One thing McCain won't bring toNevada, however, is green jobs. McCain has repeatedly voted against the kind of tax incentives that would promote investments in renewable energy and create green jobs. Just last year, McCain opposed legislation that would have extended the renewable energy production tax credit, putting an estimated 116,000 American jobs at risk, including more than 76,000 in the wind industry and 40,000 in the solar industry.

MCCAIN HATES PTCS US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008 McCain Opposed Legislation Extending The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit; Recent Study Concluded More than 116,000 Jobs Could be Lost If the Tax Credit is Not Extended. John McCain supported the filibuster of the 2007 energy bill that included an extension of the production tax credit to 2011. While McCain missed the vote on the bill, according to his staff he did, in fact, support the continuing the filibuster, which eventually killed the bill. In its place, Congress passed another version of the legislation that did not include an extension of the tax credit. A 2008 economic study by Navigant Consulting found that "over 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment could be lost in just one year if renewable energy tax credits are not renewed by Congress... The study concluded that over 76,000 jobs are put at risk in the wind industry, and approximately 40,000 jobs in the solar industry."

MCCAIN OPPOSED RENEWABLES LEGISLATION UNTIL THE PTC WAS ELIMINATED US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008 Legislation McCain Opposed Included Investment Set To Expire Next Year For Generators Of Geothermal, Wind And Solar Power. "Compromises that won passage for a major energy bill in the Senate this week left investors for geothermal, wind and solar resources out in the cold. After a long struggle, the Senate passed the bill late Thursday. It increases vehicle fuel mileage standards and encourages energy efficiency in federal buildings and in electricity-guzzling appliances. The House is expected to take a final vote next week. But passage was assured only after negotiators removed provisions that would set a requirement that 15 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. Also gone were extensions for investment and production tax credits set to expire next year for generators of geothermal, wind and solar power. 'From the standpoint of renewable energy, the compromises were certainly a missed opportunity, and they were out of step with much of the support we get from across the country,' said Gregory Wetsone, director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association."

MCCAIN OPPOSED TAX INCENTIVES FOR RENEWABLES US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008 Legislation McCain Opposed Also Sought to Eliminate Tax Cuts for Oil Companies and Instead Fund Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the 2007 energy bill that McCain opposed "would have revoked $13.5 billion in tax breaks from the five largest oil companies. The money would have been redirected into tax incentives for solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, wave energy and other renewables. Consumers would have received a $3,000 tax credit for buying an electric plug-in hybrid and a tax credit of up to $4,000 for installing solar panels to power their homes. But the measure failed on a 59-40 vote, falling one vote shy of the 60 votes needed to end debate and move the bill forward."

415

THE FORT PLTX

PTC UNPOP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN HATES PTC

US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008 McCain Voted Against Extending The Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit And Over $290 For an amendment to extend the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years including $290 million for renewable energy R&D on Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower.

416

THE FORT PLTX

PTC POP- BLUE DOG DEMS

Blue Dog Dems support PTCs for renewable energy
Nick Snow, Washington Correspondent Oil & Gas Journal, 7-9-07, 'Blue Dog' energy plan counters House speaker's program, l/n [Ades] The fiscally conservative Blue Dog coalition of Democrats was formed in 1995 with an aim of representing the House's political center. Its core beliefs include a commitment to US financial stability and national security, according to a statement at the group's web site. Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Charlie Melancon of Louisiana, both members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, cochaired the Blue Dog Energy Task Force, which produced the eight principles dealing with energy production, climate change, fuel diversity, and technology development. Matheson said the first principle applies the "pay as you go" concept to domestic energy. "America's energy policy cannot depend solely on a future technological breakthrough. We have diverse energy resources in America today, and we can't discard any of them. Until technology catches up, a reliable supply of conventional fuels is essential for our economy," he explained. The principle states that US energy policy should not reduce access to domestic resources, domestic infrastructure, or incentives for domestic production unless there is a corresponding initiative to replace lost capabilities. While renewable resources are increasingly contributing to energy supply, the Blue Dog Coalition considers oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, and other traditional sources key components of US energy supply. 'Reliable supply' "In the long run, alternative fuels will provide a significant contribution to our country's energy profile," the group says. "Until that takes place, a reliable supply of conventional fuels will be important for our economy, and policies should be directed toward maintaining domestic conventional energy capabilities." Other group principles address climate change (which the Blue Dogs believe should be handled with predictable long-term policies that don't disproportionately affect one industry or sector) and fuel diversity (which the group says should include biofuels, coal, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, oil, and gas). Heavy US reliance on foreign petroleum suppliers contributes to the country's balance of payments and distorts foreign policy by encouraging energy development in unstable regions, according to the Blue Dogs. They consider encouraging domestic exploration and production of petroleum "a responsible component of a national energy policy." The group also considers renewable energy "the key to long-term energy security" and recommends that the federal government invest substantially to help develop wind, solar, biomass, fuel cells, and other sustainable energy technologies. "Congress should also extend the wind energy production tax credit to provide greater long-term market certainty," it says.

417

THE FORT PLTX

*************** NET METERING***************

418

THE FORT PLTX

NET METERING UNPOP- UTILITY COMPANIES

Net metering unpopular with utility companies

UPI, 6 (United Press International, 11-17-2008, EcoEarth.Info News Archive, Kristyn Ecochard, Will federal law help netmetering goals?, http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=63863&keybold=renewable%20energy %20microgeneration Some utility companies don't like the idea of private production of energy and see net-metering as a threat to revenue. Dworkin said he believes utilities also have a sense of responsibility that they are hesitant to let go of. The cost is also a concern. The NNEC and its
supporters suggest that with or without net-metering there will be a cost, either to upgrade overloaded grids or develop individual power generation, that everyone will have to pay for at some point. "Energy is going to cost something no matter what," emphasized Rep. James Covey, D-Okla. Another

issue is the lack of consistency among programs. States have ultimately taken the responsibility on themselves. If the federal government set
standards, then there could be a "level playing field," he said. Given the recent shift in congressional power and, for the first time, some consensus between parties that the United States is nearing an energy crisis, some of the stalled legislation may be passed.

419

THE FORT PLTX

SMART METER POP- MCCAIN

McCain supports smart metering Cash, Platts, 6-24-8

(Cathy, Platts.com, Obama and McCain clash over energy policy, http://www.platts.com/Electric %20Power/Resources/News%20Features/uselection08/index.xml, accessed 6-29-8)
McCain, meanwhile, called June 24 for a transformation of the national electric grid, saying the system needs to expand to eventually allow low-carbon sources of generation to power electric cars. McCain said "smart meter" technologies will have to be deployed as part of a "redesign" of the grid to spur efficiencies and conservation. The meters, when used in conjunction with time-based rate plans or dynamic pricing options, allow consumers to adjust their consumption and reduce peak demand in response to prices. "Our national power transmission system has not been built to match supply and demand," the Arizona Republican said at a campaign stop in Santa Barbara, California. "The result is an excess of power where it's not needed, and a shortage of power where it is needed."

420

THE FORT PLTX

FEED IN TARIFFS POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS FEED-IN TARIFFS

PR Newswire, 5- 22, 2008, BLACKROCK NEW ENERGY INVESTMENT TRUST PLC - Portfolio Update, p.lexis
Performance at month end with net income reinvested Portfolio Activity We continued to take profits among certain companies in the solar sector, where the industry looks to be moving towards over-capacity - particularly in cell and module manufacturing. In addition, there is uncertainty about Spanish and German feed-in tariff rates in 2009. We have been reinvesting that money in wind companies and other stocks where we see more valuation upside. Outlook The outlook for political support for new energy continues to strengthen in the US. John McCain recently pledged his support for a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade system in the US as well as a goal of reducing emissions by 60% by 2050. The US has been accused of dragging its heels on climate change in the past. We could now see an important step change in policy from the next US administration, Democrat or Republican. With the US being such a large potential market, such a change would likely prove to be an important catalyst for the new energy sector.

421

THE FORT PLTX

FEED IN TARIFFS POP- PUBLIC

FITS POPULAR, STATES PROVE

Jim Pierobon, 6/27/2008 Contributing Writer US Rep. Inslee Introduces Renewable Energy Pricing Legislation: Bill Tackles Viability of Federal Pricing Head-On http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52899
Six states have introduced feed-in tariff legislation for their own purposes: California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Hawaii. Eight other states have begun considering some type of feed-in tariff or incentive pricing plan: New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Wisconsin, Florida, New Jersey, Maine and Vermont. Together, they demonstrate that at least the concept of feed-in tariffs is not going to fade away any time soon and may, in fact, gain support in the next Congress and with the next President.

422

THE FORT PLTX

FEED IN TARIFF UNPOP- PUBLIC

Plans unpopular cost increase falls on consumers. Ucilia Wang, greentechmedia staff, 6/27/2008, U.S. Proposes Feed-In Tariffs, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/us-proposes-feed-in-tarrifs-1061.html
One downside of the feed-in tariffs is the higher energy bills that German consumers have had to pay. After all, the utilities have no interest in absorbing all the cost of the government mandate. Would Americans be wiling to pay more for energy? Thats unlikely, said Ethan Zindler, an analyst with New Energy Finance. Its an election year. At the end of the day, somebody has to pay for feed-in program. If its consumers, then utilities might find it difficult to signing on, Zindler said.

423

THE FORT PLTX

FEED IN TARIFF COST POL CAP

Moving feed-ins through Congress is a political food-fight conventional energy lobbies and lack of renewable industry consensus. Wilson Rickerson, Florian Bennhold, and James Bradbury, Rickerson Energy consultant, Chief Policy Intelligence Officer and Applications Engineer at Wilson TurboPower, and Climate System Research Center Department of Geosciences University of Massachusetts Amherst, May 2008, Feed-in Tariffs and Renewable Energy in the USA a Policy Update, http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2008/061808_hboell_rep/Feed-in %20Tariffs%20and%20Renewable%20Energy%20in%20the%20USA%20-%20a%20Policy%20Update.pdf
From a political perspective, moving the Inslee PBI bill through the US Congress is not expected to be easy (Tezak and Stanco, 2008), despite the bills attempts to balance federal and state jurisdictional concerns. In addition to resistance to national renewable energy legislation from the conventional energy industry, there is not unanimity among solar industry stakeholders that the Inslee proposal is the best place for limited lobbying efforts to be focused (Browning, 2008; Hering, 2008; Hoexter, 2008; Kho, 2008). On the other hand, there is substantial grass-roots support for the concept from investors, renewable energy companies, and non-governmental advocacy groups (Inslee, 2008).

424

THE FORT PLTX

FEED IN TARIFF UNPOP- PUBLIC

Feed-ins unpopular A. Structure change. Dallas Kachan, Cleantech Group, 3/13/2007, Solar insiders lament lack of U.S. feed-in tariff, http://media.cleantech.com/node/874
In response, presenters essentially said it was too late, and that there was too much momentum for California-style incentives. I personally would love to see it happen. But it would be a huge political fight. Weve worked for years already just to get to where we are, said David Hochschild of PV Now, a lobby group for a consortium of leading photovoltaic solar vendors. From my perspective, it would be a mistake to revamp the program weve got in California. It already took three years to get through the legislature. For us to change the structure that we now have in place, wed have to see a very strong collective effort made by the solar industry and consumers. We do have this process in place and will probably give it a try for a couple of years, echoed California commissioner Grueneich.

B. Cost and uncertainty. Jennifer Kho, staff writer for greentech media, March 4, 2008, Policy Food Fight: Feed-In Tariffs vs. Tax Credits, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/policy-food-fight-feed-in-tariffs-vs-tax-credits-657.html
A feed-in tariff could cost more, might be more difficult to pass than the proposed incentive package and wouldnt necessarily increase solar installations, unless it includes specific solar pricing, Hanis said. "Were not pursuing it at this time," she said, adding that she thinks a feed-in tariff would be a good "longer-term" strategy.

D. Stalling on tax credits. Carol Gulyas, cleantech staff, 7/6/2008, Financing Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Introduced in Congress, http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/06/renewable-energy-feed-in-tariff-fit-introduced-in-congress/
In Germany this has motivated citizens and businesses to put up solar panels wherever they can, allowing Germany to get 14.2 percent of its energy from renewable sources. Though Inslees legislation has little hope of getting through this Congress (they are still stalling on renewing the existing solar energy tax credits), FITs will surely be in the news more as the election season heats up.

E. Rate-recovery mechanism is divisive. Jim Pierobon, Contributing Writer renewableenergyworld.com, 7/2/2008, US Rep. Inslee Introduces Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs, http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/07/02/us-rep-inslee-introducesrenewable-energy-feed-in-tariffs/
A quick survey of electricity policy analysts pointed to challenges Inslee and his allies will have finding a way to pay for the raterecovery mechanism. The bill would facilitate cost recovery through a new private and independent utility organization called RenewCorps, which would be subject to FERC oversight. Utilities would be reimbursed by this organization for the additional cost of their power purchases, plus all costs associated with interconnection and network upgrades needed to accommodate the new renewable sources. How all those costs are determined adds layers of complexity to an already complicated legislative proposal. Among the possibilities being tossed around are revenues from auctioning carbon credits in a future carbon cap and trade law.

425

THE FORT PLTX

WIND & SOLAR UNPOP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN WOULD OPPOSE WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY

George Dailey writer for the newspaper, Santa Maria Times; 07-15-08; Santa Maria Times, http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2008/07/15/opinion/letters/letter2.txt
While spending a recent week focusing on energy policy, Sen. John McCain made some surprising, and inaccurate, statements. Among them: He said that ending a moratorium on offshore oil drilling would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis. But, according to a government report, offshore oil wouldn't have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030. But, at a town hall event on June 23, McCain didn't claim offshore drilling would lower prices in the short term, but that it would provide psychological impact that I think is beneficial. McCain tried to paint Obama as an opponent of nuclear power, but Obama has said he is open to nuclear energy being part of the solution, and has supported bills that contained nuclear subsidies. McCain has soft-pedaled the cap portion of his cap-and-trade proposal for greenhouse gases, even denying that it would be a mandate. The cap is a mandatory limit, however, and McCain even says so on his Web site. In a new ad, McCain rightly said that he bucked his party in supporting action on climate change years ago. But its images of windmills and solar panels are misleading, in that he supports subsidies for nuclear power, which isn't pictured, and opposes them for wind and solar energy. McCain continues to say that a suspension of the federal gas tax will lower prices for consumers, though hundreds of economists say he is wrong.

426

THE FORT PLTX

***********NIF*************

427

THE FORT PLTX

NIF UNPOP- CONGRESS

428

THE FORT PLTX

****************NUC POWER***************

429

THE FORT PLTX

LOAN GUARANTEES POP-BUSH

Bush is already pushing for loan guarantees CQ 07 (Congressional Quarterly, Concerns Grow Over Funding Energy Projects, April 16, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002490558)
The last time the Energy Department put up taxpayer dollars to commercialize a major energy venture in the name of national security, it wound up owning a coal-gasification plant in North Dakota. Billed as a way to promote energy independence after the 1970s oil crisis, the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, near Beulah, is a lesson in what happens when federal loan guarantees go wrong. The government assumed ownership after energy prices crashed in 1985. It sold the facility three years later and remains $330 million in the red today despite an ongoing revenue-sharing agreement with the current owner. Two decades later, buffeted by renewed

concern over oil imports and the threat of global warming, the government again is aiming to nudge the energy industry in a new direction with billions of dollars in loan guarantees for advanced technologies. In the next fiscal year, the Bush administration wants Congress to more than double the amount of money authorized for such guarantees. Sensing opportunity, lenders and business executives are angling not only for bigger and better loan guarantees but also for subsidies, tax incentives and, in some cases, outright price supports. Concerns are growing, however, that Congress and the Bush
administration might inadvertently endorse technologies that are bound to fail 10 years down the line. Some experts fear that expensive new technologies wont be able to compete with conventional energy, creating a long-term drain on the Treasury as lawmakers prop them up with subsidies and incentives. Fossil fuels are cheaper, partially because their prices do not include associated environmental or security costs. The dream is that green power will turn out to be so cheap that it will actually beat out fossil fuels, but that is not realistic over the next decade, said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute. If the fundamental economics dont change, he said, government assistance for alternative-energy production is headed towards failure.

The loan-guarantee program authorized in the 2005 energy law (PL 109-58) has attracted huge interest, with 143 applicants requesting more than $27 billion in guarantees, according to the Energy Department. The law did not specify a funding level for the loan program, but Congress authorized the department to guarantee up to $4 billion in loans in fiscal 2007 (PL 110-5). The administration has requested authority for $9 billion in fiscal 2008, and some lawmakers are pushing for more.

430

THE FORT PLTX

LOAN GUARANTEES COST POL CAP

LOAN GUARANTEES ARE CONTROVERSIAL IN CONGRESS (Michael Coleman 10-12-03 Energy Policy Proves Divisive http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-829835_ITM) Domenici managed to avoid similar controversy over his beloved nuclear power incentives by not insisting that Congress adopt controversial loan guarantees for construction of nuclear power plants. Instead, he has taken the less contentious approach of seeking tax credits for the developers. Domenici, who helped steer Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment when he was Senate Budget Committee chairman in the 1990s, said his new post produces even more headaches than balancing a federal budget. But it has its rewards, as well. Domenici said he enjoys the give-and-take with fellow members of Congress, and feels good about doing something to make America less dependent on the turbulent Middle East. No one -- including Domenici -- ever said it would be easy. "There are obviously a lot of views about energy problems in America," Domenici said.

431

THE FORT PLTX

LOAN GUARANTEES POP- CONGRESS

CONGRESS SUPPORTS LOAN GUARANTEES (Jim Curtiss 1-24-08 Former NRC head Curtiss discusses future of Yucca, expansion of nuclear in U.S. http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/726 ) Jim Curtiss: Well, I think there are a number of dimensions of that. The financial community, in terms of funding new nuclear, has in recent years understood that plants can be operated safely and efficiently. Thirty years ago I don't think you would have had that kind of view right after Three Mile Island until we saw the improved operation of the plants. But from a financial standpoint, the ability to bring plants online and fund those plants is a key part of this next generation of plants. Of the 18 companies that have announced plans to go through the permitting process for 32 plants none of those companies has yet decided to build a plant. So there's a lot of attention with Wall Street talking with the industry about the importance of some of the things that Congress has done, the establishment of the loan guarantee program in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is an important piece of this. The Department of Energy recently published guidance on how they're going to implement that program that's very positive and has a loan guarantee program that will provide for the risk support that we're going to need as we get back into nuclear construction. The U.S. Congress just in the appropriations process, here before they left town in December, authorized $18.5 billion for loan guarantees for nuclear projects. So there's a lot of support with some key financial issues that will need to be addressed going forward. LOAN GUARANTEES POPULAR IN CONGRESS (The Daily Record 12-28-07 USEC applauds Congress http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15046943.html) USEC Inc. commended Congress and the administration for their strong support for the renaissance of the nuclear power industry through the loan guarantee program administered by the U.S. Department of Energy, included in the omnibus appropriations legislation (H.R. 2764) signed Wednesday by President George W. Bush. The legislation includes loan guarantee authority for up to $38.5 billion in energy projects, including $18.5 billion of loan guarantees for nuclear power facilities. USEC, a Bethesda-based global energy company, intends to pursue a DOE loan guarantee for construction of its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio

432

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

Times have changed nuclear power overwhelmingly popular because climate and energy supply fears Science Letter, 7/8/08
DTE's selection of the ESBWR comes as a growing number of U.S. utilities are considering whether to invest in building new fleets of advanced reactors to help address the country's converging concerns over energy supply security and global climate change. Nuclear energy is receiving increased public support as one of the few available, base-load sources of power that do not create carbon emissions during the generating process. A May 2008 public opinion survey by Zogby International shows 67% of Americans support the construction of nuclear plants.

Public loves it environmental benefits and reduced safety fears Wood and McKibbon, 3/23/08 (Susan and Mal, chairwoman of the board of directors for Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness in Aiken, S.C.;
and the executive director emeritus and a consultant for CNTA, augusta chronicle)

A much-needed nuclear power renaissance is sweeping the world There is no doubt that a renaissance of nuclear power is under way in the United States and around the world. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses and regulates commercial nuclear activities, has received expressions of interest for building 32 new reactors. They have received four license applications for combined construction and operation, and several utilities have submitted Early Site Permits, including Southern Nuclear (Georgia Power) and Duke Power. Many countries are building new reactors or plan to, including Canada, Brazil, England, France, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Finland, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and others. The reason is clear. People have become aware that for several decades, nuclear power has had an incredibly good record of safety, environmental protection and low costs, and everyone wants a way to produce electricity that does not pollute. A wise person once said, "Facts are stubborn things." Here are some pertinent facts: * Safety. No one has died from the radiation from power reactors, spent fuel or radioactive waste except in the Chernobyl accident, which could not happen anywhere else - yet the only competitors of nuclear power, coal and natural gas, each cause several thousand deaths each year, worldwide, from coal-mining accidents, gas explosions and fires. Also, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have estimated that 30,000 people die prematurely each year in the United States from the emissions of coal-powered plants. Nuclear is safer by a huge margin, and the next generation of nuclear plants, already being built, will be even safer. * Environment. The outstanding environmental record of nuclear power plants is becoming legendary. They have no emissions that make acid rain, smog, global warming, ozone depletion or heavy-metal pollution. Many professional environmentalists and ecologists support nuclear power. A partial list includes: Dr. Patrick Moore, founder and past president of Greenpeace; Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue; James Lovelock, considered the founder of the environmental movement; Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore; Friends of the Earth; and Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute. Global warming is indeed occurring, and the principal human contributor is carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from the burning of trees, coal, oil, and gas. Fortunately, we can do something about that without reducing our standard of living by going to nuclear production of electricity and using hydrogen for transportation. It is likely that the cheapest way to make hydrogen will be in nuclear plants. * Cost. The operating cost for making electricity in nuclear plants is lower than any of its competitors. In 2006, nuclear plant operating cost in the United States averaged 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour, coal 2.37, natural gas 6.75 and oil 9.63. Since then, the cost advantage of nuclear over coal has grown in part because coal plants are spending money to reduce their emissions. If construction costs are included, nuclear is already competitive, and is expected to gain an advantage as the price of new nuclear plants comes down, and the cost and time to get licenses is reduced. * Public support. Americans have become aware of these advantages, and are supportive of nuclear power. Several national polls show that 68 to 70 percent of adult Americans support building more to meet our growing need for electricity. Support among people living near existing nuclear plants is 87 percent, and among college graduates with a technical degree is 85 percent.

433

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

Public loves nuclear power
Taylor, 2006 (James M, Managing Editor of Environment and Climate News at the Heartland Institute, Public Favors Nuclear Power: Poll, October 1) Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. In a telephone poll of nearly 1,500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1, 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming, while only 30 percent opposed it. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean, economical, and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results, published August 4, are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial departments. Shortly after the poll results were released, the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.

majority of american public supports nuclear energy Bisconti, 2006 (Ann Stouffer, Ph.D. and President of Bisconti Research Inc., Clear Majority of Americans Agree Nuclear
Energy Will Play Important Future Role in Electricity Supply, May) There is a consensus among Americans that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting the nations electricity needs in the years ahead, according to two March national public opinion surveys conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK NOP (formerly NOPWorld and RoperASW). Eighty-six percent of the public and 88 percent of college graduate voters agree that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting future electricity demand. Majorities also support license renewal for existing nuclear power plants and definitely building new nuclear power plants. Seventy-three percent of Americans would find it acceptable to add a new reactor at the nearest existing nuclear power plant site. The Nuclear Energy Institute sponsored the two surveys. The general public survey was based on telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 and older. The margin of error in this survey was plus or minus three percentage points. A national sample of 500 college graduates who are registered to vote also was surveyed, with a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.

Nuclear power has new public support and momentum MIKE WALLACE, PRESIDENT, ENERGY GENERATION GROUP, fair disclosure wire, 1/30/08
Let's begin on slide 41. A number of driving forces are coming together that are particularly supportive of new nuclear plants being built in the United States. We are experiencing falling reserve margins, particularly in the Mid Atlantic, West Coast, and Texas regions, but also across the country to some degree. Combining this with the increased focus on energy security and the environment as well as rising natural gas prices, nuclear energy is becoming a cost competitive clean alternative for base load generation. Today, we are experiencing a significant increase in public support with 64% of public opinion now in favor of new nuclear. Additionally, and very importantly, we have Congressional support from the Senate and the House, Republicans and Democrats, as well as with the current administration most readily manifested in the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In summary, great progress has been made over the last few years as we have increased our focus on energy and dependence and global climate change bringing nuclear power back into the energy mix. Today, momentum continues and as we are working to make new nuclear a reality.

434

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

Nuclear energy is popular among Americans. MSNBC, June 25, 2008, Poll Reveals Surprising Support for Nuclear Power, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25371194/
a new poll shows about 67 percent of Americans are in support of building more nuclear power plants to expand the nation's energy portfolio. The nation's nuclear regulatory agency is reviewing about 36 new applications for plants here in the U.S. right now. "There are
Now almost the same number, nearly three dozen nuclear power stations actually under construction around the world, outside the U.S. So it's clear that people are tumbling toward the idea that nuclear is a way to make huge quantities of reliable affordable energy, and in particular, power that has no greenhouse gas emissions," said Brad Peck with Energy Northwest, the public power co-op who runs the northwest's only nuclear power station. But Peck said he doesn't expect anything to pop up here anytime soon. Numbers also show more than 70 percent of Americans in favor of new plants at already existing sites.

Several factors are all facilitating a rise in nuclear powers popularity Sean Wilson, Athens Banner-Herald, 7-10-08, Nuclear power makes sense as an energy option in Georgia, http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/071108/opinion_2008071100416.shtml Now, however, several factors favor a nuclear renaissance. The first is President Bush's approval of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which includes significant incentives for the industry to expand output, including federal loan guarantees for new plant construction. Furthermore, in recent years the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has streamlined its licensing processes. No longer can endless appeals and challenges from organizations such as Greenpeace hold up plants indefinitely. A $917 million 2008 budget for the NRC supports new reactor design and project implementation. Then, there are fading memories of Three Mile Island, state incentives for new projects (10 reactors are slated for Texas alone), and popular concern with climate issues.

435

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

THE POPULACE SUPPORTS A INCREASE OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (Nuclear Energy Insititute, 5-5-08, Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Spur Growth of Carbon-Free Energy Technology http://www.verticalnews.com/newsletters/Global-Warming-Focus/2008-05-05/4830GWW.html ) Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help promote development of carbon-free energy technologies, including new nuclear power plants, according to a new national survey of 1,000 adults. THE PUBLIC AND OTHER NATIONS ARE INCREASINGLY LIKING THE IDEA OF NUCLEAR POWER DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING American Physical Society, last updated 2008. (Nuclear power expert testifies on safety and non-proliferation, http://www.aps.org/publications/capitolhillquarterly/200607/nuclear-power.cfm.) [G. Zhang] Nuclear energy has long been viewed with suspicion by the general public because of various health and safety concerns, but over the last decade, there has been a noticeable shift in public perception, according to Roger Hagengruber (University of New Mexico), who chaired the APS report. Nuclear energy is a viable option to carbon-based energy sources, in light of mounting public concern about global warming. Other countries recognize the value of nuclear energy and worldwide, more than thirty new nuclear plants are under construction.

436

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC (WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS 4-29-08 OPINION FAVOURS NUCLEAR HTTP://WWW.WORLD-NUCLEARNEWS.ORG/NP-OPINION_FAVOURS_NUCLEAR_2904089.HTML) Unrelated surveys of public opinion have found continued support for the use of nuclear energy in both the USA and Russia, while US citizens are firmly in favour of federal incentives for the development of carbon-free energy options including nuclear. A survey of 1000 US citizens carried out by Bisconti Research and published by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) found broad support for possible future nuclear construction projects, strong support for the continued use of the country's existing nuclear plants, and even stronger support for the use of federal incentives to promote the development carbon-free energy technologies including advanceddesign nuclear power plants. Eighty-four percent of those polled agreed that the USA should take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources including nuclear, hydro and renewable energy, with nearly 80% feeling that financial incentives such as tax credits should be used to help push the development of such technologies. Some 78% agreed that electricity companies should be preparing now so that nuclear plants could be built in the next decade, if needed, while 59% agreed that the US should "definitely" build more nuclear power plants. Overall, 63% of those surveyed favoured the use of nuclear energy in the USA, with 33% opposing it, with the proportion of people "strongly" in favour, at 28%, double the 14% who described themselves as strongly opposed to nuclear.

437

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

PUBLIC OPINION SUPPORTS PLAN Adam Solomon, 2-26-06, Harvard political review, Is nuclear energies day here? http://hprsite.squarespace.com/is-nuclear-energysday-here/ The last two decades have seen a considerable shift in public opinion. According to a 1990 Gallup Poll, 58 percent of Americans opposed building new nuclear power plants. By contrast, a poll done in May 2005 by Bisconti Research, Inc. for the Nuclear Energy Institute found that 58 percent of those polled supported building new plants. A Gallup Poll conducted in March 2005 corroborates this shift, showing that 54 percent either somewhat or strongly favor the use of nuclear energy in the United States . In an interview with the HPR, Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) highlighted the spotless safety record of American nuclear power plants as a main contributor to warming public attitude. Even at Three Mile Island , the closest America has ever come to experiencing a meltdown, the damage was entirely psychological. According to Singer, Never has one death been attributed to nuclear power plants in America . The greatest factor contributing to nuclear energys revival may be the growing concern over global climate change. Greenpeace coFounder James Lovelock caused a stir in the environmentalist community when he was quoted as saying, Only nuclear power can halt global warming. No other type of renewable clean energy can compete with nuclear energy to relieve dependence on fossil fuels. According to the NEI, nuclear power plants accounted for 73 percent of U.S. emission-free generation. Nuclear energys improving popularity is pivotal to its expansion. Henry Lee, a Lecturer on Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, told the HPR that the worst mistake would be to jam nuclear power down peoples throats. He emphasizes that nuclear power will be successful only with popular support, or at least with the absence of virile oppositionand the data suggest that the people are ready for expanding nuclear energy. MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS THE PLAN, AND NUMBERS ARE CONTINUING TO GROW James M. Taylor. Environment and Climate writer, 10-1-06, Heartland institute, Public favors nuclear power: poll, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19723 Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. In a telephone poll of nearly 1,500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1, 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming, while only 30 percent opposed it. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean, economical, and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results, published August 4, are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial departments. Shortly after the poll results were released, the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.

438

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

PUBLIC SUPPORTS PLAN ACTION Ann Stouffer, Ph. D, September 01, Support for nuclear power plants remain high, even as energy concerns begin to wane, Public opinion magazine, http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/public/support_high.pdf A new national survey finds that the dramatic increases in public support for nuclear energy have held at high levels, despite lower public concern about energy shortages. Almost two-thirds of U.S. adults continue to support definitely building new nuclear power plants, and there is near public consensus on renewing federal licenses of existing nuclear power plants that meet federal safety standards. The nationwide survey for the Nuclear Energy Institute was conducted July 6-8 and included telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,000 U.S. adults. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. The survey was conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. with Bruskin Research

439

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR POWER INCREASING

CNS News, September 28, 2007, Even so, recent polling data show that more and more Americans are receptive to the idea of nuclear power as are some key
environmental figures, such as Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore. In recent congressional testimony, Moore expressed strong support for nuclear energy as a viable, environmentally safe option.

NUCLEAR POWER ENJOYS ITS STRONGEST PUBLICSUPPORT IN 30 YEARS KRIZ, NATIONAL JOURNAL ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER, 2003

(Margaret, Still Radioactive, National Journal, Volume: 35, October 4)

Through aggressive public-relations campaigns, the industry has neutralized the fervent public opposition to nuclear power that developed after the Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in what was then the Soviet Union. The United Nations estimates that the Chernobyl meltdown -- the world's worst nuclear disaster -- caused about 25,000 deaths and 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer in children. That Ukrainian accident has also been blamed for countless birth defects. The U.S. nuclear industry is enjoying its strongest political support in Washington in 30 years. The Republican leadership in Congress firmly supports it. Domenici, one of nuclear power's most steadfast friends, has vowed to use his chairmanship to breathe new life into an industry that he sees as a source of clean, safe, reliable energy. Domenici's House counterpart, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., shares that perspective. The Bush administration enthusiastically backs nuclear power, featuring it prominently in its May 2001 National Energy Policy report. In early 2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham formally approved Yucca Mountain, Nev., as a permanent storage site for the nation's commercial nuclear waste. Congress subsequently gave its blessing to that decision. Nuclear power industry officials see approval of the Yucca Mountain facility as critical to reassuring the public, as well as state officials, that nuclear power plants will not become permanent dumps for the 45,000 metric tons of radioactive waste now in "temporary" storage there.

440

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

Voters like nuclear power high energy prices Market Watch, 7/24/08. Nuclear power wins support on the campaign trail, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nuclear-power-wins-support-campaign/story.aspx?guid= %7B4C4C7CA5-E406-4E17-AA8C-55E59DBD68CE%7D&dist=msr_4 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- As the soaring cost of fossil fuels grabs both voters' and the candidates' attention, alternatives including nuclear power are enjoying a renaissance on the campaign trail. But while both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama embrace nuclear power as a viable form of energy, hurdles remain to ramping up production, including the cost of building plants, where to store the related waste and how to transport it. Moreover, politicians will have to overcome jitters about building new plants in local communities. With 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S., nuclear energy currently produces about 20% of U.S. power and is mostly used to make electricity. Experts say that the public is warming up to nuclear energy despite long-held reservations. So expect nuclear power to be on the table no matter who is elected president.

441

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

70% of Americans support nuclear energy a record high because of environmental awareneness Nucleonics Week, 9/28/06. Public support of nuclear power remains high, says industry poll, Lexis For the second consecutive year, nearly 70% of Americans said they favor nuclear energy, according to a new poll commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute. But support from those in the South ? where most new nuclear reactors are proposed ? slipped slightly from last year. There have been public announcements from companies planning to submit applications to NRC in the next couple of years requesting permission to construct 17 or more units in the South, which far exceeds expansion plans in any other region in the US. No company is talking about building new plants in the West or Midwest, but there might be a few proposals in the Northeast. The survey, released this week, showed that 68% of respondents had favorable views on nuclear energy, which is virtually the same as the opinions expressed in a May 2005 survey. The results of last year's survey were touted as a record high for public support of nuclear power. The new poll found that 70% of respondents in the Northeast and Midwest favored nuclear energy, while 67% in the South and 66% in the West were supportive. In last year's survey, 69% in the Northeast, 73% in the Midwest, and 65% in the West said they supported nuclear energy. The largest change was in the South, where last year 72% of those polled, or about 5% more than this year, said they favored the use of nuclear energy. Ann Bisconti, president of Bisconti Research Inc., said the views reflected in the latest survey marked a "high plateau." She told Platts she did not see any statistically significant changes, based on a three percentage point margin of error. Bisconti Research, with the assistance of the company GfK NOP, conducted the poll for NEI through telephone interviews with 1,000 adults across the US. Bisconti said that in recent years an increasing number of people have expressed an awareness of the benefits of nuclear energy. She attributed the increase to the concentration of stories appearing in the media on global warming and clean air issues. In the September survey, 58% of the respondents said they had heard or read information about the importance of nuclear energy; 49% said they recalled seeing a report about the need to build more nuclear power plants in the US; 47% said they heard or read about the clean air benefits of nuclear power; and 44% said they had come across a report stating that nuclear energy was one way to fight global warming and climate change. Bisconti also said that the "perception gap" has been changing in recent years. That references the difference between a respondent's view on nuclear energy and his or her perception of others' views on the subject. In the latest survey, 68% of the respondents said they favored nuclear energy but only 33% said they believed most of the public favored nuclear energy. In a May 2003 survey, 17% of respondents said they believed most Americans favored the use of nuclear energy, she said. Participants in industry-sponsored focus groups have attributed the gap between their views and the perception of the public's views to having more education on the topic, Bisconti said. She said that participants also believe others might have formed their views based on exposure to negative news about nuclear energy. The newest survey found 63% of Americans believed more nuclear plants should "definitely" be built in the future, up from 58% in last year's survey. The poll also found that 27% opposed the use of nuclear power, up slightly from about 24% who said they opposed it in last year's survey. According to this month's poll, 72% of the respondents believe the federal government should continue to develop the Yucca Mountain, Nevada site as a high-level waste repository, as long as it meets NRC regulations. In the May 2005 survey, 71% of respondents said they favored that course of action. Last year's study preceded the question with the statement: "Scientific study by more than 3,000 scientists demonstrates that the proposed Yucca Mountain site for a national disposal facility for nuclear waste is safe." The survey also found that 65% of Americans believe that spent fuel can be safely stored at a plant site until it is moved to a repository. This question was not included in past industry surveys.

442

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

2/3 of the public support nuclear energy safe, environmentally-friendly and good for the economy St. Petersburg Times (Florida), 7/7/08. ADVOCATE GOES FROM NATURE TO NUCLEAR, Lexis Polls are pretty clear that about two-thirds of the people support nuclear energy and think it should be part of the future. The closer people live to the nuclear plants the more supportive they are of nuclear energy. There's about 80 percent support within 10 miles of the plant. There are three reasons for that. One, they know it's safe because they live there and it's never hurt them. Two, the air is clean and compared to living near a coal plant they know it's not causing any environmental damage. And third, it's a huge economic generator. They employ about twice as many people as a coal plant and they employ higher-skilled and higher-paid people than a coal plant.

443

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

PUBLIC SUPPORTS NUKE POWER PERCEIVE IT AS BATTLING CLIMATE CHANGE

Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, Nuclear power enters global warming debate, http://72.14.205.104/search? q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power050907.pdf+nuclear+power+ %2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us
The public's attitude toward nuclear power is more favorable when such energy is seen as part of an effort to fight climate change. Polls over the years have shown that a slim majority backs nuclear power, but a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last summer found that a larger majority, 61%, supported the increased use of nuclear energy "to prevent global warming." Legislation introduced recently in California seeks to repeal a 1976 ban on new nuclear plants in the state. "There's no question that the attention to climate change over the last several years has materially changed the public discussion of nuclear power," said Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of energy experts. Given the threat of global warming, he said, "it's hard to ignore the principal source of noncarbon power generation in the country today."

NOT IN MY BACK YARD IS NO LONGER IMPORTANT POLLS PROVE

NEI (Nuclear Energy Insitute), 06, U.S. Must Start Building Nuclear Power Plants, President Bush Tells Industry Executives, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/271/ Earley identified the business and political conditions that bode well for new nuclear plants, including: Industry-average production costs of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour remain the lowest among all forms of energy except for hydroelectric facilities and represent a 33 percent decline over the past 10 years. Capacity factorsa measure of efficiencyaveraged about 90 percent for the fifth year in a row. The industry produced 782 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2005, the second-highest ever. The industry also is enjoying broad public support as evidenced by recent polls showing 75 percent approval for new nuclear plants in general and nearly 80 percent approval from people living within a 10 mile radius of current plants. Support also is coming from public officials.

444

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

Public support for nuclear energy will continually grow
CSI 6 [Matthew Nisbet, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry; Going Nuclear: Frames and Public Opinion about Atomic Energy; The Skeptical Inquirer; 6-1-2006; http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/nuclear/]
Nuclear energy is likely to remain a third rail of environmental politics, with many environmental groups willing to devote heavy resources to opposing any new plant construction. Nuclear energy is also likely to remain an ambivalent issue for the generation of Americans who lived through Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, with the images and frames of a runaway technology easily evoked by carefully designed message strategies. However, the more time passes with no new focusing

events related to the dangers of nuclear energy, and as the perceived urgency of energy independence and global warming increases, public support in the aggregate is also likely to increase, as recent poll trends suggest. Framing will be the central device by which both advocates
and opponents of nuclear energy manage public opinion at the national level. However, if and when the decision is made to build a new nuclear power plant in a specific area, mobilized minorities of local citizens will prove decisive. Who shows up to protest, vote, or speak out at the local level will have a stronger impact on the future of nuclear energy in the U.S. than the current struggle to shape national opinion.

Polls prove nuclear technology is popular with the majority of American public Taylor 6 [James E., Environment and Climate News; Public Favors Nuclear Power; Poll; The Heartland Institute; 10-1-2006;
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19723] Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. In a telephone poll of nearly 1,500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1, 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming, while only 30 percent opposed it. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean, economical, and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results, published August 4, are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial departments. Shortly after the poll results were released, the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house
editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.

Nuclear technology popularity growing now recent energy policies prove

Taylor 6 [James E., Environment and Climate News; Public Favors Nuclear Power; Poll; The Heartland Institute; 10-1-2006;
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19723]

The growing public support for nuclear power is already having positive effects on future construction plans. The federal Energy Policy Act
of 2005 removed some of the obstacles to new plant construction. As a result, 16 companies have formally notified federal authorities they are considering building new nuclear power plants, according to testimony by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils Diaz in May 2006 before the Senate Energy Committee. Energy producer Entergy has taken the lead on new plant construction and is likely to receive a site permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2007 allowing a proposed new plant in Mississippi. Entergy plans to add a second new nuclear power plant in Louisiana, and it is likely to receive an NRC site permit for that plant in 2008. "There are several factors working in favor of development and expansion of nuclear power plants in the near future," said

Nuclear Energy Institute spokesperson Trish Conrad. "Expanded baseload production will be needed to meet growing demand [for electricity]. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has made the regulatory process less difficult. And public support is really lining up behind nuclear power, and for Good reason."

445

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS POPULAR AMONG THE PUBLIC

Taylor, 2006 (James M, Managing Editor of Environment and Climate News at the Heartland Institute, Public Favors Nuclear Power: Poll, October 1) Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. In a telephone poll of nearly 1,500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1, 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming, while only 30 percent opposed it. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean, economical, and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results, published August 4, are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial departments. Shortly after the poll results were released, the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.

MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PUBLIC SUPPORTS NUCLEAR ENERGY

Bisconti, 2006 (Ann Stouffer, Ph.D. and President of Bisconti Research Inc., Clear Majority of Americans Agree Nuclear Energy Will Play Important Future Role in Electricity Supply, May) There is a consensus among Americans that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting the nations electricity needs in the years ahead, according to two March national public opinion surveys conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK NOP (formerly NOPWorld and RoperASW). Eighty-six percent of the public and 88 percent of college graduate voters agree that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting future electricity demand. Majorities also support license renewal for existing nuclear power plants and definitely building new nuclear power plants. Seventy-three percent of Americans would find it acceptable to add a new reactor at the nearest existing nuclear power plant site. The Nuclear Energy Institute sponsored the two surveys. The general public survey was based on telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 and older. The margin of error in this survey was plus or minus three percentage points. A national sample of 500 college graduates who are registered to vote also was surveyed, with a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.

446

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- PUBLIC

PLAN'S UNPOPULAR WASTE STORAGE CONCERNS FUEL OPPOSITION. Anne Trafton, News Office staff writer, 7/23/2007, Americans warming to nuclear power - MIT survey, L/N The Bush administration has been pushing to expand nuclear power, which doesn't produce carbon dioxide, but Americans are still concerned about storing nuclear waste. Nearly 40 percent oppose the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and only 28 percent agree that "nuclear waste could be stored safely for long periods of time." Because of those concerns, "getting the public behind a serious expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. is going to be difficult," Ansolabehere said. PLAN'S UNPOPULAR LOCATION SELECTION. Steven Cohen, Grist staff writer, 8/8/2006, Just Say No: Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer, http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/08/08/cohen/ That leads to the politics. No one wants to host the nuclear-waste repository. No one wants a nuclear power plant next door. This is not an engineering or economic issue, but one of politics. In an increasingly crowded and interdependent world, people have grown more sensitive about questions of land-use development. Environmental justice has also reached the political stage, because the rich are better able to defend themselves against environmental insults than the poor. In the United States, local politics in many places has become the politics of land use and development. If we can't site Wal-Marts without a lengthy battle, why does anyone seriously think that we will be able to site the hundreds of new nuclear power plants that may be necessary to meet our energy needs without increasing greenhouse-gas emissions? PLAN'S UNPOPULAR PUBLIC PERCEIVES ESCALATING COSTS. John Murawski, staff writer, 4/24/2008, Cost of nuclear plant fuels battle, http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/1048035.html The estimated cost of new nuclear power plants has tripled in the past few years, with projections now hitting $6 billion to $9 billion per reactor. Cost estimates are expected to continue escalating. Soaring costs make the prospect of new nuclear power even harder to sell to a public that will ultimately pay for new plants through rate increases. Nuclear critics are homing in on the staggering costs to lobby their case. It helps the opponents to have a dollar figure to object to, but electric utilities are reluctant to cooperate. NO TURNS PUBLIC'S RELUCTANT TO PAY AND 35% APPROVAL. Anne Trafton, News Office staff writer, 7/23/2007, Americans warming to nuclear power - MIT survey, L/N CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Americans' icy attitudes toward nuclear power are beginning to thaw, according to a new survey from MIT. The report also found a U.S. public increasingly unhappy with oil and more willing to develop alternative energy sources like wind and solar. Moreover, the national survey of 1,200 Americans' opinions on different types of energy indicated growing concern about global warming -- but an apparent reluctance to pay to fight it. Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, the MIT political scientist who conducted the survey through Knowledge Networks, a consumer information company, said he hopes that tracking Americans' attitudes toward energy will help policy-makers decide how to chart the United States' energy future. "We're trying to understand what public policy in the U.S. should do to encourage new kinds of energy development or different patterns of energy consumption," Ansolabehere said. The report, "Public Attitudes Toward America's Energy Options: Insights for Nuclear Energy," was recently published by MIT's Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems. Ansolabehere conducted a similar survey in 2002 as part of the MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear Power." In the five years since the last survey, public preferences have remained fairly stable, but the percentage of people who want to increase nuclear power use has grown from 28 percent to 35 percent. That increase in popularity is likely due to concern over global warming caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels, Ansolabehere said.

447

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- PUBLIC

NOT-IN-MY-BACKYARD MEANS NUCLEAR POWER IS HEAVILY UNPOPULAR AMONG GENERAL POPULACE

Washington Independent, 6/12/08, Pricey Alternative: Nuclear Energy, lexis [BB]

If costs don't come down, that waiting period could stretch out much longer. So far, these obstacles haven't stopped energy companies from submitting applications to the government for new plants, according to the Energy Information Administration. "Even with the rising cost of materials," said JohnMoens, nuclear industry specialist at the EIA , "it sounds like more companies are getting interested in building the reactors and the list of companies that [the government] anticipates will apply has been growing rather than shrinking."But, Moens says, just because companies are applying to build new plants, doesn't mean those plants will definitely get built. "There are so many things that can change in a hurry," he said. The rising cost is one of those things. And it's something that can only add to an already poor public perception of nuclear energy. The "Not In My Backyard" factor associated with nuclear waste makes nuclear energy unpopular in some communities. The economic factor could prove to be the tipping point.

448

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC

Public against Nuclear Power
Newshounds 8 Newshounds.com, June 2008, http://www.newshounds.us/2008/06/19/gingrich_misrepresents_public_opinion_and_likely_results_of_offshore_drilling.php A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked a much more neutral question: Which one of the following actions do you most support as a way of addressing the rise in energy and gas prices? Encourage the development of wind and solar power. Open up protected areas in Alaska for oil and gas exploration. Encourage American consumers to conserve energy. Encourage off-shore exploration for oil and natural gas. Encourage the construction of nuclear power facilities." Wind and solar was the winner, with Alaska second, conservation third and exploration fourth. Nuclear power was last.

449

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC

UNPOPULAR WITH PUBLIC NOT IN MY BACKYARD

Energy Resource, 6-5-07, Energy Survey: 'Not in My Backyard' Still a Factor When It Comes to Building New Oil, Nuclear Facilities, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5CNK/is_2007_June_5/ai_n25006940/pg_1
The national survey of 1,001 Americans was released in conjunction with RBC Capital Markets' annual Energy Conference being held in New York today and tomorrow. It shows that while nine out of 10 Americans may believe the U.S. needs to produce its own oil and eight of 10 say they are concerned about the nation's energy self-sufficiency, 84 per cent opposed the construction of an oil refinery in their hometown, 83 per cent opposed the construction or re-commissioning of a nuclear power plant and three out of four opposed the construction of a liquefied natural gas facility in their city or town. "We haven't built a new refinery in the U.S. in almost three decades," said RBC Capital Markets analyst Kurt Hallead. "Clearly the 'Not In My Backyard' phenomenon still prevails." The survey also found that compared to a year ago, Americans are far more concerned about global warming and climate change, and are increasingly conscious of the harm carbon dioxide emissions are causing. The majority of those polled (68 percent) said they were in favor of carbon dioxide regulations, even if it meant higher energy costs, and 67 percent said they would also pay more for cleaner fuels than pay less for fuels that pollute. Only a third of those surveyed say they are spending more time learning about what they can do and two-thirds admit they need to do more. "It's as if consumers are paralyzed by the magnitude of the problem, concerned about the price they will have to pay in their personal lives, and unsure that they can do anything about it," said Hallead. "To me, it's a clarion call for more public education. It's the only way for policy makers to address a situation where everyone wants energy selfsufficiency but no new traditional energy plants." Moreover, while the vast majority of Americans support government activities to increase energy conservation programs, develop alternative energy incentives, and reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil, there is still resistance to policies or initiatives that intrude on Americans' lifestyles or pocketbooks, RBC Capital said.

Waste storage concerns fuel public opposition Anne Trafton, News Office staff writer, 7/23/2007, Americans warming to nuclear power - MIT survey, L/N
The Bush administration has been pushing to expand nuclear power, which doesn't produce carbon dioxide, but Americans are still concerned about storing nuclear waste. Nearly 40 percent oppose the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and only 28 percent agree that "nuclear waste could be stored safely for long periods of time." Because of those concerns, "getting the public behind a serious expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. is going to be difficult," Ansolabehere said.

Unpopular public perceives escalating costs John Murawski, staff writer, 4/24/2008, Cost of nuclear plant fuels battle, http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/1048035.html
The estimated cost of new nuclear power plants has tripled in the past few years, with projections now hitting $6 billion to $9 billion per reactor. Cost estimates are expected to continue escalating. Soaring costs make the prospect of new nuclear power even harder to sell to a public that will ultimately pay for new plants through rate increases. Nuclear critics are homing in on the staggering costs to lobby their case. It helps the opponents to have a dollar figure to object to, but electric utilities are reluctant to cooperate.

450

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC

NUCLEAR POWER IS UNPOPULAR (Martin C. Daks 10-1-07 NRG Seeks The Lead in Going Nuclear http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5292/is_200710/ai_n21269535) According to an April poll by CBS News and The New York Times, 58 percent of Americans disapprove of nuclear energy and 59 percent don't want to see a nuclear power plant built in their community. And at a June conference, sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a free-market think tank in New York City, doubts were raised about the ability of companies to secure financing for nuclear power projects. "While the government has never reneged on a loan guarantee once issued, the political climate for other subsidies that could make or break nuke projects could change as federal administrations change," the institute warned in a report on the conference.

451

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC

People are still wary of 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl accidenets SeekingAlpha, 7-27-08, The Benefits of Shifting to CNG for Fuel, http://seekingalpha.com/article/87234the-benefits-of-shifting-to-cng-for-fuel Use of CNG as fuel for electric power generation: Since nuclear power plants have become unpopular (due to security fears after 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear power plant accidents), coal burning power plants also became unpopular (due to concerns about global warming), and hydro-electric power generation has almost reached its natural upper limit. 40 years ago the US decided to use CNG as fuel for power plants built in the future. CNG is mostly methane (NH4); when burnt, each molecule of it releases one CO2 molecule and two water (H2O) molecules, so generating power by CNG is only about a third as damaging (in terms of CO2 releases) as generation from coal. Now a significant (about 20%) of our electricity comes from CNG.

452

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- PUBLIC

POLITICIANS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE DISTRUSTFUL OF NUCLEAR POWER COHAN, ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF THE NEW ATLANTIS, 2004

(Stephanie, The New Atlantis, Energy Dreams and Energy Realities, Spring, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/energy-dreams-and-energy-realities, accessed 7-9-08)
This points to a second salient fact in the history of energy technology: the quest for an endless, stainless, and guiltless source of energy. For a time, some people thought nuclear power might be the answer -- it produced no emissions, involved limited purging of the earth's resources, and seemed almost magical in the extent of power it could produce. In 1973, 41 nuclear power plants were ordered for construction in the United States, a one-year record. But the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania devastated the nation's nuclear energy industry. Although no one suffered injuries, the image of nuclear power was permanently tarnished, and the American faith in nuclear technology has never fully been restored. Still, the debate over nuclear energy remains a crucial one -- far too significant to be handled adequately here. Many countries around the world (especially in Europe) rely extensively on nuclear power as a national energy source; many American conservatives have attempted to spur a "nuclear revival"; but in the end, the ire of American environmentalists and fears about nuclear weapons proliferation mean that nuclear power will not, at least for now, be the guiltless source of fuel America longs for.

PUBLIC OPPOSITION PREVENTS THE CONTINUED EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY HILLMAN ET AL, SENIOR FELLOW POLICY INSTITUTE IN LONDON, 2007

(Mayer, The Suicidal Planet: How to Prevent Climate Catastrophe, Pg. 101-102)
The United States is the worlds largest user of nuclear energy. In 2005, there were 104 reactors providing 20 percent of the country's electricity supply. However, the expansion of nuclear power has been limited since the Chernobyl reactor explosion of 1986 and the less serious accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, which led to the cancellation of over 100 reactor orders. No nuclear plants have come online since 1996. However these incidents have not stopped governments and the nuclear industry in recent years from promoting a revived program of construction. STRONG PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR POWER SALVADOR, PROFESSOR OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, 2005

(Amos, Energy: A Historical Perspective and 21st Century Forecast, Pg. 96)
However, there are serious reasons for concern about nuclear power plants. Most worrisome problems are the disposal of the high-level radioactive waste (HLW), the product of the operation of nuclear reactors; the radioactivity of the plutonium generated as a result of the fission reaction, particularly in the case of the breeder reactors; and the possibility that the availability of the high-grade plutonium may increase the possibility of the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Because of these concerns, intensely scrutinized and widely publicized in the press, television, and journals are stridently magnified by vocal environmental organizations, there is now a lack of public confidence in nuclear power. Mistaken public perception of the reality of nuclear power has resulted in a strong opposition to the increase in electric generation in nuclear plants.

453

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- OBAMA

. Obama supports nuke power political backers Atlanta Journal Constitution, 7-24-08, Interview w/ Ralph Nader, Something for those turned off by the conservatism of
Barack Obama, http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sharedblogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/07/24/something_for_those_turned_off.html Because hes a corporate Democrat.Look at FISA, look at his back-tracking on Supreme Court decisions, his supporting the credit card industry. No one in Washington associates Barack Obama with a major, serious, energetic agenda to deal with the abuses and exploitations of the lower 100 million Americans on the income ladder. Never mind going into the areas of exploitation in the ghettos predatory lending and all that. Hes probably said some things on this, but look at Jim Webb. Jim Webb is a freshman senator [from Virginia]. He really did it seriously on veterans education. Thats what I mean, you know? Ive talked to thousands of Obama supporters, obviously, going around the country. Almost none of them associate any major policy initiative with him in Congress. And as a state senator, he even voted to cap pain and suffering damages of medical malpractice victims to $250,000. Thats pretty inexcusable. Hes weak on the civil justice system, which is the principle way defrauded and wrongfully injured people challenge corporate power. Hes never met a weapons system he didnt like. Hes not challenged the military-industrial complex at all. And he gets a huge amount of money more than [Republican John] McCain has got from corporate interests and corporate attorneys. For him, nuclear power is still on the table which is very insensitive, given that some of his major backers are nuclear power executives in Chicago.

454

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN IS STARTING TO ADAPT TO PUBLIC OPINION ON ENERGY HE CAN SEIZE UPON NUCLEAR POWER TO HELP HIM WIN IN NOVEMBER Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, 6-25-08, Obama stands firm; McCain rides wave for energy solutions, l/n Conventional wisdom has put offshore drilling off-limits for Florida politicians, but polls released this month appear to have changed that decades-old line of thought, finding that voters in the state support drilling and will reward a candidate who embraces it. With gas prices at record highs, the polls show the political calculation on energy has changed, but so far in the presidential election only Sen. John McCain has changed with it, nimbly adjusting his stances to embrace a series of proposed solutions. On Tuesday, the presumptive Republican nominee said he will make the federal government's automobile fleets and offices greener, and earlier this week he proposed a $300 million prize for the inventor of a next-generation car battery. That follows last week's call for 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and a position reversal in which he embraced expanded offshore drilling for oil and gas. "Somebody's doing their polling work," said Michael McKenna, a Republican pollster and energy strategist who said Mr. McCain has now positioned himself to be "in favor of anything, except for drilling in" the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Meanwhile Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, has stood firm, arguing that the problem is U.S. demand, not supply, and calling for a reordering of American policies. In his own speech Tuesday, he rejected each of Mr. McCain's new proposals, saying drilling doesn't help lower prices, nuclear energy has environmental drawbacks and the innovation prize is a gimmick that doesn't match the real need. "When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win; he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people," Mr. Obama said. "That's the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do." The debate is spilling into Congress, where the House on Tuesday failed to pass a bill to ban "price gouging" and "unconscionable" prices. President Bush had threatened to veto the bill anyway, but Democrats were unable to muster the two-thirds vote required to pass the measure without amendment. On the presidential stage, Democrats are faring better, with Mr. Obama winning the issue - voters trust him over Mr. McCain on the issue by 19 percentage points in the latest Gallup-USA Today poll. But on the specific issue of more drilling, Mr. McCain is trouncing Mr. Obama. Both a national Zogby poll and a Florida Rasmussen Reports poll show tremendous support for drilling, including among Democrats. But they are also willing to go further than even Mr. McCain, with the Zogby poll finding a majority support drilling in ANWR. Pollsters say voters' attitudes are almost certainly driven by record prices. In his energy plan, Mr. Obama has proposed increased fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and $150 billion in investments to develop alternative energy sources. But he also calls for punishing energy companies, proposing a windfall profits tax and a penalty that would apply to every oil company currently holding an unused lease for drilling on government land. "If that compels them to drill, we'll get more oil. If it doesn't, the fees will go toward more investment in renewable sources of energy," he said. Daniel Seligman, an energy consultant and clean energy advocate, said that despite Mr. McCain's recent maneuvering, the most striking aspect of the debate is how close both men are on the big questions of merging environmental policy and energy policy. Both support a cap-and-trade approach to carbon emissions, a low carbon fuel standard to force alternative energy into the transportation market, and the promotion of renewable and alternative energy. Both oppose drilling in ANWR. "There's kind of a consensus about thinking about energy that cuts across ideological boundaries, but there are nuances that separate the two," said Mr. Seligman, the former national campaign director of the Apollo Alliance, which advocates for a federal program to push for alternative energy solutions. He said both candidates bring serious plans to the table, though he gave the edge to Mr. Obama for focusing on specifics, such as translating new technology from the lab to the marketplace. "Things like solar [photovoltaics], things like wind, were invented in American laboratories but have been commercialized by the Germans and the Japanese and the Danes. They've made money off these things because they took them from the lab to the market, and that's what Obama 's proposing to do," he said. Mr. McCain on Tuesday said his proposals lay out "a plan of action," as compared with "Dr. No," as his campaign has taken to calling Mr. Obama. Mr. McKenna said in rejecting any further use of conventional energy supplies that Mr. Obama is matching his party's stance. "You can't find a Democrat who's in favor of producing energy from actual sources that exist right now," Mr. McKenna said. "They're always in favor of something that's going to happen in the future. That's wonderful. That's not what the American people want right now."

455

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN WILL SEIZE UPON SHIFTING PUBLIC SENTIMENT SURROUNDING NUCLEAR POWER TO WIN Jeremy Jacquot, writer Huffington Post, 7-21-08, How Obama Can Regain the Initiative on Energy, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-jacquot/how-obama-can-regain-the_b_113972.html While it may be hard to stomach, there is no denying that John McCain has been leading the debate on energy policy. A number of recent polls has established a clear trend in favor of oil drilling and exploration and investment in nuclear power over conservation and regulation among both liberals and conservatives. In addition, the latest report from James Carville and Stan Greenberg, two campaign consultants, has revealed that Obama has been losing ground to McCain and that he has not effectively addressed the shift in public sentiment.

456

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- OBAMA

OBAMAS OPPOSITION TO NUKE POWER WILL COST HIM THE ELECTION GAS PRICES KEY ISSUE TO PUBLIC James Kingsdalec, iStock Analyst, 7-23-08, Could His Oil Policy Cost Obama the Election?, http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+articleid_2424027&title=Could_His_Oil_Policy.html People are mighty miffed at the price of gasoline and my favorite presidential candidate, Sen. Obama, does not seem to be offering much. Yes, he talks about a grand go to the moon scheme of alternative energy development a la Kennedy and like Mitt Romney. But hes tied to orthodox Democratic objections to more drilling and to nuclear power, both of which people sense are needed.

457

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- BUSH

BUSH PUSHES GENEROUS BUDGET REQUEST PROVES NUCLEAR IS HIS PRIORITY

Elaine Hiruo and Daniel Horner, writers Nucleonics Week, 2-7-08, FY-09 DOE budget request reflects push for nuclear expansion, l/n
The Bush administration unveiled a $25 billion, nuclear-friendly budget request for DOE February 4 that would nearly double spending in fiscal 2009 on the near-term deployment of new reactors and add two years to the department's loan guarantee program, giving potential nuclear applicants the time they will need to be considered for federal loan guarantees. Top nuclear executives told Platts' Nuclear Conference February 5 that loan guarantees are the single most crucial element to their proceeding with new plant orders. The spending blueprint is the final budget President George W. Bush will send to Congress before he completes his eight years in the White House. It reflects, in part, the priority the administration has placed on expansion of emissions-free nuclear power, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at DOE's budget briefing. "It is important we bring new nuclear power generating capacity online as quickly as possible," Bodman said.

BUSH PUSHES WANTS MORE PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO ENSURE NUCLEAR POWERS FUTURE

Paula Wolfson, staff writer for Washington Post, 6/21/2007, Bush: Nuclear Power Must be Important Part of US Future
President Bush says America needs to rely on alternative sources of energy, including nuclear power, to meet its future needs. VOA's Paula Wolfson reports from the White House, the president focused on the need for more nuclear power plants during a visit Thursday to a facility in the southern state of Alabama. The president made the case for nuclear energy at a plant that has known its share of controversy over the years. The Browns Ferry facility was one of the first nuclear plants in the United States in the 1970's, and it was the largest nuclear power producer in the world when it opened more than three decades ago. But in 1985, it was shut down due to management and operational problems. Now, 22 years later, it is back up and running. "The restart of Browns Ferry Unit Number One represents the first nuclear reactor to come on line in the United States in more than a decade," he said. Following a tour of the plant, President Bush spoke of the need to encourage more companies to apply for permits to build nuclear power facilities. He said nuclear power must be part of a national energy strategy. "I believe that it is essential that we have a comprehensive energy policy to be able to deal with the challenges we are going to face in the 21st century - whether that be energy independence, or economic security or good environmental policy. And at the core of that policy must be electricity generated from nuclear power," he said.

458

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER PART

NUCLEAR POWER CREATES UNTRADITIONAL PARTISANSHIP CAUSES INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PARTY DIVISIONS

Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, Nuclear power enters global warming debate, http://72.14.205.104/search? q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power050907.pdf+nuclear+power+ %2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power should play a role in any federal attack on climate change. Congress, with added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week, appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill against their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer Bay Area Democrats with similar political views are on opposite sides. Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but now holds a different view. "I think it has to be on the table," she said. Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take the lead in writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil fuels to nuclear power was "trading one problem for another."

459

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER BIPART

NUKE POWER HAS BIPART SUPPORT CONCERNS OVER WARMING AND OIL DEPENDENCY

Edmund L. Andrews and Matthew L. Wald, The New York Times Media Group, 8-1-07, Senate bill could help finance nuclear plants, International Herald Tribune, l/n The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after decades of opposition from environmental groups and others concerned about the risks. An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties, worried about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, support at least some expansion of nuclear power.
BIPART NUKE POWER TRANSCENDS PARTY LINES AS A SOLUTION TO CARBON EMISSIONS

Jenny Weil and Cathy Cash, writers Inside N.R.C., 12-10-07, Nuclear provisions in climate bill rejected, but could return next year, l/n A spokeswoman for Isakson said the senator believes "there is tremendous bipartisan support for nuclear power as a solution to the problem of carbon emitting energy" and that he would work with his colleagues "on both sides of the aisle to figure out the best way to expand our nation's nuclear power generation infrastructure."

460

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER BIPART

Bipartisan support in favor of nuclear energy is growing Howard 03, Executive Vice President of Nuclear Energy Institute
[Angie, Federal News Service, Jun 10, LN]

Without question, nuclear energy in the United States is experiencing a renaissance. We see clear signs that this renaissance is gaining new recognition in Congress--through bipartisan legislation introduced this year in the House and Senate, by the administration in its national energy policy and among the American public. The renaissance is driven by the overwhelming need to maintain our diverse mix of energy generation and to meet the ambitious energy and environmental requirements of the future.

Pro-nuclear policies get strong bipartisan support Foster Electric Report 5 / 19 / 04

NEI's new chairman, George Hairston III, the president and chief executive officer of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, sounded a similar theme. Hairston observed that the state of the nuclear industry is strong. During 2003, he noted that operators beefed up their nuclear plant security systems, and the Department of Energy (DOE) began preparing an application to build the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Another positive development was the industry's success in garnering bipartisan congressional support for energy policies that recognize the value of nuclear power. Like Colvin, Hairston emphasized nuclear plant safety must remain the nuclear industry's top priority.

461

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- DEMS

DEMS HAVE SHIFTED SUPPORT TO NUKE POWER USE IT TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING

Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, Nuclear power enters global warming debate, http://72.14.205.104/search? q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power050907.pdf+nuclear+power+ %2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us
But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up. The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases. Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the ruling could help "spur the revival of nuclear power." Page 2 And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global warming legislation a priority. "I've never been a fan of nuclear energy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has called it expensive and risky. "But reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to take a look at it."

462

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS

DEMS OPPOSE DONT WANT TO RISK LOSING SUPPORT OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS

Gail Russell Chaddock, staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, 6-5-08, Economic risks imperil climate bill, l/n Many Democrats are wary of risking the support of some environmental groups over nuclear power. Majority leader Reid, a longtime opponent of a nuclear-waste dump in his state, charged that DOE filed the application with only about 35 percent of the work done to justify it. "Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be," he said on Tuesday. Republicans say they are holding out for a wide-ranging debate over the global-warming bill, including many amendments. Democratic leaders worry that some amendments, including those over nuclear power, could undermine support for the bill.

463

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- GOP

GOP SUPPORTS NUKE POWER EXPANSION BOLSTERS THEIR FIGHT AGAINST GAS PRICES

Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires, 7-25-08, US Senate Republicans Block Oil Speculation Bill, http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=239835 As oil prices continue to trade at economy-damaging levels, U.S. Senate Republicans Friday blocked a vote on legislation to rein in speculation in the energy markets. Instead, the minority is calling for a series of votes that would expand domestic petroleum production and new nuclear power. In a 50-43 vote, Democrats failed to gain enough support to bring the bill forward for consideration on the Senate floor and now face another week of energy debate as Republicans threatened to hold up the measure to hammer home their "drill more, use less" policy. The Democrats' legislation would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to set limits on the amount of speculative trades participants who aren't hedging delivery of the actual commodity can make, including in over-the-counter markets and other exchanges that are exempt from the same oversight as the New York Mercantile Exchange, a unit of Nymex Holdings Inc. (NMX). "There's clearly nothing more important in the country for Congress to deal with...than the price of gas at the pump," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. The Minority Leader said his party would continue to hold up business on the Senate floor until Democrats allowed them to offer a series of amendments on expanded offshore drilling, oil shale development, nuclear power and other energy solutions.

464

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER- PELOSI INDIFFERENT

PELOSI AGREES THAT NUCLEAR POWER HAS TO BE ON THE TABLE

(Maya Jackson Randall 2-8-07 Pelosi Reconsiders Nuclear Power http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/02/08/pelosi-reconsiders-nuclear-power/ )

The technology has changed, and I bring a more open mind to that subject now, she said at a House Science and Technology Committee hearing. Legislation to mitigate global warming is a priority for the California Democrat, and nuclear power - touted as an emissions-free way to generate electricity is gaining traction as a way to improve the environment while meeting the nations growing demands for power. I have a different view on nuclear than I did 20 years ago, Pelosi said, adding that her change of heart doesnt amount to an embrace. I would not be an active opponent. I think it has to be on the table.

465

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- BOTH CANIDATES

MCCAIN AND OBAMA BOTH SUPPORT NUCLEAR POWER INCENTIVES. (Richard Simon 4-9-07 Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants Los Angeles Times http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/ ) Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates - support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.

466

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- INHOFE

JAMES INHOFE LOVES NUC POWER (Robert Boyden Lamb 6-13-06 Nuclear power's looking better for environment, price concerns http://thehill.com/letters/nuclear-powers-looking-better-for-environment-price-concerns-2006-06-13.html ) From Robert Boyden Lamb, professor, Stern School of Business, New York University. The efforts of Sen. James Inhofe (ROkla.) to help bring about the next generation of nuclear power plants represents a growing understanding that this energy source is critically needed for a variety of reasons (Expanding nuclear energy is a move we must commit to, June 7). First, global warming is now becoming accepted as a serious government issue on both sides of the aisle. Second, there is an increasing number of environmental leaders, such as Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Catalog and Patrick Moore, who helped found Greenpeace, who support greater use of nuclear power. They understand that global climate deterioration is so catastrophic a possibility that we must use every means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Third, the inability of U.S. regions to meet mandated air-quality requirements is mainly because of our national dependence on gasoline for cars plus oil-, coal- and natural-gas-burning power plants. The fossil fuel of choice for power plants today has become natural gas, yet that fuel still produces greenhouse-gas emissions, plus NOx emissions, and, like soaring oil prices, gyrations in the price of natural gas stem from high demand for its limited supply. Sen. Inhofe has recognized, like Japan, Korea and a number of European states, that all these highly negative environmental and economic factors make today the right time to start building advanced state-of-the-art, high-efficiency nuclear plants.

467

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- OBAMA

OBAMA SUPPORTS NUCLEAR POWER.

(ELIZABETH SOUDER 1-27-08 Nuclear plants become a factor in elections Democrats soften their stances on traditionally GOP-backed solution http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DNnukes_27bus.ART.State.Edition1.2af68e5.html) Barack Obama says nuclear power should be explored as an energy option. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she's "agnostic" on whether more nuclear plants should be built. As climate change rises to the top of voters' minds, many Democrats are reconsidering their anti-nuclear stance. The party front-runners' refusal to rule it out may indicate a big shift in U.S. environmental politics, coming at a time when Texas power companies want to build up to six new reactors.

468

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER COST POL CAP

Passing nuclear power legislation will cost political capital

Ashby 4 (The Importance of Nuclear Energy, Ashby 2004 Republican for President, http://blakeashby2004.com/nuclearenergy.html)
The oversight of the construction and operation of nuclear power plants was not necessarily well handled during the paranoia and secrecy of the cold war years, but nuclear energy is too important not to pursue. Sooner or later nuclear energy will again have to be part of our energy policy. Presidents, certainly have to weigh many different needs and viewpoints and choose their battle carefully, and Bush is right to be concerned about the near term economic and social effects of a spike in energy prices. But at some point in the not to distant future, our ability to construct, operate and overseen safe and efficient nuclear power plants is going to be of critical importance. Lets hope our new President has the political capital available to get the discussion started sooner rather than later.

Major nuclear power initiative requires massive political capital Gaffney 97, Director of Center for Security Policy
[Frank, Washington Times, Sep 26, LN]

The obvious solution to the legitimate need to maintain a viable American nuclear energy industry - without compromising the nation's security interests by selling reactors to China - is to embark upon a major American nuclear infrastructure upgrade program and the associated public education effort. The objective of such a program would be ensure that advanced designs for fail-safe nuclear reactors are built to serve the largest energy market of all, that of the United States. Naturally, under present circumstances, such an initiative would take enormous leadership, political capital and courage on the part of the president and vice president. Given their intense concerns about the effects of fossil fuel emissions on global warming, however, a program to bring about a new generation of clean-burning nuclear power for the 21st century may be the only hope for containing - to say nothing of reducing -greenhouse gas emissions without savaging the American economy.

Bipartisan opposition exists to new loan guarantees for nuclear power Charleston Daily Mail 6 / 11 / 03
A bipartisan group of senators - backed by environmentalists concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants and taxpayer groups opposed to subsidies for the industry - sought to strip the loan guarantees from a sweeping energy bill the Senate is debating. They contended that the subsidies could cost taxpayers as much as $ 16 billion if the projects fail.

469

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER COST POL CAP

Promoting nuclear power costs political capital trades off with other energy goals Rep. Woolsley 2001 D-CA Roll Call, June 18 Everyone who works in government knows about scarce resources and trade-offs. This is why making nuclear power an important part of our energy strategy is a misplaced priority. A strong argument for moving away from nuclear energy is that the money and political capital needed to advance nuclear power inevitably means detracting from measures to promote renewable energy sources. These "smart energy" sources - such as solar, wind, geothermal and fuel cell technologies, as well as energy efficiency and conservation measures - must be featured prominently in any future national energy policy.

Nuclear power drains political capital Gaffney 1997 Director of the Center for Security Policy Washington Times, September 26 The obvious solution to the legitimate need to maintain a viable American nuclear energy industry - without compromising the nation's security interests by selling reactors to China - is to embark upon a major American nuclear infrastructure upgrade program and the associated public education effort. The objective of such a program would be ensure that advanced designs for fail-safe nuclear reactors are built to serve the largest energy market of all, that of the United States. Naturally, under present circumstances, such an initiative would take enormous leadership, political capital and courage on the part of the president and vice president. Given their intense concerns about the effects of fossil fuel emissions on global warming, however, a program to bring about a new generation of clean-burning nuclear power for the 21st century may be the only hope for containing - to say nothing of reducing -greenhouse gas emissions without savaging the American economy.

470

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER COST POL CAP

PROMOTING NUCLEAR POWER COSTS POLITICAL CAPITAL

Rep. Woolsley 7-18-01 Roll Call, Everyone who works in government knows about scarce resources and trade-offs. This is why making nuclear power an important part of our energy strategy is a misplaced priority. A strong argument for moving away from nuclear energy is that the money and political capital needed to advance nuclear power inevitably means detracting from measures to promote renewable energy sources. These "smart energy" sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and fuel cell technologies, as well as energy efficiency and conservation measures - must be featured prominently in any future national energy policy.

471

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER COST POL CAP

NUCLEAR POWER COSTS A LOT OF POLITICAL CAPITOL FINANCIAL TIMES 1-26-2005 The Democrats, who view the Franklin D. Roosevelt welfare programmes as an essential part of the party's historic legacy, have so far presented an almost united front against the president's proposals, denying the bipartisan compromise that is needed to secure majorities in Congress. The less monumental items on Mr Bush's agenda are nevertheless controversial, potentially sapping the political capital he earned in the election. These include: immigration reform; an energy bill that will ease the way for building more nuclear power capacity as well as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; medical liability reform; changes to legal awards for punitive damages; as well as tax cuts and the simplification of the tax code. In the background, the Iraq war continues to drag on Mr Bush's popularity; he enters his second term with the lowest approval rating of any re-elected president in modern history. And that is before Washington starts to do battle on one or more Supreme Court nominations. Chief Justice WilliamRehnquist has been largely absent from the bench since late last year as he receives treatment for cancer, which has prompted speculation about his retirement, his replacement and the reprise of the culture wars likely to occur around the confirmation battle over a conservative appointee. The fact of the matter is that despite the impression given by his 3m vote ad-vantage over Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and the apparent lock that the Republicans have on the House of Representatives, as well as the small majority in the Senate, the politics of the US are still highly charged and finely balanced. No sooner had Mr Bush sealed his reelection than political eyes started to focus on the mid-term elections in 2006. Democrats have little hope of winning the House, as the system is skewed towards incumbents. But senators and congressmen looking to stay in office are reluctant to embrace unpopular reforms - notably on social security, but to a lesser extent on medical liability too - with a battle for re-election in 21 months. The politics of the 2008 presidential election will also loom large and early, as neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a clear favourite to carry the party's torch. Instead, a long line of Washington politicians - Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Evan Bayh; Republicans including John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Bill Frist and Rick Santorum - will be tempering their language and their votes with an eye to the party primaries. Mr Bush, an instinctive politician, has been acutely aware of the pressures on his second term. Since his re-election, he has made clear that he will have to invest his prestige in his reform proposals if they are to make it past Capitol Hill. In practical terms, this means showing a willingness to compromise on details, reward members of Congress one by one for their support and lend the weight of his celebrity to their re-election efforts. Or, as he puts it, to provide "political cover". Even before his re-election, Mr Bush seemed to appreciate that he had a short and closing window of opportunity. At a meeting with Republican fund-raisers behind closed doors, Mr Bush referred to the imminent danger of becoming a lameduck president. "I'm going to come out strong after my swearing-in," he was quoted as saying, "with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatising of Social Security." Victory gives the Republicans "two years, at least, until the next mid-term. We have to move quickly, because after that I'll be quacking like a duck."

472

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- BUSH

BUSH IS PUSHING NUCLEAR POWER TERTZAKIAN, CHIEF ENERGY ECONOMIST OF ARC FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 2006

(Peter, A Thousand Barrels a Second: The Coming Oil Break Point and the Challenges Facing an Energy Dependent World, Pg. 196)
In the United States, big initiatives are brewing from within the Bush administration to rejuvenate the nuclear power industry by building new power plants. It's going to be a difficult sell, as nuclear power plants have been reviled by the US, public since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. The Ukrainian experience at Chernobyl in 1986 only reinforced deep American anxieties about radiation and nuclear waste. Nevertheless, President Bush is trying to convince a nuclear-leery public that, "It's time for America to start building [nuclear power plants] again."

473

THE FORT PLTX

474

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- BUSINESS

BUSINESSES WANT THE GOVT TO ACT ON NUCLEAR POWER (Jack Spencer 11-15-07 Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm) Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. It can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The French have used it to minimize their dependence on foreign energy, and at one time the United States was on the path to do the same. However, the commercial nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is no longer thriving. Investors hesitate to embrace nuclear power fully, despite significant regulatory relief and economic incentives. This reluctance is not due to any inherent flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk. Instead, investors are reacting to the historic role that federal, state, and local governments have played both in encouraging growth in the industry and in bringing on its demise. Investors doubt that federal, state, and local governments will allow nuclear energy to flourish in the long term. They have already lost billions of dollars because of bad public policy.

475

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS

Bipartisan Senate opposition to the planeconomic and security concerns Haider Rizvi, Bush's Nuclear 'Reprocessing' Plan Under Fire, http://us.oneworld.net/issues/nuclear-issues/-/article/bushs-nuclearreprocessing-plan-under-fire, BB, 11/26/2007
NEW YORK, Nov 26 (OneWorld) - The Bush administration is pushing for plans to reuse spent nuclear fuel in power reactors across the United States, but key senators and nuclear analysts have raised economic and security concerns about reusing the weapons-grade fuel. "We have serious concerns about the implications of current plans for commercial spent fuel reprocessing," a group of seven Democratic and one Republican senators told Byron Dorgan (DND), chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations, in a letter last week. The letter urged Dorgan and Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM) to cut funding for spent fuel reprocessing in an energy appropriations bill that is expected to be considered along with many other spending plans next month. The reprocessing is being promoted as part of the administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a plan to form an international partnership to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in a way that renders the plutonium in it usable for nuclear energy but not for nuclear weapons. The energy and water development appropriations bill currently before the Senate would provide $243 million for the initiative, whereas the House version would commit $120 million. Those who signed the letter include Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), John Sununu (R-NH), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Bernard Sanders (D-VT), John Kerry (D-MA), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), and Edward Kennedy (D-MA). The eight senators said reprocessing is "not a solution" to the problem of nuclear waste and held that it could weaken U.S. efforts to halt global nuclear proliferation. In addition, they argued that the Energy Department's plans could cost taxpayers at least $200 billion.

The Senate opposes the plancosts, contamination, and proliferation are all key concerns Common Dreams NewsCenter, Senators Oppose U.S. Nuclear Reprocessing Plan, Cite Proliferation Concerns, 4/29/08
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0429-14.htm, BB CALIFORNIA - April 29 - The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation applauds the recent efforts of U.S. senators to eliminate funding for the Department of Energys plan to reprocess commercial nuclear waste and ship the resulting weaponsusable nuclear material to fuel nuclear reactors around the world under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. In a letter sent, on April 24th, to Chairman Byron Dorgan and Ranking Member Pete Domenici of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, nine U.S. senators state: "We write in opposition to Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 2009 request for over $300 million to reprocess commercial nuclear spent fuel." The letter highlights key concerns related to reprocessing, including: past failures, exorbitant costs, environmental contamination, and the proliferation of weapons-usable nuclear material and technology.

476

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS

House opposition to the plan UCS, Union of Concerned Scientists, leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS
combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices, 5/11/2006, House Slashes Administrations Risky Nuclear Reprocessing Plan, http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/house-slashes.html WASHINGTON, D.C. May 11The House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee dealt a harsh rebuke to the Bush administration's grandiose plan to build a nationwide complex of facilities to reprocess and use plutonium extracted from commercial nuclear reactor spent fuel. It is our understanding that the subcommittee indicated that no funds would be allowed for design work on the administration's three proposed engineering scale demonstration plants. The subcommittee also cut the administration's request by nearly 40 percent, to $150 million. "Reprocessing is dangerous, dirty and expensive," said Dr. Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The subcommittee is sending a clear message to the administration that it has failed to demonstrate that the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is ready for prime time. In fact, GNEP is entirely unsupportable on technical, environmental, economic or security grounds." "The proposed reprocessing, fast burner reactor, and fuel fabrication facilities would be a disaster for national security, the economy and the environment. The United States should not go down this road. On the contrary, it should be working to convince the small number of countries that do reprocess spent fuel to abandon this dangerous practice, which is a bonanza for terrorists seeking the material needed to make nuclear weapons," Dr. Lyman added.

The plan is unpopular with Congress Arms Control Today, Miles A. Pomper, Staff Writer, July/August 2008, Bushs Nuclear Reprocessing Plan Under Fire,
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_07-08/BushNuclear.asp, BB The Bush administrations Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program, already under siege, has been further imperiled after recent action by several congressional panels and an April report from the congressional watchdog agency. Administration officials have claimed that GNEP, which seeks to develop new nuclear technologies and new international nuclear fuel arrangements, will cut nuclear waste and decrease the risk that an anticipated growth in the use of nuclear energy worldwide could spur nuclear proliferation. Critics assert that the administrations course would exacerbate the proliferation risks posed by the spread of spent fuel reprocessing technology, be prohibitively expensive, and fail to significantly ease waste disposal challenges without any certainty that the claimed technologies will ever be developed. Current reprocessing technologies yield pure or nearly pure plutonium that can be used in fuel for nuclear reactors or as fissile material for nuclear weapons. GNEP proposes to build facilities that would retain other elements in the spent fuel along with the plutonium, making it less attractive for weapons production than pure plutonium. Critics note that this fuel would still not be as proliferation resistant as when the spent fuel is left intact. Congress has largely sided with the critics and last year sharply cut the administrations proposed budget for the program and restricted it to research. (See ACT, January/February 2008.) Capitol Hill appears to be on a similar course this year.

477

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS

Congress has been resisting reprocessing of nuclear material Dr. Edwin Lyman, UCS Senior Staff Scientist, May 2008. (Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive
Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_ terrorism/extracting-plutonium-from-nuclear-reactorspent-fuel.html. [G. Zhang]

In FY2008, the administration sought $405 million for GNEP, but Congress only provided $179 million and focused the program on basic research, specifically denying funding for construction of the commercial-scale reprocessing plant and fast neutron reactor proposed by the administration.

478

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PRES

Plan would have presidential backing-- President supports the GNEP and reprocessing IEEE Spectrum Online, Sally Adee, Staff Writer, U.S. Critics Hope to Halt Nuclear-Waste Imports, July 2008,
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jul08/6374, BB At press time, Representative Gordon was gathering cosponsors for the bill banning imports. If there is not a legislative change, it means these license applications have to be fought case by case, says a congressional aide in Gordon's office. But Ivan Oelrich, a nuclear physicist with the Federation of American Scientists, thinks that Gordon's bill, if passed this year, could risk being vetoed by President Bush. It's because of the precedent it would set to ban importing nuclear waste, Oelrich says. The president's plan for resumption of spent fuel reprocessing and recycling in the United States requires a global transfer of plutonium and other transuranics under a program called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Any law that would isolate the United States from international nuclear waste trade would signal a lack of political support for the GNEP.

479

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER BIPART

Plan is bipartisan Christian Science Monitor, 7-27-2006, Spent nuclear fuel edges closer to Yucca The DOE has thrown its support behind legislation that would speed Yucca's progress by "streamlining" some remaining regulatory hurdles. "People on both sides of the aisle are seeing the need for an expansion of nuclear energy," says Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the department. "We're just looking at [the political dialogue] as a positive development in the discussion as we're moving ahead with the nuclear renaissance in this country."

480

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER BIPART

THERE IS BIPART SUPPORT FOR THE PLAN/ PUBLIC SUPPORTS THE PLAN

Richard Simon, 4-9-08, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama favor more nuclear plants, Common dreams news: Breaking news and views for the progressive community, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/ [Barber]
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates - support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants. Opponents of nuclear power say that because a terrorist attack on a plant could be catastrophic, it makes no sense to build more potential targets. And radioactive waste still has no permanent burial site, they say, despite officials three decades of trying to find one. But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up. The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases. Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the ruling could help spur the revival of nuclear power. And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global warming legislation a priority. Ive never been a fan of nuclear energy, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has called it expensive and risky. But reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to take a look at it. The publics attitude toward nuclear power is more favorable when such energy is seen as part of an effort to fight climate change. Polls over the years have shown that a slim majority backs nuclear power, but a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last summer found that a larger majority, 61%, supported the increased use of nuclear energy to prevent global warming. Legislation introduced recently in California seeks to repeal a 1976 ban on new nuclear plants in the state. NUCLEAR POWER IS BIPART- MCCAIN AND OBAMA BOTH SUPPORT IT. NPR, July 20 2008, Nuclear Power: A Torny Issue for Candidates, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92690120 Nuclear power doesn't usually make for an applause line in a stump speech, but it has come up on the campaign trail. Both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain see it as a way to combat climate change, though they've sometimes chosen their words with care. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS BIPART-MCCAIN AND OBAMA SUPPORT. The Heritage Foundation, June 23, 2008, Obama Gives Green Light on Nuclear Energy, http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/23/obama-gives-green-light-on-nuclear-energy/ Rising gas prices and global warming hysteria seem to have had one positive effect this summer: Washingtons elite are being forced to look at nuclear energy as a serious, if not essential, option for any future energy plan. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both recently announced support for development of nuclear energy.

481

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- DEMS

DEMOCRATS ARE ENCOURAGING THE EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR POWER

James Hoare, Environment and climate writer for the Heartland institute, 2-1-07, Democrat group calls for nuclear power, Heartland institute publishing, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20509 [Barber]
Nuclear power offers a safe and economical way to meet anticipated growth in American energy demand, according to an October 2006 report by the Progressive Policy Institute, a policy arm of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). The report, "A Progressive Energy Platform," praises nuclear power as a key weapon against asserted global climate change and air quality concerns. "Nuclear power holds great potential to be an integral part of a diversified energy portfolio for America," the report states. "It produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change."

482

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS

Dems hate the plan
Inside Energy with Federal Lands, 4-12-08, US and Russia ink nuclear cooperation pact, but Congress wary of Iran ties, lexis GNEP aims to promote nuclear power around the world through new kinds of fast-neutron reactors and spent-fuel reprocessing plants. But the Democratic-controlled Congress has slashed funding for the program, and last fall, a congressionally chartered panel of scientists urged DOE to abandon its plans for GNEP. Some argue that it is too risky to reprocess spent fuel because it separates out plutonium which can be used for nuclear weapons development.

483

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- BUSH

Plans a win for Bush
Paula Wolfson , writer for VOA news, Bush: Nuclear Power Must be Important Part of US Future , 6-21-2007 Following a tour of the plant, President Bush spoke of the need to encourage more companies to apply for permits to build nuclear power facilities. He said nuclear power must be part of a national energy strategy. "I believe that it is essential that we have a comprehensive energy policy to be able to deal with the challenges we are going to face in the 21st century - whether that be energy independence, or economic security or good environmental policy. And at the core of that policy must be electricity generated from nuclear power," he said. Nuclear power fell out of favor in the United States following an accident at the Three Mile Island facility in Pennsylvania in 1979. The Bush administration says since then, improvements in safety technology have made nuclear energy viable once again. President Bush spoke about the safety issue during his visit to Alabama. "Nuclear power is safe. The sector is one of the safest industries in the United States. Advances in science and engineering and plant design have made nuclear plants even safer than the last generation of plants," he said.

484

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- OBAMA

Obama likes the plan
Reuters, 6-20-08, Obama: Nuclear power worth considering, not panacea, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKWAT00971320080620 U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth looking into whether it makes sense to develop it further. During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and therefore the United States should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse.

Obama supports the plan he is influenced by the nuke lobby

Christian Parenti, a frequent contributor to The Nation on international affairs, is the author of The Freedom: Shadows and Hallucinations in Occupied Iraq, 4-24-2008, What Nuclear Renaissance?, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he opposes any more relicensing of old nuclear plants. His rival Hillary Clinton has stopped just short of saying that. However, as was reported by the New York Times, Obama has close ties to the nuclear industry, particularly the Illinois-based Exelon, which has contributed at least $227,000 to his campaigns. Two of his top advisers have links to the firm, including his chief strategist, David Axelrod, who was a consultant for Exelon. Obama voted yes on the 2005 Energy bill, which lavished subsidies on oil, coal, ethanol and nukes; Senator Clinton, like almost half the Senate Democrats, voted against it. The Obama campaign says that as President he would not cut nuclear subsidies, only that he would boost subsidies for green power.

485

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- OBAMA

Obama opposes licensing
Christian Parenti, a frequent contributor to The Nation on international affairs, is the author of The Freedom: Shadows and Hallucinations in Occupied Iraq, 4-24-2008, What Nuclear Renaissance?, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he opposes any more relicensing of old nuclear plants. His rival Hillary Clinton has stopped just short of saying that. However, as was reported by the New York Times, Obama has close ties to the nuclear industry, particularly the Illinois-based Exelon, which has contributed at least $227,000 to his campaigns. Two of his top advisers have links to the firm, including his chief strategist, David Axelrod, who was a consultant for Exelon. Obama voted yes on the 2005 Energy bill, which lavished subsidies on oil, coal, ethanol and nukes; Senator Clinton, like almost half the Senate Democrats, voted against it. The Obama campaign says that as President he would not cut nuclear subsidies, only that he would boost subsidies for green power.

486

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS

Congress hates the plan fear of prolif Richard Weitz, Hudson Institute, 3-2008, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: Progress, Problems, and Prospects, WMD Insights,
http://www.wmdinsights.com/I23/I23_G2_GlobalNuclearEnergy.htm Members of Congress remain unenthusiastic about GNEP. Many Democrats and some Republicans have expressed unease that the program will encourage nuclear proliferation, waste money on a narrow range of excessively ambitious and unachievable technologies, and divert funding from other more important priorities, such as cleaning up domestic nuclear waste sites. In May 2006, Congress appropriated less than half of the Bush administrations requested $250 million budget for GNEP. In addition to concerns about the risks of furthering nuclear proliferation by promoting reprocessing over long-term spent fuel storage, members complained that the administration had not provided them with adequate information about the long-term costs of the initiative, which could amount to billions of dollars. [49] In August 2006, the DOE proposed accelerating the GNEP timetable, transforming the initiative from largely a long-term research and development program into one that also would work extensively with the civilian nuclear industry to incorporate readily available technologies into new reactors. The ambitious schedule envisaged operating a commercial-scale reprocessing plant and a fast reactor by approximately 2020. Many nuclear experts argued that few of the breakthrough technologies sought by GNEP would become viable for many decades. These technical arguments, combined with continuing cost concerns, subsequently led Congress to refuse to fund the accelerated timetable, resulting in GNEP reverting to its focus on longer-term research and development. [50]

487

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS

Plan unpopular OneWorld.Net, 11-26-2007, Bush's Nuclear 'Reprocessing' Plan Under Fire, http://us.oneworld.net/issues/nuclearissues/-/article/bushs-nuclear-reprocessing-plan-under-fire

The Bush administration is pushing for plans to reuse spent nuclear fuel in power reactors across the United States, but key senators and nuclear analysts have raised economic and security concerns about reusing the weapons-grade fuel. "We have serious concerns about the implications of current plans for commercial spent fuel reprocessing," a group of seven Democratic and one Republican senators told Byron Dorgan (DND), chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations, in a letter last week. The letter urged Dorgan and Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM) to cut funding for spent fuel reprocessing in an energy appropriations bill that is expected to be considered along with many other spending plans next month

488

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- OBAMA

Obama supports an alternative and nuclear energy Perry Bacon Jr., The Washington Post, 7-11-08, Obama: McCain Helped Create Current Energy Woes During Washington Tenure, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thetrail/2008/07/11/obama_mccain_helped_create_cur.html?hpid=topnews Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose share prices are in freefall, Sen. Barack Obama stuck to his planned script today, pledging, if elected president, an aggressive effort to reduce American dependence on foreign oil by investing in research on alternative fuels and relying more on nuclear, wind and other energy sources. He said the energy ideas of his opponent, Sen. John McCain, such as a gas tax holiday and more offshore oil drilling, would do little to reduce prices at the pump immediately, a view shared by many economists.

489

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

McCain supports nuclear power Jim Provance, Chief, 7-10-08, Blade Columbus Bureau, McCain Talks Up Energy in Ohio, http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/NEWS09/807100413 As part of both his economic and energy agendas, Mr. McCain again called for the construction of 45 nuclear power plants over the next 15 years. Joni Fearing, who said her father died from cancer after working at the former uranium enrichment plant in nearby Piketon 20 miles to the north, questioned the senator's stance on nuclear power. Piketon's uranium enrichment operations ceased in 2001."I feel strongly about getting the Piketon plant cleaned up and bringing alternative energy," said Ms. Fearing. "We don't want our people to continue to work in a highly toxic industry. "The senator's support for nuclear power drew a positive response from the crowd, despite its proximity to the Piketon plant and the scare involving a cracked nuclear reactor head that hampered FirstEnergy Corp.'s Davis-Besse plant near Oak Harbor in 2002."I served in the U.S. Navy and there are Navy veterans here who have sailed on Navy ships around the world for more than 60 years with nuclear power plants on them," he said. "There has never been a recorded case that I know of where someone has been injured, killed, or had ill effects of those nuclear power plants. "I know there's been [Three Mile Island], and I know about Chernobyl," he said. "I know nuclear power is safe. I believe there are other ways of obtaining energy in America that are also harmful to health. I believe greenhouse emissions are also a danger."

490

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS NUCLEAR ENERGY EXPANSION

John Smith, reporter on political affairs for power line, 6-18-08, Power line, http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/.php [Barber]
In a speech in Missouri today, John McCain advocated building 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. He also proposed a $2 billion per year federal program to fund clean coal research and development. The Associated Press notes that McCain did explain how the various permitting issues that have stalled nuclear power plant construction for a generation can be overcome. Presumably legislation as well as regulatory reform will be required; that is true of increased energy production generally MCCAIN SUPPORTS NUCLEAR POWER

Associated Press, July 17 2008, Gore sets energy goal for 2018, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/18/gore_sets_energy_goal_for_2018/
McCain is also calling for reducing dependence on foreign oil, and at a town hall meeting yesterday in Kansas City, Mo., echoed Gore's warning about sending hundreds of millions of dollars a day to unfriendly regimes. McCain said he admires Gore as an early and outspoken advocate on global warming, though they don't agree on all aspects. McCain's plan, for instance, includes a significant expansion of nuclear power as well as wind and solar energy. MCCAIN SUPPORTS NUCLEAR POWER.

New York Post, June 24, 2008, The Enrgy Crisis Nuclear Answer, http://www.nypost.com/seven/06242008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_energy_crisis_nuclear_answer_11691 0.htm
MEETING future US electricity demand while protecting the environment is going to require greater use of nuclear energy. Members of both parties have embraced that simple idea; Sen. John McCain's new proposal that the United States build 45 nuclear-power plants by 2030 is just the latest endorsement.

MCCAIN HAS A ENERGY PLAN THAT CALLS FOR INCREASES IN NUCLEAR POWER

USA Today, 7/9/08, McCain blankets Ohio with 5 visits in 4 months, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-09-mcccain_N.htm
McCain promoted his energy plan, called the Lexington Project, which includes wind and solar power, nuclear energy, domestic oil drilling and clean coal technology, a popular idea in Ohio, with some of the nation's largest coal reserves.

491

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS AND STORAGE IN YUCCA MOUNTAIN US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008 In the same week John McCain admitted that his new plan to end the moratorium on offshore oil drilling would have nothing more than a "psychological impact" on energy prices, McCain is bringing his out of touch campaign agenda toNevada. While recent polls show that three quarters of Nevadans oppose construction of a nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain, Senator McCain has repeatedly voted to approve it and now proposes the construction of at least 45 new nuclear power plants. Presumably, Senator McCain's energy plan would require shipping the waste from those new plants toNevada.

MCCAIN SUPPORTS DUMPING IN YUCCA US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008 McCain Has Consistently Voted to Approve Yucca Mountain As A Nuclear Waste Dump Site. In 2002, John McCain voted to approve a site at Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear and radioactive waste. After the vote, McCain said that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would answer "one of the most important environmental, health and public safety issues for the American people." In 2000, McCain voted to override the presidential veto of legislation that would establish a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. In 1997, McCain similarly voted to establish a repository at the Mountain. McCain voted yes on a similar bill in 1996.

MCCAIN SUPPORTS NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008 McCain Promised To Build 45 New Nuclear Reactors By 2030. At a campaign event inMissouri, McCain championed nuclear power as pivotal to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. McCain said, "So, if I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America.

MCCAIN SUPPORTS NUCLEAR WASTE DUMPING AND OPPOSES RENEWABLES INCENTIVES US Newswire [Democratic National Committee - John McCain's Energy Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Waste for Nevada http://newsblaze.com/story/2008062505130300002.pnw/topstory.html] June 25, 2008 Senator McCain's plan forNevada can be summed up in four words: fewer jobs, more waste," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "Maybe Senator McCain thinks shipping more nuclear waste toNevada will only have a 'psychological' impact on the state, but voters are right to be wonder why McCain has repeatedly said 'yes' to Yucca Mountain, but 'no' to incentives for renewable energy and green jobs. Instead of joining President Bush and the oil industry in working to end the moratorium on offshore drilling, John McCain should join Democrats in offering real ideas for breaking America's dependence on foreign oil."

492

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- CONGRESS

Congress has assigned nuclear power a high priority in terms of funding TDN.com, 7-15-08, Yucca Mountain stalling only delays inevitable nuclear power push, http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/07/16/editorial/doc487bd23399ca7163372651.txt An emerging political consensus on the need to control greenhouse gas emissions and concern about the nations dependence on costly foreign oil have prompted the Bush administration and Congress to give nuclear energy a new look. President Bush made the construction of new nuclear power plants a priority of his second term and, more recently, Congress voted to provide almost $1 billion for various nuclear energy programs.

493

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PUBLIC/MCCAIN

The public and McCain have both flipped against Obamatheyre in support of nuclear now Kenneth E. Feltman, 7-5-08, ETalkingHead, Can Obama Pay the Pump Price?, http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/can-obama-pay-the-pump-price-2008-07-05.html Obama must listen. He is a target and an ally of the anti-nuke, anti-drilling crowd. He has a problem because as good as the alternative energy advocates make solar power, wind power and ethanol sound, those energy sources have problems, too. Nobody thinks that solar and wind power can replace petroleum anytime soon. Ethanol is questioned by an ever-growing number of people. For the near future at least, we are stuck with oil. Into this debate strode Republican Candidate John McCain. He seized the energy issue by modifying his position and letting his opponent attack him. Obama accused McCain of a flip-flop. In politics, Obama may soon learn, it's only a flip-flop if the public has not already flipped. The public has flipped and McCain has, too. The energy crisis is the first issue to differentiate the two candidates since Obama locked up the Democratic nomination and McCain has outmaneuvered Obama. McCain now advocates offshore oil drilling. President Bush's decision to press the issue in Congress puts the Democrats in the position of advocating the wear-your-sweater policies that made Jimmy Carter unpopular.

494

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

McCain is proposing a plan involving the installation of 45 new nuclear plants over the country Brian Goldsmith, CBS News, 7-11-08, Interview with Steve Forbes, Steve Forbes: McCain Isnt Bush, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/10/politics/politicalplayers/main4250114.shtml There's lots of gas out there. And Senator McCain's nuclear program of 45 new plants in this country over the next 20 years, would go a long ways to increasing our production of electricity without relying on oil. The technology on the nuclear power is there. Japan has done it, France has done it. So it's just a matter of will in this country to do the same thing. And by the way, both the offshore exploration and production, and the nuclear program, would create nearly a million new jobs, high skilled, high paid jobs, in both of those sectors.

495

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- OBAMA/MCCAIN

Both presidential candidates see nuclear power future source of energy David Kestenbaum, NPR, 7-21-08, Nuclear Power a Thorny Issue for Candidates, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92690120
Nuclear power doesn't usually make for an applause line in a stump speech, but it has come up on the campaign trail. Both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain see it as a way to combat climate change, though they've sometimes chosen their words with care. Of the two, McCain is the most comfortable with the topic. As a Navy pilot, he landed on aircraft carriers, which today are essentially floating nuclear-powered cities. McCain calls nuclear "one of the cleanest, safest and most reliable energy sources on Earth." "If we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful, powerful ally in that cause," he said in a May speech. McCain's enthusiasm for nuclear has put him in unusual territory for a Republican: He's been praising the French, who generate 80 percent of their power from nuclear. Obama's position is also somewhat unusual for a Democrat: He thinks nuclear power might be a good idea. The question came up during an early Democratic primary debate.

496

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS

Congress hasnt allowed a new power plan to be built in years Pete du Pont, Wall Street Journal, 7-23-08, The Opposite of Progress, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121675870122574633.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The most important example is continued blockage of access to America's energy resources. No new nuclear power plants have been permitted in decades; no new oil refineries; no additional drilling off the coast of Alaska, California, Florida or parts of the Gulf of Mexico where there are huge amounts of useable energy; and continuing opposition to building liquefied natural gas facilities.

497

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

McCain endorses nuclear power while Obama opposes
Bumiller, 08 (International Herald Tribune, McCain urges building 45 new nuclear plants Elisabeth Bumiller, Published: June 19, 2008 http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/america/19mccain.php Accesed on: 6/24/08) // neg DV
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri: Senator John

McCain said Wednesday that he wanted 45 new nuclear reactors to be built in the United

States by 2030,

a goal that he called "as difficult as it is necessary." In his third straight day of campaign speechmaking about energy and $4-a-gallon gasoline, the presumptive Republican nominee told the crowd at a town hall-style meeting at Missouri State University that he saw nuclear power as a clean, safe alternative to conventional sources of energy that emit greenhouse gases. He said his ultimate goal was 100 new nuclear plants. McCain has long promoted nuclear reactors, but Wednesday was the first time that he specified the number of plants he envisioned. Currently, there are 104 reactors in the country supplying some 20 percent of the electricity consumed. No new nuclear power plant has been built in the United States since the 1970s. "China, Russia and India are all planning to build more than a hundred new power plants among them in the coming decades," McCain said in this pocket of Missouri that is reliably Republican. "Across Europe, there are 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. And if all of these nations can find a way to carry out great goals in energy policy, then I assure you that the United States is more than equal to the challenge." Although there has been a shift in opinion in the industry and among some environmentalists toward more nuclear power it is clean and far safer than at the time of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 most environmentalists are skeptical of the latest claims by its advocates. They also contend that no utility will put its own money into building a plant unless the U.S. government lavishly subsidizes it. Today in Americas

Obama

campaign accuses McCain aide of exploiting terror fears

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief domestic policy adviser, said

U.S. envoy to Albania linked to cover-up of Afghan arms deal High-technology brain drain takes heavy toll on U.S. military projects "Wall Street won't invest in these plants because they are too expensive and unreliable, so Senator McCain wants to shower the nuclear industry with billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts," said Daniel Weiss, who heads the global warming program at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group.

McCain arrived at the number 45 as a goal consistent with his desire to expand nuclear power, "but not so large as to be infeasible given permitting and construction times."

498

THE FORT PLTX

NUC LICENSING POP- MCCAIN

McCain will reject any nuclear bill that doesnt include an expedited licensing provision Bradford Plumber, The New Republic, 7-16-08, http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/07/16/do-nukeshave-a-bright-future-maybe-not.aspx Of course, one way Congress could give nuclear a boost would be to expedite the licensing process for new plants, but Romm argues against this, too, saying the "economic and safety risks are too high." I'd imagine this point will be a lot more controversialMcCain, for instance, opposes any cap-and-trade bill that doesn't have a provision for expedited licensing. I'm not sure how big a brawl this could be, although even if the licensing process was changed, the costs alone still make it unlikely that nuclear will play more than a relatively small role (say, 10 percent) in a future low-carbon diet.

499

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS

Democrats have empirically blocked legislation increasing ease of nuclear power reprocessing JR Dieckmann, The Conservative Voice, 7-5-08, The Irrationality of Demofuel, http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/33007.html For 30 years Republicans have been trying to achieve energy independence by expanding oil production to keep up with growing fuel demands, and allow licensing of new nuclear power plants to keep up with growing energy needs. In every case, these efforts have been blocked by Democrats in Congress. To borrow a phrase from Al Gore, "The debate is over." This is fact, not "consensus." You only have to check the congressional record to see the proof. While the American population has increased by 50 million people, Democrats have not allowed our energy resources to keep pace, putting us at the mercy of OPEC. This is an indisputable fact.

500

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- REPS

GOP support nuclear power Inside FERC 11-8-2004, p. lexis Democrats "will rally like hell" to keep the majority from trying to move the energy bill in the lame duck session, said one industry source. If that happens, Republicans "will be back with a vengeance next year with more of their agenda," including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and support for fossil and nuclear power. GOP supports reviving the nuclear industry Petroleum Economist 12-3-2004 The strengthened Republic position will also ensure the prioritisation in 2005 of the passage of an energy bill aimed at boosting domestic oil and gas production. The wider Republican energy agenda includes expanding drilling in the Rocky Mountain area considered a more difficult proposal to put through Congress than ANWR; reviving nuclear power; promoting use of renewable energy through tax breaks; and averting the electricity shortages that have plagued parts of the US in the past five years.

501

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- FLORIDA

Florida voters love nuclear power Greenwire, 5/12/08
Nuclear power has regained popularity as an alternative to other polluting sources of power generation like coal-fired plants. But the high cost of building facilities could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers and reignite debate about the technology's suitability to meet growing energy needs. Part of the high cost is bad luck. Plants are being proposed at a time when basic building materials like cement, steel and copper are also seeing record prices. A growing shortage of skilled labor and a shrunken supplier network also have affected the cost. More than 100 nuclear reactors are currently operating in the United States, and most are highly profitable, a recent development. A new project planned in Florida could see a price tag of $6 billion to $9 billion for each of two reactors. "The overwhelming feeling in Florida is that nuclear power is popular and that's why it's going to go ahead," said J.R. Kelly, head of the Office of Public Counsel in Tallahassee, which represents consumers. "Our main concern is the tremendous cost."

502

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MICHIGAN

Nuclear power overwhelmingly popular in Michigan States News service, 3/10/08 (Released by University of Michigan)
Rabe co-authored the survey of 1,001 adults with Christopher Borick, professor of political science at Muhlenberg College in Pennsylvania. It is the first known survey of its kind to ask Michigan residents about global warming issues and climate policy options. These issues have moved rapidly from the back-burner toward the front of the American public policy agenda. Michiganians say increasing global temperatures constitutes a serious problem, which mirrors the nation's perception. Eight out of 10 respondents indicated the Earth's climate has become warmer over the past four decades. Among residents in the 18-29 age group, 63 percent the highest percentage among three age segments considered global warming a very serious mater. Other findings: - The residents believe that both the federal and state governments have a responsibility to take actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. - Residents were evenly split between support and opposition for a policy that would allow businesses to buy and sell carbon permits. - They strongly support government requirements for vehicle manufacturers to increase the fuel efficiency of their products. - A substantial majority of Michigan residents support increased use of nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

503

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS

FEDERAL PROMOTION OF NUCLEAR POWER WOULD BE CONTENTIOUS AND ELICIT AN OVERWHELMING BACKLASH. ZINK, PH.D., P.E., CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, 2003

( John C., Power Engineering, Clouds Threaten Nuclear Parade, July, http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_article/181463/6/ARTCL/none/none/1/Clouds-Threaten-Nuclear-Parade/, accessed 7-8-08)
With regard to new plant construction, there is also a downside to the positive news. The proposed National Energy Policy provides for financial assistance to those companies willing to exercise the new and untried regulatory process, but the legislation is stalled in Congress. Furthermore, as the country approaches the 2004 elections it becomes less likely that politicians will be willing to tackle such a politically contentious issue. The four participating companies have now made it clear that simply applying for--and receiving--a Construction Permit does not mean they are committed to actually begin new plant construction. Many feel the financial risks are still too great. According to press reports, Progress Energy CEO Bill Cavanaugh told the recent stockholders' meeting that he doesn't think new nuclear power plants will be built in the U.S. until companies receive environmental tax credits for nuclear plants' low emissions. This is what it will take to make companies confident that nuclear operating costs will be competitive with natural gas plants. In spite of the remarkable technical and political progress the Department of Energy has made on the Yucca Mountain highlevel nuclear waste repository, that battle is not yet over. The state of Nevada continues to search for peripheral ways to render the project unworkable, from denying water rights to imposing onerous transportation restrictions. Hopefully, these subterfuges will not fatally wound the project. Nevertheless, they increase costs and create uncertainty. They postpone the day when the nuclear industry has a firm answer to the standard anti-nuclear objection that there is no way to dispose of nuclear waste. The potential for vociferous opposition to all things nuclear stands behind the hesitancy on the part of utility executives and the lack of courage on the part of many politicians. Although the mass media have not given much exposure to anti-nuclear causes of-late, it wouldn't take much for nuclear controversies to again become lead stories on television and in newspapers. The antinuclear propaganda continues unabated just below the surface of the general public's consciousness level: there is no shortage of antinuclear Web sites, and nearly all environmental groups remain rabidly anti-nuclear. Industry executives recognize that it would take only one new nuclear power plant project to bring all of this opposition to the forefront.

504

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- OBAMA

OBAMA OPPOSES EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR POWER Cash, Platts, 6-24-8

(Cathy, Platts.com, Obama and McCain clash over energy policy, http://www.platts.com/Electric %20Power/Resources/News%20Features/uselection08/index.xml, accessed 6-29-8)
Obama, in his speech, also blasted McCain's recent proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030, saying the US has still not "figured out a way to story the waste in a safe and effective manner." Obama's comments were well received in Nevada, where most residents oppose the Energy Department's plan to entomb nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site about 100 miles North of Las Vegas.

505

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS

DEMOCRATS OPPOSE NUCLEAR POWER- EMPIRICALLY PROVEN LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL, EDITORIAL, 2008

(Democrats and gasoline prices, April 28, Pg. 6B)

To march us in their preferred direction and curry favor with radical environmentalists, Democrats have for years killed any new effort to develop our own domestic oil resources or to build green- friendly nuclear power plants. This nation has not built a new oil refinery in 25 years. Democrats dislike nuclear power Foster Electric Report 11-10-2004 For one thing, Republicans in the Senate will still be five votes short of the 60 needed to overcome the Democrat filibuster, and all the members of both the House and Senate energy-related committees retained their seats. Moreover, Democratic leaders have consistently opposed several H.R. 6 provisions that GOP members are unlikely to abandon, including those providing incentives for the further development of nuclear power.

Democratics oppose the plan Nucleonics Week 1-15-2004 Democratic presidential candidates hold varying degrees of support for the U.S. nuclear power industry, according to their campaigns' responses to a survey on energy policy and related environmental issues. The candidates are overwhelmingly against building new nuclear plants, providing federal loan guarantees for new nuclear construction, or establishing a spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Democrats oppose nuclear loan guarantees Nucleonics Week 1-15-2004 All the Democratic candidates opposed federal loan guarantees for new nuclear construction, with Dean and Lieberman citing a Congressional Budget Office report that estimated the loans' default risk at above 50%.

506

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- CONGRESS

POLITICIANS RELUCTANT TO BE BRANDED AS PRO-NUCLEAR ENERGY SALVADOR, PROFESSOR OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, 2005

(Amos, Energy: A Historical Perspective and 21st Century Forecast, Pg. 96)
Beck (1999) summarizes the situation by stating: The worldwide future of nuclear energy is a highly disputed subject; one side is certain that nuclear energy will have to expand in the next century to meet energy demand, whereas the other side is equally certain that this energy form is too dangerous and uneconomical to be of long-term use. He adds: Both sides believe so strongly in the logic of their case that they see the opposition as either illogical or deliberately untruthful, and therefore, not worth talking toBoth parties try to convince the public that their position is correct, and it has to be said that in most democratic countries the antinuclear lobbies seem to have been more convincing. Although this has convinced only a few governments to withdraw form the production of nuclear energy, it has made politicians reluctant to be seen to support nuclear power, so that decisions that are needed, such as the destination of nuclear waste, are not made; thus, the industry is drifting.

507

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER (REPROCESS) POP- CONGRESS

Reprocessing received large amounts of funding from Congress Miles A. Pomper, Arms Control Association, July 08, Bushs Nuclear Reprocessing Plan Under Fire, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_07-08/BushNuclear.asp In marking up annual spending legislation for fiscal year 2009, which begins Oct. 1, the House Appropriations Committee June 25 approved only $120 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), technology research related to GNEP. In February, the administration had requested $302 million. (See ACT, March 2008.) In its accompanying report, the committee called for these funds to be spent only for research into the reduction of waste streams related to reprocessing, the design of safeguard measures for reprocessing facilities, and research on reducing the proliferation risk of reprocessing. As it did last year, it prohibited any funds from being spent on the design or construction of proposed facilities.

508

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER (DRY CASK) POP- CONGRESS

Congress supports the dry cask storage system Paul Gunter, NIRS, 9-7-06, U.S. Representative Edward Markey and other Members of Congress Join with Safe Energy Groups in Call for Hardened Storage of On-Site Reactor Waste., http://www.nirs.org/press/09-07-2006/1 To mark the five-year commemoration of the September 11 attacks, members of Congress led by Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Edward Markey joined with the nationwide Nuclear Security Coalition to call for prompt actions to secure the U.S. commercial power reactors' nuclear waste storage system. He proposed implementation of a storage technology known as "Hardened On-Site Storage" (HOSS) by which over-filled atomic waste storage pools at reactor sites are off-loaded into dry storage casks that have been "hardened" against terrorist attack. A 14-minute compact disc presentation entitled "Nuclear Spent Fuel & Homeland Security: the Case for Hardened Storage" was hand delivered to every member of Congress in support of the joint call. Rep. Edward Markey, a senior member of the House Homeland Security and Energy and Commerce Committees, said, "The NRC engages in faith-based nuclear security planning, choosing to ignore expert report after expert report, and instead relying on the voluntary half-measures of the profit-conscious nuclear industry."

509

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER (REPROCESS) UNPOP- CONGRESS

POLITICAL OPPOSITION TO SITING REPROCESSING PLANTS COPLAN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW PACE UNIVERSITY, 2006

(Karl S., The Intercivilizational Inequities Of Nuclear Power Weighed Against the Intergenerational Inequities of Carbon Based Energy, Fordham Environmental Law Review, Volume: 17, Pg. 240)
Congress has obliged the DOE proposal by providing $ 50 million for research and development of these reprocessing technologies. Nevertheless, experts on nuclear waste reprocessing remain skeptical. Success for this reprocessing proposal would require the siting and construction of a series of reprocessing facilities and nearby dedicated nuclear power plants. The new power plants would have to be near to the reprocessing facilities because the plutonium fuel would be so dangerous that it could not safely be transported. Siting such facilities is likely to be a political impossibility.

510

THE FORT PLTX

GNEP UNPOP- CONGRESS

Congress has repeatedly denied adequate funds to the GNEP Michael L. Green, The Charleston Gazette, 7-11-08, iStockAnalyst, http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2390067&title=Nuclear_Power_Recycling.html President Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - known as GNEP - calls for construction of a recycling plant that would be ready by 2020. GNEP's goal is to encourage the use of nuclear power worldwide, while preventing the loss or misuse of plutonium. The idea is to persuade countries that are planning to build their first nuclear power plants to forego recycling and instead obtain reactor fuel from the United States or a few other countries that already possess recycling capability. The administration has asked Congress for funds needed to establish a nuclear recycling center, which would include the recycling plant, an advanced "fast reactor" capable of using the recycled fuel and a research facility to develop new technologies for recycling that would make it more difficult to convert plutonium into a bomb. But Congress has provided little money for GNEP. Some members of the House and Senate are reluctant to acknowledge that nuclear non-proliferation safeguards are more likely to be observed by countries if they're given an opportunity to obtain nuclear fuel for electricity production. The House and Senate have continually slashed GNEP funding Miles A. Pomper, Arms Control Association, July 08, Bushs Nuclear Reprocessing Plan Under Fire, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_07-08/BushNuclear.asp The Bush administrations Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program, already under siege, has been further imperiled after recent action by several congressional panels and an April report from the congressional watchdog agency. Administration officials have claimed that GNEP, which seeks to develop new nuclear technologies and new international nuclear fuel arrangements, will cut nuclear waste and decrease the risk that an anticipated growth in the use of nuclear energy worldwide could spur nuclear proliferation. Critics assert that the administrations course would exacerbate the proliferation risks posed by the spread of spent fuel reprocessing technology, be prohibitively expensive, and fail to significantly ease waste disposal challenges without any certainty that the claimed technologies will ever be developed. Current reprocessing technologies yield pure or nearly pure plutonium that can be used in fuel for nuclear reactors or as fissile material for nuclear weapons. GNEP proposes to build facilities that would retain other elements in the spent fuel along with the plutonium, making it less attractive for weapons production than pure plutonium. Critics note that this fuel would still not be as proliferation resistant as when the spent fuel is left intact. Congress has largely sided with the critics and last year sharply cut the administrations proposed budget for the program and restricted it to research. (See ACT, January/February 2008.) Capitol Hill appears to be on a similar course this year.

511

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS NUCLEAR ENERGY INCENTIVES Garber, U.S. News & World Report, 7-21-8

(Kent, US News & World Report, Protecting Mother Nature, Pg. 29 Vol. 145 No. 2)
McCain, though he tends to oppose incentives for alternative energy, does not discount them altogether. He is a strong proponent of nuclear energy, which receives about $4 billion a year in federal support. He recently called for the construction of 45 nuclear reactors by 2030, perhaps as many as 100. "Clearly, Senator McCain sees nuclear power as one of the most critical parts of his energy policy, given that it produces 20 percent of electricity in the U.S. and doesn't produce greenhouse gases," says Scott Peterson of the Nuclear Energy Institute. Obama says nuclear energy deserves "a place at the table," but he has embraced it more hesitantly, citing unresolved concerns about waste disposal.

512

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

Plan means McCain wins voters support nuclear power LA Times, 7/27/08. CAMPAIGN '08: RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE;Obama's next stop: the home front; Analysts from both parties agree his trip was a success, but a good week does not make a campaign. Lexis Polls conducted while Obama was on the road produced conflicting results. As of Saturday, the Gallup daily tracking poll found that the Illinois senator had gained a few points and led Arizona Sen. John McCain, Enhanced Coverage Linking Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, nationwide, 48% to 41%. A Fox News Fox News Poll released Thursday found that Obama had slipped a few points and had a statistically insignificant edge over McCain, 41% to 40%. Neither poll suggested a change in the problem Obama's trip sought to address: Though most voters prefer the Democrat's positions on the economy and other domestic issues, most believe McCain is more qualified to be president, especially as a leader on national security. Obamaaides said they intend to turn their campaign's focus back toward the domestic economy beginning Monday. On the plane trip back to the U.S., the candidate told reporters that he is planning a meeting that day that will include former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and investor Warren Buffett. The candidate plans to spend today in his hometown of Chicago after his roughly 16,000-mile journey and later in the week visit Missouri, Iowa and Florida. The economy is still "paramount," Axelrod said Friday at Paris' Elysee Palace, the French president's residence. McCain, too, is seeking to build an advantage on a domestic issue: energy. Polls show that most voters agree with McCain's positions in favor of increased drilling for offshore oil and building nuclear power plants. On Saturday, McCain criticized Obama for opposing both.

513

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

Plan makes McCain win voters want nuclear power because of high energy prices The Washington Times, 7/25/08. Push for drilling benefits McCain, Lexis Sen.John McCain's efforts to tap voter discontent over soaring energy prices have helped produce his first poll lead in Colorado, a near dead-heat in Michigan and improving numbers in two other states. The Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday showed Mr. McCain topping Democratic presidential opponent Sen.Barack Obama 46 percent to 44 percent in Colorado, after trailing by five percentage points a month ago. The results surprised politicos in the state, many of whom were predicting that Mr. Obama would win Colorado as part of the Democratic Party's recent successes here. "We'd gotten into this mind-set that 2008 would be a good year for the Democrats," said Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli. "What this shows is that issues still matter." The fortunes are changing as Mr. McCain and Republicans on Capitol Hill make a concerted effort to overcome Democratic hurdles to expand U.S. areas open to drilling and as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama focuses on foreign relations in a trip overseas. "The results show increased support for additional drilling, which McCain supports and Obama opposes," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Conn., which conducted the survey with the Wall Street Journal and Washingtonpost.com. "Roughly one in 10 voters say they have changed their minds and now favor drilling because of the jump in energy prices," he said. "They support Obama, but with voters saying that the energy issue is now more important to their presidential vote than is the war in Iraq, this group represents an opportunity for the Republican." In Colorado, Republicans have had to hand Democrats control of both legislative houses, the governor's office and a U.S. Senate seat since 2004. Still, Republicans consider it essential for Mr. McCain to win a state that supported President Bush in 2004. Campaign ads here tout Mr. McCain's support for a portfolio of energy strategies, including wind and solar power, as well as expanded drilling offshore. The Republican candidate continues to oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. "John McCain has presented a plan for more domestic oil drilling, a gas tax suspension, more nuclear power, and Barack Obama has been stubbornly opposed. Voters know that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem," campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said. Mr. Obama has called for energy alternatives, conservation and restrictions on speculation. "The energy issue was working for the Democrats until April, when gas prices hit $4 [per gallon], and then people began looking at traditional sources like oil, which Republicans dominate," said Mr. Ciruli. "When you're paying $4 and looking at $5, you start to get very realistic about your energy sources."

514

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

Nuclear power is winning supporters for McCain in battleground states voters want lower energy prices T.W. Budig, ECM Capitol reporter, 7/28/08. CAPITOL VIEWS: Republicans may be saying right things to voters weary of high energy prices, http://hometownsource.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=5833&Itemid=29 Republicans may be saying the right things to voters weary of high energy prices. Last week a Quinnipiac University/Wall Street Journal/washingtonpost.com poll showed that Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain had closed the gap between himself and Sen. Barack Obama in four battleground states capturing a lead in Colorado. In Minnesota the poll, which is generally credited as valid, shows Obama and McCain basically tied. The pollsters opined that McCains traction might be the result of his energy policies he has argued for a federal gas tax holiday or temporary suspension, for one thing. They reported that in Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin and Michigan, voters viewed energy policy as more important than the Iraq War and supported expanded oil drilling offshore and in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. It might be wondered, assuming the pollsters are correct, to what degree the Energy as King mentality is impacting other races. For instance, 6th Congressional District Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, recently returned from an energy tour she took with other Republican freshman that had her admiring the caribou as they huddled around oil pipes in Alaska. Bachmann is gung ho on expanding drilling onto the outer continental shelf, drilling in the Alaskan wildlife refuge, building more nuclear power plants, developing wind and solar power the latter two she views as the future of energy. Eyes Alaskan oil fields Shes fond of pointing to the remoteness of the distant Alaskan oil fields, saying for several months of the years the region is cloaked in darkness. No one will see the drilling anyway, perhaps. In what may cause some of the old congressional bulls to perk up their ears, Bachmann blames Congress for the countrys energy woes. With publics approval of Congress abysmally low, its not likely she meets too many people who say shes wrong, wrong, wrong, on that. This may not hold true with other views. Bachmanns proposing legislation to speed up the application process for energy exploration and even proposed a special court to handle lawsuits arising from disputes over the Alaskan oil fields. Shes not interested in Congress requiring automobile manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency standards, arguing Congress should not play a role in the decision. Democrats use similar language as Republicans when talking energy. Still, they dont necessarily give the impression they have the kids in the backyard sniffing around the hostas for the scent of oil. Sixth Congressional District DFL candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg like other Democrats talks of full exploration of existing leased lands before expanding the hunt for oil and gas to new areas. He styled Bachmanns proposal for expediting the approval process for permits as unMinnesotan power slamming things through before the locals can have a say. Franken reserves judgment U.S. Senate DFL candidate Al Franken, asked by a reporter not long ago about building additional nuclear power plants, Franken indicated he wanted to reserve judgment. He expressed concern over the storage of nuclear waste. I would like to see us make more progress on the issue of storage I really would, said Franken. McCain, for one, harbors no such doubts. He wants America to build 45 new nuclear power plants the waste can be handled, he argues. U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-St. Paul, also has indicated supports for additional nuclear power plants. Democrats like depicting Big Oil as oozing renegade profits and filling the campaign chests of Republicans with dollars reeking of the need for something the furnace, anyway to be cleaned. But the Quinnipiac University poll suggests that Republicans might be telling a more compelling energy story than at least Sen. Obama in four key battleground states. Voters may be looking for an energy policy matching the way many Midwesterners seem to like to drive floor it.

515

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- REPS

REPUBLICANS LOVE NUCLEAR POWER ENERGY BILL PROVES KRIZ, NATIONAL JOURNAL ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER, 2003

(Margaret, Still Radioactive, National Journal, Volume: 35, October 4)

With private investors unwilling to open their wallets to stoke the nuclear power industry, Uncle Sam is under pressure to loosen his purse strings. Leading congressional Republicans want the energy bill now in conference committee to include sweeteners for the nuclear power industry's potential investors. The comprehensive energy strategy is expected to include an energyproduction tax credit and other tax incentives to build nuclear plants in the future. The bill currently includes $1.1 billion for the creation of an experimental nuclear reactor that would produce electricity and hydrogen. Congress is also expected to use the energy measure to extend the Price-Anderson Act, which caps at $10 billion the industry's liability in the event of a nuclear accident or attack. Nuclear power advocates are pushing for language that would require the Energy Department to study the feasibility of building commercial reactors on federal property.

516

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- CONGRESS

CONGRESS SUPPORTS LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NUCLEAR POWER POPE, THE OREGONIAN, 2007

(Charles, Climate change reheats interest in nuclear power, December 30, Pg. A1)
Nuclear's resurgence came into clear view as Congress struggled to pass a giant spending bill before Christmas. Included in the bill was $20.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear energy. That's twice as much as was given for renewable energy.

517

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvanians support nuclear power more than ever even after 3 mile island Christian Science Monitor, 7/31/08. McCain gains ground in three battleground states, http://features.csmonitor.com/monitorbreakfast/2008/07/31/mccain-gains-ground-in-three-battleground-states/ For decades, the three states polled Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida have together formed a critical bellwether for presidential elections. No one has been elected since John Kennedy without carrying two of the three. Odds are that will be the case this year, but the pollsters dont rule out that Obama could lose two of the three but make up the electoral votes by carrying newly competitive states in the Mountain West, such as Colorado and New Mexico. In the latest Quinnipiac Swing State poll, McCains progress came among white, working-class voters, the demographic where Obamas main primary opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was stronger and which has proved difficult for Obama to win over. The poll also showed that energy could be a winning issue for McCain. Among all the economic issues weighing heavily on voters minds, energy and gasoline prices rank No. 1. In Pennsylvania, 60 percent of residents favor offshore drilling, which is McCains position. And almost 30 years after the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident, near Harrisburg, Penn., Pennsylvanians are increasingly amenable to the building of new nuclear power plants. Pennsylvania residents now favor building new nuclear power plants 58 to 32, and that includes a shift of about 8 percent of the people who used to oppose nuclear plants, said Clay Richards, another associate director of the poll.

518

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MICHIGAN

Michigan voters support nuclear power plants high gas prices Detroit News, Lansing Bureau, 7/23/08. Mich. voters back offshore drilling, nukes, http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080723/POLITICS01/807230381/1022 Discouraged Michiganians, who believe the sputtering U.S. economy is worsening, say gas prices are cutting into their lifestyles and they're willing to embrace a broad array of solutions, including offshore drilling, to bring fuel costs down, according to a Detroit News/WXYZ-Action News poll. Seven in 10 voters said soaring fuel costs -- at $4.09 a gallon for regular this week -- are having a significant or major impact on their lives and are swaying two-thirds of residents to back offshore drilling in Florida, California and other states with ocean shorelines. Nearly half said they'd even favor drilling for oil and gas along the Great Lakes. "Offshore oil drilling is something that should be done. We should have gone into that small area of Alaska to get the oil there," said survey participant Pat McGoldrick, 44, a robotics engineer from Waterford. Also, 60 percent of poll respondents support additional nuclear plants to provide electricity. The U.S. hasn't licensed a new nuclear power plant in three decades. John Sally, a 53-year-old Internal Revenue Service agent from Wyandotte, agrees that the nation has to think nuclear. "Nuclear power is comparatively safe and should be considered as an alternative. It's nice to say let's stick with coal, but look at the hazards associated with coal," said Sally, whose father, uncle and grandfather died of black lung disease after working in the coal mines in Pennsylvania. Michigan voters support nuclear power - agree with McCains nuclear program Detroit News, 7/22/08. Michigan voters say high gas prices cramp their style, favor more drilling, http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080722/METRO/807220422/1361 Discouraged Michiganians, who believe the sputtering U.S. economy is worsening, say gas prices are cutting into their lifestyles and they're willing to embrace a broad array of solutions including offshore drilling to bring fuel costs down, according to a Detroit News/WXYZ-Action News poll. Seven in 10 voters said soaring fuel costs -- at $4.09 a gallon for regular this week -- are having a significant or major impact on their lives and are swaying two-thirds of residents to back offshore drilling in Florida, California and other states with ocean shorelines. Nearly half said they'd even favor drilling for oil and gas along the Great Lakes. "Offshore oil drilling is something that should be done. We should have gone into that small area of Alaska to get the oil there," said survey participant Pat McGoldrick, 44, a robotics engineer from Waterford. Also, 60 percent of poll respondents support additional nuclear plants to provide electricity. The U.S. hasn't licensed a new nuclear power plant in three decades. John Sally, a 53-year-old Internal Revenue Service agent from Wyandotte, agrees that the nation has to think nuclear. "Nuclear power is comparatively safe and should be considered as an alternative. It's nice to say let's stick with coal, but look at the hazards associated with coal," said Sally, whose father, uncle and grandfather died of black lung disease after working in the coal mines in Pennsylvania. President Bush this month called on Congress to lift a moratorium that has blocked drilling in the country's coastal waters and the Alaska wildlife refuge to step up domestic oil supply. However, experts say it could take years for production to begin. Michiganians believe Democrat Barack Obama, by a 42-35 spread, is better able to handle rising energy prices than Republican John McCain. But they generally agree with McCain's positions to allow offshore drilling and push for 45 more nuclear power plants to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Obama opposes offshore drilling and said nuclear plant safety would have to be addressed before building new plants.

519

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP-CONGRESS/PUBLIC

NUCLEAR POWER HAS STRONG POLITICAL SUPPORT IN WASHINGTON AND WITH THE PUBLIC WORTHINGTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR U.S. ENERGY ASSOCIATION, 2003

(Barry K., Where does the future of energy lie?, The World and I, Volume: 18, November 1, Pg. 32)
A new political imperative is emerging from the grass roots up. Americans are indicating that they in fact do want affordable, abundant, and reliable supplies of energy. They want the environment protected. They also want prices to be competitive, so that manufacturers can afford to keep production lines running and not export U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas. Reassessing the consequences, intended and unintended, of actions (and inaction) is necessary and has been under way. A reappraisal of policy options has led to some coalitions unheard of only a few years ago. It started at WSS
In September 2002, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was held in Johannesburg, South Africa, under the auspices of the United Nations. WSSD highlighted the reality that upward of one-third of the earth's population has no access to commercial supplies of energy. Two billion people were doomed to repeated generations of poverty. Zero chance exists for these individuals to grasp even the lowest rung on the ladder of economic and social progress. Development experts, social and political scientists, international policymakers, and environmentalists came to realize that only conventional energy technology and greatly expanded fossil fuel utilization could meaningfully address the plight that energy poverty presented. Even nuclear power was recognized for the contribution it could provide. As reality has set in, the experts have come to understand that a future based exclusively on renewable energy will shortchange the world's poor. Recognition that the global energy future must be based on low-cost rather than high-cost fuels, on abundance, not scarcity, and on widespread availability, not a scenario of plentifulness for some and zero availability for others, has led to a major rethinking of energy options. These truths, coupled with an ever-growing global awareness of the value in protecting our natural ecosystems, present a new road map. Advanced technological developments will allow future generations to utilize the world's abundant supplies of uranium and fossil fuels. New nuclear technologies offer the promise of flexibility, modularity, and duplication of design not previously fully exploited. Nuclear power remains the single largest emission-free energy supply today. About 20 percent of electricity in the United States is generated by nuclear power. Steady improvements in plant efficiency, availability, and reliability have contributed to meeting America's growing energy needs. Numerous nuclear plants are low-cost producers, contributing to economic vitality and stability of electricity prices. Countless American jobs in manufacturing have been preserved by the availability of safe, reliable, and economical kilowatt-hours of nuclear generation.

Public opinion polls indicate strong support for nuclear power. A clear majority of Americans support both operation of existing plants and use of advanced technology for new plants. Political support for nuclear continues to grow. Policymakers believe the nuclear power option provides energy security from import disruptions. Individuals and groups concerned about global climate change see nuclear energy as "carbon free." Nuclear power and building new hydroelectric facilities are the only options currently available to provide energy in high volumes to an energystarved world without increasing atmospheric emissions.

520

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER= OBAMA WIN

Obama gets credit for the plan a. Hes the only one who can vote for it hes a senator b. Obama would jump on board Emi Kolawole; 7-9-08; Newsweek Report, http://www.newsweek.com/id/145160
A new ad from the Republican National Committee claims Barack Obama proposes "no new solutions" for the energy and climate crises. In fact, the Illinois senator has proposed $150 billion in spending over 10 years for biofuels, plug-in hybrids, low-emission coal plants and the rapid commercialization of other new, clean energy technologies. The ad also recycles the misleading claim that Obama has said "no" to nuclear. Obama said he is open to nuclear if it is clean and safe. And while the ad correctly says that Obama is against lifting the gas tax and against more production "here at home" (read: lifting the federal ban on more offshore oil drilling), neither of those steps is likely to be a "solution" for the problems at hand. The ad's most misleading claim is that Obama proposes "no new solutions" to the intertwined climate change and energy crises. In fact, Obama has an entire Web page dedicated to his proposals for the future of energy policy. One is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan that would go toward clean coal technology; further development of plug-in hybrid cars; and commercialization of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. The RNC and McCain may not like all of Obama's ideas, just as Obama may not support all of McCain's, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. While McCain recently proposed The Lexington Project, which includes spending $2 billion annually toward clean coal technology advancement, McCain doesn't have a plan comparable to Obama's in scale of spending. In addition, Obama's spending proposal predates McCain's Lexington Project by over six months.s

521

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER =MCCAIN LOOSE/UNPOP-NEVADA

Plan makes McCain lose Nevada, a critical swing state voters opposed to Yucca mountain Jason Leopold, Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire, 6/18/08. McCain's Nuclear Power Policy Identical to Bush Administration's, The Public Record, http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php? view=article&amp;id=144%3Amccains-nuclear-power-policy-identical-to-bushadministrations&amp;option=com_content&amp;Itemid=16 The Department of Energy, the agency largely responsible for monitoring nuclear waste, submitted an application to the NRC to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, the site of a former nuclear testing ground in Nevada, where the agency has proposed burying the waste deep underground. McCain supports the idea of storing waste in Yucca Mountain, a move opposed by a majority of Nevadans and one that could cost the Arizona Republican a critical swing state.

522

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- PELOSI

. PELOSI LIKES NUCLEAR POWER DESPITE TRADITIONAL PARTY LINES

Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, Nuclear power enters global warming debate, http://72.14.205.104/search? q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power050907.pdf+nuclear+power+ %2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power should play a role in any federal attack on climate change. Congress, with added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week, appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill against their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer Bay Area Democrats with similar political views are on opposite sides. Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but now holds a different view. "I think it has to be on the table," she said. Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take the lead in writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil fuels to nuclear power was "trading one problem for another."

523

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- DEMS

. DEMS HAVE SHIFTED SUPPORT TO NUKE POWER USE IT TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING

Richard Simon, LA Times Staff Writer, 7-9-07, Nuclear power enters global warming debate, http://72.14.205.104/search? q=cache:TCe5i1yzPzIJ:www.yuccamountain.org/temp_news/nuclear_power050907.pdf+nuclear+power+ %2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us
But attitudes toward nuclear power may be shifting as a consensus emerges that greenhouse gases are causing the world to heat up. The Supreme Court added its voice, criticizing the Bush administration for not acting to control greenhouse gases. Max Schulz, a former Energy Department staff member who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, said the ruling could help "spur the revival of nuclear power." Page 2 And congressional Democratic leaders have made passage of global warming legislation a priority. "I've never been a fan of nuclear energy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has called it expensive and risky. "But reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to take a look at it."

524

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- CONGRESS

NUCLEAR ENERGY FACES STRONG OPPOSITION IN CONGRESS REID LEADS THE PACK

Edmonton Sun, June 25, 2008, Obama slams McCain over nuclear plans, lexis [BB]
Opposition in the U.S. Congress to the Yucca Mountain waste site is among the hurdles it faces. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is among those who oppose it. McCain, an Arizona senator, backs the project, while Obama is against it. Asked his views on nuclear power in Jacksonville, Florida on Friday, Obama said, "I think that nuclear power should be in the mix when it comes to energy." But he added, "I don't think it's our optimal energy source because we haven't figured out how to store the waste safely or recycle the waste." Obama supports using federal research and development dollars to explore whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for reuse. LEGISLATION GIVING NUCLEAR POWER FREE-REIGN ON WASTE IS HEAVILY UNPOPULAR

Utah Chronicle, 2/16/07, Legislature has no solution for EnergySolutions University Wire, lexis [BB]
EnergySolutions has strongly pushed an unpopular bill, Senate Bill 155, through legislation. The bill alleviates legislative and gubernatorial responsibility for the oversight of the nuclear waste company. This gives America's largest nuclear-waste corporation free reign on its property in Tooele -- with some trigger measures, such as any proposed "hotter" levels of waste, or property annex, that would bring the company back under legislative scrutiny.

525

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- NEVADA

Nuclear disposal unpopular in Nevada LA Times, 6/25/08, Santa Barbara fumes over drill plan; Even some of McCain's supporters berate him for backing the idea of offshore oil exploration, lexis [BB]
Obama also lambasted McCain for wanting to open more federal land to oil exploration when energy companies are not fully exploiting the drilling rights they already have. And he cited McCain's support for storing nuclear waste at the remote Nevada desert site of Yucca Mountain, a highly unpopular proposal in the political battleground state, where the Arizona senator will campaign today.

526

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- REPS

STRONG ADMINISTRATION AND REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION TO NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE

DOE Superfund Report July 31, 2006, SENATE INTERIM NUCLEAR STORAGE PLAN FACES OPPOSITION FROM HOUSE, lexis [BB]
Key members of a House committee and the Bush administration are strongly opposing a bipartisan Senate plan to allow interim storage of nuclear waste, saying it could detract from the long-delayed Yucca Mountain permanent repository project. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) called the interim storage plan the "the stupidest idea I've ever heard of," during a July 19 Yucca Mountain oversight hearing adding, "If I see Sen. [Pete] Domenici [(R-NM), one of the sponsors of the plan], I'll tell him that." Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the minority leader and a strong opponent of Yucca Mountain, agreed recently on legislation that authorizes the Department of Energy (DOE) to designate a temporary site for consolidated storage of spent fuel within a state or region. The Senate plan would provide DOE $10 million to begin looking at sites where it could temporarily store the waste for 25 years but, according to an Appropriations Committee source, more funding may be required in the future for construction once a site is selected. The interim storage plan is already attracting criticism from environmentalists and the state of Nevada since it was introduced earlier this month by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Environmentalists say the plan would create additional risks by increasing the number of times the waste would have to be physically moved (Superfund Report, July 3, p16). Members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee said during the July 19 Yucca Mountain oversight hearing they feared backlash from states chosen to host interim storage facilities would further complicate the debate over nuclear waste storage and ultimately lead to further delays at the planned permanent repository.

527

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- DEMS

DEMOCRATS OPPOSE NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE YUCCA PROVES

McClatchy News, third-largest newspaper company in the United States, 12/18/06. "With Democrats in Control, Yucca Project May Be Doomed," http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1218-04.htm A few years ago, the plan to store the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada seemed all but certain. Congress decided that highly radioactive waste from commercial nuclear-power plants, which takes centuries to decay, needed to be stored underground. And it reaffirmed by wide margins in 2002 that Yucca Mountain, 100 miles from Las Vegas, was the place to build such a repository. The repository site, located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada on the edge of the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, was approved by Congress and President George W. Bush in 2002. (Photo courtesy Energy Department) But now that's being rethought, for a variety of reasons. And the Nov. 7 elections, which propelled Democrats into power on Capitol Hill, are likely to accelerate that thinking despite strong bipartisan support for Yucca Mountain in Congress. * The incoming majority leader of the Senate, Nevadan Harry Reid, long has pledged that Yucca Mountain will never open. The incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Californian Barbara Boxer, agrees. Both voted against the Yucca repository. They think that nuclear waste should stay right where it is - at the nation's nuclear power plants - at least until better waste technology comes along.

528

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- DEMS

EMPIRICALLY PROVEN LIEBERMAN DIDNT ADD WASTE DISPOSAL TO THE LIEBERMAN-WARNER AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF OPPOSITION

CongressNow, 5/22/08, Lieberman, Warner Prepare Nuclear Amendment to Cap-And-Trade Bill, lexis [BB] Lieberman, Warner Prepare Nuclear Amendment to Cap-And-Trade Bill CongressNow May 22, 2008
"We want to put together a nuclear energy support amendment that will be relatively noncontroversial," Lieberman said this afternoon following a press conference in which religious leaders expressed support for their bill, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191). The bill creates a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade scheme to reduce global warming. The measure is currently silent on nuclear power, but the addition of nuclear provisions could help attract Republican votes. While some Democrats are wary of nuclear energy, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said she would not oppose the amendment as long as it did not weaken nuclear safety requirements or the ability of local communities to weigh in on sitting and permitting issues. She said she was confident that Lieberman and Warner would not include language that she objected to, and she acknowledged that the amendment would likely be approved. "By the way, they have the votes," she noted. Lieberman said the amendment would be "broader" than provisions in an earlier climate bill he sponsored with presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), and would address a shortage of specialized nuclear workers in the United States. Lieberman said that he and Warner would "take a look at" provisions to expand federal loan guarantees opposed by environmentalists. He said of possible nuclear waste disposal provisions, "That's a mountain we haven't climbed yet." Easing nuclear waste disposal standards at the proposed nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would prove extremely controversial and would attract the fierce opposition of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Other potential domestic sites could be problematic as well. Warner said the amendment would "lay the foundation" for other Senators to build on. On Tuesday, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said he would offer a nuclear amendment similar to one he proposed at the full committee markup in December that does not address nuclear waste. Warner said he expected additional Republican nuclear amendments. Boxer, who will manage the debate, said that a substitute bill containing a new cost-containment mechanism and tax title may be released later today. The new bill also details trillions of dollars of aid geared toward helping consumers, workers and industry transition to a new carbon-constrained economy. Warner said the changes to the bill should "go a long way" toward addressing Republican concerns that the bill's mandates would wreak economic havoc in the absence of significant technological advances for reducing emissions. Lieberman estimated that the bill's supporters have more than 50 votes lined up and "are within reach" of the 60 needed for passage. However, he acknowledged that reaching the 60-vote threshold will be a challenge. Boxer said the floor debate is still currently scheduled to begin June 2, but could slip if Reid deems it necessary because of other pressing business.

529

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- DEMS

DEMOCRATS STRONGLY OPPOSE MAJOR DEMOCRATS LEAD THE OPPOSITION

New Mexican, 8/4/06, DOMENICI BACKS YUCCA MOUNTAIN PLANS The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico)
U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has been asked by President Bush's administration to push a measure that would raise the amount of waste that could be stored there; ease environmental and regulatory requirements and give the U.S. Department of Energy more authority to manage the area. He also met fierce resistance from some Democrats who said the measure would limit environmental regulations. "Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of a comprehensive spent nuclear-fuel-management strategy for this country," Domenici told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday. Yucca Mountain is located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nev. The nuclear waste -- spent nuclear fuel from power plants and high-level military waste -- would be stored 1,000 feet underground on federally owned land. About 20 percent of the country's electricity today comes from 104 nuclear reactors, a Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist has said. And waste generated from those plants keeps piling up in temporary storage facilities, Domenici said. By 2010, Domenici said, there will be more than 75,000 tons of spent fuel and other waste in places all over the country. The department has a goal to open the facility by 2017, but would only send 3,000 tons a year to the site. "If everything goes perfectly," he said, "it will take over 30 years -- longer than I have been in the Senate -- to eliminate the existing backlog of spent fuel." U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., is opposed to the bill Domenici is carrying. "This bill would limit safety and environmental reviews of the Yucca Mountain project, and for that reason, I do not support it," Bingaman said in a statement. U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, expressed strong opposition to the bill. "Everyone knows that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste dump is a dying beast," Reid said." And it should die -- it is a scientifically unsound project that would needlessly threaten the public health and safety of Americans everywhere. "Even the administration knows this is a flawed, dangerous project. We can see this in the bill. It tells you everything that the administration knows is wrong with Yucca. They have sent us this legislation to change the rules, break the law and prevent states from protecting their citizens."

530

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- REID

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER REID HAS BEEN BLOCKING YUCCA MOUNTAIN DOESN'T WANT IT OPENED IN HIS HOME STATE

The White House Bulletin, 3/6/07. "Energy Department Seeks To Spur Construction Of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Site," Lexis The Department of Energy proposed legislation today to spur construction of a national nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who hails from Nevada, promised to block such a bill. Department's Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Edward Sproat said that without new funding, the goal of opening the site by 2017 cannot be met. Sproat also said that if the capacity designated for the Yucca Mountain site is not increased from the current 77,000 tons, he would recommend to Congress that a second waste dump be built. Reid said, "This is just the department's latest attempt to breathe life into this dying beast, and it will fail. I will continue to leverage my leadership position to prevent the dump from ever being built."
REID IS A HATER WANTS YUCCA DEAD AND CONTROLS THE AGENDA.

Elaine Hiruo and Daniel Whitten, Washington Nuclear Fuels, 11/20/2006, Reid might slow Yucca Mt. program, but project will survive, sources say, Vol. 31 No. 24, L/N Though opponents of DOE's repository project at Yucca Mountain, Nevada have likened Senator Harry Reid's rise to majority leader next year to the final nail in the project's coffin, nuclear industry officials and other supporters have countered that Reid could likely slow, not kill, the program. Reid has been an unrelenting opponent of DOE's plans to dispose of 70,000 metric tons of utility spent fuel and defense high-level waste in his home state of Nevada, maintaining that the repository DOE plans to build at Yucca Mountain is neither safe nor wanted. As majority leader come January, Reid's responsibilities will include gatekeeper to the Senate floor as he decides which bills move to the floor for a vote. Last week, after he was elected to the top Democratic post in the Senate, Reid stressed in a press statement that he remains committed "to putting Nevada's priorities at the top of the list" and that, more than ever, he'll leverage his leadership position "to keep Nevada from becoming the nation's nuclear dumping ground."
MAJORITY LEADER REID HATES THE PLAN HE'LL DO ALL HE CAN TO BLOCK IT.

Avery Palmer and Coral Davenport, CQ Staff, 6/3/2008, Nuclear Energy Votes Could Doom Senate Climate Change Legislation, Print Edition Energy, L/N Nuclear Energy Votes Could Doom Senate Climate Change Legislation James M. Inhofe , R-Okla., may offer an amendment that incorporates his bill (S 2551) to overhaul the licensing process for Yucca Mountain. But Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., a longstanding opponent of the project, rejected such legislation out of hand: "Yucca Mountain is panting for air. It's as close to being dead as any piece of any legislation can be." Even if the Senate does not pass climate legislation this year, the role of nuclear power will be a key question for the next Congress. "I don't see how you can possibly get to a world of significantly reduced CO2 emissions without more nuclear," said Dr. Victor Reis, a senior adviser to the Energy secretary who has served in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. "But I don't see any way this can get through this Congress, so I am speaking in terms of the challenge for the next administration."

531

THE FORT PLTX

NUC WASTE UNPOP- ENVIRO

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC GROUPS HATE THE PLAN.

Tom Usher, former CEO of US steel, 6/6/2008, AMENDMENTS PROMOTING MORE SUBSIDIES FOR NUCLEAR POWER IN PROPOSED CLIMATE BILL WASHINGTON A number of environmental, science and public health groups today commended the Senate for beginning debate on the most comprehensive legislation to date addressing climate change and urged lawmakers to reject adding nuclear power subsidies to the bill. According to the organizations, the Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 3036) -- sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.) and John Warner (R-Va.) potentially offers an opportunity to put our nation on the path to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. But they voiced concerns that some senators will attempt to attach amendments to the bill that would give the nuclear power industry billions of dollars in unwarranted taxpayer subsidies at the expense of conservation, efficiency and renewable energy sources that could be deployed much more quickly. (See below for a list of the organizations and contact information.) The groups pointed out that the nuclear industry already has benefited from more than $100 billion in taxpayer subsidies over the past half century, billions more in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (more than $13 billion), and even more in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (more than $18 billion in federal loan guarantees). Despite this support, just this week Moody's Investor Service stated that a utility's credit rating could be undermined by building a new nuclear power plant due to the skyrocketing cost of new reactors. The price tag for just one reactor could exceed $7,000 a kilowatt, far more than many preferable low-carbon options.

532

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- PELOSI

Pelosi hates nuclear power has consistently refused votes on it Merle Good, writer and publisher of Good Books, 7/24/08. Lowering the bar, Letter to the Editor, Contra Costa Times, http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_9980170 Pelosi appears to be an arrogant, spiteful, condescending woman with all the wit and charm of a gnat. She has not shown a shred of leadership and is more inclined to obstruct the President at every turn rather than try to work with him to find solutions to our nation's problems. As an example she has refused to allow any votes to come to the floor of the House that would allow a vote on offshore drilling or in ANWAR or in allowing alternative energy measures such as exploring nuclear power because she knows these measures would pass. She is, in effect, saying to the American people, "drop dead". Where are people like Sam Rayburn and Tip O'Neil when we need them?

533

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER UNPOP- DEMS

Democrats oppose Plan afraid it will undermine warming bill Gail Russell Chaddock, staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, 6-5-08, Economic risks imperil climate bill, l/n Many Democrats are wary of risking the support of some environmental groups over nuclear power. Majority leader Reid, a longtime opponent of a nuclear-waste dump in his state, charged that DOE filed the application with only about 35 percent of the work done to justify it. "Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be," he said on Tuesday. Republicans say they are holding out for a wide-ranging debate over the global-warming bill, including many amendments. Democratic leaders worry that some amendments, including those over nuclear power, could undermine support for the bill.

534

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- DOMENICI

DOMENICI SUPPORTS NUCLEAR POWER KRIZ, NATIONAL JOURNAL ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER, 2003

(Margaret, Still Radioactive, National Journal, Volume: 35, October 4)

Earlier this year, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., advocated offering $15 billion in loan guarantees to encourage companies to build a new generation of nuclear plants. He also sought to require the federal government to help guarantee the profitability of new reactors by signing long-term contracts to buy power at premium prices. He dropped those proposals, however, at the insistence of fiscally conservative Republicans. DOMENICI AND INDUSTRY AGREE ON LOAN GUARANTEES. (Steven Mufson 12-8-07 Another Push for Nuclear Power http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121701886.html) Domenici nd the nuclear industry have argued that big loan guarantees are needed to kick-start the nuclear reactor construction business, which has been largely dormant for 20 years. Because the plants are expensive, large guarantees are needed, they say. Jim Owen of the Edison Electric Institute adds: "If you look at climate change, getting some new nuclear reactors into the ground is going to have to be part of any reasonable calculus."

535

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- REPS

THE GOP ARE STRONG NUCLEAR POWER SUPPORTERS LEWIS, ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, 2004

(Sunny, Environment, what environment?, September 1, http://www.alternet.org/environment/19759, accessed 7-9-08)

Nuclear power finds ample support in the Republican camp. It "provides America with affordable, emissions-free energy. We believe nuclear power can help reduce our dependence on foreign energy and play an invaluable role in addressing global climate change." President Bush "supports construction of new nuclear power plants through the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, and continues to move forward on creating an environmentally sound nuclear waste repository," the platform says, referring to the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada for which the Department of Energy is preparing a license application.

536

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

McCain would boost nuke power
News-Leader2008 (McCain talks energy at MSU: GOP presidential candidate calls for new nuclear plants, 6/19/08, http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/NEWS06/806190366/1015) Republican presidential candidate John McCain is pushing for new nuclear power plants, carbon sequestration "clean coal" technology and off-shore oil drilling to meet the country's energy needs for the next generation. "One obstacle to expanding our nuclear-powered electricity is the mind-sest of those who prefer to buy time and hope that our energy problems will somehow solve themselves," McCain said in his opening remarks at a town hall meeting at Missouri State University. McCain pledged to "set this nation on a course to building 45 new (nuclear) reactors by the year 2030" if voters chose him over Democratic Sen. Barack Obama in November to be America's 44th president.

537

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- REPS

GOP SUPPORTS RELIANCE ON NUCLEAR POWER

NEI, 2000 (Nuclear Energy Institute, News Release, Republican Platform Recognizes Nuclear Energys Environmental Benefits, July 30) The Republican National Convention today voted on its national platform, which recognizes nuclear energy, along with hydro power, as America's leading sources of clean electricity. The platform language states: "The current administration has turned its back on the two sources that produce virtually all the nation's emission-free power: nuclear and hydro, the sources for nearly 30 percent of the country's electricity. Because of cumbersome federal relicensing of hydro and nuclear operations, we face the prospect of increasing emissions and dirtier air." The following is a statement by John Kane, vice president of governmental affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, in response to the platform language.

538

THE FORT PLTX

NUC POWER POP- MCCAIN

McCain supports Nuclear power-would get credit Environmental News, 08 (7/2/08, McCain and Obama's Plans to Combat Climate Change, http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37541) Nuclear power has got to be part of any real meaningful effort that we are going to make to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, said McCain. It has got to be part of the equation. McCain encourages development of nuclear power. Despite his view that the market should correct itself, in May of 2005 and January of 2007, McCain and Lieberman introduced climate change bills that would give billions in subsidies to the nuclear industry. McCain proposes the construction of 45 new
nuclear reactors by 2030.

McCain gets credit for nuclear energy Reuters, 08 (FACTBOX: U.S. presidential candidates on nuclear energy, 5/6/08, http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0643937020080506?sp=true) Nuclear energy is part of each of the 2008 presidential candidates' energy platforms. Republican John McCain supports it wholeheartedly, while Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton express reservations. Below are aspects of each candidate's position on nuclear power as outlined in their energy polices. MCCAIN, an Arizona senator - believes the United States can use nuclear power more extensively to reduce its reliance on petroleum imported from unstable regions and unfriendly sources. believes that fuel sources that are alternatives to oil should be selected by competitive markets but thinks nuclear power has faced an uneven playing field because of political opposition. - supports the Yucca Mountain storage facility and believes opposition to it is harmful to U.S. interests. - is open to advances in technology that permit greater safe reprocessing of spent fuel. He believes improvements in reactor design have reduced concerns over safe operation, but that
there must be vigilance in all aspects of operation, transportation of waste, and storage of waste.

539

THE FORT PLTX

*****************OCEAN POWER***************

540

THE FORT PLTX

OCEAN ENERGY POP-KLEIN

Representative Ron Klein supports ocean-based renewable energy. Cox News, 7 (Larry Lipman, Ocean Energy Moving Towards Reality, Congress told, 5-7-2007,
http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/content/reporters/stories/2007/05/07/BC_OCEAN_ENERGY_ADV07_COX.html) // THK

The briefing was sponsored by Rep. Ron Klein, D-Fla., who said he wanted to show that there are several alternative energy sources Congress should consider besides ethanol, which is now lawmakers' primary focus. Klein said he hopes Congress will provide money for other energy research and development projects that would be selected on a competitive basis. Among the bills he is co-sponsoring is one that would earmark $50 million a year for 10 years for ocean-based energy research.

541

THE FORT PLTX

OCEAN ENERGY POP- DEMS

THE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT RENEWABLE OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007 PROVES Platts Inside Energy With Federal Lands. 6/18/2007. Geothermal, Ocean Bills Advance. <http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4241828798&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4241835001&cis b=22_T4241835000&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7989&docNo=1> The House Science and Technology Committee last week advanced two bills to bolster research and development of technologies for renewable geothermal and ocean energy sources. The committee approved the Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 2304) and the Marine Renewable Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 2313) for consideration by the full House. The committee is uncertain as to how the bills will proceed on the House floor, but they could fall in line with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's push to send a broad energy bill to the House floor by the July 4 holiday. H.R. 2304, introduced by Democratic Representative Jerry McNerney of California, would authorize $90 million a year for fiscal 2008 through 2012 to support the research and development of geothermal energy technologies. The bill was approved after adopting seven amendments, including one which authorized an additional $10 million to support geothermal energy production from oil and gas fields and the production and recovery of energy from geopressured resources. Representative Darlene Hooley, Democrat-Oregon, introduced the ocean energy bill, which would authorize $50 million a year for fiscal 2008 through 2012 for R&D on converting renewable ocean resources, such as waves, currents and tidal flows, into electricity. An amendment to emphasize the need for the development of corrosive-resistant materials was adopted, along with six other amendments. THE DEMOCRATS PUSH RENEWABLE OCEAN ENERGY THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007 PROVE AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES. 6/9/2007. Public Policy Report For 9 July, 2007. <http://www.aibs.org/public-policy-reports/2007_07_09.html#003795> House Committee Approves Alternative Fuels Legislation.The House Science and Technology Committee approved four energy bills 27 June 2007 by voice vote. The Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007 (H.R. 906), if passed, establishes several goals. The Act would create an interagency committee on global change, an interagency working group on climate and other global change data management, a U.S. Global Change Research Program to identify vulnerabilities in the United States with regard to global change, a national plan for global change research, and an Office of Global Change Research Information. The Department of Energy Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 2007 (H.R. 1933) would amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to further carbon capture and storage research and development. The Biofuels Research and Development Act (H.R. 2773) and the Solar Research and Development Act (H.R. 2774) would support research and development of alternative energy sources, biofuels and solar energy, respectively. Following Science and Technology Committee approval of the legislation, Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) said: This Committee has responded with an aggressive energy agenda. In addition to the four bills we passed today, this Committee will contribute an even dozen pieces of legislation that make a vital contribution to the national strategy to put the U.S., and the world, on track to a more sustainable future. All four measures will likely be rolled into a House energy bill that Democratic leaders hope to pass following the Independence Day recess. Bills likely to be included in the House package are: -HR 364, Establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) -HR 906, The Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007 -HR 1933, The Carbon Capture and Storage Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 2007 -HR 2304, The Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 -HR 2313, The Marine Renewable Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 -HR 2773, The Biofuels Research and Development Enhancement Act -HR 2774, The Solar Energy Research and Advancement Act of 2007

542

THE FORT PLTX

OCEAN ENERGY UNPOP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN IS AGAINST GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN CLEAN WATER RULES. The Philadelphia Inquirer. July 20, 2008 Sunday. CITY-D Edition. Energy and the Environment. Lexis McCain sometimes has spoken like an environmentalist, especially regarding land conservation. But he doesn't think much of government's role in enforcing standards, and he has worked to undermine clean-water rules and health legislation. As for energy, McCain backs alternatives, but not government investment, except where "clean"-coal technology and nuclear power are concerned. (The latter enjoys $4 billion a year of federal subsidies now.) For the alternatives, he prefers business incentives.

543

THE FORT PLTX

DEEP OCEAN POWER POP- PUBLIC

Ocean Energy and other alternate energies are popular with the American people. Boehner House of Representatives minority leader 2008 (John, 6-20-2008, Federal News Service, Weekly Press Conference with House Minority Leader John
Boehner, Lexis-Nexis) // THK

Earlier this week, a

poll was released showing that two-thirds of the American people support deep-ocean energy exploration. A Gallup poll from last month shows that more than 60 percent support more energy production here in America, whether on remote federal lands or far off our coasts. I think it's clear the American people want more production of American-made energy, but this Democrat
Congress is standing in the way of it.

544

THE FORT PLTX

DEEP OCEAN POWER UNPOP- DEMS

Democrats oppose deep-ocean energy exploration Boehner House of Representatives minority leader 2008 (John, 6-20-2008, Federal News Service, Weekly Press Conference with House Minority Leader John Boehner, Lexis-Nexis) // THK
<REP. BOEHNER: Another week here in Congress is about to end without any action from this Democrat Congress that's presiding over $4 gasoline. This week, the Democratic leadership had time to schedule a vote on the interstate sale and movement of monkeys, but no time to deal with the serious energy shortage that we have in our country. I just can't help but ask, what are the congressional Democrats afraid of? You know, what is it they fear in allowing the Congress of the United States, the House of Representatives, to vote on common- sense energy solutions? Earlier this week, a poll was released showing that two-thirds of the American people support deep-ocean energy exploration. A Gallup poll from last month shows that more than 60 percent support more energy production here in America, whether on remote federal lands or far off our coasts. I think it's clear the American people want more production of American-made energy, but this Democrat Congress is standing in the way of it.

Yesterday, Congressman John Peterson was prepared to offer an amendment in the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee markup to open up oil and gas exploration in deep ocean energy zones. But knowing that they would have a hard time actually stopping the amendment, they abruptly canceled their subcommittee markup. And it's interesting, the Senate subcommittee canceled next week's Interior Appropriations Subcommittee markup as well.
I just -- it keeps begging the same question. What is it they're afraid of? Are they afraid that their members are actually going to vote to allow us to have more American-made energy?>

545

THE FORT PLTX

OTEC UNPOP
OTEC is unpopular with everyone: its too risky for investors, too ugly for citizens, and too unpopular for the federal government. HPR 6 (Harvard Political Review, Becca Freidman, An Alternate Source Heats Up: Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, 2-26-2006, http://hprsite.squarespace.com/an-alternative-source-heats-up) // THK
Although it may seem like an environmentalists fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend that the technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the United States already exists in the form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and promising prototypes, however, a lack of governmental support and the need for risky capital investment have stalled OTEC in its research and development phase. Regardless, oceanic energy experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a Department of Energy team on oceanic energy, told the HPR, If we can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC] for electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000 times more than the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any other renewable energy that can compare with OTEC. The Science of OTEC French physicist George Claude first explored the science of OTEC in the early twentieth century, and he built an experimental design in 1929. Unfortunately for Claude, the high maintenance needed for an OTEC plant, especially given the frequency of storms in tropical ocean climates, caused him to abandon the project. Nevertheless, his work demonstrated that the difference in temperature between the surface layer and the depths of the ocean was enough to generate power, using the warmer water as the heat source and the cooler water as a heat sink. OTEC takes warm water and pressurizes it so that it becomes steam, then uses the steam to power a turbine which creates power, and completes the cycle by using the cold water to return the steam to its liquid state. Huge Capital, Huge Risks Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination

of cost and risk is OTECs main liability. Weve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and its still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty, Penney told the HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to rust or corrode or fill up with seaweed or mud, according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman. Even environmentalists have impeded OTECs development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution. Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc.,
a company specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, Years ago in the 80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC and it was abandonedThat philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government funding for this. Its not the

Democrats, not the Republicans. Its a bureaucratic issue.

546

THE FORT PLTX

OTEC UNPOP
PUBLICS PERCEPTION OF THE PLAN IS BAD

Becca Friedman, staff writer, 2/26/06, An Alternative Source Heats Up: Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, Harvard Political Review Online
Even environmentalists have impeded OTECs development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution.

ALTHOUGH OTEC COULD PROVIDE AN INFINITE POWER SOURCE FOR THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, THERE IS A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT, HALTING THE PROJECT AT THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE.

Becca FREEDMAN, Political Analyst for Harvard Political Review, An Alternative Source Heats Up, Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. Harvard Political Review June 12, 2008 http://hprsite.squarespace.com/an-alternative-source-heats-up/ //wndiT.
Although it may seem like an environmentalists fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend that the technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the United States already exists in the form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and promising prototypes, however, a lack of governmental support and the need for risky capital investment have stalled OTEC in its research and development phase. Regardless, oceanic energy experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a Department of Energy team on oceanic energy, told the HPR, If we can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC] for electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000 times more than the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any other renewable energy that can compare with OTEC.

PLAN IS UNPOPULARENVIRONMENTALISTS, THE FEDS PROVE.

Becca FREEDMAN, Political Analyst for Harvard Political Review, An Alternative Source Heats Up, Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. Harvard Political Review June 12, 2008 http://hprsite.squarespace.com/an-alternative-source-heats-up/ //wndiT.
Even environmentalists have impeded OTECs development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution. Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, Years ago in the 80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC and it was abandonedThat philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government funding for this. Its not the Democrats, not the Republicans. Its a bureaucratic issue.

547

THE FORT PLTX

***********OFFSHORE DRILLING************

548

THE FORT PLTX

OFFSHORE DRILLING POP- PUBLIC

PUBLIC SUPPORTS EXPANSION OF OFFSHORE DRILLING Goldman, CNNMoney.com staff writer, 7-3-8

(David, CNNMoney.com, Environmental support dips vs. economy poll, Americans still say protection should be a priority over the economy, but nearly three in four favor offshore drilling, http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/03/news/economy/environment_economy/index.htm?cnn=yes, accessed 7-3-8)
Still, 73%

of the more than 1,000 Americans surveyed from June 26 to 29 said they favored an expansion of offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in protected U.S. waters, even though many environmental advocacy groups have deemed offshore drilling as hazardous to the environment.

549

THE FORT PLTX

*************OIL D**********

550

THE FORT PLTX

OIL D UNPOP
Oil independence unpopular Financial Times, A lack of enough political will Energy independence has become a standard catch-phrase but progress has been slow, writes Caroline Daniel, 2006 The most striking line this year from President George W. Bush's state of the union speech was when the former oil and gas executive warned: "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." He pledged to break this addiction "through technology," not constraining demand, promising to increase research into alternative energy. He looked to a future of fuel using "wood chips and stalks or switch grass," and set the goal of these technologies helping to "replace more than 75 per cent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025". Mr Bush remains committed to the goal of "energy independence" and considers it a critical part of his legacy. The goal has gained traction by the high price of oil. It has been adopted by an eclectic political coalition of environmentalists, foreign policy hawks concerned about dependence on hostile countries and trade unionists keen to create jobs in ethanol manufacturingThe phrase has become a standard catchphrase in congressional stump speeches. So far this year in the US press the phrase has been invoked 5,399 times, compared with 3,371 in 2005 and 1,245 in 2003. Yet there remains deep scepticism about whether the goal of reducing dependence on oil is realistic. Mr Bush has not repeated his pledge about Middle East oil. "There is not going to be energy independence.We are not going to turn away from the Middle East and we will be dependent as long as we have internal combustion engines and aviation," said James Schlesinger, former secretary of energy, at the launch of a Council on Foreign Relations report on the national security consequences of oil dependency. Even so, there has been some change in the US this year towards embracing new technologies. The first area is ethanol. Although ethanol only generates 70 per cent of the fuel power of gasoline, interest in it has been aided by the governmentmandated switch this year from adding the chemical methyltertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) amid concerns about its toxicity, to instead adding 10 per cent a gallon of ethanol. The number of corn-based ethanol plants in the US has risen to 100 with another 40 planned, aided by tax credits and state grants. Grants have also aided the growth of E85 fuelling sites for cars that can run on 85 per cent ethanol fuel. The National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (NEVC) says there are more than 1,000 E85 sites, up from 100 in January 2003. "This is a new era for America's farmers, ranchers and rural communities as they seize this moment where opportunity meets need, and where American ingenuity breaks a century-long addiction to oil," Mike Johanns, agriculture secretary told a renewable energy conference this month. Ethanol consumption is estimated to be 4.6bn gallons this year, up 25 per cent on last year and from 1.6bn gallons in 2000. The US agriculture department forecasts annual ethanol production could rise to 10bn gallons or more in 2010. Yet the idea that ethanol could replace gasoline is still a long way off. The 5bn gallons is still just 3 per cent of the Dollars 140bn of gallons of gasoline consumed each year.

551

THE FORT PLTX

OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC
GAS PRICES CAUSING SUICIDE, BEHAVIORAL CHANGE, AND INDECENT STANDARD OF LIFE Kathie Griffiths, columnist: Telegraph and Argus, 7-18-2008 Dismay at big gas price rise fears 74.125.45.104/search? q=cache:LVcyarMUv9cJ:www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/3217642.Dismay_at_big_gas_price_rise_fears/ +Dismay+at+big+gas+price+rise+fears&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a A stark warning that gas prices could soar by 70 per cent and then remain high for the foreseeable future, has been greeted with dismay. Gas and electricity watchdog Energywatch has called on the Government to act now to reduce the pressure on wholesale gas prices and force the industry to deliver affordable energy for Britains poorest consumers after the warning came in an independent report commissioned by Centrica, which owns British Gas. Bradford debt counselling group Christians Against Poverty, said increasing numb- ers of people in the city were struggling against fast-rising fuel and food prices. The charitys spokesman Jonathan Priestley said the effects were already shocking and figures collected over the past six months showed that before turning to CAP for advice 22 per cent of them had been missing meals to repay debt, 37 per cent had either considered or attempted suicide and 25 per cent had experienced marital or partnership problems because of money owed. Increasing numbers of people are struggling to balance their books, its a massive problem and has desperate knock-on effects, he said. Pensioners campaigner Audrey Raistrick, of Neighbourly Care Bradford, said gas price rises would force people to live an indecent standard of life. And the 81-year-old, who has lobbied the Government for years calling for improved state pensions, said for some elderly people, the increases could be fatal. We need a good basic state pension. The cost of living goes up but our pension doesnt. How do they expect us to live or dont they? What are they trying to do to us, freeze us to death? We have worked all our lives and expect a decent way of life because of that, but what do we get? This isnt decent, its indecent. The Government has to step in and help us. Jake Ulrich, managing director of Centrica Energy, also predicted from the report that people would have to change their habits to deal with higher energy prices. He said: I do think we will see people change their behaviour. I think people will use less energy and I hate to go back to the Jimmy Carter days in the US but maybe its two jumpers instead of one. He added: I think people will change the temperature they keep the house, theyll be more cognisant of energy waste, theyll buy better appliances. But this could be dangerous for the elderly, according to Keith Nathan, Age Concerns chief officer in Bradford. He said: Theres a plethora of worrying issues that would come from this if people turn their heating down or if they dont use appliances for a while then switch them back on, they might not be serviced adequately or maintained to a safe level this could put people in real difficulty and danger. Energywatchs chief executive, Allan Asher, said: The Government is right to say that the link to oil is a cause of the problems but wrong to say there is nothing that can be done. He added: The Government can and should act in those areas where it can have an effect. Action to cut the price link between gas and oil, action to improve the working of the domestic market, action to help those who can least afford to keep warm.

552

THE FORT PLTX

OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC
AMERICANS HATE HIGH GAS PRICES, THEIR PSYCHOLOGY FORCED TO CHANGE The New York Times, 5-24-2008, Oils rippling effects, p. 2, lexis BEHIND THE NEWS Ford cited higher gas prices and slowing sales, notably, sharply lower demand for large trucks and sport utility vehicles. General Motors and Chrysler have also been hurt by slumping demand for trucks and S.U.V.'s as the industry heads toward what may be its worst sales year in more than a decade. Ford's chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, said the shift by consumers to smaller cars and crossovers appeared to be ''structural in nature,'' not a short-term reaction to fuel prices. ''We need to act now,'' he said. THE NEWS Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles in March than they did in March 2007, a drop of 4.3 percent, the steepest monthon-month decline since 1942, when record keeping began, the Transportation Department said. BEHIND THE NEWS Over all, gasoline demand in the United States has fallen sharply and is headed for its first annual decline in 17 years. A recent survey by AAA, the automobile club, found a rare year-on-year decline of 1 percent in the number of people planning to travel this summer. ''The psychology has changed,'' said one economic forecaster. ''People have recognized that prices are not going down and are adapting to higher energy costs. It's capitulation.''

553

OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC
PLAN POPULARFUEL PRICES LEAD TO TOLLS Addie Bradshaw, contributor to WGRZ [NBC], 8-1-2008, http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=59714&catid=13 High gas prices continue to wreak havoc not only on family budgets but state government as well. The New York State Thruway Authority said the amount of traffic decreased in June by five percent. It said that sets-up the state for a 1.5% overall decrease in Thruway drivers during the first part of the year. With fewer drivers meaning fewer dollars coming into toll booths, board member Donna Luh warned cutbacks can be expected. "Just some of the projects that were slated to be new construction projects--I think those will be looked at. Instead of new projects, let's repair what we have," Luh suggested. While many state agencies and authorities are looking for ways to save, Luh said the Thruway board has approved hiring a consulting company to help with the process. She said Volpe Transportation Center will be paid up to $250,000 for their services "Are there not board members who could come up with their own ideas and save the $250,000?" reporter Addie Bradshaw asked. "Well, we, you know, I'm new on the board. I think all of us are with them and can certainly come up ourselves with ideas," Luh replied. The Thruway Authority said the independent review is consistent with recommendations made by State Comptroller Thomas Dinapoli's recent audit. Luh said the more savings the board finds, the less likely the board would need additional toll increases. "I would hate to see toll increases. That's why I think this study will be interesting and I agree, too, with looking to see what other states are doing. We're not the only state--the only one's facing this," Luh said.

OIL D UNPOP-PUBLIC
IMMOBILIZATION KRISTI O'HARRAN, HERALD COLUMNIST 7-14, 2008, DON'T WANT TO GO THERE? BLAME HIGH GAS PRICES, HTTP://WWW.ENTERPRISENEWSPAPERS.COM/ARTICLE/20080714/NEWS01/796340574/0/ETPZONELT Say your special someone wants to drive to a chrysanthemum show in Puyallup. No can do, it costs too much for transportation. If your kids want to go to the beach in Edmonds and you are cleaning a closet in Maltby, simply say "Sorry kids, we have to watch our gas money." And a love story buff can halt trips to the movies to see action flicks, because the car is down to half a tank. See where I am going with this? Barbara Foster in Lake Stevens gets my drift. AMERICANS WANT BIOFUEL AND CONSIDER IT A KEY ISSUE CHEMICAL NEWS & INTELLIGENCE, 2-26-2008, US PUBLIC SUPPORTS ETHANOL SURVEY, P.LEXIS ORLANDO, Florida (ICIS news)--The US public is more sympathetic to the case for ethanol than the arguments against it, but the biofuels industry needs to pro-actively fill the knowledge gap before its opponents do, a pollster said on Tuesday. "The question is: 'Do we educate them, or does the other side educate them?' " said Peter Hart, chairman of [1]Hart Research Associates. An in-depth survey this month of 1,204 voters showed that when pressed, even the 29% who thought they knew a great deal about ethanol did not really know that much, Hart said. People in general "have no idea and no insight", he told the National Ethanol Conference in Orlando, Florida. However, when given prompts, voters were about two-to-one more attracted to the case for ethanol than they were to the arguments against it, a ratio that transcended political allegiances, geography and other such factors, Hart said. Energy issues were considered to be important by 75% of respondents, second only to the 83% rating for the war in Iraq and ahead of other prominent issues such as health insurance (74%) and home foreclosures (63%). When probed about energy issues, there was a strong awareness of a connection between US oil imports and both the 1990-91 war in the Mideast gulf and the ongoing conflict in Iraq, he said. The survey showed 51% preferred a scenario of the US inventing its way out of energy challenges, compared with 28% preferring energy conservation as the solution and only 17% wanting to exploit more domestic fossil fuel resources.

OIL D UNPOP- PUBLIC

Phasing out fossil fuels is bipartisan and has public support Environment Leader, 10/22/07, Survey: Most Americans Want To Phase Out Fossil Fuels, Phase In Alternative Sources, http://www.environmentalleader.com/2007/10/22/survey-most-americans-want-to-phaseout-fossil-fuels-phase-in-alternative-sources/ [BB] Americans may be addicted to coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels today, but a survey from the Opinion Research Corporation finds that that the public is ready to go cold turkey and put an end to its dependence on fossil fuels. More than four of five Americans - including 78 percent of Republicans, 92 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of Independents - agree with a national energy strategy based on a phasing in of new technologies and a phasing out of carbon based energy sources.

****************OIL SHALES**************

OIL SHALES POP-REPS

Republicans support tapping into oil shale resources to help make the U.S. energy independent. Putnam Chairman of the House Republican Conference - 8 (Adam, 5-21-2008, House Republicans Unveil Energy Plan, Real Solutions for American Families
http://www.gop.gov/c/journal_articles/view_article_content?groupId=1&articleId=1647&version=1.0) // THK

How Republican Solutions Will Fix It: Meeting Our Energy Needs with American Made Energy. The comprehensive House Republican plan will fund research and development of technologies and innovations which advance the use of renewable and domestically available energy sources, increase energy efficiency, and ease the environmental impacts of energy use.1) Increasing the Production of American-Made Energy in an Environmentally-Safe Way
a. Support actions that reduce Americas dependence on energy from unstable foreign governments and dictatorships by increasing environmentally-safe production of oil and natural gas in areas such as the arctic coastal plain and in deep ocean energy resources; and b. Promote unconventional fuels such as coal-to-liquids technology and recovering our vast oil shale reserves by: Increasing access for

environmentally responsible development of conventional and unconventional domestic oil and natural gas production; Providing coal-to-liquids financing and tax incentives; Advancing the commercialization of the nations two trillion barrel shale oil resource, 80 percent of which occurs on government-owned land in the West. This is enough to supply all of Americas needs for over two centuries.

************PATENTS**********

PATENTS KILL OBAMA

Congress move to protect big businesses will hurt Obama

Simon Lazarus, (public-policy counsel to the National Senior Citizens Law Center. ) 7/23/08 http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=will_congress_rebuff_the_supreme_courts_anti_consumer_activism
The Court's campaign against individual court enforcement of consumer, employee, retiree, and other statutory protections has been a secret hiding in plain sight for the last four decades. During that period, in which Republican presidents selected 12 Supreme Court justices and Democrats managed only two, business community advocates have repeatedly asked the Court to water down or neutralize laws enacted by progressive congressional majorities. More and more, conservative Supreme Court majorities have done just that, "Oftentimes," as Leahy said, "turning these laws on their heads, and making them protections for big business rather than ordinary citizens." In the last two Supreme Court terms, the National Chamber of Commerce participated in 29 cases (nearly one third of the 97 civil cases the Court decided in that period) and won 20 of them. The case of Maureen Kurtek, who testified before the Judiciary Committee on June 11, illustrates the senator's point. Ms. Kurtek is a 44 year old wife, mother, and former nurse who suffers from lupus, a chronic disease that attacks the immune system. Beginning in 1998, her lupus had been held at bay by three biannual treatments prescribed by her physician; each of the three $14,000 treatments was fully paid for by the insurer handling the employee benefit plan of her husband's employer. But in late 2002 her husband changed jobs, and the new employer's benefit provider, Capitol Blue Cross, balked. The insurer stonewalled her urgent requests to authorize a fourth treatment, insisting that the company was "investigating," though never once contacting her physician who had prescribed the treatment. After nearly three months, deterioration of Ms. Kurtek's immune system triggered septic shock and multiple organ failure, forcing her into emergency hospitalization. She barely survived, but not before she had suffered irreversible, gruesome injury. "I stand before you," she told the Committee, "with a tracheotomy scar on my neck, five amputated finger tips, and an amputated right foot where I still experience phantom pains." The Kurtek family went to court, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania rejected her suit. Reluctantly, the Third Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court's b unjust and tangledb interpretation of the 1974 federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) (in 1993 and 2002 decisions authored by Justice Antonin Scalia) barred any monetary compensatory relief, and, further (in a 2004 decision by Justice Clarence Thomas) that ERISA "preempted" (i.e., invalidated) claims for compensation under state negligence and trust law. The Kurteks are typical victims of what Jacob Hacker has called "The Great Risk Shift" from business and government to individuals that, through the last four decades, has pushed millions of workers and families up to or over the edge of catastrophe. Democrats often wonder why so many once-loyal voters in this demographic no longer correlate Democratic political success with their own economic and health security. Part of the answer, no doubt, is that programs that Democratic Congresses have written into law have not always delivered tangible benefits on the ground. Understandably, Maureen Kurtek blames her plight on "this law" -- ERISA. No one has explained to her, or to the millions like her with a stake in the matter, that Democratic Congresses crafted and passed this law to achieve precisely the opposite result. By turning it and other progressive reforms "upside down," the Supreme Court has not only converted intended beneficiaries into victims, it has helped to undermine the Democrats' brand as reliable guardians of middle America's basic needs.

COURT DECISIONS PERCEIVED

The courts actions towards patents are perceived by the congress Anne Broache, (cnet writer) 6/27/05

http://news.cnet.com/Congress-applauds-file-sharing-ruling/2100-1028_3-5764787.html

The U.S. Congress appears reluctant to step into the long-simmering debate over file swapping that received new fuel from a landmark court ruling on Monday.
Key politicians from both major political parties said they were inclined to let the lawsuit, MGM v. Grokster, proceed through the court system before deciding whether to alter copyright law. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for a full trial. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said through a spokeswoman that he "is going to let the courts continue their role in reviewing the next phase of this case."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who heads an intellectual property subcommittee, said: "Prudence and respect for the role of the courts suggest Congress wait until it becomes clear how today's decision will play out in the lower courts before there is a rush to legislate."
It's common for Congress to respond to court rulings with legislative tinkering, and many observers were predicting that the loser in this case would ask politicians for help. In a concurring opinion on Monday, Justice Stephen Breyer practically invited action from Congress, noting that "the legislative option remains available."

COURT DECISIONS PERCEIVED

Supreme court decisions are perceived by congress Margaret S. Hrezo,( Department of Political Science, Radford University), January 2004 http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Hoekstra104.htm Implementation of and compliance with Supreme Court decisions has blossomed as a research field in the past 20 years. Despite all the work done, however, reading through the findings is a frustrating experience. The studies vary widely in the types of decisions chosen for study, the quality of the research design, and the results. Ultimately, the reader is left wondering if there is any way to formulate a coherent picture of either public reaction to the Court or its effect on public values and behavior. Thus, Valerie Hoekstra's book is a welcome addition to this body of literature. Her research design is excellent. Her review of the relevant literature is insightful and intelligent. She uses an inter-disciplinary approach that demonstrates good understanding of the relevant social psychology, political psychology, and persuasion literature and she understands that substance and theory are as important as methodology. Hoekstra begins with the premise that the bulk of the Supreme Court's work consists of "ordinary" cases. It is these cases, she argues, that researchers should study in order to understand the nature and extent of public support for the Court and the role of specific decisions in building or losing that support. She focuses on four cases: LAMB'S CHAPEL v. CENTER MORICHES FREE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT (1993), BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GRUMET (1994), OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION v. CHICKASAW NATION (1995), and BABBITT v. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT OREGON (1995). Hoekstra's substantive thesis is the simple but powerful idea that the public is more attentive to the work of the Supreme Court than researchers usually suppose. Thus, in the end, "court decisions matter" (p.145). If information about decisions is available, and citizens are sufficiently motivated by the issues to learn about them, then public awareness of the Court and its work increases. Although Hoekstra finds very little evidence that the Court can shape public opinion, her findings support the notion that decisions do change some people's views of the Court. In addition, those who are initially receptive to the position adopted by the Court's decision tend to become more supportive of the Court after the decision, while those on the other side of the issue become less supportive. Thus, "the Court's political capital appears expendable and people appear to evaluate the Court based on its actions" (p.30). Research on the relationship between public opinion and the Supreme Court's normal workload is important. These are the cases that clarify "how the Court's past decisions apply to the current controversies" (p.33). For years it has seemed to me that some researchers either have set up straw figures to demolish or have not understood the complexity involved in measuring the impact of Supreme Court decisions. Why would anyone who has followed the development of constitutional law, especially law involving the Bill of Rights, be surprised that Supreme Court decisions-whether controversial or otherwise-were not always fully and immediately implemented? To see this, one need look no further than the evolution of school desegregation, voting rights, or abortion law. The predominant pattern in response to any controversial decision has been evasion, not compliance. Disputes over "activism" and "self-restraint" have been much more important to political scientists than to citizens. For better or worse, citizens care about a decision's effect on their values (most frequently) and material interests (importantly, but less frequently). Activism and restraint become code words for outcomes with which they agree or disagree.

********REG NEG********

REG NEG POP- CONGRESS/BUSH

Both Congress and the President support reg neg Robin McCall, J.D. Candidate 2007, University of California Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, Winter, 2007, University of California, Hastings College of the Law West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Lexis. Perhaps aware that only extraordinary people would undertake such a daunting task, the federal government does more than preach about the value of consensus in this sphere, it practices it. NPS guidance states that reg-neg is the "one form of administratively established committee that both the President and Congress actually encourage."

REG NEG POP- OBAMA

OBAMA SUPPORTS THE PLAN

Barack Obama, No Date

(2008 Presidential Election Website, (Obama.com A plan for a clean energy future. 2008. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/)

Obama will support legislation requiring that by 2020, 20% of the nation's power supply portfolio comes from renewable sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy. Promoting renewable energy will create new investments and new jobs without increasing prices. Obama has proposed a flexible market-based approach that allows electricity providers to either generate the renewable energy themselves, obtain it from other companies, or purchase credits from providers who exceed the standard.

REG NEG UNPOP- REPS

REPUBLICANS VOTERS OPPOSE GOVERNMENT REGULATION

(Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 11/05/2003)
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=756 73% of Republicans agreed with the statement "Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good."

*************RFS**************

RFS POP- PUBLIC

Overwhelming public support for RFS Alternative Transportation fuels today, 04 (2/26)
"The American public overwhelmingly supports efforts to promote the increased production and use of domestic renewable fuels," wrote the coalition. "Consequently, the RFS and energy tax provisions have been supported by a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives and the [Bush] administration. It is time they became law."

CORN ETHANOL RFS POP- PUBLIC

Ethanol RFS overwhelmingly popular has electoral benefit Chemical news and intelligence, 4/28/08
Such a move essentially would end the renewable fuels mandate. Given the [5]popularity of corn ethanol in Congress, Hutchison's bill would be a tough sell, especially in this election year. However, the new ethanol mandate [6]has already raised concerns in Congress that the targeted goal is too high.

***************RPS***************

RPS POP- CONGRESS

RPS is popular in congress Davenport 2007 (Coral Davenport, CQ Staff, May 2007, Senate Democrats See Opening for Renewable Standard, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747) [Ciborowski]
Supporters say a national renewable portfolio standard requiring 10 percent to 20 percent of electricity to be produced from renewables could go far toward lessening U.S. fossil fuel dependence. Less than 5 percent of the nations electricity now comes from renewable sources other than hydroelectricity. Twenty-two states have enacted renewable standards. On Thursday, a diverse group of 186 signatories including some of the biggest names in industry, manufacturing and electric utilities, along with environmental groups sent a letter to congressional leaders urging passage of a national renewable portfolio standard. Its the broadest ever, its the biggest ever range of support seen for pushing the renewable standard, said Bingaman spokesman Bill Wicker of the spectrum of signatories, which includes General Electric, BP America, Google and the Edison Electric Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities.

RPS BIPART
RPS enjoys strong bi-partisanship support in congress Davenport 2007 (Coral Davenport, CQ Staff, May 2007, Senate Democrats See Opening for Renewable Standard, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747) [Ciborowski]
Bingaman wants his renewables proposal to be passed as an amendment to a major Senate energy package (S 1419). When debate begins on that measure in early June, Bingaman will have at the ready an amendment to require major utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Bingamans staff say they anticipate bipartisan passage of the proposal. Fifty senators, including Democratic leaders and four Republicans, have signed a letter calling for a strong renewable portfolio standard. Wicker said Bingamans staff feels optimistic about the proposals chances on the House floor if it passes the Senate, despite the potential opposition from Boucher. As its never had a full airing on the House side, were confident as more members learn about the benefits, support will continue to build, and theyll vote for passage, Wicker said.

RPS BIPART
RPS bipart Parker 2007 (Sara Parker, Staff Writer, June 13, 2007, National RPS to Include Coal & Nuclear?, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48921) [Ciborowski]
The proposed RPS (or Renewable Electricity Standard) would be added as an amendment to bill S.1419, The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, which Bingaman, who is chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, co-authored with Domenici. The bipartisan legislation is intended to boost domestic renewable fuel supplies and spur regional diversity of biofuels production and infrastructure across the U.S. But while Bingaman's RPS amendment is considered to be the most far-reaching energy bill likely to make it through congress this session, it won't pass without opposition. "Undoubtedly, we will debate amendments that will bring out strong opinions, and we will have some heatedyet honestdebates," said Senator Bingaman addressing Congress on Monday. "But I am confident that as long as we keep in mind our shared goalto work together and produce legislation that makes meaningful progress on securing America's energy futurethe Senate will rise to the occasion. The American people expect nothing less."

RPS BIPART
Widespread support for RPS environmental lobbies and bipartisan CQ 07 (Senate Democrats See Opening for Renewable Standard, May 25, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747) Key Senate Democrats, believing the politics have shifted in their favor, are renewing their effort to require electric utilities to produce more power from renewable sources such as wind and solar. Such measures have passed the Senate three times in years past but died in a
GOP-controlled House. Now that the Democrats are running the House, and fears about dependence on foreign oil and global warming are foremost in many minds, Senate leaders like Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., think the timing might finally be right. Supporters say a national renewable

portfolio standard requiring 10 percent to 20 percent of electricity to be produced from renewables could go far toward lessening U.S. fossil fuel dependence. Less than 5 percent of the nations electricity now comes from renewable sources other than hydroelectricity. Twenty-two states have enacted renewable standards. On Thursday, a diverse group of 186 signatories including some of the biggest names in industry, manufacturing and electric utilities, along with environmental groups sent a letter to congressional leaders urging passage of a national renewable portfolio standard. Its the broadest ever, its the biggest ever range of support seen for pushing the renewable standard, said Bingaman spokesman Bill Wicker of the spectrum of signatories, which includes General Electric, BP America, Google and the Edison Electric Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities. Wicker called the effort a very powerful endorsement that could go far toward persuading lawmakers to support a renewable electricity standard. The Boucher Argument
But there will be at least one big hurdle: While many House Democrats, including Energy Committee Chairman John D. Dingell of Michigan, are on record supporting a renewable standard, one key player strongly opposes it. Democrat Rick Boucher , who hails from coal-rich southwest Virginia, has consistently opposed a renewable electricity standard. Boucher also heads the House Energy subcommittee charged with crafting energy and climate change legislation, and he says that right now he has no intention of including a renewable portfolio standard in an energy bill his panel is preparing for the floor by early July. Boucher traditionally has fought any measure that could threaten his districts coal industry or raise electricity prices. This fall, Boucher plans to introduce legislation aimed at curbing global warming with a mandate to cut carbon emissions a tough pill to swallow for any industry. That bill will take top priority, and adding the pressure of renewable energy sourcing on top of it could be too much for the utilities and ratepayers to take, Boucher says. The counterargument is that, at a time when were planning to have a mandatory control program for greenhouse gases, there is little reason to also have a requirement that a certain percentage of fuels for electricity generation come from renewable sources, Boucher said. He acknowledged that a colleague could very well propose a renewable standard provision during the crafting of the upcoming energy and climate change bills, and anticipates a spirited argument if it does come up. Boucher added that his new role as subcommittee chairman requires him to consider policy advantages beyond the reaches of his district so he shied away from an absolute no to the proposal. Historically I have opposed the RPS provision. I think the arguments against it are strong. But I am for the moment going to withhold judgment, Boucher said. And of course, if such a provision is not part of the energy package his committee assembles, it could be added later as an amendment during debate on the House floor. Then control of the issue would be in the hands of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., who believes that we need to increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewables in the United States above where we are today, according to a Pelosi aide. In an e-mail, the aide wrote that Pelosi supports incorporating more renewables into our nations energy mix, whether it is through use in fuels for our cars or electricity for our homes and businesses. Bingamans Approach Bingaman wants his renewables proposal to be passed as an amendment to a major Senate energy package (S 1419). When debate begins on that measure in early June, Bingaman will have at the ready an amendment to require major utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Bingamans staff say they anticipate bipartisan passage of the proposal. Fifty senators, including Democratic leaders and four Republicans, have signed a letter calling for a strong renewable portfolio standard. Wicker said Bingamans staff feels optimistic about the proposals chances on the House floor if it passes the Senate, despite the potential opposition from Boucher. As its never had a full airing on the House side, were confident as more members learn about the benefits, support will continue to build, and theyll vote for passage, Wicker said

RPS BIPART
There is bipartisan support for renewable energy standards Platts Coal Outlet, 7 (House supports mandatory 25% renewable energy standard October 22, 2007, pg. 12, Lexis-Nexis Academic) The House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution last week stating that 25% of US energy should come from renewable sources by 2025. Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, Collin Peterson, Democrat-Minnesota, and its senior Republican, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, led the floor debate for the bipartisan measure. Peterson said that renewable energy is "the new face of energy security" and that all forms of renewable energy, most notably in transportation fuels and power generation, can benefit "from the expertise farmers and ranchers have in land management." "We have a tremendous opportunity in rural
America and agriculture," he said. "This resolution is a very important first step in achieving energy independence." "We should now focus on policy that will focus on commercial cellulosic ethanol," Goodlatte said, adding that power production from waste biomass is very promising. Committee staff said that the resolution was a "stand-alone measure" and will not be included in either the House energy bill or the House farm bill. The House and Senate are working toward an energy bill conference while the Senate Agriculture Committee will begin mark-ups on its bill this week.

RPS has bipartisan support LCV 07 (League Of Conservation Voters, A Bipartisan Call for Clean Energy In Congressional Energy Bill, July 25, http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/pressreleases/page.jsp?itemID=35046292) WASHINGTON, DC A bipartisan

group of congressional environmental champions joined conservation groups today to call for clean energy provisions as part of the Congressional energy package that will be sent to the President. Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), Paul Hodes (D-NH), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), Todd Platts (R-PA), Mark Udall (D-CO) and Tom Udall (D-NM) said they will work to ensure that a strong 35 mile per gallon fuel economy standard and renewable electricity standard are included in the final bill. The Renewable Electricity Standard (H.R. 969) is sponsored by Reps. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Todd Platts (R-PA), and the Fuel Economy Reform Act (H.R. 1506) is sponsored by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Todd Platts (R-PA). Not since I first came to Congress over 30 years ago has America seen such high gas prices and the political will to move forward on fuel economy standards, said
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. We need to ensure a strong 35 mile per gallon standard joins a renewable electricity standard in the final bill that heads to the President. Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) said, Energy is an economic, environmental, and national security issue. Higher fuel efficiency standards for cars, a renewable energy standard for electricity, and similar initiatives are important to saving consumers money, conserving our resources and protecting the environment, and lessening our dependence on foreign oil. The House energy bill includes important clean energy and energy efficiency measures, and the Senate has passed legislation that calls for an increase in fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon. The final congressional energy package could be further strengthened by adding provisions to increase renewable electricity and preserve a strong 35 mpg fuel efficiency standard. Twenty three states and the District have already passed a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), also called a renewable portfolio standard or RPS, which would require utilities to gradually increase the amount of renewable energy they use to generate electricity each year. It creates a market-based mechanism of tradable renewable energy credits similar to the Clean Air Act trading system allowing utilities to meet the requirements at the lowest cost.

RPS POP- ENVIRO LOBBIES

ENV LOBBIES LIKE RPS

Mayer 2007 (Lindsay Renick Mayer is the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics, Big Oil, Big Influence, http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html)
Environmentalists, who had very little influence in Congress when Republicans were in control, are now seeing the lawmakers seriously consider their positions. This includes environmentalists' support of fuel efficiency standards, a mandate for electric utility companies to produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources and their opposition to coal-to-liquid fuel development. Nowhere is this change in tides more evident than in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is heavily involved in energy legislation. California Sen. Barbara Boxer, considered one of the environment's biggest champions, has chaired the committee since her party assumed control of the Senate in the 2006 election.

RPS UNPOP- BOUCHER

Boucher hates RPS Davenport 2007 (Coral Davenport, CQ Staff, May 2007, Senate Democrats See Opening for Renewable Standard, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747)
Democrat Rick Boucher , who hails from coal-rich southwest Virginia, has consistently opposed a renewable electricity standard. Boucher also heads the House Energy subcommittee charged with crafting energy and climate change legislation, and he says that right now he has no intention of including a renewable portfolio standard in an energy bill his panel is preparing for the floor by early July. Boucher traditionally has fought any measure that could threaten his districts coal industry or raise electricity prices. This fall, Boucher plans to introduce legislation aimed at curbing global warming with a mandate to cut carbon emissions a tough pill to swallow for any industry. That bill will take top priority, and adding the pressure of renewable energy sourcing on top of it could be too much for the utilities and ratepayers to take, Boucher says.

RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS

Congress hates the cost of an RPS Pegg 2005 (J.R. Pegg, Environment news service staff writer, Senate Approves National Renewable Energy Standard, june 2005, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-17-10.asp) [Ciborowski]
Critics of the provision said it is unrealistic and expensive. The standard could cost utilities and consumers some $18 billion, said Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss. "It imposes a one-size fits all mandate on the whole country without regard for whether the requirement is technologically or economically feasible," Chambliss said.

RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS

RPS is extremely unpopular in congress Durbin 2007 (William, E&E News, RENEWABLE ENERGY: Wood Mackenzie's William Durbin says federal RPS 'easy first step' for emissions reduction, May 14) [Ciborowski]
Monica Trauzzi: A federal RPS faces quite a bit of opposition both on and off the Hill. Senator Pete Domenici, who's the ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, opposes an RPS. And industry groups are saying that a federal RPS would provide a one-size-fits-all approach when one size doesn't fit all. And they're also concerned that the government would be interfering with energy markets if a federal RPS was implemented. Are these valid concerns? William Durbin: Well, what you're describing here are some pretty serious political issues and we try to look at this whole issue outside of the political debate. So it would be hard for me to say whether or not they're valid. What we can say is there are positive benefits associated if you're looking for reductions in gas demand, reductions in CO2, and reductions in power prices. But then again, as we step off into the greenhouse gas and CO2 legislation we can run the risk of undermining that if we try to rush that process too fast.

RPS UNPOP- COAL LOBBIES

The coal lobby hates the plan- Theyl do everything they can to block it Boston Globe 2008 (Loie Hayes, Green and coal don't exactly mix , www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/06/08/coal_gasification_is_dirty_and_unproven/) [Ciborowski]
I wonder if the legislators who think coal gasification is a green energy source also believed Ronald Reagan when he argued that ketchup should count as a vegetable in school lunch programs. "Coal gasification" and "green energy" don't belong together in the same sentence, let alone in legislation that's supposed to lessen our dependence on dirty fuels. State subsidies should not be used to tilt the market toward technologies that tear the tops off mountains, dumps the refuse into valleys, and buries toxins in the nation's shrinking fresh water supply. The coal lobby - and the Big Ag lobby behind the biofuels boondoggle - are already buying up every politician within reach!

RPS POP- BOTH CANIDATES

Both candidates love RPS Hodge 2007 (Nick, Renewable Portfolio Standard How's 225% Sound to You?, staff writer for green magazine,2007, www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/renewable-portfolio-standard) [Ciborowski]
The consensus, at least at this conference, is that we will have a national RPS in the next two to three years, no matter who wins the White House in 2008. There also seems to be widespread belief among the financial professionals and politicians here that we'll have a federally mandated cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions in that same time.

RPS POP- OBAMA

Obama wants an RPS Inside renewable energy 2008 (May 12, 2008, Sen. Barack Obama Tours PV Powered Facility in Oregon, news bulletin, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52449) [Ciborowski] "He [Sen. McCain] voted repeatedly against mandates to ensure that we use more renewable energy and a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) continues to be blocked in part because people like John McCain aren't interested in it...In my proposals, I've called for a replication of what's being done right here in Oregon, a 25% RPS for the entire nation. That's why I have consistently urged that we go ahead and pass the 30% investment tax credit that is so important for making sure that companies like PV Powered continue to prosper and thrive," Sen. Obama said.

Obama wants an RPS Kammen 2008 (Daniel, San Francisco Chronicle, professor at berkely, Dan Kammen: Clean energy and America's future, 2008, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/17/IN3R10MGSK) [Ciborowski]
The Democratic presidential candidates have each committed to a national energy portfolio of at least 25 percent of electricity from clean energy sources by 2025, and all three candidates are in favor of cap-and-trade systems to build greenhouse gas markets. It is vital, but politically challenging, to make sure that all emissions credits are auctioned, not given away to large polluters. We are now in a moment - perhaps a first - where a growing view exists that energy and climate could be front-burner issues for candidates and voters. The time is right to focus on the energy system we want, not on the one we had, and sadly, still have.

RPS POP- MCCAIN

McCain likes renewables Gillam 2008 (Carey, International Herald Tribune, Wind power gains adherents in United States, 2008, www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/19/business/wind.php) [Ciborowski]
Senator John McCain, the Republican Party's presumptive nominee for the November presidential election, has also said he supports wind energy. McCain even chose a wind energy facility in Portland, Oregon, as the setting for a policy speech on global warming last week.

RPS CONTROVERSIAL IN CONGRESS

FEDERAL RPS IS EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL

GENERATES RIFTS WITHIN CONGRESS

Davenport, 2007 (Coral, Congressional Quarterly Staff, A Clean Break in Energy Policy, CQ Weekly, October 8) Experts believe Congress is more likely to embrace the renewable energy standard than other climate-change proposals that require especially difficult political trade-offs, such as imposing new carbon taxes. But the renewable standard, proposed by New Mexico Democratic Rep. Tom Udall and Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Todd R. Platts, remains enormously contentious. It faces powerful opposition from many big, investor-owned utilities that would probably have to raise rates and cut shareholder dividends in order to pay for more expensive electricity. The companies Washington trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, has branded the proposal little more than an electricity tax consumers would have to pay on top of the energy they use. Coal producers and the United Mine Workers are also strenuously fighting the mandate. So is President Bush, who, notwithstanding his support for the Texas renewable energy standard, believes such mandates should be confined to those states that want them. The proposal is also creating regional rifts within Congress. House members and senators from the Southeast contend that their region will have to shoulder an especially heavy burden because of a shortage of wind power, meaning utilities in states such as Georgia and Tennessee would have to import considerable amounts of renewable energy from elsewhere. Those objections convinced senators to refuse to take up a renewable energy standard that Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico proposed this summer, despite the fact that the chamber endorsed similar proposals three times in the past. Bingaman and Udall are prominent figures in the debate because their home state is a major source of geothermal energy.

RPS COST POL CAP

A federal RPS is politically controversial Rallis, 06 - Senior Regulatory Counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann, 27 Energy L. J. 451, CONGRESS GOT IT RIGHT: THERE'S NO NEED TO MANDATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS, lexis) RPS proponents had attempted to include a federal mandate in earlier versions of energy legislation. n11 A RPS, it was argued, would promote energy efficiency and conservation, n12 would enhance our efforts to become less dependent on foreign oil, n13 and would provide consumers with affordable and reliable electricity. n14 These purposes certainly appeared to dovetail with the brief statement of purposes for EPAct 2005. But for all of that, a federally mandated RPS was extremely controversial, as evidenced by the debates that occurred on the Senate floor regarding an amendment to H.R. 6. (S. Amdt. 791). [*453] S. Amdt. 791 was the final attempt to include a RPS; the Senate vote in favor of S. Amdt. 791 was close, 52-48. n15 Ultimately, however, the RPS was not included in EPAct '05, mainly due to strong opposition in the House. Limiting eligible renewables to wind, solar, geothermal and biomass is politically controversial Rallis, 06 - Senior Regulatory Counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (Mary Ann, 27 Energy L. J. 451, CONGRESS GOT IT RIGHT: THERE'S NO NEED TO MANDATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS, lexis) Eligible versus ineligible renewable resources presented a significant stumbling block in the debates. Proponents of S. Amdt. 791 argued that it was technology neutral and that while not all regions/states have abundant wind, geothermal, or solar resources, biomass and bio-fuels are common across the country and are included in the list of eligible existing and new renewable energies. n19 Opponents considered the scope so inflexible that even if an electric utility were to meet the renewable requirement of 10% by generation of power through another form of renewable power or even "green power" such as nuclear energy, n20 that utility would still be obligated to generate power or buy renewable credits to cover an additional 10% to satisfy the federal standard. n21 S. Amdt. 791 provided for a State Renewable Energy Account Program (SREAP), n22 under which the Department of Energy (DOE) would collect money from the sale of [*454] renewable energy credits (RECs) n23 and civil penalties assessed against utilities that fail to obtain the base amount of electricity from renewable sources. n24 The proceeds would be transferred to the states, giving preferences to states that have a disproportionately small amount of renewable capacity and to states to improve renewable energy technologies. n25 Despite careful language in S. Amdt. 791 that states RPS programs would be undiminished, opponents maintained that the practical effect was that states would have to replace their existing programs with the federal proposal, n26 or else pay what amounted to a new tax and a new rate increase into the SREAP. n27 Moreover, they pointed out that fuel choices and resource development decisions historically have been within the purview of the states. n28

RPS COST POL CAP

A federal RPS is massively controversial Cash, 07 (Cathy, Electric Utility Week, Headed for energy bill conference, Congress faces big divide on renewable requirements, 8/13, lexis) A march toward a new federal energy policy that advances renewable resources could turn into a collision course this fall when Congress negotiates final legislation under the threat of a presidential veto and opposition from the electric utility industry.
"This isn't even close to being over," said Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute and a chief opponent of a 15% renewable portfolio standard, one much-heralded provision of legislation the House passed in a rare weekend session before taking its summer recess August 6. The Senate did not include a similar RPS provision in its energy bill in June, making the RPS one of the key points of contention for House and Senate members when they start negotiating sometime after Labor Day. Other significant differences between the two chambers' bills include a renewable transportation fuel requirement and corporate average fuel efficiency standards for vehicles: The Senate measure includes them, the House package does not. In addition, the House passed a $16 billion energy tax incentive bill, but the Senate majority fell three votes shy of the necessary 60 to close off debate and marry its similar, but more expensive, tax package to its underlying energy policy bill. On top of the lawmakers' divisions is the Bush administration's threat to veto any measure that follows the House and Senate's current tack of transferring billions of dollars in tax credits for the mature oil and gas industries to jumpstarting domestic renewable resources. But the federally mandated RPS of 15% by 2020 may first determine the direction of the legislation's final path. Kuhn, whose organization lobbies for investorowned utilities, found it "extremely disappointing" that the House adopted a federal RPS mandate. Kuhn called the requirement that IOUs get 15% of the electricity they sell at retail from specific renewable sources "essentially a tax on many electricity customers." "The House vote is going to throw a wrench into House and Senate efforts to reconcile their two bills and produce something acceptable to both chambers," he said. Environmentalists and other

supporters of the House bill and its RPS also recognized that a conference between the House and Senate to craft a compromise bill this fall would not be easy. "Even though we think an RPS is crucial, it's not a slam dunk that it will emerge from the conference committee," said
Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, likely negotiators on the energy bill, "have a list and are checking it twice where they can horse-trade with the bill," said Erich Pica, domestic programs director of Friends of the Earth, which supported the House energy legislation. Meanwhile, the threat of a veto by President Bush looms over the conference. White House senior advisers said they would recommend the president veto the House package for its shift away from domestic production of oil and gas. In addition, the administration underscored its opposition to the RPS amendment. RPS faces big divisions in conference In its weekend session, the House voted 220-190 to require investor-owned utilities that sell at least 1 million MWh to obtain 15% of their electricity for retail consumption from renewable resources by 2020. These resources were listed as solar, wind, ocean, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas and incremental hydropower. IOUs could meet 4% of the RPS through verified electricity efficiency measures. The provision also offers a renewable trading credit program for utilities to purchase credits in order to comply. The RPS would begin with a 2.75% requirement in 2010 and increase incrementally each year. The amendment exempts rural electric cooperatives, municipal and government-owned utilities ? an exemption that irks IOUs. After approving the RPS, the House voted 241172 for the energy bill, H.R. 3221, and 221-189 for the tax package, H.R. 2776, before adjourning until September 4. The RPS amendment was offered by Representative Tom Udall, Democrat from New Mexico, and Pennsylvania Republican Todd Platts. Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, voted against it. In the Senate, Bingaman, another Democrat from New Mexico, praised the House victory. "In particular, I am pleased that the House adopted the Udall-Platts amendment, making renewable electricity conferenceable [sic]," said Bingaman, who as energy committee chairman is almost sure to lead the energy bill conference later this year. In the past, Bingaman has shepherded stronger RPS proposals twice through the Senate that were later rejected by the House. In June, Bingaman's 15%-by-2020 RPS amendment fell victim to a filibuster threat from Pete Domenici, also a New Mexican and

the senior Republican on the committee. He is also likely to be a member of the conference committee. Domenici vowed to fight the House bill's direction toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels and nuclear power. "This RPS scheme continues to have significant opposition in the Senate and would be a major obstacle to final passage of this bill," he said. "As we head into a Senate-House conference, I remain committed to legislation that will diversify our fuel supplies and increase efficiency without jeopardizing domestic production of energy and raising prices for consumers." The utility industry will oppose a federal RPS Cash, 07 (Cathy, Electric Utility Week, Headed for energy bill conference, Congress faces big divide on renewable requirements, 8/13, lexis) So will the IOU lobby hard against the entire energy bill because it contains the RPS? "A 15% RPS is a major, major problem," said EEI spokesman Dan Reidinger. "It is going to be a major sticking point for us, no doubt about it. Even though there are underlying provisions. The RPS is a major red flag for us."

RPS UNPOP- BUSH

Bush will veto an RPS Fershee, 08 assistant professor of law at the University of North Dakota (Joshua, 29 Energy L. J. 49, CHANGING RESOURCES, CHANGING MARKET: THE IMPACT OF A NATIONAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD ON THE U.S. ENERGY INDUSTRY, lexis) [*53] The Senate has supported an RPS in the past, but there were significant roadblocks this time around. Most prominently, even if the House and Senate had been able to come to some sort of consensus, the Bush Administration had indicated that the President would veto any energy legislation that included, among other things, n21 an RPS or tax increases on the oil industry. n22 Instead, the President favors "expanded U.S. production, new fuel economy standards and a big mandate for ethanol and other alternative fuels." n23 The final legislation apparently allayed the President's concerns; the President signed the bill into law on December 19, 2007. n24 Bush opposes a national RPS Sovacool and Cooper, 07 - *Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a national non- profit organization committed to reforming U.S. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), June, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdf) Each time a national RPS is debated, opponents argue that a federal mandate will increase electricity rates and cost utilities billions of dollars by forcing investments in expensive renewable technologies. The Bush Administration officially rejects a national RPS on the grounds that it would create winners and losers among regions of the country and increase electricity prices in places where renewable resources are less abundant or harder to cultivate.

RPS POP- CONGRESS

RPS IS EXTREMELY POPULAR IN CONGRESS

IT WILL BUILD POLITICAL CAPITAL

NYT, 2006 (New York Times, December 10) Now some analysts and money managers are hoping the imminent Democratic takeover of Congress will also be bullish for alternative energy stocks by improving prospects for favorable legislation for the industry. One likely initiative, known as a national renewable portfolio standard, would require utilities to derive 10 percent of their electricity output from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, less than 3 percent of electricity is generated from such sources. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the presumptive chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, says he hopes to pass some version of a renewable portfolio standard in the next Congress. The details of such legislation as well as whether it would be approved by Congress and signed by President Bush are very much uncertain. But that hasnt stopped investors from placing their bets. Democrats may be in the forefront, but they arent the only ones to jump on the alternative energy bandwagon, said Randy Gwirtzman, a research analyst at Baron Capital, which is based in New York. Both sides of the aisle have shown theyre in favor of alternative energy sources, he said. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, for example, is concerned about the nations reliance on imported oil. With the surging prices of oil, he said, theres a strong feeling among Republicans that our economy and national security can be damaged if we dont decrease our dependency. Mr. Gwirtzman recommends shares of SunPower, which he said has a highly competitive solar-cell product line that is well positioned to
benefit from a more sympathetic Congress. Stuart Bush, technology analyst at RBC Capital Markets based in Austin, Tex., also likes SunPower, which is a spinoff of Cypress Semiconductor. Mr. Bush says SunPower solar cells are more efficient than the industry average in converting solar energy into electricity. Unlike many other alternative energy companies, SunPower already generates a small profit, and its revenue could reach $600 million next year and $1 billion in 2008, Mr. Bush said. A renewable portfolio standard should help alternative energy move closer to parity with traditional energy sources, Mr. Bush said. Each technology individually is on a path to reducing costs and achieving parity with traditional energy sources, some very dramatically. The wind industry is probably closest to achieving economic viability without any support from the federal government. One company he favors is Zoltek, which makes lightweight carbon-fiber blades for wind turbines. Zoltek could also be helped by a longer extension of federal renewable energy tax credits, a legislative goal of windenergy lobbyists. The production tax credits, which reward electricity producers for each kilowatt of energy they generate from renewable sources, are scheduled to expire next year. In the past, the credits have typically been extended for two years at a time, which the wind-energy industry maintains is too short a period to stimulate long-term investment. Democrats will support a longer extension, Senator Bingaman said. Clearly, we do need to extend

those tax credits that relate to renewable energy, and we need to do so for a longer period, he said. A consensus on alternative energy is perhaps closest in biofuels, which have the support of many Republicans, particularly from farm belt and southern states. I do think we need to increase the use of biofuels as much and as quickly as possible, Senator Sessions said.

RPS POP- CONGRESS

RPS HAS POLITICAL SUPPORT Can Congress Govern the Climate? Barry Rabe Professor of Public Policy, Gerald Ford School of Public Policy, and Professor of Environmental Policy, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution April 2007 // Benson 5 In the case of the RPS option, political support may be high compared to other possibilities. One illustration of this support was a June 2005 Senate vote of 52-to-48 in favor of a renewable mandate that would require that at least ten per cent of American electricity must come from renewable sources by 2020. However, the 2005 proposal died in conference and its resurrection is clearly complicated by the tapestry of subsidies and protections for a wide range of energy sources provided by the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Any future consideration of a national RPS will need to confront 1) the question of how this policy integrates with the 23 (and growing) state policies that are already in operation, 2) how it literally defines renewable energy given the range of competing state interpretations of this term, 3) the issue of credit for early development of renewable energy sources by various states and utilities, 4) whether to deem energy efficiency as tantamount to renewable energy, and 5) how to sustain steady growth of renewables given the repeated fluctuations in the federal Production Tax Credit. In turn, any national RPS will also have to weigh the fit between it and other possible climate policies, such as cap-and-trade mechanisms that could entail double-counting for any expansion of renewable energy (Rabe and Mundo 2007). Moreover, members of Congress will also have to confront the fact that a renewable energy mandate is likely a far less efficient mechanism for achieving greenhouse gas reduction than market-based methods such as a cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax. Nonetheless, it may be the most politically popular option currently in play. At the same time, more market-sensitive policies require very careful policy development and are not as easy to design or implement as proponents sometimes suggest. Indeed, alongside the celebrated experience of the American sulfur dioxide cap-andtrade program, other sub-national and international trading initiatives have struggled, with many lessons for policy design only available through careful analysis and a deliberative method for vetting policy options. None of these issues are insurmountable but it is not at all clear that Congress has developed either the analytical capacity to sort out these issues effectively or the ability to navigate the particular demands from various committees and subcommittees that can block any environmental or energy bill. A Congress weak on analytic heft and long on providing competing venues for grandstanding may well continue to fumble along on climate change, even in the event that the political saliency of the issue and the receptivity of legislators to do something are on the ascent.

RPS BIPART
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR RPS IN CONGRESS

Manka, 2007 (Maria Surma, Prominent Journalist, Congress To Pass Federal Renewable Energy Standard?, Green Options) The Dow Jones Newswire reports that Congress is likely to pass a renewable energy standard in this instance called a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in the next several months. Renewable energy requirements have stronger support on both sides of the aisle as opposed to the more controversial limits on global warming emissions. Prudential Equity Group analyst James Lucier went so far as to say, An RPS can almost certainly be done this year It's one of the few things investors can count on in this Congress."

MASSIVE CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE PLAN

Synder, 2007 (Jim, Correspondent for The Hill, The Hill, August 3, http://thehill.com/business--lobby/disagreement-onrenewable-energy-complicates-bill-passage-2007-08-03.html) There is a Jenga-like quality to the delicate work of constructing national energy policy, where votes fall along regional lines as much as party affiliation. As Democratic leaders worked Thursday to build support for one of their top priorities before heading into the August recess, there was evidence of growing divisions within the caucus over efforts to promote renewable energy. Mandates for the production of renewable fuels for transportation and electricity generation enjoy significant support among Democrats and environmental groups, a key party constituency.

PLAN IS POPULAR AMONG DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS

PRL, 2003 (Press Releases Live, April 8) U.S. Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Udall (D-CO), and Jim Leach (R-IA) Tuesday confirmed that they will likely offer an amendment to the House energy bill requiring electric utilities to acquire 20% of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources by 2025. The amendment is based on bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1294, which was introduced earlier this year. While its acceptance as an amendment and overall passage of the bill are uncertain, the federal lawmakers are actively seeking support from their colleagues to get the best possible vote on the floor. The House energy bill is not comprehensive without an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard, Tom Udall, a member of the House Resources Committee, said. We are urging Congress to heed calls from farmers and consumers to make this renewable portfolio standard part of this year's energy bill. I believe there is genuine, bipartisan support for this approach.

RPS BIPART
Despite white house opposition, RPS has bipartisan support in Congress CQ 07 (Senate Democrats See Opening for Renewable Standard, May 25, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747) White House Opposition But even if those groups secure House passage, a final battle looms with the White House, which historically has opposed a national renewable electricity standard though it has never gone so far as to threaten a veto, Wicker said. The White House contends that no national standard is needed, and that states can create their own renewable regulations. On Wednesday, an Energy Department spokeswoman, Julie Ruggiero, wrote in an e-mail, Traditionally, we have opposed a national renewable portfolio standard due to the fact that each state has very different renewable resources and can utilize renewable energy in different ways. A onesize-fits-all approach will not allow us to best maximize each states resources. But Senate Democrats and their allies are betting
that a national standard might even make it past President Bush, especially if it ultimately comes couched in a major piece of energy legislation with bipartisan blessing. He might not risk killing a whole energy package over just one provision, Wicker said.

RPS DEMOCRATS SUPPORT

STRONG DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR A FEDERAL RPS

Clotter, 2007 (Christopher, J.D. University of Dayton School of Law, University of Dayton Law Review, Spring, Lexis) There also appears to be strong Democratic support for a federal RPS. n314 Democratic Senator and new Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Jeff Bingaman, has already created an investigation team to determine how a national RPS should be crafted. n315 Since Democratic leadership "is likely to support an RPS," there is at least some possibility that a federal RPS 10 or RPS 20 will be enacted soon.

RPS POP-ENVIRO LOBBIES

RPS has environmental lobbies support CQ 07 (Senate Democrats See Opening for Renewable Standard, May 25, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747) Thats also where supporters of the measure think lobbying from interest groups will come in. The director of the Blue Green Alliance, an initiative of the United Steel Workers and the Sierra Club, said its members view the renewable portfolio standard as a way to boost jobs and help the environment. Up and down the line we can see that embracing the clean energy economy is going to be the growth engine of jobs of the future, particularly in the Midwestern industrial economy, said alliance director David Foster. Advocates working the House for support say they feel optimistic because so many states already have passed similar standards. Often these things start with the states and build up and come to a head. My expectations are very high that this will be the year Congress passes RPS, with the confluence of so many groups and states supporting it, Foster said. Anna Aurelio of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group added, More than 219 House members come from states with RPS standards, so we think we could get some real excitement from the House.

RPS POP- PUBLIC

RPS popular with public has momentum MarketWatch, 6/13/07
RPS policies have grown in popularity at the state level since the 1990s, with close to two-dozen states now having goals for renewable-energy production. There's little evidence so far that consumers have seen sharp rate hikes in their electricity bills as a result. While each state initiative is different, 17 states require a minimum of 10% of energy production from renewable sources. There are mandates in every region of the country, except the Southeast, and California has the highest standard at 33%. New Mexico and Colorado increased their renewable-energy requirement this year to 20% by 2020, and Minnesota recently adopted a renewable standard of 25% by 2025. This trend has given lawmakers increased confidence regarding the introduction of a national version of the renewable portfolio standard. President Bush is familiar with renewable portfolio standards: As governor of Texas, he signed the state's RPS into law in 1999. The policy was responsible for the rapid expansion in wind power seen in the Lone Star State. Both the cost of traditional fossil fuels and growing public awareness of climate change debates have contributed to public support for renewable standards. "Given the economic success of the policy and the urgency of addressing global warming, several states have recently moved to strengthen their requirements," according to a recent report on the utilities industry and renewables issued by Robert W. Baird & Co.

RPS popular UPI, 07 (6/8)

Although not incorporated in any bill at the moment, Bingaman plans to propose an amendment creating a federal RPS to the Senate's main energy bill -- the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 -- when it comes to the floor sometime next week. Despite failure of similar legislation in the past, the prospects for approval look good this year, said Barry Rabe, professor in the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. "These policies have proven popular in a number of states," he said. "The majority of American citizens already live in Congressional districts with an RPS." And it looks like more states will join their ranks this year, namely Michigan, North Carolina and Illinois, where legislators are considering making the current voluntary standard mandatory.

RPS overwhelmingly popular Strauss, 03 (Valerie, Director Wind Power NY, Newsday, 1/23)
New York's pre-existing hydroelectric power will contribute a large share of the governor's commitment of 25 percent renewables by 2012. The amount of new renewables needed to satisfy a well-designed renewable portfolio standard should be easily achievable without any consumer hardship. Polls reflect the remarkable popularity of renewable energy. We should all be "thrilled" with the governor's proposal.

RPS POP- PUBLIC

Although generally unpopular, RPS stimulates infrastructure development gaining public popularity Dr. Benjamin Sovacool and Christopher Cooper (Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a national non- profit organization committed to reforming U.S. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), June, 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdf) Transmission A National RPS Speeds Investment in Critical Infrastructure Utilities benefit from congestion pricing. When transmission is saturated, prices increase because there is not enough electricity to meet demand. Market forces create perverse incentives for some utilities to profit from congestion prices, delaying new transmission until the system is at risk of catastrophic failure. A national RPS forces critical transmission system upgrades Maintaining adequate transmission will require the construction of 26,600 miles of new transmission in the next decade, quadrupling planned expenditures to $56 billion by 2011. Renewable energy overcomes public objection to new transmission lines Case studies show that public opposition to transmission lines turns into widespread support when utilities justify the infrastructure with the need to interconnect new renewable generation. A national RPS speeds recovery of transmission investments Because of their quicker lead-times, renewable energy systems can start providing revenue to help pay down debt on transmission investments while conventional plants are waiting to come online. Expedited debt repayment decreases capital costs and lowers electricity rates.

RPS UNPOP- PUBLIC

Public support for renewable energy doesnt translate into support for an RPS Fershee, 8 Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry, 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic) // JMP VI. Conclusion Often lost in the debate about the value and appropriateness of a national RPS is that there is little dispute about the value and appropriateness of renewable energy itself. Awareness that energy issues intersect with other key issues like national security and climate change has never been higher. Support for renewable energy, at least as a concept, is overwhelming. n198 A recent poll indicates that 85% of those polled believe that existing federal incentives for [*75] renewable energy technologies should be extended. n199 Other polls have indicated support across the political spectrum for renewable energy n200 and, more specifically, a renewable portfolio standard. n201 In addition, more than thirty states have taken some kind of legislative action to promote renewable energy programs, and more programs are being proposed. n202 Some states have even increased their commitment to energy from renewable resources. Colorado, for example, implemented a 10% RPS in 2004, against the wishes of the state's utilities; in 2007, "with utility support, Colorado increased its RPS to 20% by 2020." n203 Public support, and even support from individual utilities, for renewable energy, of course, does not translate into national support for a particular program, policy, or fuel source. The best methods for promoting and providing renewable energy - and who should pay for it - are issues in search of a solution. Ultimately, though, renewable energy has moved well beyond the theoretical stages. If desired, a national RPS can be efficiently and effectively implemented. That does not mean it would not require significant upfront expense, and perhaps long-term expense, as well. But those risks face any energy policy, including the status quo. ( ) The plan is empirically divisive a federal RPS has been defeated 17 times in Congress. This also proves that an Obama victory would not result in the plan. Barkenbus & Sovacool, 7 *senior research associate at the Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies and **Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Jack N. Barkenbus and Benjamin K. Sovacool, Environment, Necessary but insufficient: state renewable portfolio standards and climate change policies, July/August, www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-167151846.html) // JMP In the last 10 years--from 1997 to 2006--federal bills promoting RPS were introduced in Congress 17 times. (12) In addition, 102 legislative proposals dealing with climate change have been introduced from 1997 to 2004. (13) All have been beaten back by Republican-dominated Congresses. It is safe to say, therefore, that considerable state action in both cases has arisen not because of some judgment that state-based action is optimal or preferable but rather because of the perceived policy vacuum at the federal level. A federal-scale political philosophy of allowing market forces to determine energy and environmental policy dates back at least as far as the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and it has been reinforced by the political power of Washington, DC-based interest groups and trade associations who have a stake in maintaining the status quo. However, this philosophy and political structure is not mirrored throughout much of the country, and hence many states have become very active in the RPS and climate change arena. And, similarly, many other states that mirror the philosophy and approach of the federal level remain inactive.

RPS POP COLORADO

Colorado voters want RPS referendums prove Electric Utility Week, 4/28/08
Missourians for Cleaner, Cheaper Energy is modeling its effort on ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington, the only two states that have brought the issue directly to voters, said PJ Wilson, a spokesman for the coalition. In 2004, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure that called for 10% of utility electric sales to come from renewable sources by 2015, with 4% coming from solar technologies. Xcel Energy and other utilities in the state opposed the initiative, which passed with 52.5% of the vote. Last year, with utility support, Colorado increased its RPS to 20% by 2020. In 2006, Washington voters approved a 15% by 2020 RPS (EUW, 13 Nov '06, 14).

RPS COSTS POL CAP

NATIONAL RPS REQUIRES POLITICAL CAPITAL CONGRESSIONAL OPPOSITION BLOCKS IT NOW Langniss and Wiser, Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen Research & scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2005,

(Ole and Ryan, Switching to Renewable Power: a framework for the 21st century, ed. V. Lauber, p. 187-8
Most of the recommendations and cost estimates have had to rely on theoretical principles, however, as practical experience in the application of the RPS has been limited. RPS policies have been established by legislation or regulation in the countries of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (UK), but experience with the actual operation of the policy has only just begun. RPS policies, and related mandates, have recently become the most popular form of support for the commercial application of renewable energy technologies in the United States (US). As of December 2004, 18 states had developed renewable energy portfolio standards or mandates, covering over 40 percent of total US customer load. Figure 8.1 identifies the states in which RPS policies have been established as well as their terminal renewable energy purchase requirements. The establishment of a national RPS has also been discussed in the US, but has so far failed to gain the critical support needed in the US Congress.

RPS POP- OBAMA

OBAMA SUPPORTS RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD Snow, Oil & Gas journal, Washington Editor, 6-2-8

(Nick, Oil & Gas Journal, Campaign aides: Motor fuel transition may be starting, p. 28) Obama's climate plan includes a cap-and-trade program with auctions, an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, a low-carbon fuel standard, a 25% RPS by 2005, a ban on new coal-fired power plants using traditional designs, support of verifiable international offsets and emissions reporting, an effort to reduce deforestation, and re-engagement with other countries in efforts to reduce global warming, Holstein said. [Note Holstein = Elgie Holstein, Obama campaign advisor]

RPS POP- OBAMA

OBAMA WOULD ESTABLISH A 25% RPS

Gerald Karey, columnist, 2/25/08, Platts Coal Outlook, Among three presidential contenders, energy positions similar on key issues, pg lexis //EM
Obama would establish a federal renewable portfolio standard requiring that 25% of the electricity consumed in the US is generated from renewable sources by 2025; and require that 30% of the federal government's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2030.

OBAMA SUPPORTS AN RPS

E&E News, 4/15/08, PM TV event coverage, POLITICS: White House candidates advisers discuss positions on energy, climate, environment pg lexis //EM
Jason Grumet: Just because we may have so few of these, why don't I just for a moment, because I think we -- I'm sorry. I think there's no disagreement with Jim that government doesn't do a fabulous job of picking winners. But I don't think that's what this debate is about. I think this is a question of whether government should set performance standards in addition to a price on carbon. Those are things like a renewable portfolio standard, which I know Senator Obama and Clinton support and I'm not clear now where Senator McCain is.

RPS POP- OHIO

RPS popular in Ohio VSI no date http://www.votesolar.org/polls.html (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)
Ohio--New poll from Public Opinion Strategies (pdf), September 2007, says 80% of the states voters say they support setting a standard for

renewable energy in Ohio, which would require utilities to obtain twenty percent of our electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar by the year 2025. Also, Powepoint from the Ohio Department of Development, Office of Energy Efficiency here.

RPS UNPOP-CONGRESS
RPS is unpopular in congress Star Telegram 7-1
(Jim Duncan, "Texas' bias against solar", 7-1-08

http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/733173.html)

The council did its best to downplay the substantial role renewable energy must play. The councils repudiation of the potential for solar electric power growth was, no doubt, enhanced by the spectacular success of the wind energy industry in Texas.

The Legislatures repeated refusal to increase the Renewable Portfolio Standard for mandatory utility purchases of renewable power is paralleled by the Congress refusal to renew national incentives promoting the growth of renewables. Coal and natural gas lobbyists, and the legislators they influence at all levels of governance, cannot help but acknowledge the potential for explosive growth of renewable energy and are working desperately to stop it.
With residential and commercial electric bills reflecting carbon-based kilowatt-hour rates as high or higher than renewables, the " too expensive" excuse is no longer a valid argument against solar.

Senate opposes RPS raises energy prices E & E News 07 (Environment and Energy News, House Approves Energy Bill with modified RPS, August 7, http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/06/houseapproves-energy-bill-with-modified-rps/) Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) a lead Senate supporter of the electricity mandate indicated after the House vote that he will attempt to make that legislation a part of the Senate energy product. I am pleased that the House adopted the Udall-Platts amendment, making renewable electricity conferanceable, Bingaman said in a statement. I look forward to working with the House when we get together on our bills this fall. Yet Senate Energy Committee ranking member Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) attacked the House legislation and in particular pointed to the electricity mandate and the tax package as potential stumbling blocks. This RPS scheme continues to have significant opposition in the Senate and would be a major obstacle to final passage of this bill, Domenici said. The Senate

has passed much more reasonable legislation, while rejecting similar tax measures that would have resulted in higher prices.
Other difficult issues are also on tap. The House scuttled a vote on boosting corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandate, but Democratic leaders there said they would like to come out of conference with essentially the Senate language, which would boost CAFE to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Such a strategy is likely to run into opposition not only from House Republicans but also key Democrats such as House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.). Moreover, the Senate energy bill dramatically expands the federal mandate for renewable fuels and creates a new mandate for the use of cellulosic ethanol. No such language is in the House version, and Dingell has insisted these issues should wait until his committee develops an energy/climate change bill in the fall. Further complicating the picture is a White House that had remained relatively quiet during much of debate but now appears to be digging in against the legislation. Shortly after the House approved the two bills, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman again reiterated a veto threat. The bills will actually lead to less domestic oil and gas production and increased dependence on imported oil, Bodman said. Because [the bills] fail to deliver American consumers or businesses more energy security, but rather would lead to higher energy costs and higher taxes, the presidents senior advisors would recommend that he veto these bills.

RPS faces is opposed by congress expensive and state action is better ENS 05 (Environment News Service, Senate Approves National Renewable Energy Standard, June 17, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-1710.asp) WASHINGTON, DC, June 17, 2005 (ENS) - The U.S. Senate on Thursday narrowly approved a five-fold increase in renewable energy production and moved closer to finalizing its version of a comprehensive energy plan. But the inclusion of a renewable portfolio standard in the Senate energy bill

is at odds with the positions of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Bush administration, and could prove another stumbling block for lawmakers eager to finally pass a national energy plan. Wind turbines at Buffalo Ridge near Lake Benton, Minnesota (Photo by Jerry Miller courtesy Northern States Power) The measure, which passed 52-48, mandates 10 percent of U.S. electricity be generated from renewable energy sources by 2020. It allows electric utilities to trade renewable energy credits in order to help the entire sector
meet the goal. Proponents say it would result in enough renewable energy by 2025 to power 56 million homes and note that currently only two percent of the nations electricity is produced by renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. "That is a paltry sum," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. Eight Republicans supported the measure, but not John McCain of Arizona, who is the co-author of a climate stewardship bill pending before the Senate. Only two Democrats voted in opposition. Critics of the provision said it is unrealistic and expensive. The standard could

cost utilities and consumers some $18 billion, said Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss. "It imposes a one-size fits all mandate on the whole country without regard for whether the requirement is technologically or economically feasible,"
Chambliss said. But the amendments coauthor, New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman, said the $18 billion in estimated costs for the electric utility industry would be more than offset by lower spending on natural gas. The measure will have a "negligible cost to consumers," Bingaman said.

RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS

National RPS is so unpopular that it has already been rejected 17 times in Congress Solve Climate (Renewable Portfolio Standards: Americas clean energy standard, 4/24/2008, http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080424/renewable-portfolio-standards-america-s-clean-energy-savior). Seems obvious, especially when you throw this into the mix: The Network for New Energy Choices found in its 2007 report that a national RPS would create 80% more jobs than comparable investment in fossil fuels and would save electricity consumers in every region money -- $49.1 billion nationwide, in fact. The problem? A national RPS requires coordinated and coherent federal leadership on climate change and energy. Over the past ten years, a federal RPS has been considered by Congress -- and rejected -- 17 times. The US Senate has passed some form of it three times since 2002. The House passed one in 2007. Congress has never managed to agree on a common RPS. And, to drive the point home, the one other proven policy that has spurred clean energy development in America -- the federal tax credit for renewables -- is on the verge of expiring and could be on the chopping block in Washington, too.

RPS UNPOP-DEMS
Influential Democrats oppose renewable energy standards Mayer, 7 Money-in-politics reporter for Center for Responsive Politics (Lindsay Renick, PBS, Big Oil Big Influence 11-23-2007 http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html )
<So far Congress

has been slow to push through comprehensive energy legislation, in part because issues related to renewable energy standards and fuel efficiency standards differ by region, rather than political party, which means not all democrats are on board, says Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental advocacy group Clean Air Watch. "Some of the southern-based coal burning power companies have killed or delayed efforts to set a renewable energy requirement for electric companies. Michigan Reps. and others influenced by the car industry have also managed to put off any kind of tougher requirements for fuel economy." O'Donnell says. "John Dingell is a democrat but doesn't see eye to eye with [Speaker of the House] Nancy Pelosi in some of these issues and so far you've seen somewhat of a
stalemate."

Dingell has consistently defended the auto industry, which is fighting against stricter fuel economy standards. These standards have not been
changed since the 1980s. The auto industry is a major player in Dingell's home state of Michigan, which relies heavily on the industry for jobs and is the corporate home of General Motors, Ford and the domestic division of DaimlerChrysler. Among all members of Congress, Dingell has received the second most in contributions from the auto industry at $869,200, just behind Republican Spencer Abraham, a former Michigan senator. The industry has been one of Dingell's largest contributors during his careersecond only to electric utilities.>

RPS UNPOP-BOUCHER/DEMS
RPS unpop with Boucher key democrat CQ 07 (Senate Democrats See Opening for Renewable Standard, May 25, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=greensheets-000002519747) But there will be at least one big hurdle: While many House Democrats, including Energy Committee Chairman John D. Dingell of Michigan, are on record supporting a renewable standard, one key player strongly opposes it. Democrat Rick Boucher , who hails from coal-rich southwest Virginia, has consistently opposed a renewable electricity standard. Boucher also heads the House Energy subcommittee charged with crafting energy and climate change legislation, and he says that right now he has no intention of including a renewable portfolio standard in an energy bill his panel is preparing for the floor by early July. Boucher traditionally has fought any measure that could threaten his districts coal industry or raise electricity prices. This fall, Boucher plans to introduce legislation aimed at curbing global warming with a mandate to cut carbon emissions a tough pill to swallow for any industry. That bill will take top priority, and adding the pressure of renewable energy sourcing on top of it could be too much for the utilities and ratepayers to take, Boucher says. The counter-argument is that, at a time when were planning to have a mandatory control program for greenhouse gases, there is little
reason to also have a requirement that a certain percentage of fuels for electricity generation come from renewable sources, Boucher said. He acknowledged that a colleague could very well propose a renewable standard provision during the crafting of the upcoming energy and climate change bills, and anticipates a spirited argument if it does come up. Boucher added that his new role as subcommittee chairman requires him to consider policy advantages beyond the reaches of his district so he shied away from an absolute no to the proposal. Historically I have opposed the RPS provision. I think the arguments against it are strong. But I am for the moment going to withhold judgment, Boucher said. And of course, if such a provision is not part of the energy package his committee assembles, it could be added later as an amendment during debate on the House floor. Then control of the issue would be in the hands of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., who believes that we need to increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewables in the United States above where we are today, according to a Pelosi aide. In an e-mail, the aide wrote that Pelosi supports incorporating more renewables into our nations energy mix, whether it is through use in fuels for our cars or electricity for our homes and businesses.

RPS UNPOP-DOMENICI
Domenici opposes RPS because it penalizes resource-less states U.S.News, 7 (Bret Schulte, 11-15-2007, More on the Energy Bill, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070806/6energy.htm?) // THK
Sen. Pete

Domenici, who leads the Republican delegation, is a staunch opponent of the renewable electricity standard, arguing that it unfairly penalizes states without adequate renewable energy resources, like wind. Indeed, public utility commissions from nine southeastern states have written letters to Senate leaders, arguing that the mandate, which fines utilities for failure to meet the renewable standard, would only serve to increase energy prices for consumers. RPS is unpopular with Domenici increase in energy prices CQ 07 (Congressional Quarterly, Recess Deal Sets Up Energy Bill Vote, December 1, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002634671) The electricity provision would require power companies to generate 15 percent from renewables such as solar and wind by 2020, according to a statement by Edward J. Markey , D-Mass. The same mandate was proposed in a House energy bill (HR 3221) passed in August. The move drew a sharp rebuke from New Mexicos Pete V. Domenici , the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The inclusion of a costly, ineffective Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) will make this bill untenable for many in the Senate, he said in a statement Saturday. RPS places an unfair burden on states that lack the natural resources to meet a new renewable electricity standard. Consumers that live in such states many in the South will undoubtedly be forced to pay substantially higher electricity rates, with no additional renewable electricity to show for it. Domenici said it appeared Pelosi has gone back on her word and chosen to go her own path on the energy bill.

RPS UNPOP- BUSH

BUSH HATES RPS HAS THREATENED TO VETO ANY RPS LEGISLATION Joshua P. FERSHEE, Assistant Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law - 2008 Energy Bar Association Energy Law Journal Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact Of A National Renewable Portfolio Standard On The U.S. Energy Industry. <http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do? ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.5260969233252575&bhcp=1> Energy issues, from climate change to economic development to fuel costs, have played a prominent role in the energy legislation debates of the 110th Congress. n17 Both houses passed new energy legislation, but only the House of Representatives' proposal included a national RPS as part of the plan. House Bill 969, the original source of the national RPS that eventually passed in House Bill 3221, n18 proposed, among other things, "to establish a Federal renewable energy portfolio standard for certain retail electric utilities." n19 The Senate, in passing its version of energy legislation that began in the House, added an amendment providing a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), but did not include a national RPS. n20 Ultimately, the final legislation included a version of the RFS, but left the national RPS for another day. [*53] The Senate has supported an RPS in the past, but there were significant roadblocks this time around. Most prominently, even if the House and Senate had been able to come to some sort of consensus, the Bush Administration had indicated that the President would veto any energy legislation that included, among other things, n21 an RPS or tax increases on the oil industry. n22 Instead, the President favors "expanded U.S. production, new fuel economy standards and a big mandate for ethanol and other alternative fuels." n23 The final legislation apparently allayed the President's concerns; the President signed the bill into law on December 19, 2007. n24 Significant hurdles to a national RPS thus remain. However, a review of the potential impacts of a national RPS is necessary and prudent, especially given the recurring interest of both houses of Congress and the fact that more than half of the U.S. population lives in a state (or federal district) with an RPS. RPS HAS FACED STRONG OPPOSITION FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE HOUSE IN THE PAST Mary Ann Ralls, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) as Senior Regulatory Counsel in April 2005 - 2006 Federal Energy Bar Association CONGRESS GOT IT RIGHT: THERE'S NO NEED TO MANDATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS Energy Law Journal. <http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.uchicago.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do? docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4288495215&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=26&resultsUrlKey=29_T4288495218&ci sb=22_T4288495217&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=143868&docNo=44> Over the past ten years, Congress has grappled with comprehensive energy legislation. n6 The stated purpose of the final bill, EPAct 2005, was "to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy." n7 The Administration strongly supported H.R. 6, saying that it would "benefit consumers by increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment ... . [It would] reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil by increasing the use and diversity of renewable energy sources." n8 The Administration noted that the Electricity Title would promote its objectives of improved reliability and increasing supply. n9 But the Administration opposed any effort to set a national RPS, as "these standards are best left to the States. A national RPS could raise consumer costs, especially in areas where these resources are less abundant and harder to cultivate or distribute." n10 RPS proponents had attempted to include a federal mandate in earlier versions of energy legislation. n11 A RPS, it was argued, would promote energy efficiency and conservation, n12 would enhance our efforts to become less dependent on foreign oil, n13 and would provide consumers with affordable and reliable electricity. n14 These purposes certainly appeared to dovetail with the brief statement of purposes for EPAct 2005. But for all of that, a federally mandated RPS was extremely controversial, as evidenced by the debates that occurred on the Senate floor regarding an amendment to H.R. 6. (S. Amdt. 791). [*453] S. Amdt. 791 was the final attempt to include a RPS; the Senate vote in favor of S. Amdt. 791 was close, 52-48. n15 Ultimately, however, the RPS was not included in EPAct '05, mainly due to strong opposition in the House. In S. Amdt. 791, Sen. Bingaman (D-NM), Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and long-time advocate of the RPS, proposed a scaled federal RPS of up to 10% by 2020 through 2030. n16 Overall, supporters contended that it would provide many benefits, including: reduced dependence on foreign energy sources, a reduction in the price of natural gas, new jobs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced reliability of the electricity grid. n17

RPS UNPOP- UTILITIES

UTILITY COMPANIES LOBBY STRONGLY AGAINST RPS THEY DONT HAVE ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS The HILL 05/08/07 Southern Co. takes aim at renewable-energy bill. <http://thehill.com/business--lobby/southern-co.-takes-aim-atrenewable-energy-bill-2007-05-08.html> Southerns argument is that the RPS would raise costs for its 4.3 million customers in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi an argument the company also used to defeat the effort to nationalize the power grid. The company has taken slides to Capitol Hill to show that an RPS would cost nearly $4 billion to implement by its sunset date of 2030. Other slides show the reason: The Southeast is short on wind and sun, unlike the Midwest and Southwest. We do oppose such legislation because the practical use of renewables varies greatly depending on what region you are from, said Mike Tyndall, a spokesman for the company. For Southern, the 15 percent requirement translates into roughly 6,000 megawatts of power. That would require 6,900 wind turbines, or 200 square miles of lands dedicated to solar power, according to the slides. At zero megawatts now, Southern figures it can generate only around 800 megawatts by the bills deadline. Accordingly, it is lobbying very aggressively against the bill, said one utility lobbyist who supports the RPS. Other Southeastern utilities, such as Louisiana-based Entergy, have joined Southern in arguing their area doesnt have sufficient renewable sources of power. UTILITIES COMPANIES HATE RPS THEY HAVE DEFEATED RPS POLICIES IN THE PAST The HILL 05/08/07 Southern Co. takes aim at renewable-energy bill. <http://thehill.com/business--lobby/southern-co.-takes-aim-atrenewable-energy-bill-2007-05-08.html> Southern Company, by spending huge sums both on lobbying and on political campaigns, is among the biggest power players in Washington. The utility, which reported $14.4 billion in revenues in 2006, helped derail an administration plan to create a national electricity market three years ago. Now Southern is targeting a high priority of a key Senate Democrat: requiring utilities to purchase a certain percentage of power from wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy sources. The fight over the so-called Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), authored by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), may be an early indicator of the great difficulties inherent in crafting a bill to curb global warming emissions.

RPS UNPOP- CONGRESS

RPS OPPONENTS HAVE DEFEATED PAST ATTEMPTED POLICIES MULTIPLE REASONS The HILL 05/08/07 Southern Co. takes aim at renewable-energy bill. <http://thehill.com/business--lobby/southern-co.-takes-aim-atrenewable-energy-bill-2007-05-08.html> An RPS would lower greenhouse gas emissions, although not to the extent contemplated by bills that specifically target global warming. It would also affect utilities and regions of the country differently, thereby setting up political fault lines based on geography as well as political affiliation, just like a climate-change bill would. Bingamans measure would require utilities to purchase 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Versions have passed the Senate three times, but RPS supporters fear that opponents will take a tougher stand this year, including through the use of the filibuster. Before, these critics could count on House Republicans killing an RPS, but they are no longer in the majority. Bingaman is likely to introduce an RPS measure as an amendment to a bill the Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed last week that called for development of transportation biofuels and energy-efficiency targets. This bill could reach the floor later this month.

RPS UNPOP-INDUSTRY LOBBIES

Multiple industries are lobbying against RPS Parker 07 (Sara, staff writer for Renewable Energy World, National RPS to Include Coal & Nuclear?, June 13,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48921) But while Bingaman's RPS amendment is considered to be the most far-reaching energy bill likely to make it through congress this session, it won't pass without opposition. "Undoubtedly, we will debate amendments that will bring out strong opinions, and we will have some heatedyet honestdebates," said Senator Bingaman addressing Congress on Monday. "But I am confident that as long as we keep in mind our shared goalto work together and produce legislation that makes meaningful progress on securing America's energy futurethe Senate will rise to the occasion. The American people expect nothing less." Heavy opposition, however, is not coming solely from oil lobbyists as many in the American public might assume, but the multi-billion dollar utility industry as well. Early last month, an article published on RenewableEnergyAccess.com reported that the utility Southern Company openly opposed a National RPSand was spending huge sums of money lobbying against such legislation arguing that it would increase costs for it's 4.3 million customers in Alabama, Georgia, Florida and Mississippi. "It's a bit of moving target," said Rubens, who noted Bingaman's amendment is expected to be filibustered after being introduced. "The challenge will be overcoming the filibuster."

RPS POP- REPS

REPUBLICANS WANT A STATE-BY-STATE RPS

Alexander Duncan, staff writer, 3/10/08, Inside Energy with Federal Links, Karsner scolds Democrats for linking renewable measure to oil tax package
So far, Senate Republicans have managed to beat back the Democrats' efforts to link the popular PTC extensions to the controversial RPS and oil-company rollback provisions. Republicans have argued that encouraging state-by-state renewable portfolio standards is the best way to advance the technologies, given regional differences in wind, solar and other renewable resources.

***************SOLAR POWER***************

SOLAR POP-CONGRESS (STRONG LOBBIES)

Solar lobbies very powerful empirically proven Solarbuzz 07 (News site for solar power, Washington, DC, USA: House Passes Energy Bill; Solar Industry Starts Calling Their Senators, December 7,
http://www.solarbuzz.com/news/NewsNAGO346.htm)

The solar industry earned a major victory yesterday when the House passed the Energy Security and Savings Act of 2007 and the Clean Renewable Energy and Conservation Tax Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) that includes a $21 billion tax package. Recent lobbying by solar industry proponents has directly resulted in the successful passage in the House of the industrys top priority, extension and improvement of the solar investment tax credits. The solar investment tax credit and other tax provisions in H.R. 6 are as follows: Provides an
eight-year extension (through December 31, 2016) of the existing 30 percent Investment Tax Credit for businesses under Section 48 of the tax code. Removes the prohibition barring utilities from using the section 48 Investment Tax Credit. Provides the ability for commercial filers to claim the Investment Tax Credit against the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Provides a six-year extension (through December 31, 2014) of the existing 30 percent Investment Tax Credit for residential solar electric and solar water heating property, and raises the cap on the credit for solar electric property to $4,000. Provides the ability for personal filers to claim the Investment Tax Credit against the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The energy bill now is now under negotiation between the Senate, House and the President. Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industries Assocation (SEIA) said, Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues gave the American people exactly what they are demanding a fundamental shift towards production of clean, domestic renewable energy. With the solar incentives in this legislation, we estimate solar power will provide 50 percent of all new electricity generated in the U.S. within eight years. The growth of solar energy markets will create tens of thousands of high-tech jobs throughout the nation, improve energy security, and save American taxpayers billions in energy costs." This historic bill, shifts the U.S. from 20th century energy policy to the 21st century. The $21-billion tax measure reinvests unnecessary oil and gas subsidies into carbon-free renewable technology such as solar. Now, all eyes are on the Senators who must decide if they stand with the 80 percent of Americans who want clean energy and a more secure America or if they will stick with more of the same. American voters are watching. Several members of Republican leadership have said that they will vigorously oppose the tax package because it increases taxes on the oil and gas industry and includes a 15 percent national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). However, the $21 billion tax package is smaller than the roughly $32 billion tax plan Republicans successfully blocked from the broad Senate energy bill approved in June. Democratic Senators have expressed varying degrees of confidence that the bill has the 60 votes needed to pass. A repeat of the intensive solar industry lobbying activity (reported in the tens of thousands) that took place two weeks ago

is now required. This will be a defining moment for the short term prospects of developing a national US solar market.

SOLAR UNPOP-CONGRESS (WEAK LOBBIES)

SOLAR LOBBY IS WEAK COAL AND NUCLEAR LOBBIES HAVE INSURMOUNTABLE ADVANTAGES

New York Times 07. (Andrew Revkin and Matthew Wald, July 16, The Energy Challenge Solar Power Wins Enthusiasts but Not Money http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html? pagewanted=1)
Yet research on solar power and methods for storing intermittent energy has long received less spending, both in the United States and in other industrialized countries, than energy options with more political support. Indeed, there are few major programs looking for ways to drastically reduce the cost of converting sunlight to energy and of equal if not more importance of efficiently storing it for when the sun is not shining. Scientists are hoping to expand the range of sunlights wavelengths that can be absorbed, and to cut the amount of energy the cells lose to heat. One goal is to make materials to force photons to ricochet around inside the silicon to give up more of their energy. For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion received dominant shares of government energy-research money. While venture capitalists often support the commercialization of new technologies, basic research money comes almost entirely from the federal government. These days, a growing amount of government money is headed to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research on burning coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the main heattrapping smokestack gas. In the current fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research and development. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million, on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development. Raymond L. Orbach, the under secretary of energy for science, said the administrations challenge was to spread a finite pot of money to all the technologies that will help supply energy without adding to global warming. No one source of energy that we know of is going to solve it, Dr. Orbach said. This is about a portfolio. In the battle for money from Washington, solar lobbyists say they are outgunned by their counterparts representing coal, corn and the atom. Coal and nuclear count their lobbying budgets in the tens of millions, said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. We count ours in the tens of thousands. Government spending on energy research has long been shaped by political constituencies. Nuclear power, for example, has enjoyed consistent support from the Senate Energy Committee no matter which party is in power in large part because Senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici, the Democratic chairman and the ranking Republican, are both from New Mexico, home to Los Alamos National Laboratory and a branch of the Sandia National Laboratories.Biofuels, mostly ethanol and biodiesel, have attracted lawmakers who support farm subsidies. Last year an impromptu coalition established a goal of producing 25 percent of the countrys energy, including vehicle fuel, from renewable sources by 2025. Legislation to that effect attracted 34 senators and 69 representatives as co-sponsors; the resolutions are pending in both houses. Most of the measures supporters are from agricultural areas. For the moment, the strongest government support for solar power is coming from the states, not Washington. But there, too, the focus remains on stimulating markets, not laboratory research. The federal government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a large, sustained energy quest, many experts say. This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough, said Nathan S. Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. Many environmental organizations are pushing for tax credits for people who buy solar equipment, which helps manufacturing but not research. Still, some experts say government-financed research efforts often go awry. And several government officials defended the current effort, saying an outsize investment in solar research is not needed because the industry is already in high gear. Bush administration officials say they are committed to making power from photovoltaic technology as well as solar thermal systems competitive with other sources by 2015. Alexander Karsner, the lead Energy Department official for renewable energy technology and efficiency, said the expanded use of photovoltaic cells could have its greatest impact by substantially reducing the energy thirst of new buildings.

SOLAR POP=PUBLIC
Solar power popular with the public
Revkin 7 Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. Wald, July 16, 2007, Solar Power Wins Enthusiasts but Not Money, The New York Times, Business, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html It is no wonder solar power has captured the public imagination. Panels that convert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers and farmers fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggers Million Solar Roofs initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming.

Solar power politically and publically popular

Heffernan 8 Olive Heffernan, A Bright Future for Solar Power, Natural Reports on Climate Change, Natural Environment Research Council, March 5, 2008, http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0803/full/climate.2008.20.html Yet until now, political support for this budding energy source has not matched the public's enthusiasm. If the bill to boost renewable energy gets the go-ahead from the US administration, it could remove one of the remaining impediments to using the sun as a significant source of energy, bringing Kurzweil's predictions that much closer to reality.

The public supports solar energy

Coolidge 8 Coolidge, July 1, 2008, Georgina, Reuters, Environmental News Network http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37536 The government freeze on new applications showed a "big disconnect" from public support for solar power, Resch (Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industry Association) said. In the same call, Robert Fishman, chief executive of privately held Ausra, a solar thermal power developer headquartered in Palo Alto, California, said a recent poll showed 94 percent of Americans favor solar power development to help ease pollution and cut energy costs.

SOLAR POP=PUBLIC
An overwhelming amount of Americans are in love with solar power- polls prove Angus Reid Global Monitor (The definitive online source for examining worldwide public opinion and democratic processes. May 7, 2007 Americans Assess New Energy
Sourceshttp://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15645/americans_assess_new_energy_sources Accessed June 28, 2008-JD)

A vast majority of people in the Unites States would support the use of renewable energy sources, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 87 per cent of respondents think using solar and wind power is a good idea. Support for ethanol, a bio-fuel manufactured from corn, stands at 70 per cent. Natural gas in next on the list of preferred energy sources with 51 per cent, followed by coal with 43 per cent. 58 per cent of respondents regard the use of nuclear energy as a bad idea.

SOLAR POP-PUBLIC
SOLAR TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND FUNDING IS BIPARTISAN

Cheryl Katz, June 2004, public opinion researcher and author, Public Attitudes and Support for Solar Power, (http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/uploads/Jo/iZ/JoiZa4yQT-yf6xXHPht7w/Public_Attitudes_and_Support_for_Solar_Power.pdf)
The June 2004 Public Attitudes and Support for Solar Power Survey was conducted for Environment California Research and Policy Center by Baldassare Associates. The survey included telephone interviews with 600 likely voters living in California. Interviewing was conducted June 24-27, 2004. The margin of error is +/- 4 percent for the total sample. Here are the highlights of the survey: Californians show strong support for increasing the use of solar power in the state. By a 2:1 margin, likely voters favor developing more renewable energy sources (61%) over building more power plants (31%) to meet the states growing energy needs. Support for increasing the use of solar power is greatest among Democrats (67%), and in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area (64% each). Nearly nine in 10 (87%) have a favorable opinion of solar power, with 52 percent very favorable. Solid majorities in all demographic and political groups are favorable toward solar power. More than seven in 10 (72%) favor a plan to build half of new homes with solar power systems, which was proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger as part of his energy action plan during his campaign for governor. A majority of Republicans and Democrats alike favor this plan. Two in three voters who favor the plan for 50% of new homes to be built with solar power want this goal accomplished by 2010. Overall, six in 10 likely voters want the state to institute standards directing the inclusion of solar power systems in new housing. At least half in all demographic and political groups support state solar standards. A similar number (58%) favor including provisions for solar power as part of the states building code. While a majority of Democrats supports this (66%), fewer than half of Republicans agree (47%). Voters strongly support encouraging the use of solar power systems with subsidies. Six in 10 favor providing subsidies to builders to install solar power on new homes, and seven in 10 want subsidies for homeowners to purchase solar systems.

SOLAR POWER TECHNOLOGY IS OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR FLORIDA POLLS PROVE

FLAEISA, March 13, 2008, Florida Solar Energy Industries Association, New Poll Shows Huge Public Support for State Programs to Build Solar Energy,
Tallahassee, Fla. High consumer demand has exhausted the states solar rebate program fund six months early, and lawmakers and solar advocates today released a new survey showing Florida residents overwhelmingly support spending more money on solar energy even if costs them a little bit more on their utility bills. The survey of 625 registered voters (margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent), conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., shows: whopping 85 percent of those polled believe the Florida A Legislature should act to encourage investment in solar energy; and Eighty-one percent of those polled said they support that investment even if it costs $1 extra on their monthly utility bills. Its clear that the Sunshine State likes the idea of Florida becoming a solar energy leader, said Bruce Kershner of the Florida Solar Energy Industries Association. These landslide numbers show Sunshine State residents want to see solar taking a more important role as an energy source in their homes and businesses. Voters in South Florida showed the most enthusiasm, with 87 percent in favor of solar energy investment. Central Florida and the Gulf Coast were close behind, and 80 percent of those living in North Florida also favored more state investment for solar energy. Floridians understand the importance of having a long term strategy for harnessing energy from the sun to power our homes and businesses, said Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner. Our leadership in renewable energy technologies will create jobs in Florida, and its clear that going green is good for protecting our environment and strengthening our economy. While voters of all ages said they supported spending more on solar energy, a stunning 93 percent of those aged between 18 and 34 agreed. Statewide, the consensus surrounding the need to promote solar energy crossed party lines, with 82 percent of Republicans favoring more public money for solar energy, compared to 87 percent of Democrats. The poll also showed strong support for solar energy even if it led to an increase in utility bills. Overall, 81 percent of those polled said they were willing to pay $1 more each month on their utility bill to support solar energy.

SOLAR POP-PUBLIC
SOLAR POWER TECH POPULAR NATIONWIDE SUPPORT

Business Wire, Oct 28, 1998, Green Mountain Energy Resources Announces Plans to Construct Pennsylvanias Largest Solar Power Plant, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1998_Oct_28/ai_53136280?tag=untagged)
SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 28, 1998--Spurred by a growing consumer interest in solar energy and a commitment to new renewable energy sources, Green Mountain Energy Resources, the leading retail marketer of cleaner electricity to residential customers, today announced an exclusive agreement with Sun Power Electric for a new 50 kW solar power plant. Under this agreement, Sun Power Electric, the world's first all-solar electric utility, will build and own the 50kW solar plant and sell the output to Green Mountain. The solar array, expected to begin producing electricity from the sun by Spring 1999, will be located in the Philadelphia area at a site to be selected. "We're delighted to work with Sun Power Electric so that Pennsylvania can reduce its reliance on polluting sources of electricity," said Kevin Hartley, Green Mountain's vice president of Marketing. "Green Mountain's mission is to change the way power is made. We're especially interested in solar because it is one of the cleanest electricity sources available. Our first 50 kW plant will be the largest solar power plant in Pennsylvania." Each day more solar energy falls to the Earth than the total amount of energy the planet's 5.7 billion inhabitants would consume in 27 years. Using solar facilities like Green Mountain's new Pennsylvania plant to convert sunshine into electricity has the potential to help the United States reduce carbon dioxide emissions as required under the Kyoto climate change accord. Solar technology currently enjoys widespread support within the environmental community and among the general public, and is used in various forms by more than 200,000 homeowners in the United States. It is also the word's fastest growing energy source.

SOLAR POP-PUBLIC
MASSIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SOLAR ENERGY

Electrtic Light and Power Magazine, 2008 (Electric Light and Power Magazine and Utilitu Automation & Engineering T&D Magazine (Joint Website), New Report Finds Majority of Americans Want Solar Power, June 19) A recent poll has found that a majority of Americans, across all political parties, support development and funding of solar energy. According to the study, ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. The findings were reported in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer, a survey conducted by the polling firm Kelton Research. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. Eighty-six percent of Independents supported the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were president, 41 percent of Americans picked solar. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent) and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended.

MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS SOLAR ENERGY

Solar Hope Online, 2007 (Majority of Americans Favor Solar on New Homes, June 2) According to a recent Roper survey commissioned by Sharp Electronics Corporation, nearly 90 percent of Americans think that solar electricity should be an option for all new home construction, up significantly from one year ago (79 percent). Three-quarters of survey respondents perceive solar power to be more important than ever, evidence that Americans recognize the value of solar as a clean, renewable form of energy.

SOLAR POP-PUBLIC
Solar Energy is popular Forbes, 08
(Joshua Zumbrun and William Pentland, Columnists for Forbes, Solar Power, 7/8/08, http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/07/energy-solar-blm-biz-beltwaycx_jz_wp_0708solar.html) The bureau (BLM) decided to stop accepting applications to build solar plants on federal land until a two-year environmental impact study was complete in 2010. Sanders, with a long history of backing environmental causes, was livid at the decision. But in the middle of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting, Sanders unexpectedly got word that the BLM reversed its decision. "I congratulate the bureau for making the change and for understanding the enormous potential of solar energy," Sanders said. The turnaround

was a welcome development for backers of the technology--and, more important, demonstrates the alternative energy industry's coming of age in Washington after decades of behindthe-scenes lobbying effort. What happened? "After six weeks of public outcry and inquiries from Congress, BLM reversed their position," says Katherine Gensler, the manager of regulatory and legislative affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association. This
chapter in the solar saga started in May, when the BLM announced it would no longer take applications. Since 2005, the bureau has received 130 applications to develop solar plants across 1 million acres of federal land. Before accepting any more, the bureau wanted to complete a "programmatic environmental impact study" to assess the process of building solar plants. Such studies typically take 18 to 24 months. For the solar industry, the delay was seen as a dangerous threat. The BLM controls 12 million acres in Arizona, 15 million in California, 8 million in Colorado, 13 million in New Mexico, 48 million in Nevada and 23 million in Utah. A lot of that land is sun-drenched empty desert, some of the best land in the country for collecting solar energy. "It was a blow for the industry, and it was a surprise," says Gensler. "It certainly caused fear in a lot of developers' hearts." Lengthy delays can jeopardize the funding of some projects, and the longer projects wait in the pipeline, the longer companies must wait to reap the revenue from their investments. "Right away we started to hear from folks," says Heather Feeney, a spokeswoman for the BLM. "Solar

energy is incredibly popular, and the BLM recognizes that and is willing to encourage that."

SOLAR POP-PUBLIC
solar power is extremely popular across the political spectrum surveys prove Mongabay.com. 6-11. (94% of Americans Support Solar Energy Development. June 11, 2008. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0611solar.html)

94 percent of Americans say it's important for the U.S. to develop and use solar energy, according to a new poll that found support for solar power runs across the political spectrum. The SCHOTT Solar BarometerTMsurvey, conducted by the independent polling firm, Kelton Research, found that 91 percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is "vital" to the United States. The poll revealed that 77 percent of Americans believe the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. 86 percent of Independent voters supporting the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were President, 41 percent of Americans picked solar, followed by wind. Coal was listed by only 3 percent of those polled. "These results are an undeniable signal to our elected leaders that Americans want job-creating solar power, now," said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

Solar energy overwhelmingly popular Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 4/14/08

With the current focus on the environment and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, solar energy enjoys more uniform support from the public than any other technology.

A vast majority of Americans say solar power should be a huge priority for the federal government
SEIA, 08 (Solar Energy Industries Association, industry for energy development and climate association, 6/10/08, http://www.seia.org/solarnews.php?id=184 A vast majority of Americans, across all political parties, overwhelmingly support development and funding of solar energy. Ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. These and other findings were reported today in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer(TM), a nationally representative survey conducted by the independent polling firm, Kelton Research. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. Independent voters felt strongest about this, compared to voters in other political parties, with 86 percent of Independents supporting the statement.

The American public favors solar development

Coolidge, 08 (Georgina, reporter for Reuters, 7/11/08, http://www.enn.com/energy/article/37536 In the same call, Robert Fishman, chief executive of privately held Ausra, a solar thermal power developer headquartered in Palo Alto, California, said a recent poll showed 94 percent of Americans favor solar power development to help ease pollution and cut energy costs.

majority of the public supports solar energy

Solar Hope Online, 07 (Majority of Americans Favor Solar on New Homes, June 2) According to a recent Roper survey commissioned by Sharp Electronics Corporation, nearly 90 percent of Americans think that solar electricity should be an option for all new home construction, up significantly from one year ago (79 percent). Three-quarters of survey respondents perceive solar power to be more important than ever, evidence that Americans recognize the value of solar as a clean, renewable form of energy.

SOLAR POP-PUBLIC
94% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF SOLAR ENERGY SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 08 (POLL REPORTS 94% OF AMERICANS SAY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE U.S. TO DEVELOP AND USE SOLAR ENERGY, JUNE 10, HTTP://WWW.SEIA.ORG/SOLARNEWS.PHP?ID=184, ACCESSED ON JULY 7, 2008 Poll Reports 94% of Americans Say It's Important for the U.S. to Develop and Use Solar Energy - 98% of Independents, 97% of Democrats, and 91% of Republicans support development of solar. - 74% of Independents, 72% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans favor extension of Federal tax credits for renewable technologies. - 77% of Americans feel Federal government should make solar power development a national priority June 10, 2008 (Washington, D.C.) - A vast majority of Americans, across all political parties, overwhelmingly support development and funding of solar energy. Ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. These and other findings were reported today in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer(TM), a nationally representative survey conducted by the independent polling firm, Kelton Research. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. Independent voters felt strongest about this, compared to voters in other political parties, with 86 percent of Independents supporting the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were President, 41 percent of Americans picked solar. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent). "These results are an undeniable signal to our elected leaders that Americans want job-creating solar power, now," said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent) and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended.

SOLAR POP-PUBLIC
SOLAR POWER IS OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR INDEPENDENT NATIONAL POLLING PROVES IT IS THE MOST POPULAR RENEWABLE TECH Lynch 2008, Spokesman for Schott North America (Brian, Poll Reports 94% of Americans Say Its Important for the U.S. to Develop and Use Solar Energy, June 10, http://www.us.schott.com/english/news/press_releases.html?NID=238, accessed on July 15)
A vast majority of Americans, across all political parties, overwhelmingly support development and funding of solar energy. Ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. These and other findings were reported today in the SCHOTT Solar BarometerTM, a nationally representative survey conducted by the independent polling firm, Kelton Research. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. Independent voters felt strongest about this, compared to voters in other political parties, with 86 percent of Independents supporting the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were President, 41 percent of Americans picked solar. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent). DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLICAN, AND INDEPENDENTS ALL FAVOR SOLAR

Lynch 2008, Spokesman for Schott North America (Brian, Poll Reports 94% of Americans Say Its Important for the U.S. to Develop and Use Solar Energy, June 10, http://www.us.schott.com/english/news/press_releases.html?NID=238, accessed on July 15)
These results are an undeniable signal to our elected leaders that Americans want job-creating solar power, now, said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent) and Independents

(74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended. Current federal legislation, which provides incentives to spur the growth of renewable energy, is set to expire at the end of the year. Experts predict that without long-term renewal of the legislation, the solar energy industry will struggle to maintain its momentum. According to independent analysis by Navigant Consulting, this would translate into the loss of 39,000 jobs, as well as the loss of nearly $8 billion in investments. When wind is included, 116,000 jobs and $19 billion in investment are at risk, according to the report. Solar development means job growth for Americans, by Americans, in an industry that will benefit America. said Dr. Gerald Fine, President & CEO of SCHOTT North America. Rather than rely on foreign sources for fuel, the U.S. can aspire to become the worlds leader in clean energy. Extension of the tax credits continues to be in doubt as the House, Senate and Administration debate differing plans. In May, the House Ways and Means Committee cleared H.R. 6049, which would extend the solar investment tax credit for six years. According to SEIA, this legislation would secure America's clean-energy future by closing an income tax loophole enjoyed by hedge-fund managers on their off-shore accounts. The U.S. Senate has an opportunity to act decisively by passing the Renewable Energy & Job Creation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6049) this month. This is smart policy that will help solar become a powerful economic engine for the country, stabilize energy prices for consumers and businesses and improve Americas national energy security. A vote against this bill is a vote against what the vast majority of Americans are demanding, said Mr. Resch. When you consider that, according to the American Solar Energy Society, nearly 7,000 gigawatts (GW) of solar generation capacity exists in the American Southwest, America is truly a sleeping giant, said Dr. Fine. Americans want to wake this giant up.

SOLAR POP-PUBLIC
SOLAR POWER POPULAR

Leitner 02Fuel From the Sky: Solar Powers Potential for Western Energy Supply Dr. Arnold Leitner Senior Consultant, RDI Consulting PhD Superconductor Physics July 2002 http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf
Our research suggests that western policy makers are likely to find their citizens ready to embrace energy from solar power. Green energy programs, which sell power generated from renewable energies at a premium to customers, have been successful and in some areas up to 5% of consumers have switched to green energy.5 Most of these programs are running short on green capacity and thus have had to cut back on their marketing. With better education of the public about the sources of power and the choices they have in todays deregulating energy markets, and with larger-scale deployment of renewables, the penetration of green energy programs is likely to be even higher. PUBLIC PERCEIVES ENERGY POWER GENERATION CHOICES

Leitner 02Fuel From the Sky: Solar Powers Potential for Western Energy Supply Dr. Arnold Leitner Senior Consultant, RDI Consulting PhD Superconductor Physics July 2002 http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf
Until recently, consumers paid little attention to the source of electricity. But the California energy crisis changed the publics understanding of the issue dramatically. If one good thing can be gleaned from the crisis, it is that Americans now know that power does not originate in the outlet but is produced by power plants. Difficult choices have to be made as to the future sources of electric power. PUBLIC WILL INEVITABLY DEMAND INCREASE SOLAR POWER

Leitner 02Fuel From the Sky: Solar Powers Potential for Western Energy Supply Dr. Arnold Leitner Senior Consultant, RDI Consulting PhD Superconductor Physics July 2002 http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf
It is likely that citizens will become even more involved in issues surrounding power generation. We anticipate a cultural transformation in Americas approach to energy issues, similar to what has already occurred in Europe. American society could demand renewable energy not just as a special product in a utilitys energy offering, but as an important part of a comprehensive power supply strategy. Chances are that solar power would be a popular, if not the preferred, choice of renewable energy by the citizens of the Southwest.

SOLAR POP- PUBLIC

People support solar-polls prove Pollingreport .com May 2008 http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm
"Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes on gasoline and other fuels if the money was used for research into renewable sources like solar and wind energy?" Willing Not Willing
% 4/20-24/07 % % 33 3 Unsure

64

SOLAR BIPART
Solar energy has bipartisan support more cost effective HSTC Press Release 08 (House Science and Technology Committee, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Presides over Bipartisan Congessional Field Hearing on
Utility-Scale Solar Power, March 18, http://scidems.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2137) (Tuscon, Arizona) U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords today called solar energy a practical

solution to some of the most significant challenges America will confront in the 21st century. "The time for solar is now," Giffords told an audience of 130 attending a bipartisan congressional field hearing on solar energy. "Technologies are improving, costs are falling and the reasons to adopt it are increasingly compelling." Giffords, who presided over the hearing in her capacity as vice-chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, compared the solar energy industry of today to the early years of space program because of the many positive ways it can shape our future. "In the coming months and years, we will face critical decisions on how to address climate change, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and boost our economic competitiveness," the Tucson lawmaker said. "The beauty of solar power is that it offers an elegant solution to all three of these pressing concerns." The goal of the two-hour hearing was to explore the potential of making solar energy a significant source of electric generating capacity in the United States. Giffords and five other members of Congress heard testimony from six expert witnesses who spoke about solar technologies, energy transmission and regulatory issues, and the role of government and the private sector in the development of utility-scale solar power. "

SOLAR BIPART
STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR SOLAR ENERGY--agriculture and environmental coalitions Business Net 06 (Solar EnerTech Corp. Applauds 25x'25 Bi-Partisan Congressional Resolution Calling for New National Renewable Energy Goal, June,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200606/ai_n16500491/pg_1) Solar EnerTech Corp. (OTCBB: SOEN) (the Company) today announced its wholehearted support for the recently introduced 25x'25 Resolution in the United States. The bi-partisan congressional resolution calls for a new national renewable energy goal whereby 25% of the nation's energy supply would derive from renewable sources like solar, wind and biofuels by 2025. Solar EnerTech is focused on the development and manufacture of solar cells and applications along with advanced technologies in solar energy and commends Congress for its commitment to clean, renewable energy. The objective of the 25x'25 Resolution is to encourage the United States to embrace renewable energy technology and adopt initiatives that will result in the entire country moving towards a cohesive national renewable energy program with targeted benchmarks and achievable goals. The resolution builds on a broad and politically influential coalition including agriculture, industry,

and environmental leaders, as well as several governors and state legislatures. Republicans and Democrats, rural and urban interests, and representatives from over 140 different farm, forestry and environmental organizations have so far come together behind this national energy goal. As initiatives like 25x'25 create visibility and awareness, the demand for alternative energy increases and spurs new
technological advances opening up avenues of funding for the industry as a whole. As existing Federal and State initiatives currently provide for varying and uneven levels of alternative energy adoption, this new initiative provides for a completely new venue whereby the Renewable Energy industry can enjoy improved access and response from key legislators on a national level working towards common goals. The planned initiative, arriving concurrently with President Bush's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget proposing the new $148 million Solar America Initiative which identifies a 78% increase of $65 million over Fiscal Year 2006 appropriations for solar energy technology comes at a time when the global solar power marketplace grew 55% last year to $11.2 billion. Solar EnerTech believes these factors add up to a compelling trend that identifies marked growth opportunities for the entire sector, especially Solar Energy. Management is satisfied that the ongoing efforts by the Company to initiate solar cell manufacturing, development of new technologies and enter into agreements identifying and securing silicon feedstock will prove beneficial for the company and its shareholders as Renewable Energy in all its forms is increasingly adopted around the world.

SOLAR BIPART
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FOR SOLAR POWER

Strain, 2008 (Jeffery, Freelance Personal Finance Writer, Solar Powers Great, But Is It Worth It? The Street.com, June 12) With energy prices at all time highs, should you be looking to solar power to help your pocketbook? When it comes to politics, there aren't many issues where more than 90% of Republicans, Independents and Democrats can agree -- but that's exactly how things stand when it comes to developing solar power. According to a recently released SCHOTT Solar Barometer report, 91% of Republicans, 98% of Independents and 97% of Democrats believe it's in the vital interest of the U.S. to develop solar power.

SOLAR BIPART
SOLAR ENERGY POPULAR AMONG ALL POLITICAL PARTIES HURST08, (SENATE VOTE ON RENEWABLE AS EARLY AS TODAY [UPDATE] , POLICY ANALYST, HTTP://REDGREENANDBLUE.ORG/2008/06/10/SENATE-TO-VOTE-ON-RENEWABLES-AS-EARLY-ASTODAY/#MORE-312, JUNE 10, ACCESSED ON JULY 12, 2008) This really has to happen by the August recessIf it drags out beyond that and gets done in some kind of lame duck [action] - or doesnt get done - I think its a major problem for the industry, and a major embarrassment for the Congress. Considering the popular support for policies that promote renewable energy development, it seems odd that Congress continues to drag their collective feet on passing the PTC. The results of a recent poll show that a vast majority of Americans, across all political parties, overwhelmingly support development and funding of solar energy. Ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the U.S. The tenuous position of the PTC was a hot topic at last weeks WINDPOWER 2008 in Houston. At the event, virtually all of the industry leaders, advocates, and public officials I spoke with strongly voiced support for passage of the tax credits. And nearly all of them were maintained that we need the stability of a long term renewable energy policy, as opposed to the one and two year extensions the Congress has favored more recently

SOLAR BIPART
SOLAR POWER DEVELOPMENT FAVORED BY MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, AND INDEPENDENTS

Lynch 08, Spokesman for Schott North America (Brian, Poll Reports 94% of Americans Say Its Important for the U.S. to Develop and Use Solar Energy, June 10, http://www.us.schott.com/english/news/press_releases.html?NID=238, accessed on July 15)
These results are an undeniable signal to our elected leaders that Americans want job-creating solar power, now, said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent) and Independents

(74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended. Current federal
legislation, which provides incentives to spur the growth of renewable energy, is set to expire at the end of the year. Experts predict that without long-term renewal of the legislation, the solar energy industry will struggle to maintain its momentum. According to independent analysis by Navigant Consulting, this would translate into the loss of 39,000 jobs, as well as the loss of nearly $8 billion in investments. When wind is included, 116,000 jobs and $19 billion in investment are at risk, according to the report. Solar

development means job growth for Americans, by Americans, in an industry that will benefit America. said Dr. Gerald Fine, President & CEO of SCHOTT North America. Rather than rely on foreign sources for fuel, the U.S. can aspire to become the worlds leader in clean energy. Extension of the tax credits continues to be in doubt as the House, Senate and Administration debate differing plans. In May, the House Ways and Means Committee cleared H.R. 6049, which would extend the solar investment tax credit for six years. According to SEIA, this legislation would
secure America's clean-energy future by closing an income tax loophole enjoyed by hedge-fund managers on their off-shore accounts. The U.S. Senate has an opportunity to act decisively by passing the Renewable Energy & Job Creation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6049) this month. This is smart policy that will help solar become a powerful economic engine for the country, stabilize energy prices for consumers and businesses and improve Americas national energy security. A vote against this bill is a vote against what the vast majority of Americans are demanding, said Mr. Resch. When you consider that, according to the American Solar Energy Society, nearly 7,000 gigawatts (GW) of solar generation capacity exists in the American Southwest, America is truly a sleeping giant, said Dr. Fine. Americans want to wake this giant up.

SOLAR BIPART
Solar power bipartisan The Courier Mail, 8/6/2007 US congress turns greener, lexis [adit] The US House of Representatives has made an unprecedented step toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions as it passed an sweeping energy Bill that requires utilities to produce 15 per cent of their electricity from wind and solar power. The Bill sailed through the House on a 241-172 vote, despite fervent opposition from big oil and gas companies and the White House, which has threatened to veto the measure.
Remarkably, 26 Republicans

crossed party lines, voting in support for the initiative.

The Bill will have to be reconciled with a Senate version, which passed last June, but is more restrained and emphasises slightly different priorities. ''Today, the House propelled America's energy policy into the future,'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. ''This planet is God's creation. We have a moral responsibility to protect it.''

A provision in the Bill calls for gradual steps to reduce the role of fossil fuels in generating energy, imposing for the first time a federal standard, under which utilities will have to provide 15 per cent of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources by 2020. This standard, according to congressional officials, will likely result in a reduction carbon dioxide emissions -- a major contributor to global warming -- by 500 million tons. Power plants account for about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions in the US.
The new emphasis on renewable energy would lower natural gas and electricity prices and save more than $100 billion for US consumers, the officials said. The House of Representatives has handed President George W. Bush a victory, voting to expand the Government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the US. The 227-183 vote, which followed the Senate's approval Friday, sends the Bill to Mr Bush for his signature.

SOLAR BIPART
SOLAR TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND FUNDING IS BIPARTISAN

Cheryl Katz, June 2004, public opinion researcher and author, Public Attitudes and Support for Solar Power, (http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/uploads/Jo/iZ/JoiZa4yQT-yf6xXHPht7w/Public_Attitudes_and_Support_for_Solar_Power.pdf)
The June 2004 Public Attitudes and Support for Solar Power Survey was conducted for Environment California Research and Policy Center by Baldassare Associates. The survey included telephone interviews with 600 likely voters living in California. Interviewing was conducted June 24-27, 2004. The margin of error is +/- 4 percent for the total sample. Here are the highlights of the survey: Californians show strong support for increasing the use of solar power in the state. By a 2:1 margin, likely voters favor developing more renewable energy sources (61%) over building more power plants (31%) to meet the states growing energy needs. Support for increasing the use of solar power is greatest among Democrats (67%), and in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area (64% each). Nearly nine in 10 (87%) have a favorable opinion of solar power, with 52 percent very favorable. Solid majorities in all demographic and political groups are favorable toward solar power. More than seven in 10 (72%) favor a plan to build half of new homes with solar power systems, which was proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger as part of his energy action plan during his campaign for governor. A majority of Republicans and Democrats alike favor this plan. Two in three voters who favor the plan for 50% of new homes to be built with solar power want this goal accomplished by 2010. Overall, six in 10 likely voters want the state to institute standards directing the inclusion of solar power systems in new housing. At least half in all demographic and political groups support state solar standards. A similar number (58%) favor including provisions for solar power as part of the states building code. While a majority of Democrats supports this (66%), fewer than half of Republicans agree (47%). Voters strongly support encouraging the use of solar power systems with subsidies. Six in 10 favor providing subsidies to builders to install solar power on new homes, and seven in 10 want subsidies for homeowners to purchase solar systems.

SOLAR = PART (UNPOP WITH REPS)

Solar power is unpopular with republicans growing partisanship Las Vegas Review Journal 08 (Solar-power lobby's pressure has Ensign feeling alienated, June 14,
http://www.lvrj.com/business/19939644.html) WASHINGTON -- Breaking with an industry that is growing significant in Nevada, Sen. John Ensign cried foul this week against a solar power lobbying campaign. Ensign said an effort to pressure him on solar tax breaks has had the opposite effect of "personally alienating" him and other senators. In an outburst notable for its bluntness, the Republican sent a blistering letter Thursday to the national membership of the Solar Energy Industry Association, and later gave it to reporters. He said lobbyists threw away their goodwill when they carried out a strategy that included a statement suggesting Ensign was favoring "billionaire hedge fund managers" over job creation in Nevada. "It is rare to have such

overwhelming bipartisan support in today's political climate but the solar industry had it and your association's leadership squandered it," Ensign wrote. The episode exposed a fissure that had been widening since last year as Congress tries but fails to extend investment and production tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources that expire this year. Nevada
solar executives privately expressed unhappiness that Ensign was voting against bills containing the tax credits along with other expiring tax breaks. Ensign said he opposed the bills because they would have paid for the new tax breaks by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry and other business interests. He argued the trade-off would blunt the overall benefit to the economy. Earlier this spring, Ensign sponsored an alternative with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that called for new renewable energy tax breaks without cost offsets. It passed the Senate 88-8, but is stuck in the House. On Tuesday, the latest effort to move a tax bill was blocked by Republicans 50-44. A new vote is expected next week. In advance of Tuesday's vote, the solar industry said in a statement that Ensign "will have to choose between job-creating solar power for Nevada or continuing a veto threat that protects the off-shore tax havens of billionaire hedge-fund managers." That set off Ensign, along with disclosure of a solar lobbying plan targeting Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado. "Following a partisan playbook is not a proven or wise track," Ensign said in his letter to the solar industry. "Instead of capitalizing on this opportunity to achieve your goals, SEIA wasted it." Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industry Association president, said Friday the intent was not to alienate Ensign but to prod Congress to find a way to pass the tax provisions. If they expire, investment in solar will come to a halt, he said.

SOLAR POP=DEMS
Solar power has democrat support CQ 08 (Congressional Quarterly, Democrats Eye More Energy Proposals, January 11, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002654421) With higher oil and gasoline prices burdening voters and the economy, Democrats are girding for another effort to enact mandates and tax incentives aimed at promoting alternative energy sources. Lawmakers who backed provisions dropped from broad energy legislation enacted in December plan a second push for a renewable-energy mandate on utilities and an extension of tax incentives for wind and solar power. House Democrats who pressed for a requirement that utilities produce a significant portion of electricity from alternative sources have been working with leadership on how to advance the mandate this year,
probably as a stand-alone bill. A series of meetings began occurring right after the energy vote took place, said Marissa Padilla, a spokeswoman for Democrat Tom Udall of New Mexico, the leading House champion of the idea. The coalition that was built for passing it has not given up. Meanwhile,

alternative-energy advocates are pushing for extensions to the solar and wind energy tax credits scheduled to expire at the end of 2008.

Democrats support solar power Washington Times, 7/21/08, Energy a Democratic Minus? Donald Lambro, lexis, [adit]
Part of the answer to rising oil prices is to boost domestic production. President

Bush has been pressing that solution almost

weekly, but to no avail among Democrats on Capitol Hill.

While Mr. Bush and the Republicans have kept up a steady drumbeat for sharply increased oil production, the Democratic majority has sat on its hands, refusing to deal with the crisis. The reason: Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress are dead set against offshore drilling. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are more than happy to let Mr. Bush and the Republicans suffer the political consequences. "They're running out the clock until November, to the detriment of all of us and our economy, because they think it will help them at the ballot box," said a Republican leadership official. Last week, Mr. Bush lifted the executive ban on drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf imposed by his father. The next step must be to end the ban by statute, but Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid apparently have no

intention of acting on any energy bill, no matter how critical the situation becomes.
The response in Democratic cloakrooms seems to be "let Bush

and Republicans turn slowly, slowly in the wind" - an apt turn of phrase that fits into the Democrats' rigid energy orthodoxy, which supports biofuel, solar and wind, spurns oil production at home.
The Obama

and Pelosi Democrats are captives of their global-warming special interests, who are dead-set against drilling. Mr. Obama never mentions oil except when he attacks Mr. Bush and the Republicans as captives of the oil lobby. He is all solar panels, witchgrass and windmills. The specious argument against drilling asserts that it would have no effect on the supply or price of oil for years. Well, we may not see the full result
of cancer research for many years, but that didn't mean we should have given up. In the last decade, Republicans sent President Clinton a bill to drill for more domestic oil to make us less dependent on foreign product. We would be producing a lot more oil, and prices would be lower if it had become law, but Mr. Clinton vetoed it, and that's why we are in the mess we're in now.

SOLAR POP=BUSH
Bush already supports solar power budget increases REW 07 (Renewable Energy World, Bush Allocates $1 Billion to Renewable Energy, February 6, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?
id=47337)

Out of the $24.3 billion requested by President Bush for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fiscal 2008 budget, approximately $1.2 billion will be allocated to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -- up $60 million or 5 percent from 2007. The 2008 budget request includes $179 million for the Biofuels Initiative (an increase of $29 million or 19 percent from 2007), which
is designed to help the U.S. reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years and make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive by 2012 through research and development of biomass made from switch grass, wood chips and corn stalks. The budget also calls for expansion in key energy programs that focus on developing clean and renewable energy including vehicle efficiency technology, $176 million; the Solar America Initiative, $148 million; hydrogen technology, $213 million (includes fuel cell development); and wind projects, $40 million. "We applaud the Administration

for continuing to support the President's Solar America Initiative (SAI) at robust funding levels. The Administration's FY 2008 budget request calls for $137 million in funding for the SAI, a major new R&D effort to achieve cost-competitive solar energy technologies across all market sectors by 2015," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). "At the same time,
the administration's request funds solar water heating research at just $2 million and concentrating solar power at just $9 million. It is important that Congress recognize the vital contributions that these technologies can make to our energy security, by providing funding for concentrating solar power and solar heating / lighting programs at $25 million and $15 million, respectively. Moreover, the budget does not include a long-term extension of the Federal solar investment tax credits, which is the single most important policy affecting solar development. We urge Congress to enact an eight-year extension of the Federal solar investment tax credits as contained in H.R. 550., the Securing America's Energy Independence Act of 2007," continued Resch.

SOLAR UNPOP=REPS (OIL)

Oil lobby hates solar and is key to the republicans Grist News 07 (Federal renewable portfolio standard update, August 3, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/3/102021/3745) The extension of the federal solar tax credit should be heard on the House Floor Saturday, and Big Oil is rallying the opposition to kill solar as we speak. It will be an extremely tight vote - tight like a noose - and we need you to call your Representative right now. The situation is this. Earlier this year, House leadership committed to 'pay as you go'--that is, any new tax incentives must be balanced by getting rid of existing incentives. In this case, that means paying for renewable energy programs by reducing tax cuts for oil production. That's all good right? In a time of record profits for Big Oil, an approaching climate crisis and energy security scaring us all, why not reduce oil profits to help bring solar into the mainstream? Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is holding the line on keeping subsidies for Big Oil, while some
Democrats in oil districts haven't gotten the message that the public is tired of business as usual and wants a real commitment to renewables.

SOLAR UNPOP-REPS
Solar power is unpopular with republicans growing partisanship Las Vegas Review Journal 08 (Solar-power lobby's pressure has Ensign feeling alienated, June 14,
http://www.lvrj.com/business/19939644.html)
WASHINGTON -- Breaking with an industry that is growing significant in Nevada, Sen. John Ensign cried foul this week against a solar power lobbying campaign. Ensign said an effort to pressure him on solar tax breaks has had the opposite effect of "personally alienating" him and other senators. In an outburst notable for its bluntness, the Republican sent a blistering letter Thursday to the national membership of the Solar Energy Industry Association, and later gave it to reporters. He said lobbyists threw away their goodwill when they carried out a strategy that included a statement suggesting Ensign was favoring "billionaire hedge fund managers" over job creation in Nevada. "It is rare to have such overwhelming bipartisan support in today's political climate but the solar industry had it and your association's leadership squandered it," Ensign wrote. The episode exposed a fissure that had been widening since last year as Congress tries but fails to extend investment and production tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources that expire this year. Nevada solar executives privately expressed unhappiness that Ensign was voting against bills containing the tax credits along with other expiring tax breaks. Ensign said he opposed the bills because they would have paid for the new tax breaks by raising taxes on the oil and gas industry and other business interests. He argued the tradeoff would blunt the overall benefit to the economy. Earlier this spring, Ensign sponsored an alternative with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that called for new renewable energy tax breaks without cost offsets. It passed the Senate 88-8, but is stuck in the House. On Tuesday, the latest effort to move a tax bill was blocked by Republicans 50-44. A new vote is expected next week. In advance of Tuesday's vote, the solar industry said in a statement that Ensign "will have to choose between job-creating solar power for Nevada or continuing a veto threat that protects the off-shore tax havens of billionaire hedge-fund managers." That set off Ensign, along with disclosure of a solar lobbying plan targeting Republicans, including Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado. "Following a partisan playbook is not a proven or wise track," Ensign said in his letter to the solar industry. "Instead of capitalizing on this opportunity to achieve your goals, SEIA wasted it." Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industry Association president, said Friday the intent was not to alienate Ensign but to prod Congress to find a way to pass the tax provisions. If they expire, investment in solar will come to a halt, he said.

Oil lobby hates solar and is key to the republicans Grist News 07 (Federal renewable portfolio standard update, August 3, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/3/102021/3745)
The extension of the federal solar tax credit should be heard on the House Floor Saturday, and Big Oil is rallying the opposition to kill solar as we speak. It will be an extremely tight vote - tight like a noose - and we need you to call your Representative right now. The situation is this. Earlier this year, House leadership committed to 'pay as you go'--that is, any new tax incentives must be balanced by getting rid of existing incentives. In this case, that means paying for renewable energy programs by reducing tax cuts for oil production. That's all good right? In a time of record profits for Big Oil, an approaching climate crisis and energy security scaring us all, why not reduce oil profits to help bring solar into the mainstream? Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is holding the line on keeping subsidies for Big Oil, while some Democrats in oil districts haven't gotten the message that
the public is tired of business as usual and wants a real commitment to renewables.

SOLAR POP- CONGRESS

SOLAR POWER IS POPULAR IN CONGRESS Sacremento Bee, Legislature is set to debate power from sun and wind, 8/6/05, p. Lexis Never before has the distance between Sacramento and Washington, D.C., seemed closer. President Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are both members of the Republican Party. Both have apparently seen the light when it comes to renewable energy, though our president still has a deeper fondness for the nuclear and fossil fuels that are responsible for our problems. Congress has just sent President Bush an energy bill that includes for the first time in two decades a federal investment tax credit for solar photovoltaics (PV), now the fastest growing power in the world. It also extends a production tax credit for wind power. While both the solar and wind incentives last only two years, these modest new policies may be able to sustain some momentum for the world's two most popular power sources. But solar is the more revolutionary technology because it can be installed directly on homes and businesses. What's more, just this week New York, which is also led by a Republican - Gov. George Pataki - passed into law its own fresh incentives for solar energy. "Investing in clean, renewable energy sources such as solar will help clean the air, makes us less dependent on foreign fuel and helps create new jobs and businesses right here in New York state," Pataki said during the bill signing.

SOLAR UNPOP=CONGRESS
CONGRESS OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR SOLAR ENERGY

Wilson, 2008 (Keplie, Freelance Writer Covering Energy and Environmental Issues, Democrats Are Blowing Out Best Chance for Clean Energy, June 30) On June 18th, Congress failed for the tenth time this year to pass an extension of the renewable energy tax credits that have nurtured the infant wind and solar power industries in the US but are set to expire at the end of 2008. The tax credit extension should have been included in the big renewable energy bill that Congress passed at the end of 2007, but Republicans blocked the provision because they didn't like closing oil tax loopholes to pay for it. Solar power is unpopular in congress Investrend, Energy Bill Faces Opposition, 12/13/07 December 13, 2007 (FinancialWire) An energy bill that could help subsidize solar power makers including SunPower (NASDAQ: SPWR), China Sunergy (NASDAQ: CSUN), and Yingli Green Energy (NYSE: YGE) may face opposition from Republicans. The solar industry was able to secure tax breaks in 2005 from a Republican controlled congress but the extension and expansion of the initiative may make it less fiscally popular. The rebates include tax credits for using renewable energy and for creating jobs in solar power manufacturing. Current tax credits expire in 2008 and the Solar Energy Industries Association is hoping for an eight year extension of the program. The incentives would cost taxpayers around $900 million over 10 years, according to the trade group.

SOLAR ENERGY BUSH SUPPORTS

BUSH SUPPORTS SOLAR ENERGY

Broehl, 2006 (Jesse, Editor of Renewable Energy Access, President Bush Visits Solar Energy Facility, February 21) Solar energy enjoyed its fair share of prime time exposure this week thanks to President George W. Bush who visited a solar manufacturing facility as part of his two-day tour aimed at shoring up support for his new energy initiatives he says will help wean U.S. dependence from foreign oil. "The ultimate goal is to have solar technology on your home, and that home will become a little power-generating unit unto itself, and that if you have extra electricity, that you could put it back in your grid, so you become a power producer, but you're using renewable sources of energy to power your homes and to fire up your refrigerators," Bush said. "And this is real. I really am thankful that the folks of this company gave me a chance to come and visit about it."Included in the Bush Administration's new energy proposals unveiled during his State of the Union Address is the Solar America Initiative (SAI), which proposes the largest funding increase for solar energy research in U.S. history. By 2015, this initiative aims to make solar power cost-competitive with conventional energy.

SOLAR POP- SEN REID

REID WANTS ALL OF THE US TO ADOPT SOLAR POWERED ENERGY, 20% OF ALL ENERGY MUST COME FROM RENEWABLE ENERGY

KRNC NEWS4 2008 (Reid Calls for Switch to Renewable Energy, June 18,

http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8516440&nav=menu113_1_2, accessed on July 12, 2008)

Nevada Senator Harry Reid testified told a senate committee Tuesday that renewable energy will not only help the environment, but boost rural economic development. "(Renewable energy) works best to grow our economy in a sustainable way," Reid said. "To create new jobs and leave a legacy for our children, one we could be proud of, and one we wouldn't mind our backyards. Reid believes in renewable energy so much that he says he wants the rest of the country to adopt Nevada's requirement that 20 percent of its power come from renewable energy by the year 2015. He says it would create at least 185,000 new jobs and save consumers more than $10 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills. The senator says the total solar-thermal potential generated in the Southwest United States could generate seven-times the current electricity capacity.

REID FAVORS SOLAR POWER ENERGY OVER COAL AND NATURAL GAS POLLUTANTS

EDWARDS 2008, Las Vegas Review Journal Columnist (John G., July 3,

http://www.lvrj.com/business/22854404.html, accessed on July 18, 2008)

Two days after Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., promised the government would end its moratorium on applications for solar power sites, the Bureau of Land Management did just that. The decision also followed a June 25 letter from Gov. Jim Gibbons, urging Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to lift the moratorium and start accepting applications to build solar power plants on public lands. The issue dates back to May 29 when the bureau said it would stop taking applications from developers to build solar thermal power plants, sometimes
called concentrating solar plants, on federal land. The bureau is developing rules for dealing with applications. The agency had said it would continue processing 125 pending solar applications but would not accept new ones for the next 22 months while the new rules are prepared. Solar developers complained that the move was creating a barrier for new power plants just as the industry was taking off. BLM Director James Caswell on Wednesday announced that the agency listened to complaints aired at public meetings and decided to reverse its decision.Reid said Monday during a ceremony for a new solar power assembly plant in Las Vegas that the

moratorium would be lifted within a few months, "because it is against common sense and fairness." In a letter to the interior secretary,
Gibbons wrote that the bureau administers 67 percent of Nevada's land, more than in any of the other five Western states affected by the moratorium.Therefore, the moratorium "will have an adverse and disproportional effect on our efforts to develop Nevada's solar energy resources," Gibbons said. Reid said: "Nevada is the Saudi Arabia

of solar energy, and is poised to lead a global clean energy revolution, and we need to do all we can to encourage public and private investment in projects to develop this amazing potential." Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said Wednesday's decision was crucial. "We are just at the dawn of this (solar) industry making a significant contribution to our energy portfolio," Resch said. "This is going to be one of the fastest growing segments of the energy industry going forward." Resch called the Desert Southwest "the best location in the world to build solar plants." He predicted dozens of concentrating solar plants will be generating power in the Southwest within 10 years. The utility-size plants use
mirrors to focus the sun's heat to turn water into steam that is used to turn electricity generating turbines. Nevada Solar One, which Acciona Energy completed last summer at Boulder City, is a concentrating solar thermal plant. Ausra, the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company that opened a solar thermal assembly plant in Las Vegas on Monday, uses similar technology. The bureau's decision is "welcome news," Ausra Vice President Holly Gordon said Wednesday. "With our environmentally sound and reliable technology, we look forward to working with the BLM as their review process moves forward," Gordon said. Charles Benjamin, Nevada director of Western Resource Advocates, said the bureau should take time to study plant sites carefully. But he added that he favors solar energy as an alternative to coal- and natural gas-fired plants that

contribute to global warming with carbon dioxide pollution.

SOLAR POP- SEN REID

REID WANTS INCENTIVES FOR SOLAR POWER DAVIS, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER, 2008 (REID: GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP SOLAR POWER INDUSTRY JUNE 30, HTTP://SEATTLEPI.NWSOURCE.COM/LOCAL/6600AP_NV_NEVADA_SOLAR_PLANT.HTML, ACCESSED ON JULY 7, 2008) LAS VEGAS -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called for government incentives to encourage the alternativeenergy industry on Monday as he helped open North America's first solar power manufacturing plant. "We need government help now," Reid said at a new conference before he pushed the button that kicked off production at the Palo Alto, Calif.-based Ausra Inc.'s plant. "Each day, including today, power coming from the sun is wasted." Reid said burning coal and other fossil fuels is harming the environment and that the government should be working to cut coal dependence. Ausra's 130,000-square foot plant does not harness solar power, but rather produces the giant mirrors, tubes and other components of a solar thermal power system, which works by using mirrored reflectors to heat water that generates high-pressure steam to turn a turbine creating electricity. The plant is capable of manufacturing components that can generate up to 700 megawatts of solar power annually, which Ausra president and chief executive Robert Fishman said will double the amount of solar thermal energy produced in the United States each year. "This factory is opening not a day too soon," Fishman said. "We'll be moving our country significantly towards an unlimited free energy supply." Reid's urging comes at a time of concern for renewable energy companies. Congress is debating industry tax credits, and the Bureau of Land Management has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land while environmental impacts are studied. Both Nevada senators are playing leading roles the Senate's squabble over a $6 billion package of renewable energy tax breaks. About $1.3 million of that money would go to solar energy production. The package also would extend for eight years a 30 percent tax credit that is set to expire at the end of this year for businesses spending on solar energy sources.

SOLAR POP- REPS

Solar power popular with republicans they recognize need for environmental policies CQ 08 (Congressional Quarterly, Stalled for Now, Climate Change Bill May Find Broader Support in Future, June 6, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?
docID=news-000002890955) Last week the Senate took up a sweeping climate change bill in what many hoped would be a historic debate. But it ended up fizzling quickly, and now any efforts at comprehensive global warming legislation will likely be shelved until next year. Progress on the legislation (S 3036) was thwarted by partisan sniping and procedural maneuvers. Still, there was evidence of widening bipartisan consensus on key points of energy proposals that are likely to resurface in the new administration. The debate over the climate change bill demonstrated that most Republicans arent yet ready to vote for a bill that would fundamentally transform the economy by putting a price on fossil fuel emissions. But last weeks debate saw even diehard

oil- and coal-state Republicans publicly acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need to transition to a low-carbon economy. It also highlighted a shift that is already taking place in Congress, as more Republicans support major incentives for low-carbon and renewable-energy technologies. It wasnt that long ago that if you were a Republican, you were looked at strangely if you talked about
conservation, about these energy alternatives, said Ryan Loskarn, communications director for the Senate Republican Conference. In the past, Republicans have been vocal mainly on more drilling. But theres been a perceptible shift in the mood of the party. In speech after speech, GOP lawmakers called for more funding and research into solar, wind and geothermal power; plug-in hybrid cars; and carbon sequestration. While some Republicans have in the past voted for renewable-power incentives that could help their home-state industries, now party leaders are getting out in front of the issue and seeking to define it as their own. New World Order As the climate change debate kicked off last week, the heads of the Senate Republican Conference, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas, hosted a forum on the need for what Alexander likes to tout as a new Manhattan Project: a policy centered on research and development of a raft of low-carbon energy initiatives, from plug-in cars to green buildings. We need a crash program for carbon recapture and solar. We stand ready for an agenda for more clean energy, and we have the moment to marshal bipartisan support on this, Alexander said. He said hed like to see the heads of the Senate Energy Committee, Jeff Bingaman , D-N.M., and Pete V. Domenici , R-N.M., work with the National Academy of Sciences to determine the top alternative energy priorities, and then say, What should we do in Congress to put that on the fastest track possible? Shift in GOP Sentiment To be sure, this doesnt mean Republicans are abandoning what has long been the center of their energy policy: increasing domestic oil drilling. As passionate as the newfound GOP support for renewables may be, even an advocate such as Alexander says the starting point has to be exploring for more oil and gas. When you talk about a new Manhattan Project, you need to start with more oil drilling. And Cornyn, who hails from the nations chief oil state, backs initiatives that would seek to boost solar and wind power, but dismisses ideas that do not also include drilling as part of the solution. Theres a large consensus of people who think we need to be good stewards of the environment. We all realize we cant live on a petroleum-based economy indefinitely, Cornyn said. But the problem with our friends in the Democratic majority is that they do not believe in producing more energy as a solution. Still, Democrats see promise in the new Republican renewables movement. Theres greater support on the Republican side for conservation and alternative energy, Bingaman said. We are hoping to be able to move ahead in that area. I think the prospects are much better on those issues than they have been. In the House, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said that skyrocketing gasoline and utility prices are the game-changers. The lines that were drawn clearly about what would or would not be supported by Democrats and Republicans in the 2005 energy bill those are changing. Those old battle lines arent necessarily true anymore, he said.

SOLAR UNPOP-REPS
REPUBLICANS OPPOSED TO SOLAR ENERGY EDWARDS 08, BUSINESS REPORTER FOR THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL, 08 (BILL TO LIFT SOLAR POWER HALTED BY REPUBLICANS, P. LEXIS, JUNE 18, ACCESSED ON JULY 9, 2008 ) The solar energy industry is poised to pump billions of dollars into the Nevada economy and create thousands of jobs - but advocates say the Senate on Tuesday shot down a bill needed to give the sun power industry a jump-start. Republicans for the second time in a week prevented the Senate from taking up a tax bill providing more than $50 billion in renewable-energy credits and tax breaks for families and businesses. The vote Tuesday to move to the legislation was 52-44, eight short of the 60 votes needed. Only five Republicans voted to end the filibuster against action on the bill; others objected to the Democratic plan to pay for the tax relief by making some hedge fund managers and multinational corporations pay more taxes.Opponents argued that tax relief should not be matched with what they regarded as tax increases. Harry Reid,D-Nev., voted for the renewable-energy tax credits but switched to oppose the bill because of provisions that allow him to bring back the bill later for another vote. "Just as they have done with every opportunity to strengthen our weakening economy and lower record gas prices, Republicans today said no to helping businesses invest in renewable energy," Reid said following the vote. Sen. John Ensign, R.-Nev., said he voted against the bill because it contained tax increases to offset the cost of the tax benefit for renewables, and a controversial "tax earmark" for New York. Ensign said Democrats should abandon the bill in its present form.

SOLAR UNPOP-MCCAIN
MCCAIN STRONGLY OPPOSED TO SOLAR POWER AND OTHER ENERGY BILLS

Goldsmith 08 , Associate Producer for the CBS Evening News, 08 (Obama Aide: Bill Didn't Cross The Line Political Players: Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs Talks About The Primary Campaign And The Road Ahead, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/27/politics/politicalplayers/main4215659.shtml, June 27, accessed on June 27, 2008)
The very things that we need to begin to wean ourselves from foreign oil, to drive down the demand that we have for gas, thus easing the price [were in a 2005 energy bill]. We voted for that bill. John McCain voted no on that bill. John McCain said no to windpower. John McCain said no to geothermal power. He said no to solar power. He said no to alternative fuels. And that same year, in 2005, he voted against increasing fuel mileage standards, which, by all accounts, would have an impact now on the demand for gasoline. Not wait 10 or 20 years for oil from the outer continental shelf.

SOLAR POP-OBAMA
OBAMA PLANS TO INVEST MONEY IN CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY LIKE SOLAR POWER COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 08 (MORNING UPDATE: TAXING ISSUE HTTP://BLOGS.CFR.ORG/CAMPAIGN2008/2008/04/30/MORNING-UPDATE-ENERGY-QUESTIONS-2/, APRIL 30TH, ACCESSED ON JULY 9, 2008) In a speech in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) again attacked proposals for a gas tax holiday. Obama said he, like Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), favors a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and that he would invest that money in clean, affordable, renewable sources of energy like wind power, and solar power, and biofuels, so that were not here talking about high gas prices next summer, and the summer after that, and five summers after that. Responding to reports of poor housing conditions for soldiers at Fort Bragg, Clinton sent a letter Tuesday to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin calling for hearings to evaluate housing at all installations which will need to accommodate service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan.

SOLAR POP- OBAMA

OBAMA SUPPORTS SOLAR POWER LEADERSHIP INITIATIVES

Michael Powell and Michael Cooper, staff writer for The New York Times Media Group, June 26, 2008 Candidates trade jibes on energy; Obama and McCain
Obama illustrated the gap between the candidates by giving a speech at a water plant in Las vegas that laid heavy emphasis on $150 billion worth of alternative energy, including wind and solar power and hoped-for clean coal technology (Obama acknowledged, in response to a question, that he was not ruling out nuclear power, but he strongly suggested it was a distinctly lower priority). He asserted that these investments in technology would yield five million new jobs. He also proposed to charge oil companies an undefined fee for every acre that they lease but fail to drill on. Oil companies now lease but are not drilling on about 68 million acres, or 28 million hectares, according to the Obama campaign. ''If that compels them to drill, we'll get more oil,'' Obama said. ''If it doesn't, the fees will go toward more investment in renewable sources of energy.'' The goal, Obama said, would be to catch and replicate the success of the world leaders in this field. ''Germany, a country as cloudy as the Pacific Northwest, is now a world leader in the solar power industry and the quarter-million new jobs it has created,'' Obama said. ''To truly harness its potential, we urgently need real leadership from Washington - leadership that has been missing for decades.''

SOLAR UNPOP-REPS
GOP HATES TAX CREDITS

Powell 08, CEO of Verde Energy, 2008(Senators Vote Down Renewable Energy Tax Legislation Including Solar Tax Credits June 10, http://www.verdeenergy.com/blog/2008/06/senators-vote-down-renewable-energytax.html, accessed on July 7, 2008
Today Senate Republicans thwarted Democratic-supported legislation that would have extended federal tax credits for solar installations which are due to expire at the end of the year. This was the fourth attempt by the Senate in the past twelve months to pass renewable energy tax legislation.

SOLAR UNPOP(LINES)
TRANSMISSION LINES MAKE SOLAR POWER UNPOPULAR

Tessier 08 Shadow over solar New Mexico Independent By Denise Tessier 07/03/2008 http://www.newmexicoindependent.com/view/shadow-on-suns
Rights of way for transmission lines, however, were mentioned as a potential barrier to large-scale solar development. While research has shown that the public supports solar energy, support wanes when transmission lines cross sensitive areas, and more lines will be needed because CSP plants tend to be out in the middle of nowhere, Andraka said. SOLAR SPARKS POLITICAL BACKLASH OVER TRANSMISSION LINES

CNN 08 June 16, 2008 -- Updated 0857 GMT (1657 HKT)U.S. utility faces opposition on renewable energy line plan http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/16/eco.solar.ap/index.html
It seems like an idea any environmentalist would embrace: Build one of the world's largest solar power operations in the Southern California desert and surround it with plants that run on wind and underground heat. A windmill in California's Pioneertown, one area under threat from proposed transmission lines. Yet San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and its potential partners face fierce opposition because the plan also calls for a 150mile, high-voltage transmission line that would cut through pristine parkland to reach the nation's eighth-largest city. The showdown over how to get renewable energy to consumers will likely play out elsewhere around the country as well, as state regulators require electric utilities to rely less on coal and natural gas to fire their plants -- the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. Providers of renewable power covet cheap land and abundant sunshine and wind in places like west Texas, Montana, Wyoming and California's Mojave Desert and Imperial Valley. But utility executives say no one will build plants without power lines to connect those remote spots to big cities. "This is a classic chicken and the egg," said Mike Niggli, chief operating officer of Sempra Energy's utilities business, which includes SDG&E. "No one can develop a project if they can't send (the electricity) anywhere. You need transmission." SDG&E's $1.5-billion power line would cut 23 miles through the middle of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, a spot known for its hiking trails, wildflowers, palm groves, cacti and spectacular mountain views. "This transmission line will cross through some of the most scenic areas of San Diego," said David Hogan of the Center for Biological Diversity. "It would just ruin it with giant, metal industrial power lines." Environmentalists are pushing for renewable power to be generated closer to heavily populated areas, rather than brought in from distant sites. They point to Southern California Edison's ambitious plan for solar panels on Los Angeles-area rooftops as an example of a better approach. Utilities say the roof panels will help but won't produce nearly enough power to satisfy state requirements. The California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote as soon as August on SDG&E's proposed Sunrise Powerlink, which would carry enough power for about 750,000 homes -- or more than half of the utility's customers. Regulators in 29 states and the District of Columbia are forcing utilities to boost the use of renewable energy to run electric plants. California has been among the most aggressive, with the state's three investor-owned utilities required to get 20 percent of power from renewables by the end of 2010. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to reach 33 percent by 2020. SDG&E, with 1.4 million customers, is California's laggard, getting just 6 percent of its power from renewables. PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas and Electric, with 5.1 million customers, gets 12 percent. Edison International's Southern California Edison, with 4.8 million customers, gets 16 percent. Nationwide, utilities get only 2 percent of electricity from renewables, said Jone-Linn Wang, managing director of the global power group at Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Edison hopes to draw more on solar and wind power by building a transmission line from the Mojave Desert to the Los Angeles area. "It's a trade-off," said Stuart Hemphill, Edison's vice president for renewable and alternative power. "Clean energy perhaps requires building infrastructure in potentially sensitive areas. There's no way around it."

SOLAR POP- CALIFORNIA

SOLAR POPULAR IN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA 04, CITIZEN-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION (PUBLIC

ATTITUDES AND SUPPORT FOR SOLAR POWER: A SURVEY OF LIKELY VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA, JULY 1, HTTP://WWW.ENVIRONMENTCALIFORNIA.ORG/REPORTS/ENERGY/ENERGY-PROGRAMREPORTS/PUBLIC-ATTITUDES-AND-SUPPORT-FOR-SOLAR-POWER-A-SURVEY-OF-LIKELYVOTERS-IN-CALIFORNIA, ACCESSED ON JULY 7)
The June 2004 Public Attitudes and Support for Solar Power Survey was conducted for Environment California Research and Policy Center by Baldassare Associates. The survey included telephone interviews with 600 likely voters living in California. Interviewing was conducted June 24-27, 2004. The margin of error is +/- 4 percent for the total sample. Here are the highlights of the survey: Californians show strong support for increasing the use of solar power in the state. By a 2:1 margin, likely voters favor developing more renewable energy sources (61%) over building more power plants (31%) to meet the states growing energy needs. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS STRONGLY SUPPORT SOLAR POWER ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA 04, CITIZEN-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION (PUBLIC

ATTITUDES AND SUPPORT FOR SOLAR POWER: A SURVEY OF LIKELY VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA, JULY 1, HTTP://WWW.ENVIRONMENTCALIFORNIA.ORG/REPORTS/ENERGY/ENERGY-PROGRAMREPORTS/PUBLIC-ATTITUDES-AND-SUPPORT-FOR-SOLAR-POWER-A-SURVEY-OF-LIKELYVOTERS-IN-CALIFORNIA, ACCESSED ON JULY 7)
Support for increasing the use of solar power is greatest among Democrats (67%), and in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area (64% each). Nearly nine in 10 (87%) have a favorable opinion of solar power, with 52 percent very favorable. Solid majorities in all demographic and political groups are favorable toward solar power. More than seven in 10 (72%) favor a plan to build half of new homes with solar power systems, which was proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger as part of his energy action plan during his campaign for governor. A majority of Republicans and Democrats alike favor this plan. Two in three voters who favor the plan for 50% of new homes to be built with solar power want this goal accomplished by 2010. Overall, six in 10 likely voters want the state to institute standards directing the inclusion of solar power systems in new housing. At least half in all demographic and political groups support state solar standards. A similar number (58%) favor including provisions for solar power as part of the states building code. While a majority of Democrats supports this (66%), fewer than half of Republicans agree (47%). Voters strongly support encouraging the use of solar power systems with subsidies. Six in 10 favor providing subsidies to builders to install solar power on new homes, and seven in 10 want subsidies for homeowners to purchase solar systems. Sixty-eight percent would be more interested in buying a home if it included solar energy, and 63 percent would be willing to pay more to buy a solar home. Most (52%) would be willing to pay less than $10,000. Those most inclined to pay more for a home equipped with solar power are Central Valley residents (73%), 18- to 34-year-olds (72%), and those with incomes over $100,000 (66%). Voters see the most important reason to support solar power development as decreasing dependence on foreign oil (35%).

SOLAR BIPART
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS STRONGLY SUPPORT SOLAR POWER ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA 2004, CITIZEN-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION (PUBLIC

ATTITUDES AND SUPPORT FOR SOLAR POWER: A SURVEY OF LIKELY VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA, JULY 1, HTTP://WWW.ENVIRONMENTCALIFORNIA.ORG/REPORTS/ENERGY/ENERGY-PROGRAMREPORTS/PUBLIC-ATTITUDES-AND-SUPPORT-FOR-SOLAR-POWER-A-SURVEY-OF-LIKELYVOTERS-IN-CALIFORNIA, ACCESSED ON JULY 7)
Support for increasing the use of solar power is greatest among Democrats (67%), and in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area (64% each). Nearly nine in 10 (87%) have a favorable opinion of solar power, with 52 percent very favorable. Solid majorities in all demographic and political groups are favorable toward solar power. More than seven in 10 (72%) favor a plan to build half of new homes with solar power systems, which was proposed by Arnold Schwarzenegger as part of his energy action plan during his campaign for governor. A majority of Republicans and Democrats alike favor this plan. Two in three voters who favor the plan for 50% of new homes to be built with solar power want this goal accomplished by 2010. Overall, six in 10 likely voters want the state to institute standards directing the inclusion of solar power systems in new housing. At least half in all demographic and political groups support state solar standards. A similar number (58%) favor including provisions
for solar power as part of the states building code. While a majority of Democrats supports this (66%), fewer than half of Republicans agree (47%). Voters strongly support encouraging the use of solar power systems with subsidies. Six in 10 favor providing subsidies to builders to install solar power on new homes, and seven in 10 want subsidies for homeowners to purchase solar systems. Sixty-eight percent would be more interested in buying a home if it included solar energy, and 63 percent would be willing to pay more to buy a solar home. Most (52%) would be willing to pay less than $10,000. Those most inclined to pay more for a home equipped with solar power are Central Valley residents (73%), 18- to 34-year-olds (72%), and those with incomes over $100,000 (66%). Voters see the most important reason to support solar power development as decreasing dependence on foreign oil (35%).

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS STRONGLY SUPPORT SOLAR POWER ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA 2004, CITIZEN-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION (PUBLIC

ATTITUDES AND SUPPORT FOR SOLAR POWER: A SURVEY OF LIKELY VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA, JULY 1, HTTP://WWW.ENVIRONMENTCALIFORNIA.ORG/REPORTS/ENERGY/ENERGY-PROGRAMREPORTS/PUBLIC-ATTITUDES-AND-SUPPORT-FOR-SOLAR-POWER-A-SURVEY-OF-LIKELYVOTERS-IN-CALIFORNIA, ACCESSED ON JULY 7)
The June 2004 Public Attitudes and Support for Solar Power Survey was conducted for Environment California Research and Policy Center by Baldassare Associates. The survey included telephone interviews with 600 likely voters living in California. Interviewing was conducted June 24-27, 2004. The margin of error is +/- 4 percent for the total sample. Here are the highlights of the survey: Californians show strong support for increasing the use of solar power in the state. By a 2:1 margin, likely voters favor developing more renewable energy sources (61%) over building more power plants (31%) to meet the states growing energy needs.

SOLAR POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN IS A BIG PROPONENT OF SOLAR

Rohter 08, New York Times Journalist (Larry, McCain Pitches a Bipartisan Plan for Achieving Energy Security, June 28, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/politics/28madbox.html?ref=politics, accessed on July 8, 2008)
John McCain will call America to our next national purpose: energy security. A comprehensive bipartisan plan to lower prices at the pump. Reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic
THE SCRIPT American technology protected the world. We went to the moon, not because it was easy, but because it was hard. drilling. And champion energy alternative for better choices and lower costs. Putting country first. McCain. ON THE SCREEN The opening seconds mix images of military might (warships and fighter planes) with space exploration (a rocket about to blast off from Cape Canaveral, astronauts walking on the moon). Mr. McCain then appears at a lectern, with three American flags behind him. That gives way to shots of a gas pump (from back in those wonderful days when gasoline was still $2.55 a gallon) and a man filling the tank of his car. As an announcer mentions energy alternatives, images associated with options that Mr. McCain favors appear

on the screen, including solar panels and wind turbines. The commercial ends with an image of Mr. McCain, a serious and determined expression on his face, accompanied by the words Country First and his name. ACCURACY This advertisement is meant to draw attention to Mr. McCains Lexington Project, a plan he announced this month to give the United States energy independence by 2025. The script encapsulates many elements of that proposal, but also describes it as bipartisan, which would seem to imply that Democrats do or would support it, or were
consulted in its elaboration. But Democrats, following the lead of their presumed nominee, Senator Barack Obama, have already condemned Mr. McCains call for a summer gas tax holiday, the first step in his effort to lower prices at the pump; in addition, they say that he has in the past opposed incentives intended to encourage

development of solar and wind energy. Mr. McCain also avoids using the word offshore in reference to drilling for oil and gas to increase domestic supplies, an
essential element of his plan that has drawn criticism not only from Democrats but also from some Republicans, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. SCORECARD Energy costs are very much on the minds of Americans this summer, so the advertisement is certainly timely. It also sounds themes that are constants in Mr. McCains campaign: resolution and determination, with a hint of sacrifice for the common good. But voters under 50 may not recall John F. Kennedys promise to put a man on the moon in less than a decade, and the musical accompaniment, a mix of electronica, percussion and swelling strings, seems more somber than uplifting. LARRY ROHTER

SOLAR POP-FLORIDA
Solar incentives overwhelmingly popular in florida Grist Environmental News, 07 (3/28, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/28/17117/2960)
There has been an absolute sea-change in the popularity of renewable energy in this country. We recently polled voter attitudes towards solar in Tex. and Fla. -- and the results were nearly 20 points higher than a similar poll in Calif. in 2005. Politicians need to better understand this. When they do, good things happen. To wit, Tampa Tribune's recent article "A Changing Political Climate": State Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs, is pushing for more solar investment in Florida. He says a recent Mason-Dixon poll found that 90 percent of Floridians think the Florida Legislature should encourage investment in solar energy, and 78 percent say they would be willing to pay up to $1 a month on their utility bills to pay for it.

SOLAR POP- FLORIDA

Popular in Florida VSI no date http://www.votesolar.org/polls.html (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)
Florida--90% of Floridians think the Legislature should encourage investement in solar energy in the state, and 78% would pay up to a dollar a month

on their utility bill to make it happen. See the details here (pdf).

Solar energy popular with most Floridians Adam Browning is a co-founder of the Vote Solar Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing solar energy into the mainstream. 3-28-07
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/28/17117/2960

There has been an absolute sea-change in the popularity of renewable energy in this country. We recently polled voter attitudes towards solar in Tex. and Fla. -- and the results were nearly 20 points higher than a similar poll in Calif. in 2005. Politicians need to better understand this. When they do, good things
happen. To wit, Tampa Tribune's recent article "A Changing Political Climate": State Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs, is pushing for more solar investment in Florida. He says a recent Mason-Dixon poll found that 90 percent of Floridians think the Florida Legislature should encourage investment in solar energy, and 78 percent say they would be willing to pay up to $1 a month on their utility bills to pay for it.

SOLAR POP- TEXAS

Solar energy is popular in Texas VSI no date http://www.votesolar.org/polls.html (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)
Texas--84% of Texans think that the Texas Legislature should encourage investment in solar power in Texas. And 81% would pay up to a dollar a month to make it happen. Details here (pdf).

SOLAR POP-REPS
GOP likes solar they only dislike if a tax increase is attached NYT 07 (The New York Times is one of the nations leading newspapers, Pannel supports tax breaks for coal and nonoil fuels, June 20th) <accessed through lexis> The tax package would provide $10 billion in additional breaks for companies that produce electricity from renewable energy sources like wind and solar power and methane from landfills. It would also underwrite tax-free bonds for plants that produce electricity with renewable fuels, offer new incentives for transmission lines for wind and solar power and extend tax breaks for ethanol and other gasoline substitutes. Oil companies immediately attacked the measure as short-sighted, saying that reducing tax benefits for oil producers and refiners would reduce investment in domestic production. But oil industry lobbyists have stopped short of engaging in a full campaign to kill the legislation. ''While promoting alternative energy sources is a worthy goal, doing so by imposing new taxes on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry would actually work against ensuring reliable and stable energy supplies for American consumers,'' the American Petroleum Institute said after the vote. Democrats from coal states had proposed offering up to $10 billion in loans for companies that build coal-to-liquid-fuel plants, provided the companies captured and stored at least 75 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in making the fuel. Republicans had pushed a much stronger bill that would have required fuel producers to generate six billion gallons a year of coal-based fuels by 2022. Democrats voted almost uniformly against the Republican bill and it was defeated by a vote of 55 to 39. But by an even bigger bipartisan majority, 61 to 33, the Senate then rejected the Democratic bill on coal. The opposition to that bill came almost equally from Republicans who were peeved at having their own bill rejected and from Democrats who opposed subsidies for coal-based fuels because of the possible impacts on global warming. Republicans will support solar congressional votes prove Waste News 07 (Waste News is an environmental news agency, Senate Pannel OKs green bills, June 11th) <accessed through lexis> The committee unanimously approved a bill to spend $30 million for a ``solar wall'' of 25,000 photovoltaic cells on the roof of the notoriously ungreen Energy Department headquarters building in downtown Washington. The House passed the same bill, H.R. 798, Feb. 12. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., is the sponsor. Republicans support solar energy NYT 08 (The New York Times is one of the nations leading newspapers, House passes renewable energy credit,) <accessed through lexis> ''Why would you tax oil when we are having troubles, when we aren't producing enough; we are importing it all?'' Mr. Domenici said this month. ''A tax on oil production in the United States? It seems kind of dumb to me.'' In a statement after the House vote, Mr. Domenici denounced the bill and said Democrats were hurting the chances of extending the tax credits for alternative energy by tying them to ending the tax incentives for oil and gas. ''These tax credits for wind, solar, biomass and other technologies are set to expire at the end of this year,'' he said. ''It is clear to me that America must pursue all its available resources if we are to meet our energy challenges.''

SOLAR UNPOP-REPS
Republicans would dislike the plan prefer the actual vote Huffington Post 6-10-08 (The Huffington Post is a leading political website, Republicans block extra taxes on oil companies,) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/republicans-block-extra-t_n_106282.html Separately, Democrats also failed to get Republican support for a proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. The tax breaks have either expired or are scheduled to end this year. The tax provisions were included in a broader $50 billion tax measure blocked by a GOP filibuster threat. A vote to take up the measure was 50-44, short of the 60 votes needed. Republicans continue to block efforts at solar power Red Orbit 6-19-08 (Red Orbit is a leading scientific website, Bill to lift solar power halted by republicans,) http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1440454/bill_to_lift_solar_power_halted_by_republicans/index.html The solar energy industry is poised to pump billions of dollars into the Nevada economy and create thousands of jobs - but advocates say the Senate on Tuesday shot down a bill needed to give the sun power industry a jump-start. Republicans for the second time in a week prevented the Senate from taking up a tax bill providing more than $50 billion in renewable-energy credits and tax breaks for families and businesses. The vote Tuesday to move to the legislation was 52-44, eight short of the 60 votes needed. Only five Republicans voted to end the filibuster against action on the bill; others objected to the Democratic plan to pay for the tax relief by making some hedge fund managers and multinational corporations pay more taxes. Republicans dislike solar energy because of funding, this takes out any of their popular claims San Fransisco Chronicle 6-18-08 (The San Fransisco Chronicle is a top newspaper, congressional stalemate over renewable energy,) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year. The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them. The stalemate is causing jitters among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are making billion-dollar bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to build solar panels and wind turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress acts. Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which helps finance and operate large-scale solar power projects, said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31, when the credits expire. Because large solar projects can take six months to build, the company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed."It creates a hiccup that is very unfortunate," Harris said. The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington. House Democrats, seeking to abide by "pay-as-you-go" budget rules, insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising revenue elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at every proposal so far to find that money.

SOLAR POP-REPS
Conservatives oppose solar power Devore 05 (Chuck is an assemblyman in California, Schwarzenager misfires with solar subsidy,) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7788&keywords=solar+power California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R.) is fighting the good fight on union power, taxes and government reform, so we can forgive him when he occasionally misfires, as he has with his Million Solar Roofs Initiative to subsidize photovoltaic (PV) systems. PV systems convert sunlight into electricity. This is great, but for a few problems: They are costly, they rarely produce the electricity claimed, and, even with subsidies, PV does not pay for itself. Conservatives oppose solar they view as environmental liberalism Blackburn 07 (Marsha is a republican congresswomen from Tennessee, Dems energy bill: Same environmentalist wine in a new bottle,) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23794&keywords=solar+power Energy independence and reduced greenhouse emissions are worthy goals, but the new bill wont move us closer to either goal. It simply recycles the same old ideological crusades and impractical schemes of the professional alarmists in the Washington, DC environmental lobby. The language of this new bill has yet to be released, but we already know what it says. Its previous versions have relied heavily on three methods: mandating new energy standards for appliances; increased usage of renewable fuels for transportation; and forcing utilities to use more renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, and biofuels. Its just the same environmental whine in a new bottle.

SOLAR POP-PUBLIC
Solar power initiatives have overwhelming bipartisan support with the publicMongabay 6-11-08 (Mongabay is an organization that seeks to expand the preservation of the rainforest, 94% of Americans support solar energy development,) http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0611-solar.html 94 percent of Americans say it's important for the U.S. to develop and use solar energy, according to a new poll that found support for solar power runs across the political spectrum. The SCHOTT Solar BarometerTM survey, conducted by the independent polling firm, Kelton Research, found that 91 percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is "vital" to the United States. The poll revealed that 77 percent of Americans believe the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. 86 percent of Independent voters supporting the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were President, 41 percent of Americans picked solar, followed by wind. Coal was listed by only 3 percent of those polled. "These results are an undeniable signal to our elected leaders that Americans want job-creating solar power, now," said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). Solar power popular with public all people agree. SEIA 6-10-08 (94% of Americans believe it is important to develop and use solar energy, http://www.seia.org/solarnews.php?id=184) - 98% of Independents, 97% of Democrats, and 91% of Republicans support development of solar. - - 74% of Independents, 72% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans favor extension of Federal tax credits for renewable technologies. - - 77% of Americans feel Federal government should make solar power development a national priority

SOLAR UNPOP-PUBLIC
The Public only supports solar until they realize the high costs Trafton 2K7 (Anne works for MIT News, Americans warming to nuclear power, July 23rd) http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/nuclear-public-0723.html The survey shows that people have an accurate idea of how much oil, gas, coal and nuclear power cost, but they tend to underestimate the costs of alternative sources like wind and solar. Ansolabehere found that people strongly favor using more wind and solar power, until they are told that they are more expensive than traditional energy sources. "People have a sense that wind and solar are a solution for now, as opposed to a solution for the future," he said. Solar society transition is unpopular arguments about social justice should be squared with real political concerns. Goldemberg 1995 (Jose Goldemberg, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil Institute of Electronics and Energy, Book Review: Hermann Scheer, A Solar Manifesto The Need For a Total Solar Energy Supplyand How to Achieve It, Solar Energy, November 1995, Vol. 55, No. 5) Scheer argues for strong governmental action through increased R&D, carbon taxes, subsidies, etc. to bring about the wonderful world of non-polluting solar technologies. Government intervention is not very popular these days. In addition to that there is there is a lot of other groups in society asking for such intervention. Seen "from the top" the solar lobby probably looks just as another lobby and Scheer is not convincing in explaining why this particular solution should be preferred. Naive arguments such as comparing costs of R&D in solar technologies to the costs of another military aircraft are not very helpful. Social justice would justify applying 0.7% of the GNP of developed countries income to help less developed countries and that's not done either. There is a lot of unfairness in the world and with a growing economic crisis and unemployment in Europe governments will be less sensitive to giving generously to help the other.

SOLAR UNPOP-LOBBIES
Big Energy manipulates the market to maintain its competitive advantage over renewables they would backlash to the plan. Vaitheeswaran 2K3 [Vijay V., Global Correspondent for The Economist, Power to the People: How the Coming Energy Revolution will Transform an Industry, Change our Lives, and Maybe Even Save the Planet, 2003, Pg. 197-200] Big businesses are undoubtedly big polluters. Pollution is an inevitable by-product of economic activity, and it does not appear on any company's balance sheet of profit calculations. Even so, is it really right to link free markets so casually with fat cats and a foul earth? The truth is, big business rarely supports genuinely free markets. The entire history of corporate America - as in Europe, Japan, or the developing world - is really one of corporatism and cronyism. Industries of every stripe talk publicly about favoring free trade and competitive markets, but behind closed doors they lobby their allies in government intensely for subsidies, tariff protection, state aid, and all manner of anticompetitive intervention in the marketplace. That allows lazy, uncompetitive, technologically backward firms to produce shoddy goods and - surprise, surprise- needlessly high amounts of pollution. Billions of dollars are wasted in this way on well-established American industries like sugar, steel, textiles, and agribusiness. Genuinely free markets would still produce pollution, of course, but they would also unleash powerful competition that would check the market power of dirty and inefficient firms in these and other industries. That is the last thing crony capitalists ever really want - and why free markets ought to be considered the greatest ally of environmentalists in their struggle to rein in corporate polluters. If that argument sounds far-fetched, consider this question from a green with impeccable credentials: "Why are there so few price signals in America's environmental laws?" asks Carl Pope, the boss of the Sierra Club, angrily. "Businesses are simply not interested in paying the true cost of pollution!" He points to what he considers a sorry litany of handouts, subsidies, and corporate welfare: no tax on carbon emissions; no tax on gas-guzzlers; giveaway prices for mineral rights, grazing, water, and timber drawn from federal lands. He reckons that these handouts are not at all due to market forces, but rather to the peculiar politics of pork. Fred Krupp agrees wholeheartedly. It might seem that businesses, which currently bear the brunt of costs imposed by today's "command-and-control" system of environmental regulation, would be leading the movement for market reforms. The reason that is often not the case, he explains, is that "vested interests in every industry want to defend their existing position or to promote particular green technologies that they manufacture." Such firms (say, a manufacturer of a particular sort of scrubber) will fight tooth and nail to preserve federal mandates that demand the use of that particular technology rather than promote flexible approaches that would allow the market to choose the best, cheapest approach to solving the problem. A study conducted by the World Economic Forum and led by Daniel Esty of Yale University underscored that crony capitalism as opposed to the sort based on competitive markets - is bad for the environment. Esty and his colleagues have sorted through 68 separate variables that they reckon influence environmental sustainability (ranging from corruption to aquifer depletion to sulfur dioxide in the air); they then devised 20 core indicators for an Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) comprised of those variables, which they weighted equally for the purposes of the country rankings. The Oil Lobby has been the reason alternative energy legislation has been stopped in the past Market Watch 6-23-08 (Market watch is a leading economic website, Congress plans action on oil market speculation as consumers send their gas bills to legislators,) http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/congress-plans-action-oil-market/story.aspx?guid=%7BFADA6B91D5F3-4711-A5CC-63884113FF80%7D Senate approval of an alternative fuels bill funded by withdrawing $1.8 billion a year in unjustified taxpayer subsidies to oil companies. This measure, passed by the House, was not taken up in the Senate, where opponents used a filibuster tactic to require 60 votes for passage. A similar House measure was removed from the federal energy bill by the Senate last year under pressure from the oil lobby.

SOLAR POP-BUSH
Bush supports Solar Power USA Today 06 (USA Today is a leading national newspaper, Bush makes push on energy trip for other options,) http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2006-02-20-bush-energy_x.htm President Bush toured advanced energy technology companies in Wisconsin and Michigan Monday as part of his drive to cut what he called the nation's addiction to oil. He talked up nuclear energy, solar power and a hybrid gas-electric car that could someday get 100 miles to the gallon. Bush supports efforts to expand solar power MSNBC 06 (MSNBC is a cable news network, Solar Power boom comes with pain, Feb 24th) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11412669/ And the United States is beginning to catch on. Citing soaring oil prices and the need for a more reliable and environmentally friendly fuel sources, a number of states and the federal government are pushing rebates and tax credits to encourage people to install solar panels on their roofs. In a plan detailed earlier this month, President Bush outlined a strategy to increase domestic solar power capacity to up to 10,000 megawatts over the next decade. Thats up from a current capacity of about 175 megawatts, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

SOLAR POP-MCCAIN
McCain supports solar power McCain 2K8 (John McCain is the 2008 republican nominee for president, McCains speech on climate change policy,) http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/mccains_speech_on_climate_chan.html Wind is a clean and predictable source of energy, and about as renewable as anything on earth. Along with solar power, fuel-cell technology, cleaner burning fuels and other new energy sources, wind power will bring America closer to energy independence. Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, and so, in many ways, does our security. A large share of the world's oil reserves is controlled by foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. And as our reliance on oil passes away, their power will vanish with it.

SOLAR POP-DEMS
Democrats support solar power green lobbies prove The Nation 05 (The Nation is a leading liberal magazine, Is the Terminator in Free Fall,) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051031/cooper/single And while some of his more recent moves have angered the green lobby, the governor named a prominent environmentalist to head the California EPA, fought for expanded solar power and successfully championed a global-warming measure that went far beyond the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.

SOLAR BIPART
Solar power projects have bipartisan support in the Senate Renewable Energy World 2K8 [U.S. Senate Introduces Bipartisan Renewable Energy Tax Credit Legislation. RenewableEnergyWorld.com. April 4, 2008. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52081] United States Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) have introduced the Clean Energy Stimulus Act of 2008. The bill, which has bipartisan support extends the commercial Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar and fuel cell projects for eight years and removes the utility exemption. The bill also extends the residential solar credit for one year and removes the $2,000 cap. The bill currently has 23 co-sponsors. The vehicle for the package has not yet been announced; however, those behind the bill are confident they can get the 61 co-sponsors that the bill will need to pass the Senate. The bill authored by Ensign and Cantwell will also extend the placed-in-service deadline through 2009 for the Production Tax Credit for geothermal, wind, biomass and hydropower facilities. "Satisfying our energy needs and reducing our reliance on foreign sources is a challenge that we must meet, but that can only happen with the right incentives in place," Sen. Ensign said. "Our bipartisan bill will help put us on a path toward energy independence with American ingenuity leading the way." The bill also extends the residential solar credit for one year and removes the US $2,000 cap. The bill now has 30 co-sponsors, including members of the GOP who have opposed previous attempts to pass a tax credit extension such as Sen. John Sununu (R-NH). "Rising energy prices place enormous financial pressure on families and businesses across New Hampshire and the nation," Sen. Sununu said. "These renewable energy tax credits help lower this burden and represent smart investment policy for our environment. Most important, the bill makes good sense for New Hampshire where our wood, biomass, and wood pellet industries here have provided jobs across the state." The vehicle for the package has not yet been announced, though some have speculated that it will be attached to an upcoming Housing Bill. Those behind the bill are confident they can get the 61 co-sponsors that the bill will need to pass the Senate. "From New Hampshire to Michigan to Oregon, this bill provides a much-needed shot in the arm for our ailing national economy. This legislation will create thousands of jobs, unleash billions in investment and prevent a major disruption in this fast-growing sector all at a time when we need it the most, said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). The American Wind Energy Association also applauded the Senators' work, saying that this extension will benefit both the renewable energy industries and the economy as a whole. "We commend Senators Cantwell and Ensign for their leadership in crafting a bipartisan approach to the urgently needed extension of renewable energy tax incentives that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. More than 116,000 jobs and US $19 billion in investment in new, clean energy sources like wind and solar power hang in the balance

************SPS***********

SPS POP- PUBLIC

THE PUBLIC AND SPACE ADVOCATES OVERWHELMINGLY LIKE THE PLAN

National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong in the space advocacy community, particularly in the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), National Space Society (NSS), Space Development Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG), all of which hosted or participated in events related to this subject during the study period. here is reason to think that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response was collecting energy from space, with support from 35% of those polledtwice the support for the second most popular response, planetary defense (17%)and three times the support for the current space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(10%).

SPS POP- PUBLIC

Space exploration is incredibly unpopular Progressives Tribe, 6/9/08, The peaceful exploration of space vs. the violence of warfare on Earth, http://progressives.tribe.net/thread/4a64f884-8ecb-42cc-ad50-78daae8d6a4a. I'm of the mind that some people -- people who claim to be progressive and anti-war -- hate the space program so much that they would prefer 100 years of war in Iraq to the PEACEFUL exploration of the moon and Mars. I, of course, prefer the peaceful exploration of the moon and Mars to 100 years of war in Iraq. But in today's modern dystopia, I'm definitley in the minority here since the space program is extemely unpopular. And as you may know, "society" general hates any and all ideas that are unpopular.

SPS POP- PUBLIC

THE PUBLIC AND SPACE ADVOCATES OVERWHELMINGLY LIKE THE PLAN National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf [Tandet]

Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong in the space advocacy community, particularly in the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), National Space Society (NSS), Space Development Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG), all of which hosted or participated in events related to this subject during the study period. here is reason to think that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response was collecting energy from space, with support from 35% of those polledtwice the support for the second most popular response, planetary defense (17%)and three times the support for the current space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(10%).

SPS UNPOP- PUBLIC

The public opposes the plan irrational fear of microwave power Shiner 8, (Linda, Where the Sun Does Shine: Will space solar power ever be practical? http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html, Air & Space Magazine, July 01, 2008)//CCH Perhaps the biggest hurdle facing space solar power is public concern about how low-level microwave beams will affect animals and humans. Never mind that the fear remains unfounded. Because of the widespread use of microwaves for communication, the Federal Communications Commission has established a safety standard for human exposure. In all proposed space power systems, the expected power density at the edges of the receiving antenna, where people are most likely to be affected, meets the standard. But explaining this to the public, which hears microwave and thinks oven, might require a large and costly education campaign. Another worry, that microwave beams could scramble a passing airliners avionics or harm passengers, could be addressed by restricting the airspace around the beams, just as the Federal Aviation Administration restricts the airspace over nuclear power plants. Space power advocates may find it instructive to study the political struggles of the nuclear power industry.

SPS POP- CONGRESS

Space based solar power recieving strong support from congress National Space Society, 2-28-08, Space Exploration Alliance Members Press Congress For Full Authorized Levels of NASA Funding, http://209.85.215.104/search? q=cache:mNyybCscXG8J:www.nss.org/news/releases/pr20080228.html+space+exploration+congress+support&hl=en&ct=cln k&cd=1&gl=us [E.Berggren] Other issues discussed during the meetings included continued support for NASA's robotic science missions and the integral role that space exploration plays in solving Earth's pressing energy and environmental needs. Several Congressional offices explicitly requested more details about the National Security Space Office's recent study of spacebased solar power solutions, which noted that [a] single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today.

SPS POP- CONGRESS

Congress overwhelming supports space exploration. Jeff Foust, Staff writer and reporter for the space review, 6-30-08, http://209.85.215.104/search? q=cache:TA1NTReYIe4J:www.thespacereview.com/article/1160/1+space+exploration+congress+popular&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd =8&gl=us [E.Berggren] You dont notice these things until theyre taken away, he said, and cited the intense media coverage of the Columbia accident as an example: That is not a sign of a country that is apathetic about the space program. Likewise, the strong support given to the Vision for Space Exploration by Congress in 2005, when it overwhelmingly passed a NASA authorization bill that endorsed the exploration effort, is another sign of the deep support for space by the American public. The evidence that our space legacy is part of our culture is that no one any longer actually pays attention to it, but the moment you take it away, [people ask], What have you done with it?

SPS BIPART
Bipartisan support for NASA space exploration NYT,4-30-08, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/15moon.html?_r=1&sq=space %20exploration&st=cse&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=3&adxnnlx=1216599009-XuQs+mFoNcTZ/p0hHAtXhQPs [E.Berggren] This push for additional NASA funding mirrors a similar effort in the Senate, lead by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). The bi-partisan nature of both efforts illustrates how space exploration rises above the politically-charged bitterness that often divides members of Congress . The Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploation strongly supports the effort to increase NASA funding. It is critical that Project Constellation receive necessary funding to accelerate the development of the Orion spacecraft and Ares rockets, so as to minimize the gap between the final flight of the Shuttle and the first flight of Orion. This will not only reduce American dependance upon Russia for access to Earth orbit, but will greatly advance the twin goals of returning astronauts to the Moon and sending an expedition to Mars.

Space exploration bipartisan States News Service, 6-20-08, HOUSE BILL BOOSTS NASA AERONAUTICS AND SPACE PROGRAMS, L/N [E.Berggren] The funding plan is $2.9 billion more than the administration's budget proposal. "This is an important step forward for programs in two vital areas that affect our country," said Marion Blakey, AIA president and CEO. "The bill demonstrates continued bi-partisan support of the Next Generation Air Transportation System and our space exploration policy, both of which depend on a robust NASA budget." The House plan includes an additional $1 billion to accelerate development of the Orion spacecraft and Ares 1 launch vehicle. "The additional funding is a substantial step forward to reduce the impending five-year gap in our ability to travel to space when the space shuttle retires in 2010," Blakey said. "The House should be recognized for its leadership in taking action to reduce this gap." NASA's NextGen-related research will help increase the safety, security and capacity of air transportation operations while protecting the environment. NextGen improvements will be implemented over the next 10 years.

SPS UNPOP- CONGRESS

Space weapons programs remain unpopular in congress Theresa Hitchens, Vice President, Center for Defense Information, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/hitchens-05_12_01_/hitchens-05_12_01_en.pdf [E.Berggren] 9-14-05,

What I can also say is that even if the new presidential policy blesses the Pentagons space warfare strategy, it remains unclear whether Congress will be willing to fund it much beyond basic technology research. Space is an exceedingly expensive place. To fully implement the capabilities necessary to fight in, from and through space, hundreds of billions would have to be dedicated to developing new weapons, launching thousands of new on-orbit assts, and maintaining those systems once they are deployed. With launch costs remaining at $22,000 per kilogram, and current satellites in LEO weighing up to 4,000 kilograms, the price tag rapidly becomes exorbitant hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, Congress is already expressing concerns about the costs of todays Air Force space programs that have nothing to do with controversial ASAT or space-strike systems. Programs such as the Transformational Satellite System designed to replace current military communications satellites, and the Space Radar to replace aging U.S. early warning satellites, are years behind schedule and tens of millions dollars over budget. Congressional reaction to Air Force budget requests for new space weapons programs based on unproven and yet undeveloped technologies may well not be all that favorable. In addition, space weapons remain controversial politically and the concept unpopular with broad U.S. public opinion and a unilateral move by the United States to weaponize space is likely to also face harsh international political resistance and possible backlash as other nations seek to compete with their own space weapons programs. Indeed, recognizing these facts, the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, which is responsible for the military space budget, plans to hold hearings sometime in June on the question of space control and space weaponization.

SPS UNPOP- CONGRESS

Congress is afraid of potential Chinese exploitation of space for military purposes Free Internet Press, 7-9-08, U.S. Dominance In Space Slips As Other Nations Explore, http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php? sid=17557 Concerned about Chinese use of space technology for military purposes, Congress ramped up restrictions on rocket and satellite sales, and placed them under the cumbersome International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In addition, sales of potentially "dual use" technology have to be approved the State Department rather than the Commerce Department. The result has been a surge of rocket and satellite production abroad and the creation of foreign-made satellites that use only homegrown components to avoid complex U.S. restrictions under ITAR and the Iran Nonproliferation Act. That law, passed in 2000, tightened a ban on direct or indirect sales of advanced technology to Iran (especially by Russia). As a result, a number of foreign governments are buying European satellites and paying the Chinese, Indian and other space programs to launch them. CONGRESS HATES THE PLAN KEY DEMOCRATS OPPOSE AND EMPIRICALLY SLASH SPACE FUNDING.

Dr. James Clay Moltz, associate professor at the Center for Contemporary Conflict in the Department of National Security Affairs, April 02, Breaking the Deadlock on Space Arms Control, Arms Control Today, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_04/moltzapril02.asp [Tandet]
The same Congress that boosted funding for missile defenses by 57 percent to $8.3 billion last year also cut significant chunks out of Bush proposals for space-based elements of national missile defense. Indeed, the final House-Senate conference committee eliminated $120 million from the presidents proposed $170 million appropriation for the Space-Based Laser. It also eliminated funds entirely for the Space Based Infrared System-low (SBIRS-low), a satellite-based early-warning system. These actions suggest that space weapons are vulnerable to congressional challenges. Also, the full impact of the change in the Senates leadership has not yet been felt. Key Democrats have come out in strong opposition to space weapons, including Senators Tom Daschle (SD), Joseph Biden (DE), and Carl Levin (MI). Except for the unprecedented budget unity brought on by the September 11 events, cuts would likely have been made in the missile defense budget for fiscal year 2002,9 forcing even harder choices regarding space defenses. Such debates are beginning for fiscal year 2003. Conservative Democrat Robert Byrd (WV) warned on the Senate floor against a headlong and fiscally spendthrift rush to deploy space weapons, concluding, That heavy foot on the accelerator is merely the stamp and roar of rhetoric.

SPS UNPOP- CONGRESS

SPACE WEAPONS ARE UNIFORMLY UNPOPULAR EVEN WITHIN THE MILITARY Nina Tannenwald, director of the International Relations Department at Brown University, Summer 04, Law Versus Power on the High Frontier: The Case for a Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/display.php?id=44 [Tandet] Although SPACECOM and its supporters aggressively assert their views, advocates of weapons in space may be in the minority, even in the Pentagon. As many observers recognize, the interests of the United States in space are much broader than SPACECOM presents. U.S. testing and deployment of orbital weapons could make using space for other military and commercial purposes more difficult. Many in the military, especially those involved in crucial military support activities, are quietly aware of this, as are officials at NASA and the international space station, and their supporters in Congress. Congressional support for antisatellite (ASAT) programs does not appear to be deep or widespread. Serious questions remain as to whether the threats to U.S. assets in space are really as great as SPACECOM argues, and whether, even if the threats were real, expensive and difficult space-based weapons would really be the most effective way to deal with them. In many cases, those wishing to hurt the United States will likely find it much easier, and more effective, to attack terrestrial targets. CONGRESS HATES THE PLAN OTHER FUNDING TAKES PRIORITY AND DEMOCRATS BLOCK SPACE PROGRAMS

James Clay Moltz, associate professor at the Center for Contemporary Conflict in the Department of National Security Affairs, November 07, Protecting Safe Access to Space: Lessons from the First 50 Years of Space Security, Space Policy, http://spacedebate.org/argument/1271/ [TANDET]
But the combined impact of sharply elevated defense spending for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a series of now-familiar technical problems in developing space-based missile defenses, and the unwillingness of most Democratic and many Republican members of Congress to move hastily into the weaponization of space before understanding its likely costs and geopolitical implications, led to the scaling back of many of these programs by mid-2006. In November 2006, the Democrats' seizure of both houses of Congress in the mid-term elections seemed to end any realistic prospects for near-term deployment of space weapons. Or did it? China's successful test of an ASAT weapon in January 2007 shocked the US political establishment. Proponents of space defenses, like Republican Senator Jon Kyl, argued for near-term deployment of orbital ASAT weapons, seeing China's action as the start of a space arms race that the USA could not afford to lose. But his calls fell upon deaf ears even among most of his fellow Republican members of Congress, as other defense priorities dominated their attention and the new Democratic majority all but eliminated prospects of significant new funding. Previous, rosy predictions of an era of unchallenged US "space dominance" now seemed hopelessly unattainable after just one Chinese test.

SPS UNPOP- CONGRESS

CONGRESS DESPISES THE PLAN THEY THINK SPACE FUNDING IS MISMANAGED, EMPIRICALLY PROVEN

Michael Katz-Hyman, Research Assistant at the Henry L. Stimson Center, and Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation, March 06, U.S. Space Weapons: Big Intention, Little Focus, Non-Proliferation Review, http://spacedebate.org/argument/2729/ [Tandet]
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that current space acquisition efforts will cost between $10 billion and $14 billion a year by 2010. Congressional appropriators have stated clearly that the Pentagon must reduce its request for space systems. In the 2006 Defense Appropriations bill, Congress slashed funding for two of the Air Force's 'transformational' space acquisition efforts -- Space Radar and the Transformational Satellite System -- to emphasize this point. Congressional concerns have also led to the restructuring of a pair of classified spy satellite programs. Senator Wayne Allard, Republican-Colorado, a long-time supporter of military space programs, expressed the frustration of many members of Congress: "I strongly believe the continued mismanagement of our space acquisition programs is a far greater threat to our space dominance than any external danger

CONGRESS EMPIRICALLY CUTS REQUESTED FUNDING FOR NASA DOESNT APPROVE OF EXPLORATORY GOALS

The Planetary Society, 1-31-07, Congressional Appropriators Cut NASA Funding; Moon Program, New Launch Vehicle, and Science All Cut, http://www.planetary.org/news/2007/0131_Congressional_Appropriators_Cut_NASA.html [Tandet]
The House Appropriations Committee has passed its version of the 2007 federal government budget. In it, funding for NASA was cut by $550 million (approximately 3.2%) from the amount proposed by the Bush Administration last February. The $16.2 billion budgeted for NASA for 2007 is the same as the amount approved for 2006. To become law, the Appropriations Committees proposal still must be approved by the full House and Senate. The Planetary Society strongly opposed the Administrations request for fiscal year 2007 because it had slashed science programs in order to increase funding for the shuttle, the space station, the new Ares and Orion launch vehicles, and lunar programs. The House Appropriations plan accepts the funding cuts to all of these areas, and adds to them even more cuts to space science and to the NASA Exploration programs. Its a double whammy, said Louis Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society. First the science underpinnings to the NASA exploration architecture were removed; now the whole enterprise seems to be collapsing.

SPS COST POL CAP

SPS DRAINS POLITICAL CAPITAL

Leonard David, special correspondent, Space News, 9-19-07 (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html)[JWu]

Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.

SPS COST POL CAP

DESPITE DOE FUNDS FOR RESEARCH, CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT STALLED BY POLITICAL APATHY David Boswell, keynote a speaker at the 1991 International Space Development Conference Whatever happened to solar power satellites? Monday, August 30, 2004 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1 Whatever happened to solar power satellites? by David Boswell Monday, August 30, 2004 High cost of launching Another barrier is that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment would be needed to get a solar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was produced more expensive than other alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down before generating solar power in space makes economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so little progress has been made? There were over 60 launches in 2003, so last year there was enough money spent to put something into orbit about every week on average. Funding was found to launch science satellites to study gravity waves and to explore other planets. There are also dozens of GPS satellites in orbit that help people find out where they are on the ground. Is there enough money available for these purposes, but not enough to launch even one solar power satellite that would help the world develop a new source of energy? In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government has some interest in funding renewable energy research and they realize that private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion industry on their own. From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial, but rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the money available for further development. There is a very interesting discussion on the economics of large space projects that makes the point that the fundamental problem in opening any contemporary frontier, whether geographic or technological, is not lack of imagination or will, but lack of capital to finance initial construction which makes the subsequent and typically more profitable economic development possible. Solving this fundamental problem involves using one or more forms of direct or indirect government intervention in the capital market.

SPS COST POL CAP

PLAN PASSAGE REQUIRES BUSH TO OVERCOME THE OVERWHELMING POLITICAL CLOUT OF THE FOSSILFUEL LOBBY John Gartner 06.22.04 www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/63913 NASA Spaces on Energy Solution Neville Marzwell, advanced concepts innovation technology manager at NASA, spent five years researching methods of improving a satellite's ability to collect solar energy before his program was cut. Marzwell claims that politics played a part in the decision to kill the space solar power program. The United States "doesn't have the political will to fund the research" because of pressure from fossil-fuel lobbyists, Marzwell said. "We could have become the Saudi Arabia of the world electricity market," Marzwell said. But because the coal and oil industries don't want threats to their profits, they applied political pressure, causing the program to be scrapped, according to Marzwell. Auburn's Brandhorst hopes that NASA's emphasis on sending astronauts to Mars will lead to renewed interest in space solar power. "For a time, exploration was a bad word at NASA. Now it's a mandate," Brandhorst said, and the program should receive money because it "has clear repercussions for exploration."

SPS COST POL CAP

Plan drains political capital Leonard David, special correspondent, Space News, 9-19-07 (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html)[JWu] Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.

SPS POP- OBAMA

Obama supports more satellites Barack Obama, Hopeful President, 7-15-08, Washington Post Transcript, Obama Addresses National Security, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071501311.html The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights. Obama has continually supported expansion of alternative energy, including solar Kent Garber, U.S. News, 7-10-08, Quote by Barack Obama, http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign2008/2008/07/10/where-mccain-and-obama-stand-on-environmental-issues.html I will invest $150 billion over the next 10 years in alternative sources of energy like wind power and solar power and advanced biofuels Obama wants to explore alternative energies, like solar Joel Wendland, PoliticalAffairs.net, 7-27-08, Obama The Greener Candidate, http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7181/ The E Magazine article also pointed to differences between the two on nuclear energy. McCain, the article noted, wants to greatly expand the role of nuclear power in the economy, but has yet to address the urgent question of safety, health, and contamination. Obama has indicated that safe nuclear energy should be part of the picture, but "would rather bolster alternative energy sources like wind and solar power that do not have the nasty side effect of radioactive waste in need of storage and disposal."

SPS POP- CONGRESS

So long as the ventures profitable, Congress would support solar satellites Space Island Group, 06, Clean Energy, Cheap Hydrogen, and Weather Control From Space, http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/solarsat.html The insurance company savings from solar satellites and the profits for the energy companies are probably a decade away, but their international image benefits to the public and to investors will be immediate. The image of insurance companies has ranged from bland to negative. In late 2004 and on into 2005 some of Americans largest insurers have been sued for overcharging businesses, states and individuals. The insurance industry has played a key role in expanding commerce around the world for centuries, but today most people put them in the same category as used car dealers. By backing our effort, they could change that image overnight. Theyd be using their financial resources to shield millions of people worldwide from Natures most devastating fury. Everyone talks about the weather, but this industry can finally do something about it.And theres more. Insurers now own some $15 billion worth of communications satellites theyve bought through insurance payouts when they failed in orbit. Workers aboard Space Island stations could use space tugs to bring these dead satellites down from their 22,000 mile orbits to the 400mile high stations, then repair or refuel them and tow them back to their operational orbits for $5-$10 million each. Insurers could sell them all for nearly $7 billion in clean profits. Then there are the liability issues of space station crews and space tourists. An entire new field of space insurance would have to be created, and the firms who help us will lead that field. Its likely that the U.S. Congress would help insurers with liability caps for the first decade or two, since hurricane and tornado damage costs the federal government even more every year than it costs insurers.

SPS NOT PERCEIVED

AMERICANS ARE AMBIVALENT ABOUT SPACE EXPLORATION THEY FOCUS ON OTHER ISSUES

USA Today, 8-18-03, Public support could prove crucial for NASA, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-18-inside-shuttle_x.htm

[Tandet]

Like many Americans, Kenny Maroney of Tampa is fascinated by space travel. "We love the shuttle. The shuttle's cool," he says. Maroney, 33, also typifies the kind of ambivalence many people feel about space exploration, particularly when asked whether they're willing to spend more money on it. "At this time," he says, "it's not a top priority." His view and those of millions of other Americans may prove critically important to the future of NASA. Six months after seven astronauts died as the space shuttle Columbia broke apart while re-entering the Earth's atmosphere Feb. 1, the space agency that put men on the moon is under fire. (Related story: NASA support up after tragedy) Next week, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board will release its findings on what happened to Columbia and the role NASA played in the shuttle's demise. Its report is expected to criticize NASA's safety practices. Congress plans to hold hearings on the accident next month. The report also will call for numerous improvements in shuttle safety that will almost certainly require additional funding for NASA. At the same time, it is likely to say that budget cuts during the 1990s contributed to the accident. The call for more funding makes public support for the program all the more crucial. Without it, the government might be unwilling to allocate the sort of money needed to keep the nation in space. Since the Columbia disaster, Americans have rallied behind the space program. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows support for increasing NASA funding to levels not seen since the 1980s. Such numbers can be misleading. Throughout NASA's history, political battles and uncertainties over the value of putting humans in space have fostered a public ambivalence. "The American people have at best a rooting interest in the space program," says Marc Schlather, president of ProSpace, a space policy group. "They find it very exciting. But if you ask them to line it up against Social Security or their parents' Medicare or veterans' medical benefits, they're going to pick one of those other things," he says.

SPS POP- MILITARY

MILITARY LOVES THE PLAN

Cho, 2007 (Dan Cho, NewScientist.com news service, Pentagon Backs Plan to Beam Solar Power From Space, October 11, 2007) Washington, DC A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US military. A report released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-powergenerating satellites and provide financial incentives for further private development of the technology. Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions."We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel Paul
MILITARY LOVES THE PLAN

Foust, 2007 (Jeff Foust, The Space Review, A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?, August 13, 2007) The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas, Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is with space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power.

SPS POP- LOBBIES

SPACE LOBBYISTS LOVE THE PLAN

Cho, 2007 (Dan Cho, NewScientist.com news service, Pentagon Backs Plan to Beam Solar Power From Space, October 11, 2007) Washington, DC At the same press conference, over a dozen space advocacy groups announced a new alliance to promote space solar power the Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy. These supporters of space-based solar power say the technology has the potential to provide more energy than fossil fuels, wind and nuclear power combined.
SPACE LOBBIES LOVE THE PLAN BECAUSE IT COORDINATES OUR EFFORTS IN SPACE

Boyle, 2007 (Alan Boyle, MSNCB, Science Editor, Power From Space?, October 12, 2007) "I think we have found the killer application that we have been looking for to tie everything together that we're doing in space," Air Force Col. Michael V. "Coyote" Smith, who initiated the study for the Defense Department's National Security Space Office, told msnbc.com on Thursday. Space advocacy groups immediately seized on the idea and formed a new alliance to push the plan.

NASA NOT PERCEIVED

NASA PROGRAMS ARENT PERCEIVEDPOLLS PROVE

Donald A. Beattie, former NASA manager who also managed programs at the National Science Foundation, 212-07, Just how full of opportunity is the moon?, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1 [Tandet]
Depending on the poll, and how the poll was conducted, support for NASAs programs is usually high. However, most polls indicate that the general public knows few details about NASAs programs and the size of its budgets that use their tax dollars. Interest among the young in our space program, in general, appears to be especially low, and when questioned about returning to the Moon show little enthusiasm about the program.

NASA POP- OBAMA

OBAMA HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR NASA TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

Los Angeles Times 7/23/2008, Looking at Mars; McCain is onboard for Bush's space mission; Obama may be more down to earth., lexis, BB
Fiscal realities and NASA's commitment to keeping its $17-billion budget flat already seem to be putting a limit on Constellation, but Bush's, and now McCain's, vision nicely balances realism and ambition. Yet it's Obama who is sounding like the more realistic, market-oriented candidate. His campaign said recently that Obama hopes to enhance NASA's role "in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change" and "to reach out and include international partners and engage the private sector to increase NASA's reach and provide real public economic benefits for the nation."

NASA UNPOP- CONGRESS

CONGRESS EMPIRICALLY CUTS REQUESTED FUNDING FOR NASA DOESNT APPROVE OF EXPLORATORY GOALS

The Planetary Society, 1-31-07, Congressional Appropriators Cut NASA Funding; Moon Program, New Launch Vehicle, and Science All Cut, http://www.planetary.org/news/2007/0131_Congressional_Appropriators_Cut_NASA.html
The House Appropriations Committee has passed its version of the 2007 federal government budget. In it, funding for NASA was cut by $550 million (approximately 3.2%) from the amount proposed by the Bush Administration last February. The $16.2 billion budgeted for NASA for 2007 is the same as the amount approved for 2006. To become law, the Appropriations Committees proposal still must be approved by the full House and Senate. The Planetary Society strongly opposed the Administrations request for fiscal year 2007 because it had slashed science programs in order to increase funding for the shuttle, the space station, the new Ares and Orion launch vehicles, and lunar programs. The House Appropriations plan accepts the funding cuts to all of these areas, and adds to them even more cuts to space science and to the NASA Exploration programs. Its a double whammy, said Louis Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society. First the science underpinnings to the NASA exploration architecture were removed; now the whole enterprise seems to be collapsing.

NASA UNPOP- CONGRESS

BUSH PUSHED FOR NASA AND FAILED, CONGRESS LIKES TO CUT IT. THE PLANETARY SOCIETY 1-31-06, CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATORS CUT NASA FUNDING; MOON PROGRAM, NEW LAUNCH VEHICLE, AND SCIENCE ALL CUT, HTTP://RRGTM.PLANETARY.ORG/NEWS/2007/0131_CONGRESSIONAL_APPROPRIATORS_CUT_NASA.HTML THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE HAS PASSED ITS VERSION OF THE 2007 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET. IN IT, FUNDING FOR NASA WAS CUT BY $550 MILLION (APPROXIMATELY 3.2%) FROM THE AMOUNT PROPOSED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION LAST FEBRUARY. NASA FAILED TO GET THE NEEDED POLITICAL CAPITAL FROM BUSH CAUSING IT TO GET CUT, CONGRESS FIND THE PROGRAM TO LONG TERM Gannett News Service, 3-13-06, Scientists: NASA programs lack adequate funding, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-03-13-nasa-funding_N.htm President Bush has failed to back up his broad vision to revive the nation's interest in space exploration with adequate funding or even public support, a leading scientist told lawmakers Thursday. "The money that was promised to execute the mission has not been provided, and it's hard to say that the vision has generated much excitement, particularly among the young, who are expected to benefit the most," said Lennard Fisk, chairman of the National Research Council Space Studies Board. The 2004 vision outlined by Bush included plans to retire the aging space shuttle, return Americans to the moon and explore Mars through robotic and human missions. I encourage you to ask whether there was a flaw in the vision that we did not realize at the time," Fisk told members of the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. "The vision is about the future, extending our civilization into space, but there is little of immediate concern to the taxpayer." The congressional hearing, which focused specifically on NASA's space and Earth science programs, was the latest held to examine the proposed 2009 budget Bush has recommended for the agency. Committee chairman Mark Udall called NASA's science programs the "crown jewels" of the agency but expressed his longstanding concern over whether they have been adequately funded.

NASA BIPART
Strong bipartisan support in the house and the senate for increased NASA funding STEWART M. POWELL, staff writer for the Houtson Chronical Washington Bureau, 6-11-08, http://209.85.215.104/search? q=cache:naxCDdljWOUJ:www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/5830045.html+nasa+funding+popular+congress&hl=en&ct=c lnk&cd=9&gl=us [E.Berggren] WASHINGTON The White House on Tuesday forcefully rejected a popular, bipartisan effort in Congress to hand NASA $2.9 billion for three additional shuttle flights to the international space station before retirement of the shuttle fleet in 2010. Some, like Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, said they would push for additional NASA funding, with or without White House approval. There is strong bipartisan support for increased NASA funding in the Senate, which will act after the House gives its funding plan final approval. NASA funding is bipartisan SapceRef.com, report on congressional budget hearing, 7-22-05, Bipartisan Compromise Yields Positive Results for NASA, http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:bS_6pchkPs8J:www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html%3Fpid %3D17475+space+exploration+bipartisan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us [E.Berggren] Washington, DC) Intense, constructive negotiations produced NASA Authorization legislation that today received widespread bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives. H.R. 3070, the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, passed by a vote of 383-15. "We've come a long way with regard to providing clear policy and funding direction in this bill," stated House Science Committee Ranking Member Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN). "The large margin of passage today reflects the House's wisdom in funding the Administration's exploration initiative in a way that doesn't undercut NASA's other core areas. Make no mistake, overwhelming passage should not be misunderstood as a blanket endorsement of the Moon-Mars initiative. Rather it is strong policy guidance from the House that aeronautics, education and scientific research are key NASA areas that are at least as important as human exploration." Bipartisan support for NASA funding Richard M. Jones, writer for theAmerican Institute of Physics, 6-12-08, http://209.85.215.104/search? q=cache:4vAMPCXSW1gJ:www.aip.org/fyi/2008/065.html+space+exploration+bipartisan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us [E.Berggren] A strongly bipartisan bill to reauthorize NASA and its programs for FY 2009 is now being considered by the full House. While H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, is expected to pass the House, the Office of Management and Budget has issued a statement declaring "the Administration strongly opposes" the bill.

NASA PART
NASA funding is partisan Alex Howerton, writer and reporter for The Space Review, 2-25-08, http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:9G5uHK15XkJ:www.thespacereview.com/article/1067/1+nasa+funding+partisan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us [E.Berggren] Space spending is a highly visible and easy target, especially because the public at large does not see the immediate relevance of space development, or how it can augment other desirable activities, such as environmental monitoring and job creation. Moreover, NASA and the space advocacy community on the whole do a rather lackluster job of communicating these benefits to a wider audience. The result is that space spending is usually in the front of the line for the budget guillotine. A Harris Poll conducted in April 2007 listed respondents answer to this question: If spending had to be cut on federal programs, which two federal program(s) do you think the cuts should come from? The space program received the sharpest blow of the hypothetical budget ax, at 51%, followed distantly by welfare and defense at 28%. This is the state of public perception, even though NASAs fiscal year 2007 federal budget allocation was less than 1%, while defense came in at 19%, and unemployment and welfare registered 13%. It is nearly impossible to establish stable NASA funding in this political and cultural climate.

NASA UNPOP- CONGRESS

Increases in NASA funding unpopular Space Politics Magazine, 4-17-07, Bipartisan nonsupport and big targets, http://209.85.215.104/search? q=cache:I_T_AF2bWe8J:www.spacepolitics.com/2007/04/17/bipartisan-nonsupport-and-big-targets/ +nasa+funding+bipartisan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us [E.Berggren] Was Calvert making an attack against the Democratic leadership in the House? No. There is a dangerous trend of bipartisan nonsupport in funding NASA in Congress, he said. He mentioned two amendments to the original FY07 appropriations bill on the House floor last summer that would have either prevented NASA from spending any money on Mars exploration efforts, and another that would have transferred NASA funds to other programs. While both amendments were defeated (a moot point, as it turned out, since that appropriations bill was never enacted and replaced with a continuing resolution), The reality is that members of both parties supported these amendments, and by a large margin. That doesnt bode well for NASA during the FY2008 budget process. You can bet that NASA will be the target again this year unless we prepare to defend NASA funding against grabs from other areas.

***************TAX INCENTIVES***************

TAX INCENTIVES POP- PUBLIC

Tax incentives for renewable energy will appease americans NAW,8 (National American Wind Power, AWEA encourages Congress To Take Further Action, 6-11-08,
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.2395)// SV

Following the failure of the U.S. Senate on June 10 to surmount a filibuster on the House tax extender package that included a oneyear extension of the production tax credit (PTC), the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the national trade association for the American wind industry, urged congressional leaders to find another way to extend tax incentives for renewable energy. "With 116,000 jobs and nearly $19 billion in investment at risk in the renewable energy industries, the U.S. Senate today again failed to secure the votes needed to extend tax credits for the wind and solar industries, frustrating the desire of millions of Americans across the political spectrum, says Gregory Wetstone, senior director of governmental and public affairs for AWEA. "Renewable energy like wind power can lower home energy bills, strengthen our energy security, create new manufacturing jobs and, perhaps most importantly, reduce global warming pollution even as we meet growing electricity demand."\

TAX INCENTIVES POP- PUBLIC

Tax incentives strategies massively popular Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
Respondents were asked to consider a variety of possible strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Very large majorities supported offering tax incentives to corporations and individuals. Seventy-five percent supported providing tax incentives to utility companies to encourage them to sell environmentally clean energy, such as solar and wind power, to consumers. Eighty percent favored giving cash incentives like tax credits and rebates to individual households that upgrade to more energy efficient appliances like refrigerators and air conditioners.

Tax incentives for alternate energy overwhelmingly popular Kull, 04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf)
3. Strategies for Reducing Emissions Very large majorities support strategies that provide tax incentives to utility companies that sell environmentally clean energy and to individuals who purchase energy-efficient appliances. Very large majorities support major efforts to reduce automobile emissions by requiring higher fuel efficiency standards in automobiles (even if this means higher costs), requiring half of all new automobiles to be hybrid-electric or similarly high-mileage by 2010, renewing the tax incentives for hybrids, and eliminating the tax incentives for large SUVs and Hummers. The strategy for reducing emissions through a system in which companies trade emissions allowances is not popular with the public, though arguments that it would reduce costs are convincing to a modest majority

TAX INCENTIVES POP-PELOSI

Pelosi pushes for tax breaks Geoff 7, (Geoff Hand, House Dems Push for RPS and Renewable Energy Tax Package; Energy Bill Showdown Expected in Senate; Veto Looms, 12-05-07,http://renewableenergylaw.blogspot.com/2007/12/house-dems-push-for-rps-and-renewable.html) House Dems Push for RPS and Renewable Energy Tax Package; Energy Bill Showdown Expected in Senate; Veto Looms It's time to install wind turbines in the halls of Congress; you could power several thousand homes with the hot air blowing out of Washington this week on the federal energy bill, and things are only starting to heat-up. Just when it looked like the House had abandoned plans for a federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and an important renewable energy tax package, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that both measures will be included in the final bill. According to the AP: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to push ahead with a $21 billion tax package, including repeal of tax breaks for major oil companies, as part of an energy bill, aides to the speaker said Tuesday. Democratic leaders circulated a summary of the legislation that includes the new taxes as well as a requirement for a 40 percent increase in automobile fuel efficiency, a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel, and a mandate for utilities to use renewable fuels.

Nancy Pelosi pushes for a tax package CSACAE 7, (Josef Herbert, Pelosi targets oil firms in energy push, 12-07,http://agriconenergy.blogspot.com/2007/12/pelosis-planto-tank-us-economy.html) WASHINGTON - Defying a threat of a presidential veto, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to push ahead with a $21 billion tax package, including repeal of tax breaks for major oil companies, as part of an energy bill, aides to the speaker said Tuesday. Democratic leaders circulated a summary of the legislation that includes the new taxes as well as a requirement for a 40 percent increase in automobile fuel efficiency, a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a motor fuel, and a mandate for utilities to use renewable fuels. Republicans earlier this year blocked Senate attempts to pass new energy taxes, contending they would hinder domestic oil and gas production. Democratic supporters of the taxes said.

TAX INCENTIVES UNPOP-REPS

Republicans are opposed to tax incentives for renewables Grist News 08 (No renewal for renewables, June 10, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/10/11530/1857)
The second bill, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, was the Senate partner to the tax-extenders legislation that passed in the House last month. The $54 billion package would have extended tax breaks for renewable energy that are set to expire at the end of this year. It includes a six-year

extension of the investment tax credit for solar energy; a three-year extension of the production tax credit for biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas, and solid waste; and a one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind energy. The bill also has incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and cellulosic biofuels, incentives for companies that produce energy-efficient products, and incentives to improve efficiency in commercial and residential buildings. Funding for the tax credits would come from closing loopholes for hedge-fund managers and multinational corporations. Republicans Smith, Snowe, and Bob Corker (Tenn.) voted in favor of cloture on the bill, as did all of the Democrats present for the vote. The taxbreak extensions have stalled in the Senate several times before, and folks in the renewables industry are starting to get nervous as we near the expiration of those credits at the end of this year. More than ever, with record energy prices, record unemployment, and grave
concerns about global warming, Congress needs to work out differences so we can stabilize energy costs for consumers and businesses, improve our nations energy security, and create tens of thousands of quality, green-collar jobs, said Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch following the vote.

Green groups rushed to chastise GOP leaders for the obstruction. By once again blocking efforts to extend these crucial clean energy tax incentives that are in danger of expiring, this minority is responsible for kicking the economy while its down, said
Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope in a written statement. Jobs are already being lost in the renewable-energy industry and at least 100,000 more could disappear unless Congress acts to immediately renew these tax incentives.

TAX INCENTIVES BIPART

Strong bipartisan support for tax Incentives for alternative energy Oil Daily 6-5-2K8 (Congress Mulls Tax Credits ln) GRodarte There is wide bipartisan support for extending production tax incentives for solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and other renewable energy sources that are currently set to expire this year. The measure has been held up over internal squabbles among Democrats about how to pay for the tax breaks. Fiscally conservative Democrats in the House want to offset the cost of the tax breaks by repealing drilling incentives for the oil and gas industry, but that is a nonstarter with Senate Republicans. The renewable industry says Congress needs to act soon to avoid disrupting investment in alternative energy projects. Domenici said the renewable energy tax credits will pay for themselves by reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs. "But now, all of a sudden, Democrats have decided that we shouldn't extend these credits unless they are paid for," Domenici said. "The problem is that in this atmosphere, it is very difficult to find ways to do this that everyone can agree on.

TAX INCENTIVES PART

Democrats support renewable tax breaks the GOP opposes

Cohen, 08 (Stephanie, Market Watch, 2/19, Perking up the economy with energy tax breaks,
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/perking-up-economy-enery-tax/story.aspx?guid=%7B6E4B70B7-B947-40A5-9E332035F30E3050%7D) Democratic leaders in Congress think so and have been trying to move a block of renewable energy tax breaks through Congress for a year. Democratic leaders attempted earlier this month attach $5.5 billion in tax breaks for renewable energy to a $168 billion economic stimulus package. Democrats pushed Republicans to accept the extension of energy tax breaks or deny tax rebates for millions of Americans. But Republicans blocked this effort and the stimulus package was signed by President Bush without the energy provisions. Now the House is considering an $18 billion package of energy tax incentives, the latest effort by Democrats to boost the renewable energy sector.

TAX INCENTIVES POP- OBAMA, UNPOP- MCCAIN

OBAMA SUPPORTS TAX INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND MCCAIN HAS VOTED AGAINST THEM Cash, Platts, 6-24-8

(Cathy, Platts.com, Obama and McCain clash over energy policy, http://www.platts.com/Electric %20Power/Resources/News%20Features/uselection08/index.xml, accessed 6-29-8)
June 24, 2008 - Energy policy dominated the US presidential race for a second consecutive day June 24, as Senators Barack Obama and John McCain clashed over the best way to address soaring gasoline prices and global warming. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said McCain's energy policy consists of "cheap gimmicks" such as a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax. "... if we don't renew key tax incentives for alternative energy production ... we could lose up to 116,000 green jobs and $19 billion in investment just next year." -- Senator Barack Obama. Obama said McCain's plan would save the average American motorist only 30 cents a day for three months. "The American people don't need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks to get politicians through the next election, they need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on their table," Obama said at a campaign stop in Las Vegas, Nevada. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, reiterated his plan to roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies and to redirect the money to boost wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy. He faulted McCain for voting against renewable-energy tax credits, which expire at the end of the year. "If John McCain had his way, those tax credits wouldn't exist," Obama said. "And if we don't renew key tax incentives for alternative energy production - tax incentives that John McCain opposed continuing - we could lose up to 116,000 green jobs and $19 billion in investment just next year."

TAX INCENTIVES UNPOP- REPS

REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST TAX INCENTIVES FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY WALL STREET JOURNAL, 2008. (MAY 22, PG. A11) The House of Representatives passed a $57 billion package of tax incentives for wind, solar, and other alternative-energy sources, and other business tax breaks. The House approved the bill on a 263-150 vote. But Republican opposition to the bill was strong enough to indicate that the GOP would likely be able to sustain a possible veto from President Bush. Thirty-five Republicans voted in favor of the bill, while the 160 no votes on the bill are well above the one-third threshold needed to sustain a White House veto.

**********TYPES***********

INCENTIVES POP- PUBLIC

INCENTIVES HAVE MORE POLITICAL SUPPORT THAN REGULATION. GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 8

(Newt, Sierra, January-February 2008, pg. 40-43)

Whoever wins will have a sound and realistic approach to climate change. Democrats have an advantage in developing solutions because their primary voters care more about the issue and because they are more comfortable dealing with environmental issues, which have been largely a liberal area of dialogue for the past generation. Republicans have to play catch-up in developing answers other than no. Our research at American Solutions indicates that, by a very substantial margin, Americans prefer entrepreneurship to bureaucracy and innovation to litigation. The Republican nominee should be able to develop strong solutions to climate change that emphasize science, technology, innovation, and incentives. These will prove surprisingly popular compared with the tax increase-government control-bureaucracy and litigation model that has dominated for the past 30 years.

PROCUREMENT POP- MCCAIN

MCCAIN SUPPORTS PROCUREMENT MECHANISMS FOR BOLSTERING DEMAND FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY GreenBiz, 6-17-8

(Confronting Energy Efficiency in an Election Year, http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2008/06/17/confrontingenergy-efficiency-election-year, accessed 6-29-8) Bodman spoke about the necessity of expanding nuclear power generation capacity, a notion echoed by former Senator George Allen, who was on hand to describe McCains energy policy. "What Senator McCain as president would do is propose a national energy strategy that will amount to a declaration of independence from energy insecurity and he'll promote diversification and conservation of our energy resources," Allen said. In addition to expanding nuclear power, McCain wants to bolster domestic oil and natural gas exploration in receptive areas and clean coal technologies to utilize the abundant but polluting resource, Allen said. McCain opposes mandatory building standards and supports sparking greater demand for best technologies and practices by using government purcashing power. [Note: Bodman = Samuel Bodman, US Energy Secretary]

MANDATORY ACTION POP- PUBLIC

PUBLIC SUPPORTS MANDATORY ACTION. Stoller, Washington Political Consultant, 8.

(Mark, Sierra Magazine, January-February 2008, p. 40-43)

Mr. Gingrich is correct that the public clamors for innovation. Our polling shows that Americans feel our country is failing to lead on energy and global-warming solutions, yet they believe we have the technological know-how to lead, and we must harness it. Mr. Gingrich is also correct on the importance of incentives. But any purely voluntary solution fails to address the seriousness of the problem. Americans believe we need strong standards if we are to succeed. [Note: Gingrich = Newt Gingrich, Republican Congressman 94-98]

REGULATIONS UNPOP- CONGRESS

REGULATIONS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE ENERGY SECTOR FACE POLITICAL OPPOSITION. Percival, Law Professor and University of Maryland Environmental Law Program Director, 97.

(Robert V., Regulatory Evolution and the Future of Environmental Policy p. 196-7, University of Chicago Legal, 1997)
Some critics of environmental regulation have even gone so far as to oppose efforts to increase regulatory flexibility on the ground that such flexibility helps diffuse political opposition to environmental policy. A more legitimate concern is the potential for abusing such flexibility by giving certain interests an unfair advantage over their competitors. While environmental law has not been nearly as prone to special interest deals as economic regulation, it is important that objective standards be developed for environmental contracting to prevent such abuses. Professor Rena Steinzor has questioned whether Project XL will accomplish its goals. While praising the general concept behind Project XL, she suggests that the EPA, in its haste to get the project off the ground, is sacrificing too many regulatory safeguards by approving projects with uncertain benefits and the potential to undermine public participation and enforcement. She notes that an internal EPA newsletter quotes the agency's staff as having coined the motto "If it isn't illegal, it isn't XL." E. More Effort Should be Devoted to Overcoming the Political Barriers to Improved Regulatory Policy Those who make a serious effort to "rethink regulation " ultimately will recognize that far more fundamental environmental progress could be accomplished by changing the nation's energy, agricultural, and transportation policies to make them more responsive to environmental concerns. The nation's tax system levies the vast majority of taxes on labor and capital rather than on waste and pollution. However, fundamental reforms in tax or energy policy are quickly dismissed as politically unrealistic. Much more effort should be devoted to considering why such policies are so unattractive politically and what, if anything, can be done to change the political dynamics.

COMMAND & CONTROL UNPOP- PUBLIC

COMMAND AND CONTROL REGULATIONS CAUSE A PUBLIC BACKLASH Reitze, George Washington University Law Professor, 91.

(George Washington University, Environmental Law, p. 1642)

The federal command-and-control approach has had successes but has run out of steam, and has little chance of dealing effectively with the major air pollution problems that threaten our atmosphere on a global basis. We cannot save the environment just by creating more regulations. Most people working in the field cannot find the time to read, let alone understand, the regulations EPA has promulgated concerning air pollution. Regulations today can take over three years to promulgate, and if they are significant, they will probably be embroiled in litigation for several more years. When we begin to implement the 1990 Amendments we are likely to find the governmental costs are far greater than the resources given to EPA to do the job. Delay in implementation is almost certain to occur. We cannot expect to protect our environment to the degree necessary merely by using more stringent controls that stress the limits of our technology and that have high marginal costs as well. More stringent laws will also be politically costly because effective controls will impinge more directly on both the wallets and the freedoms of individual citizens and voters. approach of setting emission standards for each sector of the economy.

TAXING UNPOP- MCCAIN

McCain is against taxing the oil companies Platts.com, 6-18-8

(McCain campaigns on energy plan, http://www.platts.com/Electric%20Power/Resources/News %20Features/uselection08/3.xml, accessed 6-29-8)

McCain slammed prospective Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama on his proposal to tax windfall profits from oil companies. He said Obama's policy is contradictory given the freshman Illinois senator's support for the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which contained tax breaks for oil companies (see Democratic Party: Energy independence agenda).

VOLUNTARY ACTION POP- PUBLIC

VOLUNTARY MEASURES RECEIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT. JACCARD, FRASER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROFESSOR, 6 (MARK, SUSTAINABLE FOSSIL FUELS: THE UNUSUAL SUSPECT IN THE QUEST FOR CLEAN AND ENDURING ENERGY, THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 2006, P. 281-2) Why, then, is voluntarism still so often pursued as a policy for environmental improvement? Households and firms obviously prefer voluntarism to prescriptive regulations or higher taxes, both of which impose costs that affect their bottom line. Voluntarism also allows firms to look like good corporate citizens, protecting the environment "because they care." Governments like voluntarism because it is politically feasible; they are seen to be taking the initiative in addressing a policy challenge, and it is impossible to prove in advance that a new voluntary program will he environmentally ineffective and economically inefficient. These programs can even be supported by those environmental lobbyists who want to believe that a more sustainable energy system, like other environmental objectives be achieved without trade-offs. As long as both industry and environmentalists are onside, government dare not question this approach. Once again, government is the nexus for our contradictory views of the world.

VOLUNTARY ACTION POP- CONGRESS

VOLUNTARY MEASURES RECEIVE POLITICAL SUPPORT. JACCARD, FRASER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROFESSOR, 6 (MARK, SUSTAINABLE FOSSIL FUELS: THE UNUSUAL SUSPECT IN THE QUEST FOR CLEAN AND ENDURING ENERGY, THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 2006, P. 281-2) Why, then, is voluntarism still so often pursued as a policy for environmental improvement? Households and firms obviously prefer voluntarism to prescriptive regulations or higher taxes, both of which impose costs that affect their bottom line. Voluntarism also allows firms to look like good corporate citizens, protecting the environment "because they care." Governments like voluntarism because it is politically feasible; they are seen to be taking the initiative in addressing a policy challenge, and it is impossible to prove in advance that a new voluntary program will he environmentally ineffective and economically inefficient. These programs can even be supported by those environmental lobbyists who want to believe that a more sustainable energy system, like other environmental objectives be achieved without trade-offs. As long as both industry and environmentalists are onside, government dare not question this approach. Once again, government is the nexus for our contradictory views of the world.

VOLUNTARISM IS A POLITICALLY POPULAR INSTRUMENT. JACCARD, FRASER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROFESSOR, 6 (MARK, SUSTAINABLE FOSSIL FUELS: THE UNUSUAL SUSPECT IN THE QUEST FOR CLEAN AND ENDURING ENERGY, THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 2006, P. 281-2) Governments at national and local levels continue to pursue voluntarism and information policies in my portfolio. Political acceptability makes these too appealing to eliminate, even if they are not highly effective. Indeed, initial efforts at voluntarism and information provision for greenhouse gas reduction in industrialized countries are increasingly seen as ineffective, setting the stage for more aggressive policies over the coming decade. But voluntarism may still be effective for those environmental objectives that do not involve substantial trade-offs.

*************WIND************

WIND POP- PUBLIC

THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTS THE PLAN

AWEA 2008 [American Wind Energy Association, Americans Overwhelmingly Support Federal Incentives for Renewable Energy: Zogby Poll, January 22, http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/poll_renewable_energy_012208.html]
Washington, DC (January 22, 2008) By

a 7-1 margin, Americans agree that the federal government should extend incentives that encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies, according to a national poll released today by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2007 was a record-breaking year for renewable electricity generation in the United States, with
almost 6,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy coming on line, infusing some $20 billion in new investment into the economy. But the federal production tax credit (PTC)

and tax incentives for other renewable energy sources are now in danger of lapsing at the end of this year. The survey research firm Zogby International surveyed Americans on existing federal incentives for renewable energy, in a poll commissioned by AWEA. The survey found that 85% of Americans agree with the statement, The federal government should continue existing incentives to encourage greater use of renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power. Just 12% disagree. The results confirm that Americans, by an overwhelming majority, want their government to support renewable energy, said AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. In 2007, tax incentives for
renewable energy created tens of thousands of jobs for Americans. We call upon Congress to help sustain this remarkable growth by extending these incentives.

THE PUBLIC LOVES THE PLAN

Earth Times 2008 [April 25, Eight of 10 Americans Support Federal Incentives to Spur Growth of CarbonFree Energy Technology, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/eight-of-10-americanssupport,367788.shtml] WASHINGTON, April 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Nearly 80 percent of Americans endorse the use of federal financial incentives to help promote development of carbon-free energy technologies, including new nuclear power plants, according to a new national survey of 1,000 adults. The survey shows that 79 percent of Americans approve of providing tax credits "as an incentive to companies to build solar, wind and advanceddesign nuclear power plants." Only 20 percent do not approve. The number of Americans "strongly approving" of tax credits exceeded the number of Americans "strongly disapproving" by the same four-to-one margin (37 percent vs. 9 percent). Support was nearly identical when Americans were asked about providing federal loan guarantees to companies that build solar, wind, advanced-design nuclear power plants "or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities." Seventyseven percent of those surveyed approve, while only 22 percent do not approve.

WIND POP- PUBLIC

Wind Energy the most popular form of alternative energy Bradley, 98
(Robert, USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Dirty secrets of renewable energy, May 1998, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2636_v126/ai_n27529128)

Wind power currently is the environmentalists' favorite source of renewable energy and is thought to be the most likely to replace fossil fuel in the generation of electricity in the 21st century. Hydropower has lost favor with environmentalists because of the damage it has done to river habitats and freshwater fish populations. Solar power, at least when relied on for central-station or grid power generation, has infrastructure that is very energy-intensive (and thus fosters the air pollution situation it is intended to solve). Moreover, it is highly uneconomical, land-intensive, and thus a fringe
electric power source for the foreseeable future. Geothermal has turned out to be depletable, with limited capacity, falling output, and modest new investment. Biomass is uneconomical and an air pollution-intensive renewable. This

leaves wind power, beloved as a renewable resource with no air pollutants and considered worthy of regulatory preference and open-ended taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies.
Despite decades of liberal subsidies, though, the cost of generating electricity from wind remains stubbornly uneconomical in an increasingly competitive electricity market.

WIND POP- PUBLIC

People support wind-polls prove Pollingreport .com May 2008 http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm
"Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes on gasoline and other fuels if the money was used for research into renewable sources like solar and wind energy?" Willing Not Willing
% 4/20-24/07 % % 33 3 Unsure

64

WIND POP- PUBLIC

Wind incentives overwhelmingly popular Pittsburgh post gazette, 05 (8/17)
Fortunately, wind energy's benefits have not gone unnoticed by the American public. A recent national survey conducted for Yale University found that 87 percent of Americans support expanded wind farms and 86 percent want increased funding for renewable energy research. States are also joining the bandwagon: Illinois recently became the 20th state to move forward with some form of renewable portfolio standard calling for more electricity to be produced from renewable sources such as wind. This broad base of support forms the core of a new national effort to support wind energy development. Dubbed Wind Energy Works!, the campaign was announced last month by the American Wind Energy Association and two dozen organizations (including Penn Future) that have joined it in forming a new national alliance to support wind energy development nationwide.

Wind power overwhelmingly popular Boone, 3/14/08 (Jackie Boone, CPA, is a manager with Mengel, Metzger, Barr & Co. LLP, daily record of Rochester, lexis)
The U.S. wind energy industry boosted its capacity to an estimated 16,800 megawatts in 2007, a 45 percent increase over the prior year. Cont Wind energy is one of the most popular energy technologies. Opinion surveys regularly show that slightly more than eight out of 10 people (80 percent) are in favor of wind energy, and less than one in 10 (about 5 percent) are against it. The rest are undecided. Some who live near proposed wind projects may be apprehensive, but when accurate information and knowledge is made available, experience shows initial concerns are reduced and support for wind farms increases. Public opinion in support of wind power tends to be even stronger once the wind turbines are installed and operating, a finding from several surveys carried out in the United Kingdom and Spain.

80 percent of public supports increased wind power the reporter, 1/13/08

AWEA notes that public opinion greatly (nearly 80 percent) supports the use of wind energy. And that support often increases once power production begins.

WIND POP- FLORIDA

Florida voters love wind energy Wireless News, 4/8/08
The nationally recognized polling firms of McLaughlin & Associates and Penn, Schoen & Brand conducted the research. "We're gratified that so many residents of St. Lucie County support developing clean wind energy on Hutchinson Island," said Eric Silagy, FPL Vice President and Chief Development Officer. "This research demonstrates that a majority of people feel strongly about climate change and the benefits of using clean wind energy to help address it." As part of the research, respondents were asked about their support for FPL's proposal to build six wind turbines on company-owned property. Of 500 respondents, 408 (81.6 percent) said they support the proposal, including 306 (61.2 percent) who said they "strongly" support the proposal and 102 (20.4 percent) who said they "somewhat" support the proposal. Fifty respondents (10 percent) said they oppose the proposal, with 27 (5.4 percent) saying they "strongly" oppose it and 23 (4.6 percent) saying they "somewhat" oppose it. The remaining 42 respondents (8.4 percent) said they had no opinion or declined to respond. More broadly, the research found strong support for the use of clean wind energy in general, with 87 percent saying they like the idea of wind power and 86 percent supporting the use of wind to increase the supply of electricity in Florida.

WIND BIPART
THE PLAN CAUSES CROSS-PARTY COALITION BUILDING

Christian Science Monitor 2007 [January 25, Unions see greenbacks in 'green' future, Moises VelasquezManoff Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, lexis] With alarm growing over global warming and the economic vulnerability created by American dependence on foreign oil, it's increasingly obvious to many that the only viable future is a green one. The pursuit of this future has made unlikely bedfellows of many groups historically at odds with each other. Evangelicals have joined forces with tree huggers. Creationists have aligned themselves with scientists. And now, organized labor is working with environmentalists. Union leaders are betting that a green economy will not only address the issue of climate change, it will also provide a bonanza of wellpaying manufacturing jobs - the kinds of jobs that have largely vanished from the United States in recent decades. A proliferation of wind turbines and solar panels means more factories, while ever more stringent efficiency standards imply the need for inspectors and experts in sealing and insulating. "From labor unions' point of view, these are the kinds of jobs their unions are most prepared for," says Jeff Rickert, vice president of the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of the major environmental and labor organizations. Having worked in steel mills and paper plants, many in the workforce already possess the appropriate skill set, say labor leaders. All that's needed are incentives at the federal level, and America will be well on its way toward what some call a "third industrial revolution."

WIND PART
THE PLAN CAUSES A PARTISAN FIRESTORM

Friedman 2008 [Thomas, Pulitzer prize columnist for the New York Times, Dumb as We Wanna Be, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?hp, April 30] Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.
THE PLAN CAUSES A SHOWDOWN BETWEEN BUSH AND THE DEMOCRATS

Friedman 2008 [Thomas, Pulitzer prize columnist for the New York Times, Dumb as We Wanna Be, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?hp, April 30] The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush showing not one iota of leadership refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

WIND POP- CONGRESS

Wind Power is politically popular in both Congress and with developers G.M.R. 07 [Inside F.E.R.C.s Gas Market Report, Consultant says mix of energy supplies is key to meeting future demands of US, January 26, 2007, Cheryl Butcha, lexis] Wind power also exploded in 2006. The American Wind Energy Association said that in 2006, the US added 2,454 MW of wind power, a 27% increase over 2005. The group said developers spent about $4 billion in 2006 to develop the new capacity, making wind the second most popular choice for new generation behind gas. Not to be left behind, Congress jumped into the mix last week with the House of Representatives passing a bill rolling back billions in tax breaks for gas and oil producers, earmarking the savings for renewable energy and alternative energy research. Wind Energy is becoming more and more popular in Congress NPR 06 [National Public Radio, Climate Change and New Congress, Talk of the Nation: Science Friday, December 1, 2006, Elizabeth Shrogen, lexis] I think one of the things that you might see coming from this Congress - if the Congress can't get a consensus around some kind of climate change legislation that would be across the board and would put caps on the economy as a whole, then I think you might be able to see some kind of smaller steps that are important and could have an impact of pushing the economy towards what is becoming more and more popular kinds of clean energy like wind energy. And I think these new members of Congress should be really interesting to watch them about, because they're bringing real world experience to the Congress. And at a time when people are kind of jaded about Washington and politics, I think those who come with real world credentials will have a lot of say in Congress.

WIND POP- CONGRESS

WIND POWER IS POPULAR IN CONGRESS

Waste News 2007 [June 11, Timely solution; Climate concerns make wind energy attractive option, lexis] Climate change is the catalyst that is increasing demand for wind energy and creating a favorable environment for wind power development on Capitol Hill and Wall Street, said former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. ``I actually think it could be bigger than the entire dot-com revolution,'' he said. Global warming is hitting closer to home as political and even religious leaders increasingly recognize the threat, said Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. ``In the past, we've
relied on fear to cooperate on threats of national and global significance,'' he said. ``If we follow that path of cooperation, we will open up a new chapter in human

A large-scale transition to wind energy could be the greatest economic boon the nation's ever seen, improving the nation's energy security while creating manufacturing jobs, Schweitzer said.
history.''

WIND UNPOP- CONGRESS

Wind power faces severe opposition from the environmental lobby funded lobbying is making energy legislation unpopular in congress Washington Post, 6 (Anne Appleton, Tilting at Windmills 04-19-2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/04/18/AR2006041801188.html) // DCM
To my eye, they are lovely: Graceful, delicate, white against green grass and a blue sky. Last summer my children and I stopped specially to watch a group of them, wheels turning in the breeze. But to those who dislike them, the modern wind turbine is worse than ugly. It is an aesthetic blight, a source of noise pollution, a murderer of birds and bats. As for the still-young wind industry, it is "an environmental plunderer, with its hirelings and parasites using a few truths and the politics of wishful thinking to frame a house of lies." Far from being clean and green, "corporate wind is yet another extraction industry relying on false promises," a "poster child for irresponsible development." Such attacks -- those come from http://www.stopillwind.org/ , the Web site of Maryland anti-wind activist Jon Boone -- are not atypical. Similar language turns up on http://www.windwatch.org/ , on http://www.windstop.org/ , and on a dozen other anti-wind sites, most started by local groups opposed to a particular project. Their recent, rapid proliferation is not an accident: After languishing for years on the eco-fringe, wind energy has suddenly become mainstream. High oil prices, natural gas shortages, better technology, fear of global warming, state renewable-energy mandates and, yes, tax breaks have finally made wind farms commercially viable as well as clean. Traditional utility companies want to build them -- and thus the traditional environmental movement (which supports wind energy) has produced a handful of untraditional splinter groups that are trying to stop them. They may succeed. Already, activists and real estate developers have stalled projects across Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. In Western Maryland, a proposal to build wind turbines alongside a coal mine, on a heavily logged mountaintop next to a transmission line, has just been nixed by state officials who called it too environmentally damaging. Along the coast of Nantucket, Mass. -the only sufficiently shallow spot on the New England coast -- a coalition of anti-wind groups and summer homeowners, among them the Kennedy family, also seems set to block Cape Wind, a planned offshore wind farm. Their well-funded lobbying last month won them the attentions of Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who, though normally an advocate of a state's right to its own resources, has made an exception for Massachusetts and helped pass an amendment designed to kill the project altogether.> The groups do have some arguments, ranging from the aesthetic -if you are bothered by the sight of wind turbines on a mountaintop, which I am not (or, anyway, not when compared with the sight of a strip mine) -- to the economic. They are right to note that wind will not soon replace coal or gas, that wind isn't always as effective as supporters claim, and that some people are going to make a lot of money out of it (though some people make a lot of money out of coal, and indeed Nantucket summer homes as well).

WIND UNPOP- CONGRESS

CONGRESS OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR WIND ENERGY

Wilson, 2008 (Keplie, Freelance Writer Covering Energy and Environmental Issues, Democrats Are Blowing Out Best Chance for Clean Energy, June 30) On June 18th, Congress failed for the tenth time this year to pass an extension of the renewable energy tax credits that have nurtured the infant wind and solar power industries in the US but are set to expire at the end of 2008. The tax credit extension should have been included in the big renewable energy bill that Congress passed at the end of 2007, but Republicans blocked the provision because they didn't like closing oil tax loopholes to pay for it.

WIND UNPOP- CONGRESS

INCREASING WIND ENERGY IS UNPOPULARTHERE IS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AGAINST IT

Global Power Report 2007 [June 7, House committee debates bill that could curb wind generation and transmission development, lexis] The Rahall bill could go as far as preventing the Department of Energy from finalizing "national interest electricity transmission corridors," Legge said. EPAct created the process to designate these special corridors in which the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission could permit transmission projects when states failed to do so after one year. The Chamber of Commerce had written Rahall June 4 that the bill "not only fails to produce a single kilowatt of energy, but also threatens to reduce (and, in some sectors, eradicate) energy production." The

Chamber said the bill would "stunt" the development of transmission, restrict access to domestic natural gas and oil supplies and "effectively shut down all wind energy production in the United States." But because of the clear Democratic majority of the House, industry representatives said removing the offending provisions would require a bipartisan effort, an alliance they were uncertain would appear. Republicans on the committee have "little ability to derail the bill," said Josten. "We do think there are some moderate Democrats from energy production areas that might be interested in working on that type of action."

WIND UNPOP- CONGRESS

THE SENATE ENERGY BILL DIDNT INCLUDE INCENTIVES FOR WIND

Washington Post 2007 [December 14, Senate Passes Energy Bill Without House Tax Package, lexis] The Senate passed an energy bill with overwhelming bipartisan support last night but only after a Republican filibuster threat forced Democratic leaders to ditch the bill's tax package, which would have extended tax breaks for wind and solar projects while reducing breaks for the biggest oil and gas companies. The revised bill, approved by a 86 to 8 vote, would boost fuel efficiency standards for new automobile fleets to 35 miles a gallon by 2020, increase energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, and set a mandate for the vastly expanded use of ethanol and other biofuels.

WIND POP- DEMS

DEMOCRATS FAVOR WIND ENERGY

DNC, 2008 (Democratic National Committee, Idaho Taking the Lead in Wind Energy) Wind power is one of many technologies that Democrats want to invest in to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. From more fuel efficient cars to wind power to cleaner gas, Democrats have taken the lead in cutting our addiction to oil. Idahoans have shown that they are ready to take a lead in energy independence by their support for wind power and can be taken as a model for other states in the use of this emerging technology.

WIND POP- BUSH

BUSH SUPPORTS WIND ENERGY

UPI 5/8 [2008, Analysis: U.S. wind market's mixed signals, http://www.upi.com/International_Security /Energy/Analysis/2008/05/06/analysis_us_wind_markets_mixed_signals/3295/] The AWEA aims to have 20 percent of the nation's electricity supplied from wind by 2030. Statements by President Bush and Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman in the past two years have echoed this goal, Stephen Miner, AWEA's director of conference and education, told UPI.

WIND= CON 2 LOBBIES

THE PLAN IS A CONCESSION TO POWERFUL LOBBIES

Snyder 2008 [Coal users trying to redirect Congress on global warming, May 5, http://thehill.com/business--lobby/coal-users-trying-to-redirect-congress-on-global-warming-2008-05-05.html] As a Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, Glenn English had a reputation as a fiscal conservative. As the head of a group of nonprofit rural electric utility cooperatives that rely heavily on coal, hes fighting hard to convince Congress to open up its wallet. Massive new federal spending is needed, he says, to ensure that there is enough electricity to meet national demand in a way that doesnt exacerbate global warming. For English and the members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), a powerful lobbying group that has broad grassroots reach and a deep-pocketed political action committee, one priority is a $12 billion per-year spending effort to help lowincome households make their homes more energy-efficient. Its a big number that will be difficult to win given Democratic pay as
you go budget rules, English acknowledged. In a tight budget, thats always the question: Whats our priority? The lobbying effort by NRECA is one example of how groups wary of congressional efforts to curb global warming are trying to redirect the momentum to pay for expensive new federal spending programs. If

the projects are successful, they could take some pressure off coal users to pay for their own emissions cuts in the near term. English said the energy efficiency effort would help keep consumer electricity bills reasonable. The effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions is routinely
equated to the development of an atomic bomb or the campaign to fight World War II. Curbing global warming is so expansive a challenge that the federal government will have to take the lead role. In another example, mining companies, labor groups and for-profit electric utilities are joining NRECA in lobbying Congress to create a fund that would spend around $2 billion a year to pay for a technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions before they reach the atmosphere. The gas would instead be injected back into the earth, where it would sit under an impermeable layer of rock, hopefully forever. The government has averaged around $100 million a year on spending to develop the technology, but it remains prohibitively expensive. The $2 billion figure comes from an estimate in a study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Total spending would approach $20 billion. In a March letter to Congress, the National Mining Association and United Mine Workers of America complained that inadequate incentives exist to spur the development and early deployment of CCS technologies in the power generation sector. And the lack of a reliable, substantial and sustained source of funding from the federal government, in partnership with industry, exacerbates the problem. If this is truly one of the greatest technological challenges facing mankind, then what better time to mobilize the assistance of the federal government in partnership with the private sector? said Kraig Naasz, the president and CEO of the National Mining Association. If climate change is inevitable, we are losing precious, precious time in developing this technology. Other groups like the Center for American Progress have called for new spending on carbon sequestration technology. Environmental groups are supportive too. But some worry that the coal users and producers are lobbying for additional spending as a climate cure-all that negates the need for actual emissions caps such as those called for in the climate bill written by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) that will be on the Senate floor next month. The question is, where is the money going to come from with appropriations so tight? said Jeremy Symons of the National Wildlife Federation . We shouldnt pretend that

Climate bills like WarnerLieberman create an auction of emissions allowances that will provide money to pay for carbon sequestration and other technology efforts to help companies meet their emissions caps, Symons noted. Plus it creates a market-wide incentive to shift away from conventional coal plants, he said. That will be a big shift for NRECA members; more than 80 percent of the power co-ops use comes from coal. By reducing emissions through energy efficiency improvements, the burden for utilities to reduce their own emissions may be reduced or at least delayed.
magic money will appear for bold new energy directions without the essential ingredient of a cap-and-trade program.