Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MALGOR/IZAAK 1/142
1AC 3
INHERENCY- NO RENEWABLES POLICY NOW 23
INHERENCY- NO NATIONAL RPS COMING 24
INHERENCY- NO RENEWABLES POLICY NOW 26
INHERENCY- NO PTC EXTENSION 27
INHERENCY- NO PTC EXTENSION 28
GLOBAL RENEWABLE MARKET UP 29
COMPETITIVENESS ADVANTAGE 30
US COMPETITIVENESS DOWN 30
US COMPETITIVENESS DOWN 31
COMPETITIVENESS- NOW KEY 32
RENEWABLES KEY 2 COMPETITIVENESS 33
RENEWABLES KEY 2 COMPETITIVENESS 35
RENEWABLES KEY 2 COMPETITIVENESS 36
RENEWABLES KEY 2 COMPETITIVENESS 37
COMPETITIVENESS KEY 2 LDSHP 1/2 38
COMPETITIVENESS KEY 2 LDSHP 39
COMPETITIVENESS KEY 2 LDSHP 40
COMPETITIVENESS KEY 2 LDSHP 41
LDSHP! 42
LDSHP! 43
PTC SOLVES COMPETITIVENESS 44
PTC/RPS SOLVES LDSHP 45
RENEWABLES SOLVE COMPETITIVENESS 47
NATURAL GAS ADVANTAGE 48
NAT GAS UNSUSTAINABLE 48
NAT GAS PRICES HIGH 49
NAT GAS PRICES HIGH 50
NAT GAS PRICE SPIKES HURT ECON 51
HIGH NAT GAS HURTS ECON 52
HIGH NAT GAS HURTS MANUFACTURING 53
MANUFACTURING KEY TO ECON 54
MANUFACTURING KEY TO ECON 55
MANUFACTURING KEY TO ECON 56
MANUFACTURING ON BRINK 57
US ECONOMY KEY TO WORLD ECONOMY 58
ECON !- LAUNDRY LIST 59
ECON !- WAR 60
HIGH NAT GAS HURTS AG SECTOR 61
HIGH NAT GAS= HIGH FERT 62
HIGH NAT GAS= HIGH FERT 63
HIGH NAT GAS= HIGH FERT 64
HIGH FERT= INC FOOD PRICES 66
HIGH FERT= INC FOOD PRICES 68
FOOD PRICES= RIOTS 1/2 70
FOOD PRICES= RIOTS 2/2 71
HIGH NAT GAS HURTS POOR 72
HIGH NAT GAS HURTS POOR 73
MUST HELP THE POOR 74
RENEWABLES SOLVE NAT GAS 75
RENEWABLES SOLVE NAT GAS 76
RENEWABLES SOLVE NAT GAS 77
RENEWABLES SOLVE NAT GAS 79
RENEWABLES SOLVE NAT GAS 80
RENEWABLES SOLVE NAT GAS 81
TRADE WAR ADVANTAGE 82
CARBON TRADE WAR COMING 82
CARBON TRADE WAR COMING 83
CARBON TRADE WAR GOES GLOBAL 84
TRADE WAR ESCALATES 85
TRADE RLXNS KEY TO GLOBAL ECON 86
US-EU TRADE RLXNS KEY 2 GLOBAL ECON 87
TRADE RLXNS KEY TO WORLD TRADE 88
TRADE RLXNS KEY TO WORLD TRADE 89
FREE TRADE !- NUCLEAR WAR 90
RPS SOLVES TRADE WAR 91
SOLVENCY 92
PTC KEY TO RENEWABLE INVESTMENT 92
PTC KEY TO RENEWABLE INVESTMENT 94
RPS/PTC= RENEWABLE INVESTMENT 95
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 2/142
PTC KEY TO INFASTRUXR 96
INCENTIVES KEY TO RENEWABLE INVESTMENT 97
RPS SOLVES RENEWABLE INVESTMENT 98
RENEWABLE INVESTMENT DOWN NOW- PTC KEY 99
RENEWABLE INVESTMENT DOWN NOW- PTC KEY 100
RECS SOLVE 103
RECS SOLVE 104
PTC KEY TO GEOTHERMAL 105
RPS SOLVES- SOLAR 106
RPS SOLVES- SOLAR 108
AT: SOLAR NOT COST COMPETITIVE 109
AT: SOLAR NOT COST COMPETITIVE 110
AT: WIND POWER FAILS 111
GEOTHERMAL SOLVES 112
STATES ANSWERS 113
AT: STATES CP- RACE TO BOTTOM 113
AT: STATES CP- NO SOLVENCY 114
AT: STATES CP- NO SOLVENCY 115
AT: STATES CP- NO SOLVENCY 116
AT: ECON DA 117
AT: ECON DA 118
AT: ECON DA 119
AT: OIL DA 120
AT: GLOBAL WARMING GOOD DA 121
TIX- PLAN POP W PUB 122
TIX- PLAN POP W PUB 123
TIX- PLAN POP W PUB 124
TIX- PLAN POP W PUB 125
TIX- PLAN UNPOP W PUB 126
TIX- MCCAIN HATES PLAN 127
TIX- MCCAIN HATES PLAN 128
TIX- OBAMA LIKES PLAN 130
TIX- OBAMA LIKES PLAN 131
TIX- HOUSE DEMS HATE PLAN 132
TIX- DEMS LIKE PLAN 133
TIX- GOP HATES PLAN 134
TIX- GOP HATES PLAN 135
TIX- PLAN DIVISIVE 136
TIX- INCENTIVES= BIPART 137
TIX- INCENTIVES= BIPART 138
TIX- RPS IS BIPART 139
TIX- ELECTRICITY LOBBY POWERFUL 141
TIX- NATURAL GAS LOBBY POWERFUL 142
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 3/142
1AC
OBSERVATION 1-INHERENCY
And on a separate panel, John Bryson, Edison International president and CEO, suggested that
despite the high price of renewables, it is likely a federal renewable portfolio standard will be
approved, possibly as part of greenhouse gas legislation. The outlook for GHG legislation is
unclear because the issue is in danger of being overtaken, at least in the short term, by more
pressing problems such as the sagging US economy. Gale Klappa, Wisconsin Energy CEO, said
chances are "remote" that Congress will deal definitively with the carbon issue this year. "In all
probability, it moves to next year. One of the fundamental things that has happened is that the
economy has moved to the top of the list. There is a much more heightened sensitivity to what is
the impact on the economy." He continued: "We will see work done by the Senate, we will see the
House come out with something, [but] not this year, and so, I'm not sure it happens in 2009. It
may very well take another year to get legislation acted on in 2010." That is at least partly
because a new president may not rank climate change among the top issues facing the country.
"I think that's a disappointment for our industry, because we need to get it done now," he said.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 4/142
THEREFORE WE PRESENT THE FOLLOWING PLAN:
THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXTEND THE PRODUCTION TAX
CREDIT FOR WIND, SOLAR, AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY UNTIL 20% OF ELECTRICITY
GENERATED IN THE UNITED STATES COMES FROM RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES.
OR
OR
In a globalized marketplace, we cannot afford to let other countries continue to surge past us in
renewable energy. While the United States ranks high on the list of countries with the capacity
and natural resources for a robust renewable energy sector, the lack of certainty around the PTC
and the ITC are consistently pointed to as the most significant de-stimulus for growth and
financing in the industry. There is evidence that we are already losing the U.S. edge with key
manufacturers in relation to overseas activity. One major solar company, for example, recently
shifted to a Plan B strategy, relocating the bulk of its U.S. sales force to Europe and Asia after the
ITC/PTC extension failed to pass in December 2007 or January 2008. Germany, Spain, China
and India have stable public policy incentives and impressive job growth in the renewable sector.
The #1 and #2 job creating industries in Germany in the past five years are the wind power and
solar energy industries. The tax credits are crucial for investors to continue to bring emerging
technologies to scale and cost parity. Therefore, we would seek their longest possible extensions.
The credits are vital to provide investors with certainty commensurate to the cash flow cycle for
major renewable energy projects - without this, their very financeability is undermined.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 6/142
By way of example, R&D investments by U.S.-based firms in China grew from $5 million in 1994 to $506 million in 2000, and
multinational companies are establishing more than 200 new R&D laboratories per year in China. Even when economists
and pundits do acknowledge a threat, they dismiss it by pointing out that the United States has successfully faced
challenges before. Why should this time be any different? When discussing the issue of the off-shoring of jobs, Morgan
Stanley’s Stephen Roach argued in the New York Times, “This is exactly the same type of challenge farmers went through in
the late 1800s, sweatshop workers went through in the early 1900s, and manufacturing workers in the first half of the
1980s.” Robert Samuelson wrote,“Ever since Sputnik (1957) and the ‘missile gap’(1960), we’ve been warned that we’re
being overtaken technologically.” What such observers fail to realize is that one reason the United States survived
such technological challenges is precisely because it took them seriously. In response to Sputnik,
the government created the National Atmospheric and Space Administration and the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency and beefed up funding for education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Similarly, when the
nation faced competitiveness challenges in the late 1970s and 1980s, leaders from both parties in government, as well as
from industry and academia, acted with creativity and resolve. Policymakers responded with a host of major policy
innovations, including the Stevenson-Wydler Act, the Bayh-Dole Act, the National Technology Transfer Act, and the Omnibus
Trade and Competitiveness Act. They created a long list of programs and initiatives to boost innovation and competitiveness,
including the Small Business Innovation Research program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements. They put in place the R&D tax credit and lowered capital gains and corporate tax
rates. They created a host of new collaborative research ventures, including the semiconductor consortium SEMATECH, the
National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Science and Technology Centers and Engineering Research Centers, and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Advanced Technology Program. Moreover, Washington did not act alone.
Virtually every state transformed its practice of economic development to stress technology-led economic development.
Many states realized that R&D and innovation were drivers of the new economy and that state economies prosper when
they maintain a healthy research base closely linked to the commercialization of technology. For example, Pennsylvania,
under the leadership of Governor Richard Thornburgh, established the Ben Franklin Partnership Program to provide
matching grants primarily to small and medium-sized firms to work collaboratively with the state’s universities. All these
steps, coupled with efforts by the private sector and universities, helped the United States to respond effectively to that
competitiveness challenge. Today, it may very well be that the United States will successfully confront its
new challenges. But success is much more likely if the nation and its various leaders act
with the resolve and creativity demonstrated in the past. And action should reflect a sense of urgency,
because many other counties, including most of Southeast Asia and Europe, have made innovation-led economic
development a centerpiece of their national economic strategies during the past decade. In
doing so, many of the nations looked to the United States for guidance. Why? The answer is
simple. They know that moving up the value chain to more innovation-based economic activities is a key to boosting future
prosperity and that losing this competition can result in a relatively lower standard of living as economic resources shift to
lower value–added industries.
Energy Business Watch (EBW) organized today's conference in the hope of not only drawing
attention to Gray's latest hurricane forecast and its implications for energy markets but also
drawing more attention to a looming crisis in natural gas production that many believe has been
overlooked by much of the press. 'Pretty frightening'
Since last July, natural gas prices have been rising at a faster rate than have oil prices, despite
assumptions by traders and analysts that ample U.S. supplies would see prices stabilizing,
according to EBW data. Andrew Weissman, manager of an economic consulting business in
Washington and editor-in-chief of EBW, said new natural gas production is failing to keep up with
demand growth, thanks in part to a new aversion to coal-fired power plants brought about by
climate change concerns. If this growing gap between natural gas demand and supply is not
alleviated soon, then over the next five years, U.S. electricity rates will likely spike to levels "that
would really be pretty frightening," Weissman said. "We're in pretty critical times right now,"
Weissman said. The growing use of natural gas for electricity generation and increasing reliance
on imports of liquefied natural gas leave the United States vulnerable to potentially skyrocketing
natural gas prices, "and that becomes a huge, huge issue for the economy," he said.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 10/142
NATURAL GAS PRICE INCREASES ARE UNIQUELY BAD FOR MANUFACTURING-THEY
ARE MOST DIRECTLY RELATED TO ELECTRICITY GENERATION AND PRODUCTION OF
PLASTICS
Paul in 2k8 (Peralte, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, rising costs wrapped into lots of things,
june 21, LN)
America's economy has been like a boxing ring of late. Main Street is reeling from the one-two
punch of soaring petroleum and natural gas prices in the form of higher gasoline and housing-
related energy bills. Wall Street has been bobbing and weaving, too. But higher petroleum and
natural gas costs have pummeled businesses with a one-two-three combination punch: Not only
are they paying more for energy and fuel to keep the manufacturing plants running and to deliver
finished goods, their costs also are going up because many of the goods they make either include
or are encased in plastic, which is a byproduct of petroleum and natural gas. Consumer products
conglomerate Newell Rubbermaid, cleaning products maker Zep and baker Flowers Foods are
among the heavy plastics users in Georgia being hit hard. These companies have employed a
mix of strategies --- including raising prices, replacing the plastic they use with alternatives or
reducing the amount of plastic content altogether --- to cope with the rising costs. Natural gas has
the biggest impact on such companies because 70 percent of plastics produced in the United
States are made from natural gas. In the 12-month period ended in May, natural gas prices rose
47 percent, and the derivatives made from it such as polyethylene and ethylene went up in
tandem, said Thomas K. Smith, chief economist and managing director of the American
Chemistry Council, the industry's chief trade group. Put another way: As a commodity, natural gas
is traded in terms of British thermal units. And every $1 increase per million of natural gas BTUs
equals $2 billion in new costs, Smith said. Comparatively, every $1 increase in the per-barrel
price of oil costs the industry $660 million.
FURTHER, HIGH NATURAL GAS PRICES INCREASE FERTILIZER COSTS AND HURT THE
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR
Dan in 2k8 (Piller, Des Moines, Winter heating costs likely to jump 25%, June 15, LN)
Spring rains are falling, but MidAmerican Energy is already putting out the word for winter: Rising
natural gas prices will likely boost winter residential heating costs by 25 percent or more from last
year. While the bulk of natural gas use is for home and commercial heating, the effects of higher
prices will ripple across the economy. Farmers have seen their fertilizer costs triple this decade
because of the extra cost of the natural gas that is the feedstock for the nitrogen used in fertilizer.
Farmers also use natural gas to power most corn dryers. The ethanol plants that buy Iowa corn
run on natural gas and some other manufacturers are absorbing the higher gas costs in their
operations. "We use natural gas for heat and to power various processes, and we are feeling the
pinch of the higher prices," said Tom Rodgers, chief of marketing at the Firestone Ag Tire factory
in Des Moines. MidAmerican's fuel buyers are contracting for next winter's natural gas supplies
and they are running into a seller's market. Prices for natural gas have risen by almost 50
percent, to $12.65 per 1,000 cubic feet last week, since just last winter. "Future prices are
anybody's guess, but nothing I've seen indicates that prices are expected to go down soon," said
David Badura, vice president for gas supply planning for MidAmerican.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 12/142
FERTILIZER SHORTAGE DUE TO HIGH NATURAL GAS PRICES WILL INCREASE FOOD
PRICES
Mario Osava; FinalCall News; Jun 11, 2008; High fertilizer prices compound global food crisis;
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4819.shtml
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (IPS/GIN) - A simple imbalance in agricultural supply and demand can be corrected in less than
a year, the time it takes to sow and harvest grains, but the present global food crisis cannot. In particular the
shortage of fertilizers and their consequent rise in cost are standing in the way of quick
solutions. “At least two years of heavy investment will be needed” to increase world fertilizer production and restore
balance to the market, according to Roberto Rodrigues, a former agriculture minister who heads a center for agribusiness
studies in the southern city of Sao Paulo. The current shortage is due to many years of
underinvestment by large fertilizer companies discouraged by low profits. To correct that trend
will take time, Mr. Rodrigues said. Prices will remain sky-high. Nitrogenated fertilizers, which are in
greatest demand worldwide, track oil prices because they are based on fossil fuels, in particular
natural gas. In 2005-2006, world consumption of the three main elements in fertilizers—nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium—was 155.4 million metric tons, of which 60 percent was nitrogen, according to the International Fertilizer
Industry Association. Taking into account other agricultural inputs such as pesticides and fuel
for transport and farm machinery, the oil dependence of agribusiness does not hold out
hopeful prospects for a drop in food prices soon. Brazil, with huge amounts of land available,
has enormous potential to expand its food production, but it is held back by the “fertilizer
bottleneck,” Mr. Rodrigues said. Two-thirds of the fertilizer used in Brazil is imported, and the soils of
the “cerrado,” the country’s vast central grasslands region, where grain and sugarcane cultivation are expanding the most,
need plenty of fertilizer, especially potassium. Brazil is the world’s fourth largest consumer of fertilizers, after China, India
and the United States. Therefore other kinds and sources of fertilizers must be developed, such as sugarcane vinasse, a
liquid residue from the ethanol distilling process, which contains high concentrations of potassium, and local deposits of
the required minerals must be sought, the former minister said. Cutting down on agrochemical consumption is a priority at
the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, a state network of 41 centers located around the country, which
generated agricultural knowledge and technologies that were decisive for the great leap forward in productivity in the last
two decades. Close to 60 million metric tons a year of soybeans are produced in Brazil, “without using a single kilo of
nitrogen,” said Segundo Urquiaga, a researcher at the research corporation’s agrobiology center, which developed the
technique of inoculating bacteria into beans to boost nitrogen fixation from the air. This technique saves the country $5
billion a year, “six times what it invests in agricultural research,” researcher Urquiaga said. It also improves yields and is
good for the environment, unlike chemical fertilizers, which tend to build up excess nitrogen in the soil that is released as
nitrous oxide, a gas with 300 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, he said.
FOOD PRICE SPIKES PUT BILLIONS AT RISK, OUR IMPACT IS SYSTEMIC AND LINEAR
Tampa Tribune, January 20, 1996, p. 41
On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995,
world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-
Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C. As a
result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to
13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen
noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to
provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world
grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can
hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also
quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar
a day or less." He also said many people in low-income countries already spend more than half of
their income on food.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 13/142
RENEWABLE ENERGY WILL DIRECTLY INCREASE PRICE AND CONSUMPTION OF
NATURAL GAS, AND PREVENT SPIKES IN PRICES
Ryan Wiser and Mark Bolinger, researchers at Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, 12/22/05, “Can deployment of renewable energy put downward pressure on natural
gas prices?”, Energy Policy, http://images.energieportal24.de/dateien/downloads/berkeley-
gas-price.pdf
Renewable energy provides a direct hedge against volatile and escalating gas prices
when it reduces the need to purchase variable-price natural gas-fired electricity
generation, replacing that generation with fixed-price renewable energy (see, e.g.,
Bolinger et al., 2003; Awerbuch, 2003). In addition to this direct contribution to price stability, by displacing gas-
renewable energy may also reduce demand for natural gas and thus
fired generation,
indirectly place downward pressure on gas prices. Many recent modeling studies of
increased renewables deployment in the United States have demonstrated that this
‘‘secondary’’ effect of putting downward pressure on natural gas prices could be
significant, with the consumer benefits from reduced gas prices in many cases more
than offsetting any increase in electricity costs caused by renewables deployment.
As a result, this price effect is increasingly cited as justification for policies promoting renewable energy.1 To date,
little work has focused on reviewing the reasonableness of this price-suppression effect as it is portrayed in
various studies, and research has not attempted to benchmark the modeling results against economic theory. This
article is a first attempt to address these two issues. Although we emphasize the impact of renewable energy on
natural gas prices, we acknowledge that similar effects would result from greater energy efficiency, as well as
increased utilization of other nongas energy sources whose fuel costs are not highly correlated with the price of
natural gas (e.g., coal or nuclear power, but not oil-fired generation). Additionally, while our analysis focuses on
the US, similar effects might be expected elsewhere.
Although the level of investment that will be required for new transmission facilities is substantial,
the costs of doing nothing are far greater, both in terms of reliability and overall electricity prices.
Transmission typically makes up less than ten percent of the delivered cost of electricity.10 New
transmission capacity typically enables a utility to access lower cost generation - which makes up
a much larger portion of consumer electric costs11 -- and thereby the transmission more than
pays for itself. The Midwest Independent System Operator ("MISO") recently examined the costs
and benefits of developing 16,000 megawatts of wind energy on the MISO system and 5,000
miles of new 765 kv transmission lines to enable the transmission of wind energy generated in
North and South Dakota to the New York City area. Even though the generation and transmission
costs would amount to approximately $13 billion, the study determined that, on a net basis,
consumers would save approximately $600 million per year because the new transmission would
enable utilities to acquire lower cost electricity.12
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 15/142
ADVANTAGE 3 IS US-EU TRADE WAR
As the European Union embarks on even stricter emissions targets in its post-Kyoto
discussion, and China likely makes only slight alterations to its carbon-intensive economy,
discussion of carbon tariffs will not abate and could eventually be brought to the WTO.
Trade measures that aid domestic industries while addressing environmental concerns
often make contentious WTO cases, but there are precedents for ruling in favor of
environmental matters over business interests. In 2001, the United States won a WTO case
in which several Southeast Asian nations challenged its prohibition of importing shrimp
captured in ways that harm endangered turtle species.
KYOTO’S ENTRY INTO FORCE ENSURES THE EU WILL START A TRADE WAR WITH THE
UNITED STATES-LACK OF C02 REGULATIONS GIVE US MANUFACTURERS AN UNFAIR
ADVANTAGE AND THE EU WOULD WIN THE COMPLAINT. ONLY A NATIONAL RPS CAN
CREATE THE MARKET NECESSARY TO SOLVE
Fontaine in 2k4 (Peter, Esquire, Public Utilities Fortnightly, the gathering storm, August, LN)
There is little question that CO[2] reduction measures will increase the cost of energy in the EU, Japan,
and the other industrialized nations that have ratified Kyoto. As a result, Annex I countries that have not
undertaken comparable measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including the United States,
Canada, and Australia, will enjoy a competitive advantage in the form of lower energy costs and, in turn,
lower costs of production. A fundamental impact of Kyoto therefore will be a global imbalance in the
costs of production among the United States, Australia, and virtually the rest of the industrialized
world. This imbalance will prompt the EU to seriously examine the option of imposing some form
of countervailing duty on U.S. imports to compensate for the disadvantage and to fund additional CO[2]
offset projects under the CDM mechanism. The EU clearly is concerned about the potential for competitive
harm associated with the recent greenhouse gas emissions program, noting that EU emissions
allowance trading scheme (ETS) "has the potential to lead to even further increases in power prices that
could cause significant damage to EU competitiveness, especially for energy intensive industries such as
pulp and paper, iron and steel, cement and lime, chemicals and others. . . . It is essential that this situation be
monitored and actions taken if these industries become disadvantaged." n7 Several non-governmental
organizations also have advocated for trade sanctions against the United States, arguing that: Until the U.S. ratifies and
implements the Kyoto Protocol, there cannot be fair and free trade with the U.S. and the U.S. will be in clear violation of
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. n8 Nor is there any reason to question that
the EU will use trade sanctions as a hammer when it finds that the U.S. has garnered an unfair
competitive advantage by subsidizing exports. Two recent examples, the sales corporation/extraterritorial
income (FSC/ETI) and the steel import cases, demonstrate that the EU will use trade sanctions when
necessary to force a change in U.S. behavior. In both cases, the EU successfully implemented countervailing
duties of several billion dollars that were upheld by the WTO Appellate Body. In both cases, the United States
underestimated the EU's resolve to impose trade sanctions, and the sanctions prompted the United States to act quickly
to remove the subsidies. n9 Economic and political conditions heighten the risk of EU trade sanctions.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 16/142
Whether such trade sanctions could withstand challenge before the WTO is a key question. In
this regard, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 (GATT) generally prohibits trade
restrictions except under very limited exceptions, such as where a member country subsidizes a specific
industry. However, even where an actionable subsidy cannot be established, Article XX(g) of GATT
allows a member to impose measures on imports that relate to the conservation of exhaustible
natural resources. Article XX(g) of GATT states: [4] Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in
a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same
conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent
the adoption or enforcement by any Member of measures . . . [1] relating to the conservation of [2] exhaustible natural
resources [3] if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption.
n10 What is required to satisfy the four elements of Article XX(g) has been interpreted by the
WTO Appellate Body in two cases involving the U.S. The first case, U.S. -- Standards for Reformulated and
Conventional Gasoline, n11 concerned measures for reformulated gasoline to protect air resources. The second case,
U.S. -- Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, n12 concerned measures for shrimp harvesting to
protect endangered sea turtles. Together, the cases established firmly the principle that a country may impose a trade
restriction on a product manufactured in another country if: (1) the product is manufactured in a manner that depletes a
natural resource of the importing country; (2) the restriction is primarily aimed at and reasonably related to the
conservation of a natural resource; (3) the restriction applies evenhandedly both to domestically manufactured and
imported products; and (4) the restriction is not imposed arbitrarily or unjustifiably such that there are no other reasonable
options available that would avoid the discrimination between like domestic and imported products or between like
imported products. This last requirement is generally referred to as the "Chapeau" or introductory clause of Article XX. A
narrowly tailored carbon tax on U.S. goods manufactured without CO[2] controls could withstand
challenge before the WTO, particularly if the tax is dedicated to furthering the aims of the Kyoto
Protocol by funding JI and CDM projects that offset the rough quantity of CO[2] emissions generated during the
manufacture of the imported products in the United States. First, there should be little question that the global
climate and associated ambient temperatures is an exhaustible natural resource. In fact, a decade
ago, the United States made that very argument to the WTO. In U.S. -- Taxes on Automobiles, the United States argued
that automobile Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were valid measures under Article XX(g) because
they were designed to conserve fossil fuels that when combusted contributed to climate change notwithstanding that they
had a disparate impact on European automobiles. Given its position, the United States will be hard-pressed to now
contend that CO[2] controls do not conserve an exhaustible natural resource -- the climate. Second, there is little
question that the manufacture of goods and the combustion of motor vehicles in the United States
without some form of CO[2] control -- whether pursuant to a cap and trade program, a carbon tax, fuel economy
increases, or other technology-forcing measures -- serves to exhaust this natural resource. The connection
between anthropogenic CO[2] emissions and global climate change is now well established. In fact, with Kyoto scheduled
to enter into force, the EU can justify the measures as related to the global effort to reduce CO[2] emissions. Third, a
CO[2] tax on U.S. goods would be primarily aimed at, and reasonably related to, the conservation of
the climate, especially if the carbon tax revenues were transferred to a third party fund dedicated to financing projects
to address climate change, such as the World Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund. The PCF was created "to promote project-
based mechanisms that will help countries to reduce global concentrations of greenhouse gases and therefore minimize
the adverse impacts of climate change on developing countries." n13 By dedicating the CO[2] tax revenue to a dedicated
fund to finance carbon reduction projects, the trade measure would not be "disproportionately wide in its scope and reach
in relation to the policy objective of protection and conservation of [the climate]." n14 Fourth, because the carbon
tax would be calculated based on the cost of CO[2] reductions imposed on EU producers, the
restriction would apply even-handedly both to domestically manufactured products
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 17/142
(which already are taxed to the extent that they are subject to EU ETS, or, in the case of automobiles, to the CO[2]
reductions) and to imported products. In other words, the restriction should not create an unfair advantage to domestic
products. This can be achieved by calculating the CO[2] allowance costs on a per-unit basis for various products, such as
cement, glass, brick, ceramics, and paper. Fifth, given the well-documented and extensive international
efforts to persuade the United States to reduce its domestic CO[2] emissions, an EU CO[2] tax on
U.S. imports could hardly be said to be arbitrary, unjustified, or attainable by some other less restrictive
means. The United States would have difficulty arguing that the CO[2] tax is arbitrary if not also
applied against other large CO[2] emitters not bound by Kyoto, such as China and India. The Kyoto
Protocol represents a multilateral treaty which, right or wrong, was negotiated by the industrialized nations to not impose
mandatory CO[2] reductions on the transition economies of China and India. While the United States has not ratified
Kyoto, it is required by international law "to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty." n15
Thus, the United States may not claim that a CO[2] tax is arbitrary if it does not apply to goods from China or India, and
therefore in violation of Article XX's Chapeau, as such a position would offend the fundamental basis of the
bargain struck under Kyoto Protocol that the United States is duty-bound to uphold, even if it
chooses not to ratify. In the vacuum created by the administration's withdrawal from the Kyoto
Protocol, a number of states have stepped forward with legislative and policy initiatives to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. n16 Fourteen states have adopted renewable portfolio standards that
require electricity suppliers to derive an increasing percentage of supply from renewable energy
generation sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. State RPS legislation, however, will not
create the necessary market forces to effectuate the large-scale reductions in CO[2] necessary
for the United States to achieve a significant reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions. National
legislation is essential.
STRONG US-EU TRADE RELATIONS ARE THE CORNERSTONE OF THE ENTIRE GLOBAL
ECONOMIC AND TRADE SYSTEM
Fidel in 2k8 (Steve, Deseret Morning News, eu ambassador visits utah to promote trade
relations with Europe, jan 25, LN)
The security of Europe was a top priority for the United States during the Soviet era, but
America's priorities have since gone elsewhere, prompting the European Union ambassador to
the United States to make a direct plea: Don't forget about Europe. Ambassador John Bruton
made a three-day visit to Utah this week to hand-carry this message and promote trade relations.
"The European Union is the single largest economic body in the world. EU member states
account for 40 percent of all global trade -- including considerable trade with Utah," says a written
statement he is circulating here. Bruton told the Deseret Morning News' editorial board Thursday
that Utah has very practical reasons to be interested in the vitality of the European Union, which
supplies 87 percent of foreign investment in Utah. Utah exports three times the quantity of goods
to the European Union than it sends to China, Japan, Korea and India combined, he said. "It is
easy for Americans to under-appreciate the value of the partnership the United States and the
European Union have built over many decades and overestimate potential opportunities in
emerging economies, such as China," he said. "But at a time when America's attention is
increasingly turning toward Asia, it is important to keep in mind that the $4 trillion economic
relationship between the European Union and the United States is the largest, most profitable,
most integrated and longest lasting in the history of humankind. It is also the most important
driver of global economic growth, trade and prosperity."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 19/142
COLLAPSE OF GLOBAL FREE TRADE ENSURES WORLD WAR THAT GOES NUCLEAR
Copley News Service December 1, 1999, LN
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by
nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real.
Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten
that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their
own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in
the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics.
Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or
anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists,
whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of
the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle
John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement,
both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other.
These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down
peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and
bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to
other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding
superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the
world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce,
the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational
corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt.
That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S.
companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs
for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and
other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000
people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today
accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers.
Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world
are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those
who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 20/142
OBSERVATION 2 SOLVENCY
EXTENSION OF TAX CREDITS FOR WIND, SOLAR, AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY UNDER A
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD IS KEY. IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE LONG
TERM ENERGY INVESTMENT IN THE RENEWABLE SECTOR
Abbasi in 2k8 (Daniel, Director of MissionPoint Capital Partners, CQ Congressional Testimony,
promoting private investment in renewable energy projects, LN)
This brings me to my second major point, which is that our ability to continue to invest in this industry's
growth depends on a comprehensive and stable set of supportive policies. In order to keep our risk profile
within the bounds dictated by our fiduciary responsibility, we must continually assess the stability of the policy
framework that provides indispensable support for this phase of renewable energy growth in our
country. So we strongly encourage Congress to extend and to further intensify use of the full suite of
policy instruments, such as investment and production tax credits, Renewable Portfolio Standards,
expanded use of federal procurement authority, loan guarantees, higher RD&D expenditures and others. The fact that
significant investment is already happening today should not be interpreted as a signal that
strengthened policies are no longer needed. In fact, the investment community is already
anticipating this strengthening and if it fails to strengthen soon, it will be akin to a negative
earnings surprise on Wall Street that could put the U.S. even further behind in this strategic
industry. The pending and still uncertain extension of the Investment Tax Credit is the most timely example of this
investor expectation - and the risks of disappointing it. MissionPoint believes that Congress should deliver on what was
left behind when the 2007 energy bill was passed, and renew as soon as possible these crucial tax credits to support a
clean energy future. Extension of the Production Tax Credit will stimulate accelerating investment in
and production of wind and geothermal power, two of the fastest growing renewable energy
industries. The Investment Tax Credit will support manufacture of clean solar technologies. Both
are set to expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts to extend them. Unfortunately, the
"on-again/off-again" status of the PTC has contributed to a boom-bust cycle of development in the
wind industry. There are significant consequences to not renewing PTC prior to expiration. In
'01-'02, there was a 2 month gap between expiration and renewal, and wind capacity additions fell by a factor of four. By
contrast, the PTC was extended in 2005 prior to expiration, and the next year capacity additions
increased. Clearly other factors are not identical between the various time points, but historical failure to renew
before expiration has resulted in dramatic decrease in installations. These are the short-term
consequences, but just as important are the long term consequences of having a PTC that runs
even the risk of expiration every few years. A longer term PTC would enable a more stable and
substantial domestic industrial capacity to develop, including investment in manufacturing
capacity, permanent job creation, an ecosystem of domestic component suppliers, and private
investment in R&D. It would be good, for example, to have domestic capacity to produce specialized wind turbine
components, rather than relying on substantial equipment imports as we do today. What makes the expiration risk so
problematic for investors? Uncertain and erratic policy increases the cost of capital. Quite simply, you need to pay a
higher cost of capital to equity providers or lenders for your renewable project, if you cannot count on supportive policy in
your cash flow projections. Moreover, even when the tax credit extensions are enacted, they are typically
too short in duration to match to the long-term cash flows we are trying to finance. So the net
present value of the project is driven down. This is particularly problematic in the energy industry,
because these are capital intensive businesses that require long-term cash flows in order to
justify the upfront investment. All of this undermines the credibility of our domestic renewable
market with capital providers, as well as with top quality entrepreneurs and large strategic players. It is important to
recognize that this is not just about small start-up or mid- market companies. Even major
equipment manufacturers like GE Wind Energy are unable to economically start and stop the
retooling and production plans of their plants, if the policy and market framework is not stable.
They will only allocate resources to long term sustainable businesses, otherwise they will exit or shift their production to
more attractive foreign markets. By undercutting the diversification of our energy supply into renewables
through uncertain policy, we not only undermine our domestic innovation and adoption cycle, but
we also perpetuate our dependence on volatile and high cost commodities like natural gas and
oil.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 21/142
The president signed an energy bill with large incentives for the
production of biofuels, but at this point it's unlikely he'll have
good news for renewable-power backers.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 24/142
Congress has rejected extending the production tax credit for renewable energy, placing
billions of renewable investment at risk
Science Letter in 2k8 (GE financial services; tax revenues from wind farms more than offset tax
incentive, GE Study Estimates, july 8, LN)
The production tax credit for wind - as well as similar incentives for solar and other renewable
energy sources - has expired three times in the past nine years, each time causing a 76-90
percent drop in installed capacity from the previous year. The most recent attempt to renew the
incentive failed earlier this month in a US Senate vote that centered on how to offset the cost of
the production tax credit with tax revenuesz. "Too often, politics, rather than economics, has
shaped the debate about extending the production tax credit," said Michael Eckhart, President of
the American Council on Renewable Energy. "GE's new study identifying additional economic
benefits of the wind industry should bring all parties together, all supporting a proposition that is
good for the environment, good for the economy, and even good for the federal treasury."
According to the study by GE Energy Financial Services, wind projects that went into operation
last year generate federal income tax revenues from the projects, individual workers' wages,
vendors' profits, and land leases. And they also provide federal tax revenue after 10 years, when
the production tax credits expire. In addition to those federal tax revenues, the wind projects
generate an estimated $6 million per year in local property taxes, $15 million annually in state
income taxes on wages and profits during construction and $1.5 million per year in taxes while
operating. Using a model developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind farms
built in 2007 in the United States created more than 17,000 construction-related jobs and 1,600
long-term operations-related jobs. In addition, the new wind farms provided major environmental
benefits, avoiding approximately 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually,
equivalent to taking 1.8 million cars off the road, GE estimates. The GE study does not analyze
the wind industry's economic effects on other energy sectors. "Congress' repeated failure to act
could derail the wind energy industry at the worst possible time for the economy, placing 76,000
jobs and more than $11.5 billion in investment at risk," said Randall Swisher, Executive Director of
the American Wind Energy Association. Wind makes up 80 percent of GE Energy Financial
Services' more than $3 billion renewable energy portfolio. The GE unit's total US wind equity
portfolio includes 34 farms that span 13 states and produce 3,550 megawatts of energy-- enough
to power approximately 1 million US homes. The company plans to invest $6 billion in renewable
energy projects by 2010, including wind, solar, biomass, hydro and geothermal power generation.
Washington, D.C. - The renewable energy industry is stepping up its meteoric rise into the
mainstream of the energy sector, according to the REN21 Renewables 2007 Global Status
Report. Renewable energy production capacities are growing rapidly as a result of more
countries enacting far-reaching policies. Prepared by the Renewable Energy Network for the
21st Century (REN21) (www.ren21.net) in collaboration with the Worldwatch Institute
(www.worldwatch.org), the Renewables 2007 Global Status Report paints an encouraging
picture of rapidly expanding renewable energy markets, policies, industries, and rural
applications around the world. In 2007, global wind generating capacity is estimated to have
increased 28 percent, while grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity rose 52 percent.
"So much has happened in the renewable energy sector during the past five years that the
perceptions of some politicians and energy-sector analysts lag far behind the reality of
where the renewables industry is today," says Mohamed El-Ashry, Chair of REN21. Renowned
researcher Dr. Eric Martinot led an international team of 140 researchers and contributors from
both developed and developing countries to produce the report. He says renewable energy
sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and small-scale hydropower offer countries the
means to improve their energy security and spur economic development. Citing the report,
Martinot says the renewable energy sector now accounts for 2.4 million jobs globally, and
has doubled electric generating capacity since 2004, to 240 gigawatts. More than 65
countries now have national goals for accelerating the use of renewable energy and are
enacting far-reaching policies to meet those goals. Multilateral agencies and private
investors alike are integrating renewable energy into their mainstream portfolios, capturing
the interest of the largest global companies. Worldwatch President Chris Flavin says the report
shows that renewable energy is poised to make a significant contribution to meeting energy
needs and reducing the growth in carbon dioxide emissions in the years immediately ahead.
"The science is telling us we need to substantially reduce emissions now, but this will only
happen with even stronger policies to accelerate the growth of clean energy," he says. El-
Ashry emphasizes that many of the trends described in the Renewables 2007 Global Status
Report are the result of leadership and actions launched since the major renewable energy
conference held in Bonn, Germany, in 2004. "This leadership has never been more
important, as renewable energy has now reached the top of the international policy
agenda under the United Nations and the G8," said El-Ashry.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 30/142
COMPETITIVENESS ADVANTAGE
US COMPETITIVENESS DOWN
The current renewable energy policies are killing U.S competitiveness and hurting
the renewable-energy industry as a whole.
Martin LaMonica, staff writer, new.com, Renewable-energy pros plead president,
Congress for tax credit. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9884142-54.html. March 3
2008.
Heavy hitters in the renewable-energy business have scheduled a press conference on
Tuesday to publicly lobby for long-sought policies, arguing that the industry and U.S.
competitiveness are at risk. The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)
organized the press conference, which will include well-known energy investors and
business people from General Electric, Credit Suisse, Google, and clean-tech venture
capital firm Nth Power. It will be held at the Washington International Renewable Energy
Conference (WIREC), which is hosted by the U.S. government. The renewable-energy
industry has been thwarted at least two times in efforts to renew an existing federal
tax credit for renewable-energy projects that is set to expire at the end of 2008.
Projects include solar energy, wind, biofuels, and other renewable sources. And at this
point, industrialists appear to be getting downright irate over the prospect of that tax
credit lapsing. Why? Because they are losing money. ACORE sent a letter to
Congress, signed by 500 "industry leaders," calculating that 42 gigawatts of
renewable-energy projects are in jeopardy because of the uncertainty around the
investment tax credit and another production tax credit. That's enough power for 16
million homes. If the industry isn't developed, "green collar" jobs will go to other
countries, and American consumers may end up importing more renewable-energy
products than they already do, ACORE argues.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 31/142
US COMPETITIVENESS DOWN
Allowing Japan and Germany to dominate international renewable energy markets is
undermining overall U.S. economic competitiveness
Herzog – Postdoctoral Researches at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory –
December 2001 (Antonio, Timothy Lipman and Jennifer L. Edwards, Environment, “Renewable
Energy: A Viable Choice,” www.findarticles.com)
The United States has lagged in its commitment to maintain leadership in key
technological and industrial areas, many of which are related to the energy sector.6 The
United States has fallen behind Japan and Germany in the production of photovoltaic
systems, behind Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and behind
Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of fuel-cell systems. Developing these
industries within the United States is vital to the country’s international competitiveness,
commercial strength, and ability to provide for its own energy needs. Renewable Energy
Technologies Conventional energy sources based on oil, coal, and natural gas have proven to be highly effective drivers
of economic progress, but at the same time, they are highly damaging to the environment and human health. These
traditional energy sources are facing increasing pressure on a host of environmental fronts, with perhaps the most serious
being the looming threat of climate change and a needed reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is now clear
that efforts to maintain atmospheric CO2 concentrations below even double the pre-industrial level cannot be
accomplished in an oil- and coal-dominated global economy. Theoretically, renewable energy sources can meet many
times the world’s energy demand. More important, renewable energy technologies can now be considered major
components of local and regional energy systems. In California, solar, biomass, and wind energy resources, combined
with new efficiency measures available for deployment today, could supply half of the state’s total energy needs. As an
alternative to centralized power plants, renewable energy systems are ideally suited to provide a decentralized power
supply that could help to 4 lower capital infrastructure costs. Renewable systems based on photovoltaic arrays, windmills,
biomass, or small hydropower can serve as mass-produced “energy appliances” that can be manufactured at low cost
and tailored to meet specific energy loads and service conditions. These systems have less of an impact on the
environment, and the impact they do have is more widely dispersed than that of centralized power plants, which in some
cases contribute significantly to ambient air pollution and acid rain. There has been significant progress in cost reductions
made by renewable technologies (see Figure 1).7 In general, renewable energy systems are characterized by low or no
fuel costs, although operation and maintenance costs can be considerable. Systems such as photovoltaics contain far
fewer mechanically active parts than comparable fossil fuel combustion systems, and are therefore likely to be less costly
to maintain in the long term. Costs of solar and wind power systems have dropped substantially in the past 30 years and
continue to decline. For decades, the prices of oil and natural gas have been, as one research group noted, “predictably
unpredictable”8. Recent analyses have shown that generating capacity from wind and solar energy can be added at low
incremental costs relative to additions of fossil fuel-based generation. Geothermal and wind can be competitive with
modern combined-cycle power plants—and geothermal, wind, and biomass all have lower total costs than advanced
coalfired plants, once approximate environmental costs are included (see Figure 2).9Environmental costs are based,
conservatively, on the direct damage to the terrestrial and river systems from mining and pollutant emissions, as well as
the impacts on crop yields and urban areas. The costs would be considerably higher if the damage caused by global
warming were to be estimated and included. The push to develop renewable and other clean energy technologies is no
longer being driven solely by environmental concerns; these technologies are becoming economically competitive.
According to Merrill Lynch’s Robin Batchelor, the traditional energy sector has lacked appeal to investors in recent years
because of heavy regulation, low growth, and a tendency to be cyclical.10 The United States’ lack of support
for innovative new companies sends a signal that U.S. energy markets are biased against
new entrants. The clean energy industry could, however, become a world-leading industry
akin to that of U.S. semi-conductors and computer systems. Renewable energy sources
have historically had a difficult time breaking into markets that have been dominated by
traditional, large-scale, fossil fuel-based systems. This is partly because renewable and other
new energy technologies are only now being mass produced and have previously had high
capital costs relative to more conventional systems, but also because coal-, oil-, and gas-
powered systems have benefited from a range of subsidies over the years. These include
military expenditures to protect oil exploration and production interests overseas, the
costs of railway construction to enable economical delivery of coal to power plants, and a
wide range of tax breaks.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 32/142
Production tax credits are vital to spur massive investment in renewable energy-
controlling this global market is key to the US economy and leadership
States News Service in 2k8 (as energy prices soar, klobuchar works to improve efficiency,
create jobs in bipartisan bill, april 3, LN)
These are long-term investments in the American economy that will create new economic growth
and jobs, and increase our energy security said Klobuchar. In addition to tax relief for the middle-
class, we also need long-term policies that will spur innovation and drive economic growth for a
strong economy. This package of renewable energy incentives does that. These critical incentives
include extending: the Production Tax Credit for investments in wind energy, biomass,
hydropower, and geothermal electricity facilities; and the 30 percent investment credit for
businesses that install solar or fuel cell equipment. In addition, a set of effective energy efficiency
programs were extended to give homeowners tax credits for installing energy efficient furnaces,
windows and insulation to make their homes more efficient; offer tax deductions for builders to go
the extra mile and build more energy efficient new homes; provide tax deductions for businesses
that make energy efficient improvements to commercial buildings; and give tax credits to
appliance manufacturers that help lower their production costs for making higher energy saving
appliances. Earlier this year, Klobuchar introduced similar legislation called the American
Renewable Energy Act and helped spearhead efforts to include the energy tax incentives in the
economic stimulus package. Klobuchar has said that climate change is a pressing environmental
challenge, but also an important opportunity for the United States to develop state-of-the-art
technology and high-skilled jobs in renewable energy industries. Klobuchar says the United
States must regain world leadership in renewable-energy research and investment, but that the
market alone will not achieve the goal without clear standards and incentives from the federal
government. The question we face is this: Does the United States want to be a leader in creating
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 34/142
the new green technologies and the new green industries of the future? Or are we going to sit
back and watch the opportunities pass us by? This is where our responsibility in Washington
comes into play,aa Klobuchar said.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 35/142
LDSHP!
U.S. hegemony prevents nuclear wars across the globe
Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior
transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, August/September 2007, The Hoover Policy
Review, online: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html, accessed August
17, 2007
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations
is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in
all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power,
influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from
intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United
States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest
power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have
done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through
confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel
aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess
nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply
make them more catastrophic.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 43/142
LDSHP!
Collapse of U.S. leadership leads to an apolar world of plagues and nuclear wars
Niall Ferguson, Herzog professor of history at New York University's Stern School of Business
and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, July-August 2004, Foreign
Policy, Issue 143, p. 32.
The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great
powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--
would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the
freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western
nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear
wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir,
perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens
would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the
great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining
solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish
to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of
an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of
Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image
dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not
pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the
good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would
not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far more
dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world
disorder.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 44/142
Performance-based incentives are key to create a market for renewables and strong
investment in the US economy
Ringo in 2k7 (Jerome, President of the Apollo Alliance, CQ Congressional Testimony, Sep 25,
LN)
Third, Congress needs to provide market certainty and predictability to renewable energy
producers. The system of two- year tax credits now in place hobbles the renewable industry and
must be replaced with longer-term incentives that provide a higher level of certainty to renewable
energy investors and producers. Doing so will not only level the playing field with well-subsidized
traditional power sources, but establish the central importance of renewables to our nation's
energy future. To encourage innovation, and avoid picking winners and losers, incentives should
be based on performance, not technology. The American Council on Renewable Energy
estimates that with consistent public support, renewable energy could provide the equivalent of
50 percent of today's US generating capacity by 2025. Sixty-five percent of that renewable energy
potential could come from wind and solar power; geothermal could provide an additional sixteen
percent, including all-important base-load power. Funds generated from the auction of carbon
credits could be used to reimburse the Treasury for a ten-year extension of the renewable energy
production and investment tax credits. Doing so would create a large array of jobs, from laborers
who pour the footings for wind towers and iron workers who construct the towers, to pipe fitters
who install geothermal facilities and steelworkers who manufacture and assemble components.
The Solar Electric Industries Association predicts that just an 8-year extension of the solar
investment tax credit would create 55,000 jobs within the solar industry and $45 billion in
economic investment.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 45/142
The finite supply of natural gas reserves are only expected to last 120 years
NESEA, Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, “Natural Gas”, 2004 Online:
http://www.nesea.org/greencarclub/factsheets_naturalgas.pdf accessed July 1, 2008
In 1860, Etienne Lenoir of France developed and built an engine of a design practical for
natural gas that ran on illuminating coal gas stored in a rubber bladder. Coal gas, a by-
product of the production of coke, is made up largely of methane, the primary
component of natural gas, and hydrogen. In 1862 Lenoir built a vehicle powered by
one of his engines. Natural gas now accounts for approximately one-fourth of the
energy consumed in the United States. For many years it has been used reliably and
efficiently in stationary internal combustion engines, supplying energy for commercial
and industrial processes, home heating, and electricity generation. Many households use
compressed natural gas for cooking and heating. Natural gas vehicles are widely used
in Italy, the former Soviet Union, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Argentina, and the
United States. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is used in vehicles of all weights and sizes;
CNG fueling stations are located in most major cities and in many rural areas. Liquefied
natural gas (LNG) is most suitably used by large trucks, locomotives, and transit buses;
LNG is currently available through suppliers of cryogenic liquids. There is a finite
supply of natural gas. Natural gas currently used in the United States comes from
domestic sources. At current levels of consumption, reserves are expected to last 120
years. An extensive network of natural gas pipelines can deliver fuel directly to many
sites, including individual homes.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 49/142
Like Watson, many gas customers have found themselves struggling to pay their
bills. They wrap their homes in plastic sheeting, skulk around their basements
trying to locate their gas meters, and flock to hardware stores to buy caulking and
space heaters. And, given the recent frigid temperatures, they dread the inevitable
arrival of the monthly gas bill. A study released last year shows that families living
at or below 50 percent of the federal poverty level spend a large portion of their
monthly income, 38 percent or more, to heat and cool their homes. Often, they skip
meals or avoid taking prescription medicines so they can afford to pay their utility
bills.
High natural gas prices hurt the manufacturing sector because of the cost of
plastics.
Paul in 2k8 (Peralte, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, rising costs wrapped into lots of things,
june 21, LN)
Unlike oil, which is a globally traded commodity, natural gas often can't be shipped far from the
source. At the same time, the industry has heavily promoted the use of natural gas in the last 15
years, resulting in a spike in domestic consumption, especially from public utilities. "We've done a
lot to promote the use of natural gas in this country, but we've done nothing to address supply,"
Smith said. To deal with the increases, some companies, such as Zep, an Atlanta-based maker of
industrial sanitation and cleaning products, and Duluth-based AGCO, a maker of agricultural
equipment such as tractors, have raised prices. Mark R. Bachmann, Zep's chief financial officer,
said the company has already increased prices twice this year, in January and June, to keep
pace with market pressures. He did not give exact numbers but said the combined increase is
"double-digit." "It's been unprecedented, the rate in both the magnitude and the time period," he
said. Zep has been doubly whacked because it uses petroleum for the plastic containers that hold
its cleaning solvents and for the chemicals themselves. "As a result, we are forced to pass these
increases along to our customers and will continue to, given what's happening with commodities
today," Bachmann said.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 54/142
The American manufacturing industry is the single most important thing to the US
economy as a whole
Horace Cooper, research fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, 2008,
accessed July 2, 2008, Making it in America, available at:
http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/newscenter/articles/2007/03/12/making-it-in-america/
Why should those who support limited government and liberty care about what happens to
manufacturing in America? Because manufacturing is a crucial component of who we are as
a country. As far back as Alexander Hamilton, our founders understood that America’s
merchants and industrialists would shape American society directly by providing jobs and
indirectly by enhancing our nation’s economic might. Today manufacturing continues to play
that role as part of a maturing and stable manufacturing sector. Additionally this key sector of
the economy continues to provide Americans with better jobs and a greater quality of
life. And despite what you may think, manufacturing today isn’t a small part of our
economy. It is the key engine. If American manufacturing was its own country, it would
have the world’s 8th largest economy. With a manufacturing output nearly as great as the
entire GDP of China and more than the economies of Australia, Belgium and Brazil combined,
“made in America” is more than a slogan, it’s the American way. Yes, America is the world’s
number one manufacturer, its activities accounting for a staggering one-quarter of all
manufacturing on the planet as recently as 2004. As significant as it is worldwide, it is its effects
on our economy at home which are more noteworthy. Domestic manufacturing is vital to the
rest of our economy. Nearly 14.5 million Americans work directly in the manufacturing industry
and another 8 million do so in related industries such as wholesaling and finance. A
phenomenon economists refer to as the multiplier effect causes the growth and expansion in the
manufacturing sector to generate significant salutary effects on other sectors resulting in more
jobs, investment and innovation in those sectors as well. Today the manufacturing sector is
responsible for 70 percent of all U.S. private-sector research and development. And more
than half of all U.S. exports stem from domestic manufacturing. Much of America’s energy
conservation activity is found here as well as American manufacturing is the center for a range of
innovative technologies that reduce energy use and promote a cleaner environment. Letting this
powerful engine slip away would be disastrous.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 57/142
MANUFACTURING ON BRINK
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY IS ON THE BRINK
Austin Weber, Senior Editor Assembly Magazine, June 30, 2008. Assemblly Magazine, “State of the
Profession 2008: Surviving the Roller Coaster”
http://www.assemblymag.com/Articles/Feature_Article/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000369851
Today’s economy is like a wild roller coaster ride. Recent events in the domestic auto industry
and the housing market, not to mention skyrocketing prices for oil and raw materials, have eroded
the confidence of many individuals. But, despite those challenges, most assembly professionals remain relatively
upbeat. While the U.S. economy may not officially be in a recession, many manufacturers are
feeling the effects. Record oil prices have left the auto industry at its most critical juncture in 30
years. Prices at the gas pump soared 10 percent between March and April, when the 2008 ASSEMBLY State of the
Profession survey was conducted. American automakers are struggling to address a dramatic shift away from profitable
sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks to more fuel-efficient cars. Year-over-year sales of large SUVs were down
29 percent in April, while large pickups were down 17 percent. At the same time, sales of subcompact sedans rose 33
percent. This year, new vehicle sales are expected to reach their lowest levels since 1994. Tightening credit markets and
a slowdown in new home construction, which is expected to reach a 60-year low in 2008, has had a ripple effect in other
industries as well, such as appliance manufacturing. General Electric Co. (Fairfield, CT), the largest maker of refrigerators
and washers for new U.S. homes, recently announced that it will spin off its 103-year-old appliance unit because of
incremental growth projections. The Federal Reserve Bank (Washington, DC) claims that overall
industrial production in the United States rose a mere 0.2 percent in March. However, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (Washington, DC) reports that new orders for durable manufactured goods increased just 0.1
percent. As a result, manufacturers in many industries are scrambling to cut costs and trim their operating budgets.
Indeed, the need to implement successful cost reduction programs was cited by 46 percent of the ASSEMBLY
respondents, a 4 percent increase over 2007. While the urge to slash costs is a natural instinct for many manufacturers
when faced with uncertain business conditions, it may not be the best strategy to follow. In fact, experts at Boston
Consulting Group (BCG, New York) urge companies to be careful with their cost-cutting efforts. Hal Sirkin, global leader of
BCG’s operations practice, believes manufacturers should approach the economic slowdown as an opportunity to prepare
for when business conditions eventually improve. “By mainly focusing on cost reduction, [companies are] not taking
advantage of the opportunities a recession can provide,” he points out. Sirkin warns that it’s easy for management to fall
into the recession trap. “In a recession, everyone feels short-term pain,” he explains. “But, companies that successfully
approach a recession as an opportunity have the potential to realize long-term gain. Viewed the right way, a downturn
presents a strategic opportunity to leapfrog the competition, rather than simply posing a threat.” Some industries are
contracting, but pockets of manufacturing remain robust and surprisingly upbeat. For instance, business is booming for
manufacturers of farm and construction equipment. Deere & Co. (Moline, IL) recently announced record second quarter
earnings due to strong global demand and favorable currency exchange rates. A worldwide boom in farm prices has
boosted demand for tractors, combines and other agricultural equipment. As the dollar weakens in relation to other
currencies, such as the euro, products made in the United States become cheaper to foreign buyers. Caterpillar Inc.
(Peoria, IL) is another large manufacturer that is benefiting from that economic phenomenon. The company has seen
rising orders for its equipment from Brazil, China, Russia and the Middle East. Its export growth climbed 27 percent in the
first quarter of 2008. In fact, approximately 70 percent of the backhoes, excavators and diesel engines that Caterpillar
assembles in the United States this year will be shipped overseas. Aerospace is another manufacturing sector that is
experiencing record growth. According to the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA, Arlington, VA), aerospace
employment increased in March to 651,700, a slight increase over the 2007 year-end average of 645,600. “While overall
manufacturing employment has declined, our civil, defense and space sectors are strong, with a record backlog of orders
fueled by major export growth,” says Marion Blakey, AIA president and CEO. “Aerospace employment has climbed
steadily since hitting a low in 2003 of 587,100.” That increase in employment is closely tied to record industry sales, which
reached $199 billion in 2007 and are expected to eclipse $210 billion in 2008. Demand for aerospace products and parts
is predicted to continue its strong showing in the future, with a forecast calling for 11 percent growth in 2009. Boeing Co.
(Chicago) recently reported that its first quarter revenue rose 4 percent, while its backlog hit a record $346 billion.
Caterpillar and Deere also have a large backlog of orders, but skyrocketing raw material prices are taking a toll on profit
margins. According to Deere executives, prices for steel and other raw materials were up $110 million through the first six
months of 2008. Despite that expense, exports are expected to continue to bolster the U.S. economy
over the next 12 months. David Huether, chief economist at the National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM, Washington, DC), claims that “export growth will be a real shot in the arm
for manufacturers in 2008. [That’s what has] kept the economy out of recession during the most
recent two quarters. “Companies that anticipate exports will account for at least a quarter of their sales growth this
year are more optimistic and expect to invest, grow and hire more in 2008 than companies that are not globally engaged,”
Huether points out. Exports of manufactured goods are up 11 percent this year vs. 2007. And, U.S.
export growth in 2008 is expected to remain essentially unchanged from 2007 at 8.1 percent.
“While the manufacturing sector is currently facing severe head winds, the current situation is much milder
than [economic conditions] seven years ago,” adds Huether. “[Manufacturers are] in a better position today than in 2001,
when dual declines in both domestic demand and exports sent the manufacturing sector into a sharp contraction.”
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 58/142
The US is key to the world economy – deficit, trade protectionism, or dollar crash would
radically reverse global markets
Fred C. Bergsten, Institute for International Economics, 9/9/04, “The risks ahead for the World
Economy”, The Economist (Geoff)
Five major risks threaten the world economy. Three center on the United States: renewed
sharp increases in the current account deficit leading to a crash of the dollar, a budget
profile that is out of control, and an outbreak of trade protectionism. A fourth relates to
China, which faces a possible hard landing from its recent overheating. The fifth is that oil
prices could rise to $60 to $70 per barrel even without a major political or terrorist
disruption, and much higher with one. Most of these risks reinforce each other. A further oil
shock, a dollar collapse, and a soaring American budget deficit would all generate much
higher inflation and interest rates. A sharp dollar decline would increase the likelihood of
further oil price rises. Larger budget deficits will produce larger American trade deficits and
this more protectionism and dollar vulnerability. Realization of any one of the five risks
could substantially reduce world growth. If two or three, let alone all five, were to occur in
combination then they would radically reverse the global outlook.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 59/142
ECON !- WAR
Economic stagnation kills hegemony and causes massive power wars
Jeffrey Nyquist, regular geopolitical columnist for Financial Sense and WorldNetDaily
and expert in foreign policy and geopolitics, 2/4/05, “The Political Consequences of a
Financial Crash”, Financial Sense,
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0204.html (Victor)
Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of
President Bush, the American people will likely support politicians who advocate further restrictions
and controls on our market economy – guaranteeing its strangulation and the steady pauperization
of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas
listed above. It is easy to see, therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a
policy of massive credit expansion, will have serious political consequences for the Republican Party
(to the benefit of the Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction will
encourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away
from the free market system. The danger here is not merely economic. The political left
openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad. The withdrawal of the
United States from the Middle East, the Far East and Europe would
catastrophically impact an international system that presently allows 6
billion people to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace. Should
anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and trading system
that evolved under American leadership, the planet’s economy would
contract and untold millions would die of starvation. Nationalistic totalitarianism,
fueled by a politics of blame, would once again bring war to Asia and Europe. But this time
the war would be waged with mass destruction weapons and the United
States would be blamed because it is the center of global capitalism.
Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains power in Washington, we can
expect to see policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament
enacted. American appeasement and disarmament, in this context, would be an
admission of guilt before the court of world opinion. Russia and China, above all, would exploit
this admission to justify aggressive wars, invasions and mass
destruction attacks. A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs. B
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 61/142
A 9.2 increase in natural gas prices causes fertilizer prices to grow by 13% in 5 years.
James Finch StockInterview, Inc.Apr 29, 2007; His focus on the uranium
mining and nuclear fuel sector resulted in the widely popular “Investing in
the Great Uranium Bull Market,”
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article891.html
The western Ohio farmer also compared his fertilizer costs for this season compared to previous plantings. “In 2000, my cost
for NH3 was $242/ton,” he said. This year's cost has nearly doubled to $580/ton. For the 2001 planting
season, he paid $165/ton for 28-percent liquid nitrogen. His costs would have been
about $280/ton for this season, but he pre-paid for this fertilizer in December, paying about the same he would have
paid in 2004. For every one dollar increase or decrease in natural gas prices, fertilizer
prices can swing up or down by 95 cents. For this farmer's fertilizer applications, he prefers 28-percent liquid
nitrogen for each of handling and application. While anhydrous ammonia (NH3) can also be used, and is cheaper per unit of nitrogen,
he finds it is less safe for use. NH3 is also a favorite among the illegal methamphetamine-manufacturers, which siphon off the
ammonia from farmer's nursing tanks. Urea is volatile and used mainly for wheat, but it also used by western Corn Belt farmers.
Fertilizer prices have more than doubled over the past 15 years, and there is no respite in the
near-term. A recent Energy Information Administration outlook forecasts benchmark
natural gas prices rising by 9.2 percent in 2007 and increasing another 3.7 percent in
2008. World demand for fertilizers grew by 13 percent between 2001 and 2005,
according to The Fertilizer Institute. After China and India, the U.S. is the world's third largest nitrogen producer. Next year, the Ohio
farmer could be faced with a steeper bill to fertilize his corn and other crops.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 64/142
The United States, like most western countries, has been spared from riots, but the
sharp hikes in food prices that have triggered violence abroad are
also being felt here. According to the Department of Agriculture,
grocery prices are rising at rates not seen since 1990. On the wholesale
market, the country's biggest commodity crops—corn, wheat, and soybeans—are selling at record
the
highs; wheat prices are up nearly 50 percent since the first of the year. To Americans,
combination of high food prices and social unrest is bound to stir
up edgy memories of the early 1970s, when food prices were
being pushed up by high energy costs and decreased supplies.
The current wave of food troubles, analysts say, is the most significant
since then—and arguably more troublesome. "The crisis of 1973 and 1974 was
a blip; it went away after a year or two," says Joachim von Braun, the director
general of the International Food Policy Research Institute. "This one is actually quite
different and much more serious." Already, in fact, there are signs
that higher prices have caused political instability in a number of
countries important to U.S. security interests. The main differences between
the price hikes of the '70s and those of today are the severity and persistence of their causes. In the
1970s, the increases resulted largely from short-term forces—the Arab oil embargo, which jacked up
transportation costs, and regional droughts. In the quarter century that followed, global food prices
tumbled dramatically; from 1974 to the early 2000s, real food prices, on average, fell 75 percent.
Soaring demand. By contrast, the current causes are more varied and stubborn—and, in many cases,
growing. Overseas, an expanding middle class is fueling unprecedented demand. In China and India,
hundreds of millions of people, earning larger incomes, are buying not only more food but more
expensive food, such as grain-guzzling beef. By some estimates, developing countries, come 2016, will
consume 25 percent more poultry and 50 percent more pork than they do today. Compounding
crude oil is selling at record highs, affecting not only the
matters,
transportation of food but also the cost of fertilizer. Climate change may
play a role, too, as massive droughts and storms, such as a cyclone last year that destroyed $600
million worth of rice in Bangladesh, appear to be increasingly destructive. Then there is the elephant in
the room: ethanol. Most experts agree that the race among western countries to produce this grain-
based alternative fuel is responsible, in significant part, for the rising costs. Their logic is simple: When
countries put corn aside for energy, the amount available for food is in greater demand, and prices rise.
If demand is already high, the effect is amplified. In the United States this year, nearly a third of the
corn output will be used to make an estimated 9.3 billion gallons of ethanol. That will be more than
triple the 2003 total, reflecting the effect of billions in ethanol subsidies on farmers and producers.
"When other factors were pushing up prices," says Per Pinstrup-Andersen, a professor of food, nutrition,
and public policy at Cornell University, "this was the wrong thing to do and the wrong time to do it." Nor
is ethanol fever dying down: President Bush recently signed an energy bill that will require U.S. annual
ethanol production to double by 2022. For Americans, the prognosis is somewhat murky.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 71/142
The USDA says it expects food prices to rise at abnormal rates for
at least the next few years. It's a disconcerting trend, but largely tolerable: Americans
on average spend 9 percent of their annual income on food, down from 21 percent in the 1950s.
Farmers, meanwhile, are benefiting. "I will guarantee that anyone who is farming now is making a ton
more money than they were three or four years ago," says Bruce Babcock, director of the Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University. "The increases in revenue from the sale of
crops have far outstripped the cost of production." In fact, the benefit to farmers may offer hope for
those affected most: residents of poor and politically unstable countries. For decades, poor farmers in
Africa and elsewhere in the developing world, saddled by low returns on crops, have had little to invest
in production-boosting techniques. Now higher prices, if supplemented by government support, could
eventually lead to better yields. There is no guarantee, of course, that governments will respond, but
public attention can often illuminate otherwise ignored problems. United Nations representatives, for
instance, have already called on the European Union to ease its long-standing opposition to genetically
Relief programs, including
modified foods. For now, however, the situation is grim.
USAID and the U.N. World Food Program, are predicting huge
budget shortfalls because of soaring crop prices. usaid, predicting a $200
million gap this year, is considering making deep cuts to some of its emergency programs, such as
those in Iraq and Sudan. Meanwhile, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as in Latin America and West
Africa, millions are growing dissatisfied with their governments. "There is a reason why politicians for
UNWFP Executive
hundreds of years have been emphasizing a chicken in every pot," said
Director Josette Sheeran. "Food is the most basic requirement of
society. When prices go up, the pressures come quicker."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 72/142
The lack of sufficient transmission capacity not only challenges the ability of utilities to keep the
lights on, it also increases the price of electricity. Transmission congestion limits the ability of
utilities to access cheaper sources of generation that may be located some distance away.
Congestion also limits fuel diversity. If there is not sufficient transmission capacity to access
electricity generated at remote locations, utilities will be forced to rely increasingly on natural gas-
fired electric generation facilities which are easier to site closer to load centers. There are
legitimate concerns that a dramatic rise in the reliance on natural gas for electric generation will
further increase U.S. demand for energy imports and will increase the pressure on gas prices.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 76/142
policy benefits of an RPS are the same as those from renewable energy and CHP: Environmental improvement (e.g., avoided air
pollution, global climate change mitigation, waste reduction, habitat preservation, conservation of valuable natural resources).
Lower natural gas prices due to displacement of
Increased diversity and security of energy supply.
some gas-fired generation, or a more efficient use of natural gas due to significantly
increased fuel conversion efficiencies. Reduced volatility of power prices, given stable or non-existent fuel costs
for renewables. Local economic development resulting from new jobs, taxes, and revenue associated with new renewable capacity.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 77/142
RPS is a direct offset for natural gas; many countries have implemented RPS
Carolyn Fischer, fellow at Resources for the Future, April 2006, “How Can Renewable
Portfolio Standards Lower Electricity Prices?”, Resources for the Future,
http://www.rff.org/rff/documents/rff-dp-06-20.pdf
A 15% shift to RPS would significantly lower the expensive natural gas consumption
CFA, Consumer federation of America, is a non-profit organization founded in 1968 to
advance the consumer interest through research, education and advocacy, A Step Toward
a Brighter Energy Future, October 2007, online:
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/No_Time_To_Waste.pdff accessed June 30, 2008
While the renewable electricity standard would not cut oil imports, it would lower
natural gas consumption, lowering prices and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The primary impact would be a cumulative reduction of approximately 250 million
tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.19 (Interpolating the results in Energy
Information Administration, Impact of 1 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard
(June 2007), we estimate cumulative reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 258
million metric tons. Wood Mackenzie, The Impact of a Federal Renewable
Portfolio Standard (February 2007), estimates almost 50 percent higher reductions.)
From the consumer point of view, spending on energy (gasoline, electricity, and
natural gas) is a large and growing household expenditure. Our reliance on fossil
fuels – oil for gasoline, and natural gas consumed for heating and cooking, but also
increasingly used to generate electricity – has led to huge increases in consumer costs
in recent years (see Exhibit 3). Over the past five years, annual household
expenditures on gasoline have increased from $1,000 to almost $2,300 per year.
Annual expenditures on electricity and natural gas have increased by $400 per
household to almost $1,900 per year. In short, in 2006, consumers spent well over
$4,000 on household energy, compared to less than $2,500 just five years earlier.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 81/142
The EU will be quick to initiate a trade war with the United States
Terence Corcoran, editor of the Financial Post, March 2008; The National Post, Carbon Tariff
Trade War? http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=397658
Along come an assortment of politicians and economists set to pile on another round of
global downers: carbon taxes and a possible carbon trade war.
A European Union summit agreement two weeks ago to slash carbon emissions by 2020 ended
with a veiled threat. If the rest of the world doesn't match Europe's carbon tax and control
regimes, "appropriate measures" can be taken by the EU, the final summit statement said. The phrase "appropriate
measures" hasn't been defined yet, but French President Nicolas Sarkozy thinks Europe should impose a
carbon tariff on goods imported into Europe. If steel arrives from China or America, countries that
have no carbon taxes in place, then Europe should tax the steel.
European governments love a good excuse to build trade barriers. Carl B. Hamilton, a
Swedish MP and economics professor, warns in a letter to the Financial Times that EU-initiated carbon
trade barriers "could provoke a global trade war between the EU on the one hand and
countries such as the United States, China, India and Brazil on the other."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 83/142
The EU imposing ‘green’ regulations will lead to a trade war with the United
States
James Kanter, Journalist for the International Herald Tribune, November 14, 2006 “Europe
Seeks to Impose Airline Emission Controls”;
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/world/europe/14cnd-
emit.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
We could see another trade war,” said Mr. Henderson, who cited stiff opposition from the
United States several years ago to Europe’s plan to reduce jet engine noise. David A.
Castelveter, vice president of the Air Transport Association of America, a trade group,
asserted that countries outside of Europe, including the United States, “believe that unilateral imposition of
emissions trading requirements absent mutual agreement between nations violates
international law.”
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 84/142
Around 4,000 businesses across Canada shut off the lights on Saturday night as part of Earth Hour, a symbolic event to raise
awareness about climate change. Media reports afterwards have been laudatory, and have showcased participants giddy with self-
congratulation. Perhaps once the back-patting is over, more substantial work to address the environment can begin.It won’t be as
simple as turning off the lights, of course. Any move to reduce carbon emissions in Canada, or anywhere else in the developed world,
is meaningless unless it’s combined with similar efforts in developing nations. Otherwise, global emissions will continue to rise. At
least that’s what Jeff Rubin, chief economist and strategist with CIBC World Markets, says.Rubin released a report last week with
colleague Benjamin Tal that proposed a tax on the carbon content of products imported from countries that freely spew emissions.
Rubin singled out China in the report, although in an interview he said he used China as a stand-in for all developing countries. Still,
China poses the thorniest problem. The country surpassed the U.S. as the largest single emitter in 2006, and today releases 9% more
carbon than the United States. With more than 500 coal-fired generating plants scheduled for construction in China between now and
2012, pollutants are only going to increase.To seriously address emissions, Rubin says, the first step is to implement a domestic carbon
tax as the European Union has already done. North America is at least two years behind Europe, Rubin says, and the U.S. will likely
adopt a domestic carbon tax before Canada, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. “If you listen to McCain or Obama
or Clinton on this issue, they’re all singing the same tune,” he says. “Emissions pricing enjoys bipartisan support, which is why I see
this happening sooner as opposed to later.” Canada, in keeping with global standards, would ultimately have no choice but to follow
along, Rubin believes.Canada’s action so far on climate change policy isn’t exactly encouraging, however. British Columbia took the
groundbreaking step of implementing a tax in February, as did Quebec last year, but the federal Conservatives remain opposed to the
idea. Even if Canada taxes carbon, how do we make the leap to a tariff on imports, which would require coordination and standards at
an international level?Rubin makes it sound simple. If the European Union makes an economic sacrifice by implementing a carbon
tax, for example, then tolerance of trading partners that continue to emit freely will erode dramatically. Taxing imports would force
other countries to comply and work to reduce emissions. Thomas Courchene and John Allan of the Institute of Intergovernmental
Relations at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont. make a similar point in an article in this month’s Policy Options. A carbon tariff
would target what they call free-riders — corporations in non-complying countries that gain an economic advantage because of the
lack of environmental standards, as well as companies headquartered in countries where carbon taxes exist, but that have off-shored
manufacturing. A carbon tariff of this sort is already being talked about by European leaders, and the state of California has also taken
action and banned imported energy that produces high emissions.Rubin goes further in his report to predict high-emissions industries,
such as petrochemicals and cement production, may migrate from China back to the west to avoid a tariff. The cost advantage of using
cheap labour could be wiped out by such a tax when combined with triple digit oil prices, Rubin says.The report largely glosses over
China’s potential reaction to a tariff, however. Western countries have been responsible for the bulk of the world’s carbon emissions,
so what right does the European Union have to penalize China? And if Rubin is correct a tariff would result in turmoil in the job
market as some industries shift production. Carl B. Hamilton, a Swedish MP and professor at the Stockholm
School of Economics wrote in the Financial Times last week that a carbon tariff would be “a
profoundly ill-conceived decision.” The reason? It “could pave the way for a global trade war over
climate policy.... Winning trade disputes in the World Trade Organization could become a higher
priority than an agreement fighting climate change.”
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 85/142
Trade wars between the EU and the US would significantly increase the price of products,
and is extremely costly.
Raymond J. Ahearn in 2006 (Specialist in International Trade and Finance, “CRS Report for
Congress”, 26 July 2006, http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL30732.pdf)
The economic and political impacts that result from U.S.-EU trade disputes can be easily
identified, but are much harder to quantify. In both cases, a variety of forces effectively contain
the economic and political costs from rising or getting out of hand. The $300 million in
retaliatory U.S. tariffs levied on European exports over the banana and beef disputes and
the over $2 billion in EU tariffs imposed on U.S. exports over the FSC (now suspended) and
Byrd Amendment disputes provide the most visible economic costs of trade conflict. The
retaliatory tariffs are designed to dramatically increase the costs of selective European
and U.S. products, making it much more difficult for those “targeted” foreign producers to
sell in the U.S. or EU markets. In theory, foreign exporters denied access to markets are
expected to pressure their respective governments to change the policies that are in violation of
WTO rules. Retaliation is not, however, cost-free.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 86/142
The United States and European Union (EU) share a huge and mutually beneficial economic
partnership. Not only is the U.S.-EU trade and investment relationship the largest in the world, it
is arguably the most important. Agreement between the two economic superpowers has been
critical to making the world trading system more open and efficient. At the same time, a
confluence of old and new trade disputes, entailing U.S. retaliation and EU threats of counter-
retaliation have increased trade tensions in recent years. A final ruling issued January 14, 2002
by the World Trade Organization (WTO) against a U.S. export tax benefit figures prominently in
current trade disputes, along with the EU’s failure to approve pending applications for new
biotechnology crops and the imposition of U.S. steel restraints in March.
The dimensions of the mutually beneficial side of the economic relationship are well
known. The United States and EU are parties to the largest two-way trade and investment
relationship in the world. Annual two-way flows of goods, services, and foreign direct investment exceeded $1.3 trillion
in 2005. This sum means that over $3 billion is spent every day on transatlantic purchases of
goods, services, and direct investments.2 The European Union as a unit is the second largest (next to Canada) trading partner of the
United States in merchandise or goods. In 2005 the EU accounted for 20.6% (or $186 billion) of U.S. exports and 18.5% (or $309
billion) of U.S. imports. The EU is also the largest U.S. trading partner in services. In 2005, the EU
purchased slightly over 34% of total U.S. services exports (or $130 billion). But the United States since 1993 has been importing more
goods from the EU than it has been exporting. In 2005, the resulting U.S. trade deficit with the EU totaled $122 billion or 16% of the
U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the world. This trade deficit is partially offset by U.S. surpluses in services trade which have
averaged around $10 billion dollars over the 2002-2005 period. Based on a population of some 457 million citizens and a gross
domestic product of about $10.3 trillion (compared to a U.S. population of 289 million and a GDP of $10.6 trillion in 2003), the
twenty-five members of the EU combine to form the single largest market in the world. Given the reforms entailed in the introduction
of the European single market in the early 1990s, along with the introduction of a single currency, the euro, for twelve members, the
EU market is also increasingly open and standardized. The
fact that each side has a major ownership stake
in each other’s market may be the most remarkable aspect of the commercial relationship.
At the end of 2004, the total stock of two-way direct investment reached $2.2 trillion (composed of $1.1 trillion in EU investment in
the United States and $1.1 trillion in U.S. investment in the EU), making U.S. and European companies the largest investors in each
other’s market. Roughly 60% of corporate America’s foreign investments are located in Europe, while almost 75% of Europe’s foreign
investments are based in the United States. This
massive amount of ownership of companies in each
other’s markets translates into billions of dollars of sales, production, and expenditures on research and
development. In addition, an estimated 6-7 million Americans are employed by European affiliates operating in the United States and
almost an equal number of EU citizens work for American companies in Europe.3
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 87/142
This EU–US bilateral trade relationship must also be placed in the broader multilateral
context. The EU–US partnership was one of the key driving forces behind the
launch of the Doha Development Agenda round of negotiations in November 2001,
which aims at deepening trade liberalisation while ensuring integration of
developing countries in the multilateral trading system. Although the failure of
Cancun in September 2003 was obviously a setback in the process, it led to a period of
global rethinking. The Hong Kong ministerial meeting in 2005 gave a new impetus to the
round. The European Community remains in favour of an ambitious round. EU–US
cooperation on the round is ongoing. Both sides are willing to conclude the Doha
Development Agenda (DDA) as soon as possible. The EU focus remains on
agriculture, industrial tariffs, services, anti-dumping rules, geographical indications
(GIs), development, and trade and environment.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 90/142
SOLVENCY
Production tax credit is key to create a market for mass investment of renewables
Gronewold in 2k8 (Nathanial, Environment and Energy, renewable energy: investors putting
faith, cash in clean power, LN)
The report estimates that $204.9 billion went to renewable energy in 2007, adding 31 gigawatts of
newly installed electricity-generating capacity to the world's grid. Of that, $98.2 billion went to renewable energy
generation, mostly wind, while $50.1 billion was devoted to developing new technologies or improving manufacturing
capacity. There was $56.6 billion spent on mergers and acquisitions last year. Investments in energy efficiency
enhancements also had a strong showing last year, shooting up by 78 percent over 2006 levels to hit $1.8 billion in total.
And while wind power continues to dominate the overall picture, solar electricity attracted the largest volume of venture
capital and private equity investments, about $3.7 billion worth. Capital flows to waste energy and biomass power
expanded by 432 percent in 2007, the fastest rate of growth of any renewable energy segment. Although the outlook
for 2009 looks promising, much of it hinges on Congress reinstating the investment tax credits and
production tax credits that are especially important for building new wind generating capacity, the
report authors note. The tax credits are due to expire at the end of this year, and so far, efforts to get
them reinstated have stalled in Washington as lawmakers haggle over how to pay for them. "The
production tax credit on wind is pretty much essential to get wind projects financed," Liebreich said.
"Essentially, the U.S. wind industry will grind to something of a halt until that is resolved." But
Liebreich was careful to add that much of the capital available to wind power in the United States would not vanish
completely if Congress failed to re-enact the tax credits. Rather, investors and developers would put projects on
the back burner and take a wait-and-see attitude, at least for a short while. "The amounts of
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 93/142
financing that could fall off the table could be as much as $8 to $10 billion, but not all of it will go,"
Liebreich said. "It will be more a question of delay than simply not doing those projects."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 94/142
It is crucial that the Congress renew the PTC to save the economy and several
different industries.
AWEA(American Wind Energy Association), Legislative Affairs,
http://www.awea.org/legislative/, 2008
Since investment decisions are being made today for new wind power projects that are
not expected to be completed until next year, wind energy companies are already
reporting a decrease in investment as a result of the uncertainty surrounding tax policy. If
Congress does not act soon to extend the PTC, companies will stop making
investments in projects not expected to be completed before the end of the year. The
result will be the loss of thousands of jobs in construction, manufacturing and
maintenance at a time when renewable energy is a bright spot of surging growth in a
troubled economy. Based on AWEA’s projected impact on wind installations,
allowing the PTC to expire would cause a loss of approximately 75,000 jobs in a
single year. AWEA seeks to secure prompt Congressional action to extend the
production tax credit. A long-term, full-value PTC will provide the industry with
optimal certainty and stability.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 95/142
Before discussing the policy options for addressing these transmission barriers, I would like to
emphasize that the lack of a long-term stable policy structure has hampered the environment for
investments in new renewable energy facilities and the transmission to connect them to the grid.
With the renewable energy production tax credit ("PTC") 5 currently scheduled to expire on
December 31, 2008 and the current uncertain legislative environment, projects representing
thousands of megawatts of renewable energy expected to be installed next year are now in
question. The PTC, since its enactment, has expired on three separate occasions and has never
been extended for longer than a three year period. The stop-start nature of the PTC has impeded
development of a domestic manufacturing base and has raised significantly the capital cost of a
wind power project.6 It is important for Congress to extend the PTC as soon as possible for as
long as possible. Congress should also consider more stable long-term policies, including the
adoption of a national renewable portfolio standard ("RPS"). We applaud Chairman Bingaman's
leadership on this issue and hope that Congress will adopt RPS legislation soon.
It is essential that Congress and the Federal government act to help promote a more robust and
effectively functioning electric grid, if we are going to reap the full benefits associated with the
nation's renewable energy resources. As I have discussed, the current regulatory structure is not
well-suited to the challenges of the future. Unless Congress makes it easier for utilities and other
entities to build the transmission necessary to access our renewable resources, consumers, the
economy and the environment will suffer. It is imperative that Congress remove these barriers to
help meet our national goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing our national
energy security, providing consumers with reasonably-priced electricity and growing the economy.
More specifically, Congress should ensure that:
--There are sufficient incentives to encourage investments in the transmission facilities necessary
to fully develop our renewable resources
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 97/142
publicly said passing an energy bill is a priority. But there’s a long way to go before
any legislation can reach the finish line.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 102/142
It is feasible to supply 10%-20% of our energy needs by the use of renewable energy
Union of Concerned Scientists, citizens and scientists for Environmental Solutions,
“Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ”, 2007 online:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-
standard.html accessed July 2, 2008
RECS SOLVE
Renewable Energy Credits are currently effective in the voluntary utilities market;
RECs set up energy portfolio goals for RPS
Prabhu Dayal, Ph.D. and President of C TRADE, April 30, 2007, “National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS) for Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)?”,UtiliPoint
International Inc., http://www.ctrade.org/Images/rps.pdf
RECS SOLVE
An RPS is a mandate, but the state’s role is merely to certify production of renewable
energy, and enforce penalties for non-compliance with renewables requirements. Some
states have set parameters for which sorts of energy (biomass, wind, solar, hydro) will
qualify and under what conditions, but aside from setting the ground rules there is little
bureaucratic role in the renewable energy credits market once established. The state does
not engage in dissemination of funds or promote any particular project, but the
establishment of the credits market provides long-term security for project planning
and investment. This long-term feature of Michigan’s energy markets will attract large-
scale energy producers to biomass energy production as they seek to improve their
market position and develop an interest in driving down the cost of renewable energy
through their own investment patterns and partnerships.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 105/142
Under current U.S. tax law, a power producer gets an income tax credit
(called a "production tax credit," or PTC) for producing electricity using
renewable energy resources. This includes geothermal, as well as wind,
biomass, low-head hydropower, landfill gas and even trash combustion.
The PTC is a key part of the economics of geothermal. The
prospect of the eventual PTC helps get projects funded and
developed. The PTC helps overcome the higher upfront capital
costs to drill into the Earth's hot spots. So the PTC offers some
serious incentive for geothermal development. A taxpayer can claim
the PTC for 10 years, beginning on the date the qualified facility
is placed in service. But under current tax law, in order to qualify for
the credit, the geothermal facilities must be placed in service by Dec.
31, 2008. In the past, Congress has set the PTC to last for two
years, and has renewed it periodically. When Congress has not
renewed the PRC, investment in renewable energy systems has
crashed the next year. See how in this graph (Page 19 of 29). Do
you see the pattern? Boom-crash. Boom-crash. Boom-crash. Then
Congress extended the PTC in 2006, so the installed base of
power systems began to take off in the past couple years.
Renewable power is gaining traction. But for some strange
reason, Congress has not extended the PTC beyond Dec. 31 of
this year. So starting Jan. 1, 2009, the tax incentive for renewable
energy in the U.S. will expire and go away.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 106/142
GEOTHERMAL SOLVES
Geothermal Energy is an effective but relatively untapped resource
Cosmo Catalano in 2008 (June 6, writer for the Matter Network, “Geothermal Energy
Delivers Clean Power, Warm Homes”,
http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/6/geothermal-energy-delivers-clean-power.cfm)
While modern scientific advancements present humankind with no shortage of technological
marvels, people the world over are still awed by the eons-old power of natural forces. While the
sheer energy of these forces is perhaps best evidenced by the destructive force of natural disasters,
it also takes many forms that have proven far more useful to humanity. Hydroelectric and
hydrokinetic mechanisms have existed in some form since the earliest days of civilization, and
windmills have farmed the skies for almost as long, drawing power to grind flour and pump water.
Solar energy dried clothes and baked the mud bricks that became the foundation of many a
one natural force has largely eluded the
civilization. But until recently,
human yoke. Just beneath the surface of the Earth, tremendous
pressures and the continual decay of radioactive elements
create a tremendous amount of heat. Only occasionally visible
on the surface—in places such as Iceland, where direct
geothermal power warms a vast majority of the homes—
geothermal power tends to reveal itself in violent explosive
ways, such as volcanoes and geysers. Despite this, though, the
geothermal resource is one of the most potent and untapped
power sources available to the inhabitants of this planet.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 113/142
STATES ANSWERS
AT: STATES CP- RACE TO BOTTOM
State action will cause a race to the bottom-lack of federal regulations means states will
free ride and encourage smaller transmission coverage to keep from cost-sharing
Furman in 2k8 (Donald, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Transmission and Policy
Iberdrola Renewables, CQ Congressional Testimony, Transmission of renewable electricity, June
17, LN)
The U.S. electric grid was not originally designed to be operated on a large integrated basis.
Instead, the grid was initially built primarily to enable individual utilities to meet customer needs
with locally generated electricity. There was not much need to accommodate transactions
spanning several state borders or across regions. Regulatory oversight was set up accordingly, at
the state level, with limited authority provided to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
("FERC"). The two main barriers to transmission development are cost allocation and siting of
transmission lines. Cost allocation is a challenge because of the incentive to free ride. Many
states, utilities, and end users across a wide region and over a long time period benefit from
interstate transmission, and it is not in any of their interests to pay for something that benefits so
many others. With jurisdiction largely at the state level, where state public utility commissions
("PUCs") generally permit cost recovery of only those costs that provide direct benefits to that
state's ratepayers, it is difficult to gain approval for the recovery of costs associated with interstate
transmission. The situation with siting is similar. State siting approvals are based on
demonstrations of need where "need" is defined as impacts within the state. Interstate lines that
benefit a region and the nation can be prevented from being built by individual states. States may
also fail to consider regional needs when approving the location of specific transmission lines.
Moreover, utilities have little regulatory incentive to build transmission facilities of the appropriate
size. A 765 kv backbone transmission facility can transmit much more electricity more efficiently
than a 345 kv line which might be of sufficient size for a utility to serve its traditional customers.
State regulators are unlikely to permit utilities to recover the costs of these larger lines which
provide broader benefits.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 114/142
Three projects are consistently sited as examples of states blocking the siting of interstate
transmission projects: a TransEnergie project that involves an underwater cable between Long
Island and Connecticut; an American Electric Power proposed line between West Virginia and
Virginia; and a proposed line between Minnesota and Wisconsin sponsored by Minnesota Power
and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. Projects Status: 1. The TransEnergie project (Cross
Sound Cable) is a merchant power line to cross Long Island Sound. It was initially rejected by the
Connecticut Siting Council. The decision turned on two issues. The first issue was environmental:
the route chosen by TransEnergie would cross and disturb some sensitive and valuable oyster
beds. Other routes were not considered. The second issue was germane to the Federal
preemption issue: Connecticut found that the purpose of the line was solely to supply power to
Long Island and there would be no perceptible Connecticut benefits. The decision was a
balancing of the issues – there would be no benefits to Connecticut but there would be high in-
state environmental costs. The Siting Council invited TransEnergie to resubmit their application
with an alternate route that avoided the sensitive areas impacted by their original route. In 2002,
the Connecticut Siting Council approved an alternative route submitted by TransEnergie.
Construction of the line was completed in 2002, however, due to the company’s failure to adhere
to permit conditions, the line is not in operation.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 116/142
AT: ECON DA
RENEWABLE ENERGY WILL CREATE JOBS AND PROPEL GROWTH
Abbasi in 2k8 (Daniel, Director of MissionPoint Capital Partners, CQ Congressional Testimony,
promoting private investment in renewable energy projects, LN)
Renewable energy manufacturing already has a track record of creating jobs and growth in
economically depressed areas - particularly those areas hardest hit by the exodus of domestic
manufacturing jobs. Examples and figures cited by industry participants include:
-- Gamesa, a Spanish wind turbine manufacturer, created hundreds of jobs and invested tens of
millions of dollars to build three factories in areas of Pennsylvania after the collapse of the local
steel industry;
-- Maytag closed its factory and corporate headquarters in Newton, Iowa after being bought by a
competitor, causing thousands of lost jobs. In 2008, a new wind turbine factory is opening in
Newton, generating hundreds of new, high-paying jobs;
-- A study by the Blue/Green Alliance shows that investments in renewables could create over
820,000 new jobs nationwide.
-- Industry estimates indicate that renewable tax incentives would help to prevent the cancellation
of 42,000 MW of planned renewable energy projects in development today in 45 states - an
amount equivalent to 75 base-load electricity generation stations.
In our view, the renewable tax incentive package does not create an unfair advantage for
renewables, but rather a leveling of the playing field with long-subsidized traditional resources.
Moreover, as we have discussed, solar power and other renewables will continue to reduce their
costs as they scale up, so in the mid to long-term, no subsidies will be required. For most of the
technologies aided by this package, this is a crucial transitional support, not a long-term
dependence.
AT: ECON DA
A national RPS system would save 49.1 billion dollars nationwide.
Stacy Feldman; VP, Consultant at Lee Hecht Harrison; apr 24th 2008, “Renewable
Portfolio Standards: America's Clean Energy savior”
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080424/renewable-portfolio-standards-america-s-clean-
energy-savior
This month’s DOE report on the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in place in 25 states makes at least
one thing clear: without them, America’s emerging clean-energy markets would be half as robust as they
are today. The figures: From 1998 to 2007, over 50 percent of the non-hydro renewable energy
capacity was installed in states with RPS policies. Wind power’s role has been huge, accounting for 93
percent of the total RPS additions. That helped to push America into the number one slot on the list of the
world’s biggest markets for new wind turbines. And led to this conclusion from the report's author: "These
[RPS] programs have emerged as one of the most important drivers of renewable energy deployment
in the U.S,” said Ryan Wiser of the DOE's Berkeley Lab. America’s RPS programs vary from to
state to state but share the same core policy. Electric suppliers must provide some percentage of their
power from renewables and are typically backed with penalties for non-compliance, though they are not
dished out often. The report notes that utilities on average have met their targets 94 percent of the time.
Already, RPS policies apply to 50% of America’s total electricity load – and growing.
Half have been created since 2004. In 2007 alone, four new states joined the roster, while 11 revised
existing programs. Of all the states, California is the clear RPS stand-out. Since 2002, 7,000 megawatts of
contracts have been signed with new renewable generators in that state. So, if the RPS works so well, why
not ditch the patchwork of 25 different standards and institute a consistent, single RPS for the whole
nation? 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. So for now, we should at least be thankful for the leadership from the US states.
Seriously.
Even with increased manufacturing costs renewables are economically competitive with
traditional fuels
Gronewold in 2k8 (Nathanial, Environment and Energy, renewable energy: investors putting
faith, cash in clean power, LN)
But while rising project construction and equipment manufacturing costs are a clear worry, clean
energy boosters note that the rising cost environment is affecting all types of energy generation.
In the long run, renewables should stay competitive because the price increases for turbines
simply reflect general cost inflation, but once clean energy capacity is built, there is no need to
continue purchasing raw inputs to fuel electricity generation, they say. "If we continue to see
surging commodity prices, then yes, that's going to cause a problem," Liebreich said. "The only
thing is that that would tend to happen in parallel, and perhaps even caused by, surges in energy
costs and fossil fuel costs." So if the price of gasoline and electricity rises alongside the price for
turbines, "then the clean energy industry can actually still operate in that environment," he said.
Report details
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 119/142
AT: ECON DA
Studies prove that renewable portfolio standards create jobs and improve the economy.
McCann, 07 press secretary for Michigan DEQ, (Robert, “NextEnergy Study Shows Alternative Energy
Investments Create Jobs, Strengthen Economy”, Michigan Office of the Governor,
http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-23442-166821--,00.html)
The study entitled, "A Study of Economic Impacts from the Implementation of a Renewable Portfolio Standard and an Energy
Efficiency Program in Michigan," was overseen by the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) and completed by NextEnergy. Using the most accurate modeling tools available, the study focused on the long-
range results of nine different policy alternatives for providing Michigan's future energy needs. The results conclude
that an increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energy will not only
enhance our state's environmental stewardship but will generate increased business
activity in Michigan. The study projects from the year 2006 to 2025 and includes two
sets of models that calculate impacts from aggressive and moderate renewable
portfolio standards. The results show that during the period 2007-2020, the
implementation of a moderate RPS, 7 percent by 2016, would grow Michigan's GSP
by $194 million and create 2,020 jobs, while implementing an aggressive RPS, 15
percent by 2025, would grow the GSP by $533 million and create 6,381 jobs. The study
further shows that combining an aggressive RPS with aggressive energy efficiency efforts will substantially increase the benefits from
"The results of this study clearly demonstrate the environmental and
doing either alone.
economic benefits of adopting a renewable portfolio standard and energy efficiency programs for
Michigan," said DEQ Director Steven E. Chester. "Undertaking these actions is a demonstration in leadership and an investment in
our state's future."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 120/142
AT: OIL DA
Oil accounts for less than 6 percent of electricity, located in 5 states, and relies on residual
oil, not primary sources
EIA in 2k7 (Energy information Administration, electric power annual,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html)
Petroleum-fired capacity totaled 58,097 MW, down slightly from prior year levels. This represents
5.9 percent of all generating capacity and includes approximately 31,700 MW of primarily residual
oil-fired steam units located in Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
Gas turbines (20,300 MW of capacity) and internal combustion units (5,000 MW of capacity)
account for most of the remaining petroleum-fired capacity.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 121/142
A Yale study shows 90% of participants dig renewable energy – strong support for
solar and wind power
Renewable Energy Today 6/15/05 (“Yale Poll Reveals Public Support for Renewable
Energy”, accesed via BNet,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXD/is_2005_June_15/ai_n13818834)
Yale University recently announced the results of a new research survey of 1,000
U.S. adults, which reveal that 90 percent of respondents believe building more solar
power facilities is a "good idea," while 87 percent support expanded wind farms and
86 percent would like to see increased funding for renewable energy research.
Additionally, Yale said the poll results indicate that 92 percent of those participating
feel that the U.S. dependence on imported oil is a "serious problem," with 68
percent citing it as a "very serious problem." "This poll underscores the fact that Americans want not only
energy independence but also to find ways to break the linkage between energy use and environmental harm...," said Yale School of
Forestry & Environmental Studies (SFES) dean Gus Speth. Yale noted that the survey is one element of a broader research project at
the SFES focused on environmental attitudes and behavior.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 123/142
For other renewable technologies, however, public opposition can hamper the
development of projects. The design of such projects can often influence the level of
public support the project can garner. For instance, with wind projects, public
opinion studies have shown that smaller numbers of turbines are more acceptable
than hundreds or thousands of turbines. 126 In addition to aesthetics, there is some
opposition to wind projects because of noise concerns and birds killed by the turbine
blades. Countries have dealt with the issue of public opposition in very different ways.
In Denmark, the use of cooperatives to involve ordinary citizens in the development of
windpower created a voting constituency invested in the technology that helped propel
the government towards wind- and renewable-friendly policies. Additionally, more than
any other country discussed, Denmark created and protected an internationally
competitive wind industry that now provides thousands of jobs to Danish people—
another constituency invested in windpower. Finally, Denmark’s national government
required local communities to include potential sites for wind turbines in their local
plans, a move which helped to put the issue on the table for many communities,
ultimately simplifying siting issues. In the United States, some projects have run into
significant opposition, while others have moved forward easily. However, there are
no major regulations, such as those in Denmark, which simplify the permitting
process for wind turbines. Local municipalities have control over siting and
permitting of new construction, while States regulate power producers. The situation
is similar in the Netherlands, where a complex permitting process can delay or even
prevent the installation of wind capacity.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 127/142
McCain show strong opposition against standards that require energy generating
form renewable sources.
Noam N. Levey July 1, 2008 (Los Angeles Times Staff Writer;
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-energy1-
2008jul01,0,6377903,full.story )
RPS is unpopular with the GOP, and Oil and Gas companies.
E&E News, 2k7. Accessed via (http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/06/house-approves-
energy-bill-with-modified-rps/) July 2, 2008
Saturday’s vote was the first time the House has considered a national RPS plan,
and the Senate was unable to secure cloture on RPS earlier this year. Johnson said
environmentalists are happy with the vote and potential support in conference from
Speaker Pelosi, Bingaman and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.).”Looking back to where
we were two years ago, trying to stop EPAct, we’ve come a long way,” Johnson added.
In fact, it is now the oil and gas industry trying to stop congressional action. The
House bill would revise the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provisions designed to
accelerate energy production on public lands included by the Natural Resources
Committee over the vocal opposition of oil and gas lobbyists and GOP lawmakers.
The Senate bill does not contain similar language.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 135/142
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
The bill authored by Ensign and Cantwell will also extend the
need to pass the Senate.
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
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 139/142
If any group had the White House wired, it was the electricity industry. The director of its major
lobbying arm, the Edison Electric Institute, roomed at Yale University with George W. Bush.
Electricity generators and marketers contributed $19.7 million to Republicans since 1998, roughly
double what they gave Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And electricity
companies negotiated contracts with administration friends, political operatives and, in one case, a
family member. Take Haley Barbour, former chairman of the Republican National Committee. In the
spring of 2000, the Bush campaign recruited him to help with strategy. A year later, as a lobbyist for
several electricity producers, he pushed Bush and Cheney to renege on a campaign promise to
restrict power plant emissions of carbon dioxide. The gas has been linked to global warming. On March
1, Barbour sent a sternly worded memo on the subject to Cheney. "A moment of truth is arriving," the
note began. Complying with carbon dioxide limits would be so expensive that Bush should reverse his
position, Barbour argued. "Clinton-Gore policies meant less energy and more expensive energy," he
wrote. "Most Americans thought Bush-Cheney would mean more energy, and more affordable energy."
Within weeks, Cheney's task force had adopted the same reasoning on carbon dioxide. Bush cited the
task force position when he announced in March that he had changed his mind.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK 142/142