GDI Dunn RPS Aff

Document Sample
GDI Dunn RPS Aff Powered By Docstoc
					GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                             RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                 1/130
1AC 2                                    CARBON TRADE WAR GOES GLOBAL 76
LDSHP! 39                                PTC KEY TO GEOTHERMAL 96
LDSHP! 40                                RPS SOLVES- SOLAR 97
NAT GAS PRICES HIGH 45                   STATES ANSWERS 103
MANUFACTURING ON BRINK 53                AT: OIL DA 110
ECON !- LAUNDRY LIST 55                  TIX- PLAN POP W PUB 112
ECON !- WAR 56                           TIX- PLAN POP W PUB 113
HIGH NAT GAS= HIGH FERT 58               TIX- PLAN POP W PUB 115
FOOD PRICES= RIOTS 1/2 63                TIX- OBAMA LIKES PLAN 120
FOOD PRICES= RIOTS 2/2 64                TIX- HOUSE DEMS HATE PLAN 121
MUST HELP THE POOR 67                    TIX- GOP HATES PLAN 124
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                             RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                 2/130


Gronewold in 2k8 (Nathanial, E & E News PM, renewable energy, july 1, LN)
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."

Matyi and Howland in 2k8 (Bob and Ethan, Electric Utility Week, Utility executives see federal
climate change delays and a renewables push, May 19, LN)

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                                                       3/130





GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                   RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                        4/130

Mridul, Merinews, Fight Against Climate Change: US outdone by its own. . 2008.
FALLING WAY behind Europe in moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable
energy, America is now being lapped down by its own. States like California and New Mexico are busy
formulating policies, which would ultimately help them generate a good portion of their energy needs from clean,
renewable energy sources. But the Bush administration seems interested not only in mindless
pursuit of oil-based energy generation, but also pushing these initiatives down even
before these are implemented. While suspending solar power plants throughout America, the Bureau of Land
Management argued that such plants may adversely affect the vast desert stretches, where a majority of such plants are
concentrated. The two year moratorium on solar projects on public land comes at a time when both president Bush and
Republican presidential nominee John McCain argue for lifting ban on offshore oil drilling. If solar power projects can have
a decremental affect on the deserts lands, wouldn‘t the proposed offshore oil drilling pose threat to the already ‗on the
edge‘ marine life around the American coastlines. Who can forget the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the recent oil spill
in the San Francisco Bay.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials, under the influence of White House, have
repeatedly taken dubious decisions, which have often been illogical and against the nation‘s interest. Califoronia‘s
proposal of implementing stricter tailpipe emissions standards was squashed under the influence of vice president Dick
Cheney following his meeting with automobile executives last December. Even though the proposal met all criteria and
had unanimous support of the EPA scientists, the EPA chief Stephen Johnson rejected California‘s proposal claiming it
would result into confusion and citing that it was ‗unnecessary‘. Working against the nation‘s interest, the Ozone
standards set by EPA were weakened on President Bush‘s behest. EPA officials initially tried to set a lower seasonal limit
on ozone to protect wildlife, parks and farmland, as required under the law. While their proposal was less restrictive than
what the EPA‘s scientific advisers had proposed, Bush overruled EPA officials and ordered the agency to increase the
limit, according to the documents.―It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference for the president to
personally override a decision that the Clean Air Act leaves exclusively to EPA‘s expert scientific judgment,‖ said John
Walke, clean-air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. While countries around the world are
framing new energy policies centred around renewable energy sources, American
administration lags far behind in promotion and use of clean energy technologies.
Germany, Scotland and Australia provide huge subsidies on solar panels to home-owners
and small industries. In contrast, America allegedly violated international rules to provide
multi-billion subsidies for bio-fuel production at a time when experts around the world
blamed increased bio-fuel production for the food crisis. European nations get a good percentage of
their power generated from renewable energy sources, whereas America gets only two per cent of its total energy from
renewable sources; California does better with 12 per cent.

Abbasi in 2k8 (Daniel, Director of MissionPoint Capital Partners, CQ Congressional Testimony,
promoting private investment in renewable energy projects, LN)

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                                                                                5/130

Space Daily in 2k8 (renewables moving toward competitive role in energy markets, march 6, LN)
Yergin spoke at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC). Hosted
by the United States government, the conference is bringing together more than 5,000 people,
including cabinet-level officials from more than 70 countries, along with civil society and private
sector leaders to discuss the opportunities and challenges of a global, rapid deployment of
renewable energy. "Renewables are already a significant business in terms of tens of billions of
dollars in investment per year," he continued. "But the scale of the existing energy business is
enormous, and we'll only start to see the real impact in terms of market share in the next five to
10 years. "High energy prices, climate change and energy security are converging as the new
engine driving the development of clean energy," Yergin said. "They are being bolstered by public
policy and a major shift in public opinion. All of this is supported by the growing conviction that
new carbon policies will reshape the competitive landscape of the global energy business. "We
are going through a period of what I call the 'great bubbling,' a high degree of innovation all
across the energy spectrum," he said. "This is boosting the competitiveness of renewables and
efficiency, and is also evident in terms of conventional energy."

Business Wire in 2k8 (renewable energy finance forum wall street maps out industry’s future,
june 19, LN)
Over 600 Senior executives from the renewable energy and financial community gathered at
REFF-Wall Street to partake in the leading forum for analysis and discussion around the current
and future state of the renewable energy markets. Attendees at REFF-Wall Street listened as top
analysts forecasted the industry's potential, focusing on the sectors that are strategically
positioned for significant growth ranging from solar power technology to wind power to bio-fuels.
Speakers also drew attention to the wavering political issues threatening continued investments
and the viability of renewable developments as Congress currently debates the extension of
critical investment catalysts like the Investment Tax Credit and the Production Tax Credit. "It is
clear that the answer to our energy challenges will require many different stakeholders to work in
concert together. REFF-Wall Street demonstrates how renewable energy companies, Wall Street
leaders, venture capital investors, and government leaders continue to build momentum of this
important and growing sector," said Nancy Floyd, Founder and Managing Director, Nth Power,
LLC, ACORE Board Member, and co-chair of REFF-Wall Street. In addition to profiling specific
sectors, the conference also delved into broader market trends, shedding light on the latest
developments in industry consolidation and the potential for carbon markets in the United States.
"Each year, we have increasingly seen financial leaders on Wall Street recognize renewable
energy companies as an important growth sector for the US economy. This new reality has
helped launch renewable energy investing into mainstream financial arenas and continues to
drive the momentum of the industry," said Michael Eckhart, President of ACORE. Key findings
unveiled at the event include:
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                       RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                            6/130
The US Department of Energy estimates that wind energy could produce 20 percent of our
electricity by 2030, if annual wind capacity additions increase more than threefold and
transmission capabilities are expanded. According to New Energy Finance, investment levels
from venture capital and private equity investments worldwide experienced a downturn for Q1
2008 ($2.5 billion investment worldwide) but has bounced back for Q2 2008 to ($4.7billion
worldwide). Despite a solid 2nd quarter, strong anecdotal evidence has shown that US business
transactions are slowing due to uncertainty around the status of the Investment Tax Credit and
the Production Tax Credit. The US Government could do more to create a stable investment
climate and put renewable energy on an even playing field with traditional energy sources such
as coal, natural gas and nuclear energy which all enjoy stable long-term investment incentives.
According to a report by GE Financial Services, since 1999 in each of the three years the PTC
was allowed to lapse additions of wind power capacity were down 75%-90% the following year.
Furthermore, the report found the PTC to be revenue positive showing that wind farms built in
2007 will contribute a net present value of $250 million to the US Treasury. "REFF-Wall Street
has shown us that the full forces of American innovation are ready to be deployed to meet our
energy challenges. If our government leaders can provide a stable long term climate for
investment the renewable energy sector will see unprecedented growth, providing extensive
economic opportunities and environmental benefits." John Geesman, Co-Chair of the ACORE
Board of Directors and former California Secretary of Energy. "We are quickly approaching a
critical point in determining the future of our energy dependence and commitment to renewable
energy. The panelists at this conference have made it clear that investment in renewable energy
technology is ready to thrive if we can maintain a stable investment climate.

ROBERT D. ATKINSON; Robert D. Atkinson, vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute, is
author of The Past and Future of America's Economy: Long Waves of Innovation that Power
Cycles of Growth (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005). January 9 2007; Deep Competitiveness
Current proposals to stimulate U.S. competitiveness are necessary but not sufficient to meet the challenges posed by a
rapidly evolving global economy and the aggressive policies of other nations. Competitiveness is the new
buzzword in Washington, DC. Many public and private leaders proclaim that the United
States faces a new and formidable competitiveness challenge. Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats
unveiled their Innovation Agenda in late 2005. President Bush announced his American Competitiveness Initiative in the
2006 State of the Union Address. And Congress has introduced several major legislative packages addressing
competitiveness. But even if Congress were to enact all of the proposed policies—a good thing—they would not go
far enough to ensure the nation‘s continued technological leadership. Part of the reason why
rhetoric is not being sufficiently translated into action is that many people in and out of official circles simply lack a sense of
urgency about the situation. That must change. That lesson is relevant today at the national level. Even with the numerous
reports, books, editorials, conferences, and hearings highlighting the ―gathering storm‖ of global competitiveness, many
leaders are seemingly still not completely convinced. Indeed, the prevailing mood in many quarters and among much of the
economic policy punditry is one of complacency. For these skeptics, the case simply has not been made that the United
States faces a significant competitiveness challenge. For example, in reference to reports citing a
shortage of U.S. graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Newsweek economic columnist Robert
Samuelson claims that it is ―A Phony Science Gap?‖ The Washington Post‘s Sebastian Mallaby agrees, calling it ―The Fake
Science Threat.‖ Mallaby adds that the United States need not feel threatened because China is, after all, just a ―low-wage
country that crams on science.‖ He further claims that China‘s efforts in moving aggressively ahead with science and
technology–led economic development are irrelevant because ―innovation depends neither on low wages nor science.‖ the
united states must work harder to ensure that national economic development strategies
around the world are based on positive-sum strategies such as investing more in science
and technology, building infrastructure, and boosting education, and not on negative-sum mercantilist strategies
.Really? Although a low-wage country that crams on science might not produce the next Intel, Google, or Apple (although it
has produced technology companies such as Lenovo and Legand), it can and does attract (and sometimes coerce)
innovation-based multinational companies to set up production there. Developing countries do not need to grow strong
domestic companies to have a more innovation-based economy as long as they are able to attract innovation-based
activities. In other words, low wages and high science are a powerful combination.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                     RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                          7/130

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.

Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, Washington Quarterly, Spring, 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude
the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the
best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but
because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous
advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American
values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a
better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts.
Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling
the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant
dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more
conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                      8/130


NEED (national energy education development,), Promotes energy awareness through education
and networks of students, educators, business, government and community leaders, Natural Gas,
2007, online:
People in the energy industry use two special terms when they talk about how much natural
gas there is – resources and reserves. Natural gas resources include all the deposits of gas
that are still in the ground waiting to be tapped. Natural gas reserves are only those gas deposits
that geologists know, or strongly believe, can be recovered given today‘s prices and drilling
technology. In other words, when geologists estimate the amount of known gas reserves, they do
not include gas deposits that may be discovered in the future or gas deposits that are not
economical to produce given today‘s prices. The United States has large reserves of natural
gas. Most reserves are in the Gulf of Mexico and in the following state: Texas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming, Kansas, and Alaska. If we continue to use natural gas at
the same rate as we use it today, the United states has about a 30-50 year supply of
natural gas, through another 200 years of gas supplies could be produced if people are
willing ot pay more for the gas they use.

Gronewold in 2k8 (Nathanial, staff writer, Environment and Energy News, oil and gas: busy
hurricane season forecast for gulf of mexico, june 26, LN)

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                                                                                                        9/130
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.

Mark Trumbul, The Christian Science Monitor, June 5, 2008. The Beacon, ―SLOWDOWN
COULD BE CONFINED TO HOUSING MARKET Profile of a (Maybe) Recession‖
But recessions involve a sharp slowdown in economic activity well beyond housing and
construction. Mr. Leamer says that the manufacturing sector generally plays the pivotal role, in
terms of job losses, during recessions. After the last US recession, which occurred in 2001, US factories never
went on a hiring spree, and this year's economic slowdown so far hasn't spawned manufacturing layoffs at typical
recession rates. Housing's fallout Still, the housing downturn has not only cost lots of construction and banking jobs.
Through home-price declines, it's also devouring trillions of dollars in consumer wealth – which in recent years had been a
source of cash through home-equity loans and "cash-out" refinancing of mortgages. That could make it hard for the
economy to enter a strong growth phase. The crunch doesn't affect everyone equally. Some families are hard-hit by
mortgage rate resets for example, while millions of others are renters or people who own homes without a mortgage. But
housing troubles could make it hard for consumers overall to spend a lot more, even if they don't dramatically cut
spending. A panel of economists is watching what happens now, and will ultimately have to make that call. Members of
the panel caution against reading too much into the fact that GDP didn't turn negative in the preliminary first-quarter
numbers released at the end of April. "Employment is falling," says Jeffrey Frankel, one of seven members of the
business cycle dating committee, an arm of the private National Bureau of Economic Research. It may be that a recession
has simply been postponed, not avoided, he says. Mr. Frankel, a Harvard University economist, notes that the housing
slump is one of several forces buffeting consumers. "There's every reason to think that the household is
going to have to cut back on consumption," Frankel says. Still, he says it's conceivable that a recession could
be avoided. "We're very cautious and wait until everything is finished," before deciding that a recession began in a certain
month, he says. An economy on edge Often, a shorthand definition of recession is two quarters where GDP falls. The
National Bureau's business cycle dating committee doesn't have such a specific criteria. On its website, the group says
there must be a "a significant decline in economic activity" for more than a few months, visible in several indicators
beyond just GDP. Right now, those indicators show an economy on the edge. A comparison of activity levels
now with three months before show that three indicators declined, while two others are up. GDP, measured quarterly, is
rising at a 0.6 percent annual rate. The amount of inflation-adjusted income in the economy is also rising. (But in a
worrisome counterpoint, average non-supervisory wages haven't been keeping pace with inflation over the past year.)
Employment, industrial production, retail sales all show declines. Jobs often hold the key. So far, the labor
market hasn't deteriorated as sharply as it has heading into past recessions, but the trend also
doesn't look encouraging. A weak job market has contributed to recent declines in consumer
confidence. The continuing run-up in oil prices is also hammering consumers. It acts like a tax, as energy expenses
leave people with less to spend elsewhere in the economy.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                   RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                      10/130

Thomas E. Bearden, Retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel and director of the Association of
Distinguished American Scientists, CEO of CTEC Inc., Fellow Emeritus at the Alpha Foundation's
Institute for Advanced Study, 6/24/2K, "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly", (Victor)
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress
on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As
an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including
U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China -- whose long-range nuclear
missiles (some) can reach the United States -- attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual
treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it
significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a
few nukes are launched,adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on
perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin
that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As
               rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD
the studies showed,
                                                                          The resulting great
arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}.
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for
many decades.

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                                                                                                           11/130
Mario Osava; FinalCall News; Jun 11, 2008; High fertilizer prices compound global food crisis;
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.

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                                                                                                          12/130
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,
   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.

Furman in 2k8 (Donald, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Transmission and Policy
Iberdrola Renewables, CQ Congressional Testimony, Transmission of renewable electricity, June
17, LN)
According to a report released last month by the Department of Energy2, wind power on its own
could supply twenty percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States by 2030.3 The
benefits would be enormous:
--Electric sector greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by 25 percent;
--The amount of natural gas required to generate electricity would be cut by 50 percent and
United States gas consumption would be 11 percent lower overall - helping to limit our reliance on
energy imports and reducing consumer energy costs;
--Because water is not required to operate wind farms, water consumption would be reduced by 4
trillion gallons;
--Approximately 500,000 new jobs would be created; and
--Local tax revenues would rise by more than $1.5 billion.4
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                    13/130

Furman in 2k8 (Donald, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Transmission and Policy
Iberdrola Renewables, CQ Congressional Testimony, Transmission of renewable electricity, June
17, LN)

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                                                                                                      14/130

Statfor, Stratfor is the world‘s leading online publisher of geopolitical intelligence, November 29,
2007, accessed July 2, 2008, Global Market Brief: Carbon Tariffs as New Protectionism,
Available at:

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.

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                                                                                                        15/130
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                                                                                                        16/130

(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.

Paul Ames in 2k8 The Seattle Post Intelligencer, 3.15.2008,
European Union leaders yesterday threatened the United States and China with trade sanctions if
the world's two biggest polluters don't commit to ambitious cuts in greenhouse gases by next
year. The warning was given as the economic downturn focused European leaders on the impact
on industry of their groundbreaking agreement last year to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent
from 1990 levels by 2020.EU leaders want similar commitments from other major economies by
next year, when a conference on global warming is to take place in Copenhagen.Otherwise, they
say, European companies will need protection from unfair competition from heavily polluting rivals
in China and the United States, the world's biggest emitters of carbon dioxide.In a declaration
issued after a two-day summit, the 27 EU leaders warned, "If international negotiations fail,
appropriate measures can be taken" to protect European industry.President Nicolas Sarkozy of
France went further. "Our main concern is to set up a mechanism that would allow us to strike
against the imports of countries that don't play by the rules of the game on environmental
protection," he told reporters yesterday.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                              RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                 17/130
Raymond J. Ahearn in 2006 (Specialist in International Trade and Finance, ―CRS Report for
Congress‖, 26 July 2006,
U.S.-EU trade disputes have focused increasingly on differences in regulation, rather than
traditional barriers such as tariffs or subsidies. Regulatory requirements established primarily
with legitimate domestic concerns of consumer and environmental protection or public health in
mind do not discriminate (at least directly) between domestic and imported goods and services.
But they may have the secondary effect of distorting or discriminating against the free
flow of international trade, which in turn leads to disputes. For this reason, transatlantic
regulatory disputes can be more bitter and difficult to resolve than traditional trade
disputes, in so far as both sides feel their actions are justified by democratically derived
decisions. In this context, such disputes are often difficult to resolve within the context of
the WTO because they require a balancing of domestic concerns with international

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                                                                                     18/130
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                                                                                                       19/130

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
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                              RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                 20/130

Environment and Energy in 2k8 (renewable energy: high commodity prices hurt, but industry
backers see bright future, june 20, LN)
Indeed, analysts are still bullish about the future of solar and wind in energy. New Energy
Finance, in fact, delivered this bold prediction: Solar power would achieve grid parity, or a price
per kilowatt-hour competitive with coal and natural gas, in sunnier climates by 2012 as
burgeoning production and a future oversupply of silicon bring the price of photovoltaic
technology down. Supporting investment with tax credits Many here expressed confidence that
the renewable energy industry will survive the commmodity-price storm and perhaps even
emerge stronger for it. But venture capitalists warned that the uncertain policy environment, with
Congress wavering over the renewal of tax credits, is starting to push newcomers away. "There is
concern about investing in a subsidy-driven industry," said Neil Auerbach, a manager at the
venture capital firm Hudson Clean Energy Partners. Many experts and government officials are
urging clean energy developers to start taking the steps necessary to wean themselves off
dependence on federal tax policy. But Phil Spector, a specialist in renewable energy finance and
tax law at Troutman Sanders LLP, said that would be impossible in the short term, since the
entire U.S. industry has designed itself around the federal tax benefits that investors factor into
project planning. "The cost to generate a kilowatt-hour of solar energy still far exceeds the cost to
generate a kilowatt-hour of coal-fired or gas-fired energy," Spector said. "From a financier's
perspective, if the sources of revenue from a project were just the PPA revenue and the RECs
[renewable energy credits], it wouldn't be enough to be competitive with other investments."

Furman in 2k8 (Donald, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Transmission and Policy
Iberdrola Renewables, CQ Congressional Testimony, Transmission of renewable electricity, June
17, LN)
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and thank you for holding this important hearing. My name is Donald N. Furman. I am
Senior Vice President of Business Development, Transmission and Policy for Iberdrola
Renewables, an energy company that, among other things, is engaged in the development and
operation of wind and solar electric generating facilities. Iberdrola Renewables is the leading
generator of wind energy worldwide and is the second largest wind energy generator in the
United States. Assuming that Congress acts to further extend renewable energy tax credits,
Iberdrola Renewables plans to invest at least $8 billion between now and 2010 in wind and solar
energy projects located in the United States. I am also appearing here today on behalf of the
American Wind Energy Association where I serve on the Board of Directors and as Chairman of
the Transmission Committee.1 In a prior job, I ran the transmission business for a large,
multistate utility in the West. As a result, I have had the opportunity to view transmission issues
from the perspective of both a transmission developer/operator and a transmission customer.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                  RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                      21/130
Space Daily in 2k8 (staff writers, solar could provide 10% of us electricity generation by 2025,
   A new study makes the case that solar power is emerging as a cost-effective hedge against fossil
   fuels and is likely to reach cost parity with retail-electricity rates in most regions of the U.S.
   in less than a decade. The Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study, produced by clean-tech research and
   publishing firm Clean Edge and green-economy nonprofit Co-op America, provides a comprehensive roadmap for
                                                                               The study finds that
   utilities, solar companies, and regulators to reach 10% solar in the U.S. by 2025.
   significantly scaling solar power in the U.S. will require the active involvement of utilities.
   The study delivers a to-do list for the three key stakeholders in the nation's solar industry. Among others,
   the action items include: For utilities: Take advantage of the unique value of solar for peak generation and
   alleviating grid congestion; implement solar as part of the build-out of the smart grid; and adapt to new market
   realities with new business models. For solar companies: Bring installed solar systems costs to $3 per peak watt
   or less by 2018; streamline installations; and make solar a truly plug-and-play technology. For regulators and
   policy makers: Pass a long-term extension of investment and production tax credits for
   solar and other renewables; establish open standards for solar interconnection; and give utilities the ability
   to "rate-base" solar. The USA Study also reports that: - For the first time solar power is beginning to
   reach cost parity with conventional energy sources. As solar prices decline and the capital and fuel
   costs for coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants rise, the U.S. will reach a crossover point by around 2015. -
   Installed solar PV prices are projected to decline from an average $5.50-$7.00 peak watt (15-32 cents kWh) today
   to $3.02-$3.82 peak watt (8-18 cents kWh) in 2015 to $1.43-$1.82 peak watt (4-8 cents kWh) by 2025. -
   power offers a number of advantages over conventional energy sources. Among them, the
   ability to deliver energy at or near the point of use, zero fuel costs, minimal maintenance
   requirements and zero carbon-based source emissions. The investment to arrive at 10% solar in
   the U.S. is not small, reaching $450 billion to $560 billion between now and 2025, an average of $26 billion to $33
   billion per year. However, given utilities' existing capital costs such an investment is not prohibitive. To put the
   investment in perspective: Utilities spent an estimated $70 billion on new power plants and transmission and
                                   "One of the big takeaways from this report is that, in many
   distribution systems in 2007 alone.
   ways, the future of solar is in the hands of utilities," said Ron Pernick, Clean Edge
   cofounder and managing director and USA Study coauthor. "Reaching 10 percent of our
   electricity from solar sources by 2025 will require the active participation of utilities along
   with the support and participation of regulators and solar technology companies."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                             RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                22/130

No renewables legislation coming in the status quo
Martin LaMonica, staff writer,, Renewable-energy pros plead president,
Congress for tax credit. March 3
  Called in to make a public case for renewing the investment tax credit and production tax
  credit at the press conference are: Credit Suisse Vice Chairman John Cavalier; energy
  venture capitalist Nancy Floyd from Nth Power; the head of GE's renewable-energy
  financing division, Kevin Walsh; former California Energy Commissioner John Geesman;
  and Dan Reicher, director of climate change and energy initiatives at, who is
  also co-chair of ACORE. But for all the high-powered pressure, prospects are not looking
  very good. The House earlier this month passed another bill which, like previous
  attempts, proposes paying for the tax credit by closing an existing tax incentive on oil
  and gas companies. The Senate has twice failed to pass the measure, and President
  Bush threatened to veto such a measure late last year. Even the head of the Solar
  Energy Industry Association of America, Rhone Resch, predicted that paying for tax
  incentives by trying to pull back oil company tax breaks is unlikely to succeed. In an
  interview with VentureBeat, Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen called the policy
  uncertainty "really embarrassing." At an investor conference last month, Resch said that
  the solar industry is trying to create a coalition of utilities, homebuilders, and
  environmentalists to get a long-term set of financial rules in place. Worst case scenario is to
  try to get a one-year extension at the end of this year, he said. Meanwhile, President
  Bush is scheduled to address WIREC conference attendees on Wednesday morning.

  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                                                                           23/130

No national RPS coming.
Aiman El-Ramly, Staff Writer, Renewable Energy World Magazine, Investment: Does
Investment in Renewable Stack up, June 24
  The Renewable Portfolio Standard in California established by Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078,
  Sher, Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) which became effective in September, 2002 was the
  most progressive policy at that time. The goals included requirements for each electrical
  corporation to increase its total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at
  least an additional 1% of retail sales per year to reach a target of 20% of retail sales
  procured from eligible sources by 2010. Senate Bill 107 made it state law. This target was
  revised in 2005 by the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities
  Commission with the goal increased to 33% and the deadline pushed to 2020. The revised
  standard has not yet been legislated, however. Furthermore, even though there is no
  federal policy in regard to RPS, there were attempts to develop the policy at the
  national level in the US. The Democratic-controlled US House passed a Federal
  Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) House energy bill (H.R. 969). Originally the bill
  required that 20% of the nation’s electricity come from renewable energy by 2020.
  However, this goal was reduced to 15% by 2020 allowing states to meet 27% of that
  mandate through energy efficiency measures and trade credits.

Congress has recently rejected plans for a nationwide RPS
Stacy Feldman ,staff writer, Renewable Portfolio Standards: America’s Clean Energy
 April 24 2008
  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.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                       RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                          24/130

The US is currently doing very little to increase the use of renewable energy
M. K Heiman. Staff writer, Science Direct. Expectations for renewable energy under
market restructuring: the U.S. experience.
June 06.
  The 1992 Energy Policy Act encouraged states to open up electricity provision to market
  competition. Many analysts predicted that renewable energy would take off in the
  deregulated market where consumers could choose their power provider and utilities
  would no longer be enticed to build large central power plants under guaranteed rates of
  return. This article outlines the flaws with that expectation. Absent a strong federal
  commitment, the states continue to lead with support for renewable energy. However
  the base from which to expand is so low, and the level of support so tenuous, that
  renewable energy will continue to play only a minor role in meeting U.S. energy
  demands with current policy in place. Furthermore, the evidence does not support the
  expectation that market restructuring, in and of itself, leads to a stronger state
  commitment to renewable energy. The failure of renewable energy to become a major
  component of the U.S. energy mix is not due to any intrinsic problem with the
  technology employed, nor with the cost of generation. Rather weak penetration may be
  attributed to broader forces exacerbated by market restructuring and overcome only
  through strong and reliable federal intervention in support of renewable energy.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                              RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                 25/130


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.

The PTC is set to expire at the end of this year
Business Week in 2k8 (Wind, The Power. The Promise. The Business, july 7, LN)
Even the big players need government help to get major wind projects off the ground. Twenty-five
states require their utilities to use a percentage of renewable energy, and in all of them,
alternative-energy projects rely on the federal government's production tax credit. That expires at
the end of this year, so wind advocates are pressing Congress to renew it. In the past, every time
it was allowed to expire, wind development plummeted the following year.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                           RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                              26/130

There is no extension of the production tax credit coming now-this risks the collapse of
the wind industry
Dibenedetto in 2k8 (Bill, Shipping Digest, Energy Department seeks to boost wind energy, june
30, LN)
The U.S. has been the fastest-growing wind power market during the past three years, according
to the Department of Energy. Wind power capacity increased 46 percent in 2007, and $9 billion
was invested in new plants that year. A DOE report in May said a collaborative effort to provide
20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030 is feasible if challenges surrounding production,
technology, capital costs and transmission are resolved. In June, the DOE joined forces with six
major wind turbine makers as part of the effort to increase wind energy production enough to
meet the 20 percent goal by 2030. The department and GE, Vestas, Siemens Power Generation,
Clipper Turbine Works, Suzlon Energy and Gamesa Corp. signed a memorandum of
understanding to "advance wind energy manufacturing and address issues such as turbine
reliability and standards, site strategies and work force development." A major challenge is cost,
which underscores the continuing need for the production tax credit, which is set to expire in
December. Wind turbine prices and installed project costs have increased dramatically since
2002, driven by the weak U.S. dollar, increased prices for materials and energy, and shortages in
certain turbine components. The DOE has warned that the wind power boom could deflate
quickly if the tax credit is not extended. On June 10, Senate Republicans blocked the Renewable
Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, which would have extended the tax credits for the wind and
solar industries.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                       RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                          27/130

The global renewable energy Markey is growing
UNEP, United Nations Environment Program, coordinates United Nations environmental
activities, assisting developing countries in implementing environmentally sound policies and
encourages sustainable development through sound environmental practices, 2007, online
accessed July 2, 2008

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) ( in collaboration with the Worldwatch Institute
(, 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-
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                    28/130

The current renewable energy policies are killing U.S competitiveness and hurting
the renewable-energy industry as a whole.
Martin LaMonica, staff writer,, Renewable-energy pros plead president,
Congress for tax credit. March 3
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                                                                                                       29/130

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,‖
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                                                                              30/130


We must act now-European companies are taking advantage of market opportunities
UPI Energy in 2k8 (United Press International Energy, Spanish solar firms flock to US, feb 25,
Spanish companies are bringing more solar power to the United States. The sun-catching mirrors
in the deserts of the Southwestern United States are powering air conditioners in the casinos of
Las Vegas and restaurants of Phoenix, the U.S. Department of Energy Resources Engineering
reported. The Acciona firm inaugurated the third-largest solar-energy plant in the world in
Nevada last week with 182,000 curved mirrors that are capable of lighting 14,000 homes. Nevada
Solar One can generate 64 megawatts of electricity and is the biggest built anywhere in the world
in the last 17 years, according to Acciona. But it won't keep its title for long, since in 2011 an
installation of the Spanish company Abengoa is planned to start up in Arizona. The installation,
Solana, will generate 280 megawatts of power, enough to light 70,000 homes, Abengoa said.
Both projects reflect the interest of European companies in entering the comparatively less-
developed market for renewable energy in the United States. Last week Germany's Schott
company announced that it will build another solar-energy generating plant near Albuquerque,
N.M. "Spanish companies see a tremendous opportunity in the U.S. market," said Alberto Nadal,
economic and trade counselor at the Spanish Embassy in Washington.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                   31/130

The US is falling behind on renewable energy technology; hurting the economy
Denis Du Bois, editor of Energy Priorities Magazine, April 22, 2006, ―US Energy
Industry Falling Behind World, Says Weather Makers Author‖, Energy Priorities
    "The U.S. is being left behind in the race to capitalize on the new intellectual property
   that will drive the new energy economy," Tim Flannery declared in an NPR interview last
   week. "That would be a tragedy for this country." In the 1970s, the US was a world leader
   in wind and solar energy technology, explained Flannery. That lead has since been lost
   to Germany, Japan, Denmark and Britain. The world has recognized that it cannot go on
   generating greenhouse gases at the current pace. The U.S. and other non-Kyoto
   countries, such as Australia, are not investing in areas that will lead to new, low-
   emissions technology, and they are being left behind. Already behind, I would say. By
   not backing its renewable power industry, the U.S. is missing opportunities to be the
   leader in these technologies -- and missing out on jobs and revenue from the energy
   tech sector. When it comes to clean energy, it's up to other countries to set the pace for
   the world, and to set the example for emerging economies.

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
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                                                                                                     32/130


Transitioning to alternative energy is key to the economy.
Horwood 07, Euromoney editor, (Clive, ―The New Color of Money‖, Euromoney, Sept. 07 lexis)
And the people who run the world's major financial institutions have changed their
attitudes too. They believe that business has to change, and therefore that they have to change with it. Many feel
banks have to do more - that in their privileged positions as intermediaries they can be agents of
that change. And the commitments are huge - generally announced already in the multi-
billions of dollars, and with a lot more to come. Could the banks' enthusiasm be running
ahead of reality? Even the world's most prominent environmentalist, former US vice-president Al Gore, thinks it
might be, but for understandable reasons. "In some cases the commitment of larger banking institutions has run ahead of
the expertise and knowledge that currently exists," he says. "And that's OK. It's right to try to understand the
best ways to maximize the opportunities. It's a massive shift, and it's going to pick up
speed and be one of the largest movements in the history of business."(See full interview on
page 106.) Unsurprisingly perhaps, top of the tree is the world's most global bank - Citi. This year it
announced a commitment to invest at least $50 billion in the environment over the next 10
years. Senior Citi bankers say it is merely a "first pass" and expect to exceed the number handily. It's rare today to meet
any senior banker who doesn't tell you that green finance is near the top of his agenda. A major bank CEO told
Euromoney in June: "I'm not investing anything in this until someone proves the science to me." Unless he's the only
honest man in finance, he's in a minority of one. But science aside, there's a simple reason why banks
are investing heavily in green finance - the market is going to get hot. Perhaps the most
truthful bank CEO puts it this way: "We've invested over $1 billion in clean-tech
businesses. They're doing a great job finding ways to clean up energy. And we're gonna
make a lot of money out of this stuff." Bigger than globalization Just how big can green finance
become? How long, you might ask, is a piece of string. "The economic transformation
driven by climate change, we believe, will be more profound and deeper than globalization,
as energy is so fundamental to economic growth ," says Ted Roosevelt, a managing director at Lehman
Brothers who heads the firm's environmental strategy as chairman of its Global Council on Climate Change. The logic
appears sensible. "The impact on funding markets will be transformational ," says Michael Klein,
chairman and co-CEO of Citi Markets and Banking. "The sectors that will be most affected by dealing
with climate change are infrastructure, transport, energy and technology. These can
account for up to half the global financing needed in any given year. The impact on
financing could be hundreds of billions of dollars."

The US economy will benefit greatly if we switch to more renewable energy
Max Baucus, chairman on the Committeee on Finance, June 14, 2007, ―Baucus Tax
Package Promotes Clean Energy‖,
     “It is critical for our country’s economic security and competitiveness to change
    direction on energy policy and make investments in renewable energy, energy efficient
    automobiles, carbon sequestration and cellulosic ethanol. And we must be fiscally
    responsible in finding new and better ways to fuel America and break our dependence
    on foreign oil,” said Baucus. “The large oil companies are likely to see profits
    approaching a trillion dollars over the next ten years, and so we divert less than one
    percent of their profits to America’s energy security.”
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                    RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                       33/130

Renewables are huge and they just keep growing- US action now is key to compete with
Chinese and developing countries alternative energy initiatives
Litovsky 07, senior advior at AccountAbility (Alejandro, ―The Accountability challenge for climate
The building of a "de-carbonised society" is a huge challenge, but early indicators show
that it is not an unrealistic goal. From South Korea to Algeria, developing countries are showing
practical solutions to champion renewable-energy competitiveness. China is becoming the
world's leader in renewable energy. A new report by the Worldwatch Institute suggests that it is on
course to exceed the target of obtaining 15% of its energy from renewable energy in 2020,
and reach up to 30% by 2050. China's leadership in technology manufacturing will have global implications, but
protective trade barriers in industrialised countries are becoming an obstacle to its growth. Alternative energy has
become a big market. The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) estimated that in 2006, $100
billion were flowing into renewable energy and efficiency technologies. The majority is
being invested in Europe and the United States, but 21% has gone to developing countries
and 9% to China. "Amid much discussion about the 'technologies of tomorrow'", said Yvo de Boer, the executive
secretary of the UN convention on climate change in response to the report, "the finance sector believes the existing
technologies of today can and will 'decarbonise' the energy mix, provided the right policies and incentives are in place at
the international level." Scaling-up alternative energies will require a broad-range of
stakeholders to share goals and build effective collaborations. Much depends on
government policies: from lowering investor risks to new regulation, such as feed-in
tariffs, which allow renewable energies to flourish in mainstream electricity markets. But
individual governments can achieve little if the international patterns of investment in
energy infrastructure, trade rules, and energy policy benchmarks are misaligned with this
goal. Here the climate diplomacy can make a distinctive difference. Achieving the right economic
incentives depends on getting accountability right. For example, the vertical lines of accountability
within the UN system set up for climate, and within the climate delegations and their respective governments, do not
contemplate the objective of brokering clean-development "deals" with the energy-investment community in return for
emissions-reduction commitments by countries. Many of the proposals that have been made for the
post-2012 climate regime point in the right direction, but none offer guidance on how to
improve this governance problem. For example, the Tallberg Foundation's proposal argues that
industrialised countries should offer emerging economies a package-deal in the form of a
climate partnership, to help facilitate the transition to a "no-carbon economy".
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                        RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                           34/130

US needs to invest in alternative energy to improve competitiveness.
Energy Security, Innovation, & Sustainability Initiative 07 (―Provoke. Discussion Draft: The
Energy-Competitiveness Relationship‖,
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                  RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                    35/130

GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                        RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                          36/130

Energy competitiveness is key to US power internationally.
Energy Security, Innovation, & Sustainability Initiative 07 (―Provoke. Discussion Draft:
The Energy-Competitiveness Relationship‖, )
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                              RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                                 37/130

Strong economic competitiveness is uniquely key to US leadership in a globalized
system of power-renewable tech solves
   Bruce W. Jentleson | Monday, August 06, 2007; Globalist Paper > Global Economy Inner
   Strength: U.S. Economic Competitiveness and the Lessons of Tonya Harding
   There are plenty of analyses that focus on threats to the U.S. position from the outside — but threats from within are
                                                                             the United States'
   equally important. As Bruce Jentleson argues in his three-part series, the domestic foundations of
   global role have eroded in the Bush years, undermining the inner strength on which U.S.
   global leadership must rest. They must be revitalized if the United States is to reclaim
   and sustain its global role raditionally, America’s global role has rested on three
   principal domestic foundations: First, an economy secure and competitive enough to
   provide both global economic leadership and domestic prosperity. Second, a political
   system widely seen as the model democracy. And third, a society blending individual
   opportunity and a shared sense of community. Economic lessons There is no more globally
   competitive arena than the Olympics. Back in the 1994 Winter Olympics, the figure skater Tonya Harding tried one strategy
   for winning: Make your opponent less competitive — even if it means breaking her kneecaps. There is not much we
   Americans can do about other nations' focus on strengthening themselves. But there's a lot we need to do about self-
   weakening. That didn’t work out very well. It’s much better, in the Olympics and most other competitions, to work hard
   to make oneself as competitive as possible. The United States needs to take the lessons of Tonya Harding to heart in
   facing up to the economic challenges of this global era. Sure, China and India and other rising economic competitors need
   to play by the rules. But for all the focus on what they are doing to become more competitive, the fundamental problems
   have more to do with what we Americans are doing to ourselves — and not doing for ourselves. Our domestic economic
   vulnerability is increasing. Our international economic competitiveness is decreasing.
   Biotechnology Technological innovativeness has served us Americans well in the past and can do so again — if supported
                                            the United States can do to meet major
   The Manhattan and Apollo projects demonstrated what
   scientific-technological-economic-political challenges and facilitated by policies such as
   those in the bipartisan America Competes Act currently being considered in Congress. This legislation would substantially
   increase research and education funding in the public, private and non-profit sectors, emphasizing both basic research and
   applied, as well as developing a more strategically organized governmental “innovation infrastructure.”
   Biotechnology is a good example where U.S. competitiveness has been sustained by
   business, finance, universities and government working together. In this case, states such as
   California which have fought back against the religious-political “war on science” sufficiently that the University of California
   is the second-largest biotech patent holder in the world. New technologies Green technologies are another area of
   unfulfilled, yet enormous potential. The Manhattan and Apollo projects demonstrated what the United States can do to
                                                      Were a new administration to launch a
   meet major scientific-technological-economic-political challenges.
   national “Project Earth” with comparable priority, the results could be equally
   successful. With environmental protection increasingly seen as a growth industry, at
   least some of the private sector is being incentivized.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                              RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                 38/130

Competitiveness key to the economy and US leadership
KARIN FISCHER; September 14, 2007; Section: Government & Politics Volume 54, Issue 3,
Page A16 Concerns Over Economic Competitiveness Will Test the Next
 Fifteen years ago, advisers to the presidential candidate Bill Clinton kept reminding campaign
staff members of a central issue facing the country and his campaign: "It's the economy, stupid."
Economic concerns are again likely to be key in 2008. But this time around, the potential
campaign promises aimed at maintaining the U.S. economy, such as increasing federal spending
on basic research and enhancing mathematics and science education, are hard to fit on a
bumper sticker or condense into a sound bite. Higher-education officials and political observers
say that whoever takes office in January 2009 will play an important role in setting the federal
agenda for research and science education. "The next president will be hit between the eyes
by the full force of global competition and the realization that 21st-century jobs will follow
knowledge, innovation, and expertise wherever it is found in the world," says Charles M.
Vest, president of the National Academy of Engineering. "He or she will have to follow Thomas
Paine's advice, 'Lead, follow, or get out of the way.'" Mr. Vest, a former president of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, helped write an influential report from the National
Academies in October 2005 warning that the United States would soon face an acute shortage of
scientists and engineers, which could undermine the country's global lead in trade and jeopardize
its ability to compete. The report helped galvanize policy makers in Washington. Last month
President Bush signed legislation that will put in place, at least in part, several of the academies'
major recommendations, including significantly increasing federal spending on physical-science
research and intensifying efforts to train more science teachers. Supporters call the new law an
important first step and say the United States cannot afford to stand still.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                         RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                            39/130

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:, 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                                                                             40/130

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
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                              RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                 41/130


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,
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                                                                                42/130

Failure to extend renewable tax credits and implement an RPS undermines US
environmental leadership
Merolli in 2k8 (Paul, Oil Daily, Bush: US Leading on Climate, Renewables, March 6,
However, critics still say the US is not going far enough or moving quickly enough. Germany 's
Hermann Scheer , general chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy, on Tuesday
called for the US to return to its role as a frontrunner in advancing renewables , as it was in the
1970s. And BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward told WIREC that any serious change in global
energy consumption must start in the US , while also noting America 's failure to implement a
carbon-pricing mechanism to help combat climate change ( OD Mar.5 ,p4 ). Indeed, as recently
as last week, Bush threatened to veto a bill passed by the House of Representatives that would
extend incentives for renewable energy by repealing $18 billion worth of tax breaks for the oil and
gas industry ( OD Feb.27 ,p1 ).
In his speech Wednesday, Bush emphasized the advancement of wind power in electrical
generation during his administration, citing a 300% increase since he took office and noting that
legislation he enacted when he was governor of Texas has made that state the biggest wind
power state in the country. "If an oil state can produce wind energy, other states in America can
produce wind energy," he said. However, in December Bush threatened to veto EISA if it included
a federal renewable portfolio standard that would have required 15% of all US power generation
to come from renewable sources. Bush only signed the bill after Congress removed the proposal,
which he claimed was unfair to states that lacked sufficient wind and solar power capabilities.

RPS will make the US a top energy competitor
Ron Pernick, Clean Edge Inc. November 13, 2006,
Chief among this new direction should be policies and programs that make America the
most competitive in the world when it comes to the development of clean-energy sources
and energy efficient technologies that eliminate our reliance on polluting sources of fossil
fuels and stop the flow of money to volatile oil-rich regions. The U.S. has always been a
bastion of technology innovation -- and we believe it can lead once again with new, cost-
competitive forms of advanced solar energy; plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; massive wind
turbines; and cellulosic ethanol made from agricultural and forestry wastes and native
grasses -- to name just a few.

In addition, the U.S. can lead in policy innovation to support the growth of clean energy. By
shifting our support from conventional energy sources (nuclear, oil, coal, and natural gas
which have received significant subsidies for decades) to the high-growth, technology-driven
solar, wind, fuel cells, and biofuels industries -- the U.S. can lead once again in the next-wave
of growth, investment and innovation. A range of policy tools at the Federal and state levels,
including Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), R&D support, government-based
procurement programs and production tax credits, can drive innovation at multiple levels.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                            RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                               43/130

A strong political commitment by the Federal Government to develop renewable energy is
necessary to reverse this inevitable decline in U.S. competitiveness
Roberts – writes about the energy industry for Harper's Magazine – 5-23-2004 (Paul, Los
Angeles Times, ―Power Outage; The U.S. is falling far behind its rivals in developing alternative
energy sources,‖ p.M1)
Back several decades, when the Arab embargo and the price spikes of the 1970s made the
oil economy appear obsolescent, Americans dominated the search for alternatives, such as
solar and wind power, in the hopes of cutting U.S. oil imports. Government agencies
lavished funding on research into solar technologies. Congress granted tax breaks to
citizens and companies that bought solar equipment, and it required utilities to buy any
excess electricity generated by solar systems or wind farms. America seemed on the verge of an energy
revolution. Industry too was on board. Exxon, Arco and Mobil invested heavily in solar
technology - not to put it out of business, as some conspiracy theorists believe, or because
they thought that solar was intrinsically better than oil, but simply for insurance: If solar
did become cost-competitive, Big Oil hoped to control that market as well. By the mid-
1980s, however, the U.S. solar boom had gone bust. Oil prices had fallen dramatically,
removing a key incentive for non-oil technologies. Costs for alternatives, such as solar,
were still too high to compete with traditional energy sources, such as oil or coal. But the
deeper problem was simply that government support had vanished. Even as the Reagan
administration moved aggressively to rejuvenate American oil, gas and coal production, providing tax
breaks and subsidies worth billions of dollars, the White House was openly hostile to
alternative energy. The administration cut R&D funding, and in a grand, symbolic gesture ripped out the
solar panels that had been installed on the White House roof by Reagan's Democratic predecessor, Jimmy Carter. Yet even as
                                                                        Both Germany and Japan began
America rediscovered fossil fuels, quite another strategy was unfolding elsewhere:
aggressively pushing research in solar, wind and other alternatives. Just as important, both
countries have moved to build new markets for alternative technologies - for instance, by
subsidizing homeowner purchases of solar panels or helping farmers who want to install
wind turbines. By creating more demand, these programs have increased the number of
solar cells or wind turbines being manufactured, which is driving down the unit costs -
ideally, to the point where alternatives can compete directly with conventional energy. The
results are encouraging. Joachim Luther, director of Germany's Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, a
leading solar research center in the world, is upbeat. He says that if current trends in research continue, by as early as 2008
solar energy could be competing, without government subsidies, against coal or gas in sunny regions, such as the
Mediterranean, the Middle East and the American Southwest. To be sure, solar will never replace fossil fuels outright. Solar
panels take up a lot of space, and their manufacture has its own environmental downsides. Yet solar is growing fast - at 21% a
year, or about as fast as cellphones in their early years - and with continued government support and targeted research, this
technology could make up a significant portion of the energy mix in the future, thus helping to reduce some of the
environmental, political and economic liabilities of our current fossil fuel-dominated system.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                   RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                      44/130


The finite supply of natural gas reserves are only expected to last 120 years
NESEA, Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, “Natural Gas”, 2004 Online: 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                                                                              45/130

Natural gas prices are going through the roof – people are skipping meals to afford
their bill.
Cleary, Energy Specialist, 2005. (Caitlin, March 4, "Natural gas prices have a chilling effect",
Pittsburgh Post Gazette,

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

Natural Gas prices are 50% higher and production low
Paul Cicio, Executive Director of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA), ―A natural gas high‖, 6/4/2008 online:
Accessed June 30, 2008
Most U.S. manufacturers compete on a global basis, and will thus be acutely affected
by further increases in natural gas prices. Natural gas prices are about 50% higher
than a year ago. These elevated prices have already contributed to the loss of 3.3 million
manufacturing jobs; that's 19.2% of all manufacturing jobs since 2000. The bill actually
provides financial incentives for an electric utility to switch from coal to natural gas.
If a power generator does make the switch, it could avoid having to purchase carbon
allowances, or it could make a profit by selling the carbon reduction to other companies..
These perverse incentives will significantly increase electric power production from
existing natural gas power plants that are currently only being used for peaking
power. None of this would be a problem if we had plenty of natural gas production
capacity, but U.S. production of the commodity is fragile, despite record well
completions. According to Energy Information Administration data, U.S. dry
production from 2000 to 2007 is flat, while total demand rose 9.8%. It's su
rprising but true: Today's domestic natural gas production isn't much different now
than it was in the 1970s
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                             RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                46/130

Natural Gas prices hit an all time high this year
EIA, Energy Information Administration, official energy statistics of the US government, natural
gas weekly update, June 26 2008, online:
accessed June 30, 2008
Exceeding $12 per MMBtu in most parts of country, natural gas prices far surpass
historical records for this time of year. Along with the official start of the summer occurring this
week, spot prices at the Henry Hub breached $13 per MMBtu for the first time since
December 2005 in the aftermath of the hurricane season that year. Increases in demand
from electric generators meeting air-conditioning demand have already occurred in the Southwest
and part of the East Coast earlier this month and are expected to expand as the summer
proceeds. In addition to the increasing demand from hot temperatures around the country,
the elevated price level for natural gas currently appears related to growing financial
investment in many commodities, including metals, agricultural products and crude oil,
resulting in steep prices increases. Since the beginning of 2008, the spot price at the
Henry Hub has increased $4.93 per MMBtu, or 63 percent, to yesterday‘s average of $12.76.
Nonetheless, with temperatures relatively moderate this week for the country as a whole and a
decline in the price of crude oil, the net change in the Henry Hub spot price this report week was
a decrease of 17 cents per MMBtu. Other spot markets along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and
East Texas registered regional price decreases of $0.12 and $0.15 per MMBtu, respectively. The
average regional price yesterday was $12.79 and $12.53 in East Texas and Louisiana.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                    RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                       47/130

Reliance on natural gas guarantees massive price spikes in electricity costs, hurting
consumer spending and the economy
Womack in 2k8 (Brian, Investor‘s Business Daily, heating, electricity rates rising as prices for
natural gas surge, june 24, LN)
Consumers struggling with $4 gasoline face ballooning costs for another energy source: natural
gas. Natural gas futures have vaulted 154% since its Aug. 27 low to $13.203 per million British thermal units
on Monday. The run-up has outpaced the rise in crude oil, which has doubled. Consumers may not feel
the full impact immediately, but continued high prices will push up monthly utility bills, if they
haven't already done so. Americans often use natural gas for heating stove tops and water, but they see a
bigger hit when they fire up gas furnaces in the cold winter months. Also, rising prices show up in
electricity costs, with natural gas providing the fuel for more power plants across the country. "The
consumer really hasn't seen the impact of higher prices," said Chris Jarvis, president of Caprock Risk Management.
"There aren't that many people griping about it yet." High heating and electricity costs, along with record gasoline
and food prices, could chill already lukewarm consumer spending. Experts point to low supplies, strong
demand and record crude costs for natural gas' run-up. "The increase in prices has been pretty dramatic,"
said Patrick Armstrong, assistant economist with Moody's "You don't hear about it quite as much as you
do with gas prices because people don't see the prices like they do when they go to a gas station." Utilities have begun to
pass on some of those costs to customers. But rate increases vary widely, depending on location and other factors, says
Jim Owen, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for investor-owned utilities. As a heavily regulated
industry, utilities don't pass on higher energy costs as quickly as oil companies do at the pump. They also have long-term
contracts, insulating them somewhat from soaring market natural gas prices. Xcel-erating Energy Rates Xcel Energy,
which serves residents of Colorado and seven other states, has raised the price of electricity for customers by 15% in the
first half of 2008 in Colorado, spokesman Tom Henley says. Xcel is proposing an additional 10% hike for the third quarter.
Henley says natural gas prices are a key reason. Nearly half of Xcel's power capacity comes from natural gas. The other
big power source is coal, which also is soaring in price. As for the natural gas that customers buy directly to heat their
homes or water, Xcel wants rates in July that will be 38% above the year-ago period. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., which
serves Northern California, said it needs to raise electricity rates later this year and again in January for a total rise of
more than 6%, says company spokesman David Eisenhauer. He cited rising natural gas prices, along with less
hydroelectric power. Eisenhauer notes 44% of the utility's electricity comes from natural gas-fired power plants. Utilities
rely on long-term contracts and other instruments, says Owen, shielding themselves from volatile spot and futures prices.
That helps explain why electric utility stocks have done reasonably well in recent months. Also, utilities tend to use gas-
fired plants for "peak" demand -- when there's more strain on the utility for power. Utilities often tap coal or other lower-
cost energy sources first when there's less demand. Natural gas provides about 20% of the nation's power,
analysts say. About half the country has used natural gas to heat homes since 2005 , the latest year
for which data are available, according to Kobi Platt, an economist with the Energy Information Association. Nevertheless,
Owen points out that as prices stay high, utilities will find it harder to avoid pricier natural gas -- and
that will push more of them to raise prices. Natural gas also is becoming a much larger part of
U.S. electricity generation, rising 34% from 2002 and 2007, according to Platt. When a region needs more
power, the local utility often opts for gas-fired plants, which many see as cleaner than coal. "Most of the incremental
generation that has been built has been natural gas," said James Diemer, executive vice president with utility-consulting
firm Pace Global Energy Services. Gas-fired plants are quick to set up, so capital costs can be recovered quickly. Until
recently, natural gas was relatively cheap. But natural gas' futures are near their highest levels since the
records after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, when they topped $15 per million Btu. A key
reason: Supplies are tight. Natural gas in storage is 1% below its five-year average, the EIA
reported last week. That might not sound like much, but this is the time of year when supplies
should be ballooning, not scraping by. Natural gas is in high demand during the winter when furnaces are turned
on. "We are short," said Robert Ineson, senior director with Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "We are
significantly short." Supplies were in great shape in December. But a chilly winter -- and several other factors --
drained supplies as customers turned up their thermostats. Also, the rising use of natural gas to power electricity softened
supplies. As part of that trend, many industrial companies -- which have their own generators -- turned to natural gas from
oil for their electricity needs as oil prices soared, Jarvis says. Global demand also crimped supplies and pushed up prices.
The U.S. produces most of its own natural gas, but still buys 3% to 4% outside of North America in liquid form. Prices for
liquid natural gas have been higher in other parts of the world, including Japan and Spain, so shipments to U.S. ports
have softened.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                              RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                 48/130

High natural gas hurts the economy, diverts businesses to other countries
Neal Elliott, 2003, Ph-D, (“Natural gas price effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy
practices and policies”), online: accessed July 3, 2008
If we don‘t address the natural gas price problem, we will further damage our economy:
industry will move overseas where prices are lower, and businesses and individual
consumers will divert money from other purchases to pay higher natural gas and
electricity bills. Efficiency and renewable energy may not completely solve our natural gas
problems, but they represent an important part of the portfolio of policies needed to insure
a healthy economy. Public and private leaders need to step up to the podium and issue a call
to action to implement the policies and programs needed to realize the benefits that will
result from increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energy. A window of
opportunity may be closing in the near future, so leaders must act now if the full, cost-
effective benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy are to be realized. We have provided
some concrete policy recommendations. These policies are relatively low-cost and the
measures recommended are cost-effective from the customer‘s perspective. However,
local, state, and federal governments all must be prepared to commit resources if this
opportunity is to be realized.

High prices of Natural Gas will hurt the U.S. economy
Neal Elliott , 2003 Ph-D, (“Natural gas price effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy
practices and policies”), online: accessed July 3, 2008
While much of the current debate about gasp prices implies that we are running out of
gas, EIA estimates U.S. technically recoverable reserves to be over 1,430 trillion cubic feet
(EIA/OGR 2003). These reserves should be sufficient to meet domestic consumption at the
current level for 60 years. In addition, imports have been increasing, both from Canada and
from liquid natural gas imports from overseas (see Figure7). While natural gas reserves are
large and the potential for increased imports are significant, it is clear that the costs of bringing
natural gas to the markets are increasing (Henning 2003). In summary, while we are in no
imminent risk of running out of natural gas, the question is at what cost will the gas be
available? Many analysts believe the U.S. economy will need to bear an increasing cost as
the market prices of gas increase.

High natural gas prices hurt the agricultural economy
Neal Elliott , 2003 Ph-D, (“Natural gas price effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy
practices and policies”), online: accessed July 3, 2008
Industrial and electric power consumers have been reeling under recent price increases.
The industrial sector has been hard hit. This sector‘s consumption fall 16% form the highs of
the late 90s due to the combined impacts of the economic downturn and rising natural gas
prices. Some gas dependent industries such as organic chemicals and nitrogenous
fertilizer are reducing production or closing domestic production and moving overseas. The
fertilizer industry has been particularly hard hit with an overall 45% reduction in
production and the permanent closure of eleven ammonia plants representing 21% of U.S
capacity in the past three years (House 2003 and GAO 2003). Further closures are
anticipated unless prices moderate. These impacts are felt not just at the industrial facilities,
but also impact users of these factories‘ products. Farmers have experienced a 100% increase
in fertilizer prices in the past year amounting to a 4% increasing the cost of food on the
table and putting additional pressure on the already endangered family farm, farm states,
and the agricultural sector of the economy.‖
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                             RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                49/130


High natural gas prices hurt the manufacturing sector because of the cost of
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                                                                               50/130

The manufacturing sector is directly responsible for 70% of the US GDP, when wages go
down and jobs are lost, consumption drastically decreases
Dean Baker, Co-Director, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, July 1, 2008. The
Hankyoreh, ―The Recession in the United States: A progress report‖,
    Analysts around the country and around the world are still debating whether the U.S.
    economy will go into a recession in 2008 and what impact it will have on the rest of the
    world if it does. The answer to the first question should be easy, the U.S. economy is
    almost certainly already in a recession. The answer to the second question will be much
    more difficult. The May employment data released last week showed the economy losing
    jobs for the fifth consecutive month. This has never happened in the United States except
    during periods associated with recession. Over this five-month span the economy as a
    whole has lost 330,000 jobs, with the private sector shedding almost 400,000. The
    construction and manufacturing sector have been hardest hit, which is always the case in
    recessions, but few areas other than health care have continued to add jobs during this
    period. This job loss has been associated with an increase in unemployment of a full
    percentage point, from 4.5 percent last year to 5.5 percent in the most recent data. The
    labor market should always be central in any economic snapshot, both because it is what
    matters to most people, who get most of their income from working, but also because it
    directly affects consumption, which accounts for 70 percent of GDP in the United States. In
    an economy that is losing jobs, with wages not keeping pace with inflation, there will be
    considerable downward pressure on consumption.

US manufacturing sector could set our economy back almost 60 years
Gilbert B. Kaplan, partner in the international trade practice of King & Spalding in
Washington, June 29, 2008. Washington Post, ―5 Myths About the Death Of the American
Sure, U.S. banking is in trouble, but the longer-term and possibly more damaging threat
to the nation's prosperity is the decline of the manufacturing sector. Late last year, the
number of U.S. manufacturing jobs dropped below 14 million for the first time since
1950. It's hard to find anything else that takes us back to a time before most baby
boomers (remember them?) were even born. On top of that, the United States lost another
49,000 manufacturing jobs in April alone. Hard to believe, but the last factory built in this
country may be something we'll see in our lifetime, or certainly that of our children.
MALGOR/IZAAK                     51/130

GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                           RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                              52/130

The manufacturing industry is uniquely key to the economy
Steven Capozzola, Media Director for the U.S. Business and Industry Council, April 25,
2007, Accessed July 2, 2008, New worker, management alliance focused on
strengthening manufacturing, tackling key issues, Available at:
A strong manufacturing base is essential to being a strong nation,” said Patrick Hassey,
chairman, president and CEO of Allegheny Technologies. “Our investments in technology
and innovation have helped make our workers and our facilities the best in the world. So,
it’s not a matter of not being able to compete. We can compete. It’s a matter of competing
in a global market that’s fair and equitable. Working together, we have the best
opportunity to make that possible.

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:
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                                                                                                       53/130

Austin Weber, Senior Editor Assembly Magazine, June 30, 2008. Assemblly Magazine, ―State of the
Profession 2008: Surviving the Roller Coaster‖
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                                                                                 54/130

U.S. recession spills over to Other Economies
Tom Holland, South China Morning Post, 3/28/07 [― Why Asia cannot decouple form US‖. Lexis]
Today, few economists in this part of the world are bothered by the prospect of a US slump. They
draw comfort from data showing a sharp rise in trade between Asian countries in recent years
(see chart) and conclude that regional economies have become better able to stand on their own
two feet. Unfortunately, a new study by the Asian Development Bank pours cold water on the
idea of Asian economic independence. Although intra-regional trade has indeed risen
enormously, the ADB concludes the increase has been driven largely by multinational firms
shipping components from one Asian country to another for assembly before re-exporting these
to the rich world. According to the ADB's calculations, 79 per cent of Asian exports are still driven
by final demand from outside the region, mostly from the US and Europe. With exports making up
on average 55 per cent of East Asian economies' gross domestic product, "the region is still
vulnerable to external demand shocks", the ADB warns Worse - not only would demand for Asian
exports be hammered by a recession in the US, foreign direct investment in the region would also
dwindle, further undermining local growth.

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                                                                                55/130

Global recession will cause ethnic wars, famine, protectionism, reversal of globalization
trade and tech, and arms trafficking
Bernardo V. Lopez, freelance journalist and frequent author on international issues, 9/10/98,
―Global recession phase two: catastrophic‖, BusinessWorld [lexis]
What would it be like if global recession becomes full bloom? The results will be catastrophic.
Certainly, global recession will spawn wars of all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the
grapple for dwindling food stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea,
Indonesia. Regional conflicts in key flashpoints can easily erupt such as in the Middle East,
Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines, as in some Latin American countries, splintered
insurgency forces may take advantage of the economic drought to regroup and reemerge in the
countryside. Unemployment worldwide will be in the billions. Famine can be triggered in key Third
World nations with India, North Korea, Ethiopia and other African countries as first candidates.
Food riots and the breakdown of law and order are possibilities. Global recession will see the
deferment of globalization, the shrinking of international trade - especially of high-technology
commodities such as in the computer, telecommunications, electronic and automotive industries.
There will be a return to basics with food security being a prime concern of all governments, over
industrialization and trade expansions. Protectionism will reemerge and trade liberalization will
suffer a big setback. The WTO-GATT may have to redefine its provisions to adjust to the
changing times. Even the World Bank-IMF consortium will experience continued crisis in dealing
with financial hemorrhages. There will not be enough funds to rescue ailing economies. A few will
get a windfall from the disaster with the erratic movement in world prices of basic goods. But the
majority, especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), will suffer serious shrinkage.
Mega-mergers and acquisitions will rock the corporate landscape. Capital markets will shrink and
credit crisis and spiralling interest rates will spread internationally. And environmental advocacy
will be shelved in the name of survival. Domestic markets will flourish but only on basic
commodities. The focus of enterprise will shift into basic goods in the medium term. Agrarian
economies are at an advantage since they are the food producers. Highly industrialized nations
will be more affected by the recession. Technologies will concentrate on servicing domestic
markets and the agrarian economy will be the first to regrow. The setback on research and
development and high-end technologies will be compensated in its eventual focus on agrarian
activity. A return to the rural areas will decongest the big cities and the ensuing real estate glut
will send prices tumbling down. Tourism and travel will regress by a decade and airlines
worldwide will need rescue. Among the indigenous communities and agrarian peasantry, many
will shift back to prehistoric subsistence economy. But there will be a more crowded upland
situation as lowlanders seek more lands for production. The current crisis for land of indigenous
communities will worsen. Land conflicts will increase with the indigenous communities who have
nowhere else to go either being massacred in armed conflicts or dying of starvation. Backyard
gardens will be precious and home-based food production will flourish. As unemployment
expands, labor will shift to self-reliant microenterprises if the little capital available can be
sourced. In the past, the US could afford amnesty for millions of illegal migrants because of its
resilient economy. But with unemployment increasing, the US will be forced to clamp down on a
reemerging illegal migration which will increase rapidly. Unemployment in the US will be the
hardest to cope with since it may have very little capability for subsistence economy and its
agrarian base is automated and controlled by a few. The riots and looting of stores in New York
City in the late '70s because of a state-wide brownout hint of the type of anarchy in the cities.
Such looting in this most affluent nation is not impossible. The weapons industry may also grow
rapidly because of the ensuing wars. Arms escalation will have primacy over food production if
wars escalate. The US will depend increasingly on weapons exports to nurse its economy back to
health. This will further induce wars and conflicts which will aggravate US recession rather than
solve it. The US may depend more and more on the use of force and its superiority to get its ways
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                           RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                               56/130

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, (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
                                  an economic contraction will encourage the formation of
  benefit of the Democrats). Furthermore,
  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                                                                                   57/130

Rising natural gas prices cause huge increases in agricultural and consumer costs
Dan in 2k8 (Piller, Des Moines, Winter heating costs likely to jump 25%, June 15, LN)
MidAmerican officials said that during Iowa's heating season from October to April, a typical
homeowner paid a total of $863 last winter. That figure will rise to $1,081 this coming year,
barring some kind of price-lowering miracle. So far the miracles have been working on the side of
natural gas producers and investors, who have gone long in the futures markets. A perfect storm
of sorts has driven up natural gas prices to the highest levels seen since September 2005, when
Hurricane Katrina temporarily wiped out 30 percent of the U.S. natural gas supply that comes
from offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the U.S. Energy Department, natural
gas prices are rising because: - Forecasts for a hotter-than-usual summer mean more pressure
on utilities in the South, which typically generate more of their electricity from natural gas than the
coal more commonly used by Iowa and other Northern states. - Inventories of natural gas in
underground storage are running 5 percent below averages nationally. MidAmerican and other
utilities will need to catch up before winter, putting more buying pressure on the market. - A
hoped-for boost from imports of liquefied natural gas from the Middle East haven't materialized.
Buyers in Europe and Japan, who need the gas even more desperately than the United States,
have outbid American markets. During what many considered the most brutal winter in years in
2007-08, MidAmerican's customers paid for gas that cost on average between $8 and $9 per
1,000 cubic feet. Dean Crist, MidAmerican's vice president for regulatory affairs, said last winter
wasn't extraordinarily colder than believed. "I know it probably felt colder, but statistically last
winter was only about 5 percent colder than average," he said. The price of natural gas is
important because while a utility like MidAmerican charges a fixed, regulated rate for electricity, it
simply passes on the wholesale cost of natural gas to consumers and collects its profits from fees
on delivery. Natural gas markets have changed dramatically in this decade. Rising domestic
consumption against flat production caused prices to rise fourfold between the late 1990s and the
middle of this decade. A new generation of gas-fired electricity generators built since the mid-
1990s boosted demand. Utilities once could count on relatively calm markets and lower gas
prices during summer when they replenished their gas storage. They now have to contend with
gas-hungry Southern utilities beset with customers running air conditioners 24/7. Iowa's farmers
have felt the pinch of the higher prices for several years, said Sterling Liddell, research analyst
with the Iowa Farm Bureau. "Nitrogen fertilizer that cost about $300 a ton a few years ago may
now cost up to $800 to $1,000 per ton," Liddell said. "People forget that when they think of the
high commodity prices farmers are getting now."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                              RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                                  58/130

Increasing natural gas prices impact the U.S. Fertilizer industry.
NOIA National Ocean Industries Association: 2007 ―High Energy Prices Impact
Agriculture in
• The nation’s farming and ranching sectors depend on a reliable and affordable supply of energy
to run equipment, fertilize crops, heat buildings and homes, and transport products to market. •
Direct energy expenses rose 47 percent from 2003 to 2006. Electricity expenses are forecast to rise 6 percent as rates go up 2.6 percent
and total output increases 3 percent. Between 2003 and 2006, fuel expenses rose 66 percent as a result of a 113.6 percent increase in
the cost of imported oil. • The Economic Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that principal crop
related expenses – seed, fertilizers, and pesticides – are forecast to be $36.1 billion, up 5 percent from 2006. This is the fourth straight
                                   unprecedented high level and volatility of natural gas prices has had
increase of $1.8 billion or more. • The
serious impacts on the U.S. fertilizer industry and the American farmer. Natural gas is the raw
material from which nitrogen fertilizers are made and today, in the case of ammonia, natural gas
accounts for over 90 percent of the total cash cost of production. The fertilizer industry depends
on natural gas, and since 1999, 40 percent of the U.S. fertilizer industry has been shut down or mothballed and the industry has
been forced to move production to other countries, creating a threat to our food security. • Since 1980, U.S. farmers have increased
nitrogen use efficiency by 35 percent while boosting corn yields by 40 percent. While the agriculture industry does whatever it can to
                                    energy supplies are needed to maintain American
conserve energy in its operations, additional
competitiveness in the global marketplace. • The sharp rise in natural gas prices and the resulting
curtailment of U.S. fertilizer production also has had a dramatic impact on fertilizer prices
throughout the marketing chain and in particular, at the farm level. • According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture data, fertilizer expenses are forecast to increase a little more than $725 million (5.3 percent) in 2007, thus following three
years of double digit percentage increases. Applying the previous year’s application rates to forecast planted acreage of individual crops,
the use of fertilizer in 2007 should be up 5 percent, with use on corn up 9.5 percent. • The expected
4.5 percent increase in pesticide expenses in 2007 will take them to their highest level ever. The percentage increase is
the largest annual increase since 1996, when they peaked at $9 billion. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the price increases are likely linked to relatively high oil prices, since petrochemicals are used in many pesticides.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                                RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                                    59/130

Seasonal demand for natural gas is causing high fertilizer prices.
US EIA Weekly Fuel, Fertilizer and Financial Review for June 23, 2008
Farm input prices remain high. Demand      for fertilizer is waning seasonally, but flooded corn acres may require
more applications, taking any leftover stocks off the market. High natural gas prices are also starting to
become a factor, taking the cost of manufacturing anhydrous to $500 ton. Add in high
transportation costs and the weak dollar (much of our fertilizer is imported), and nitrogen doesn’t look like it
will get cheap any time soon. Propane prices also are rising seasonally. Weaker demand for petroleum
products and less natural gas going into storage means less propane is being made – it’s a by-
production of both processes. That’s not what farmers want to hear with the prospect of a delayed
harvest and wet corn this fall. Diesel prices remain near all-time highs, though basis is seasonally weak. A basis
contract would work great in theory, buying cash and selling heating oil futures, but likely would require too much margin and
cash flow for most farmers to consider. Unfortunately, there aren’t a lot of alternatives, other than waiting and hoping .

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,”

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                                                                                                                     60/130

A high percentage of natural gas that was earlier used in ammonia production is
now used for energy, increasing the price of ammonia and fertilizers.
Rhett A. Butler; Research in tropical rainforests World fertilizer prices surge 200% in 2007;; February 20, 2008;

World fertilizer prices surged by more than 200 percent in 2007, as farmers sought to
maximize corn production for ethanol, according to the International Center for Soil Fertility and
Agricultural Development (IFDC). Poor African farmers were hardest hit by the increase. IFDC says the rise in
fertilizer prices is fueled by new demand for grain for biofuel production, higher energy and freight prices,
increased demand for grain-fed meat in emerging markets, and increased use of natural gas as liquefied natural gas (LNG).
"Farmers in industrialized countries are applying high levels of fertilizers to maximize harvests of grain at the highest prices
ever," said Dr. Balu Bumb, leader of the Policy, Trade, and Markets Program of IFDC. "Those forces drive fertilizer prices higher."
IFDC notes that from January 2007 to January 2008 diammonium phosphate (DAP) prices rose from $252 per ton in January
2007 to $752 (U.S. Gulf price); prilled urea rose from $272 to $415 per ton (Arab Gulf price); and muriate of potash (MOP) rose
                                                    the price of 1 metric ton of corn rose from
from $172 to $352 (Vancouver price). At the same time
$3.05/bushel to $4.28/bushel. Bumb says the rise in prices is affecting poor farmers the
most. Monthly averages of fertilizer prices from 2000 to 2008. World fertilizer prices -- especially diammonium phosphate --
have skyrocketed during 2007. FOB = Free on board. Average price, with supplier paying freight and insurance, to destination
port. DAP = diammonium phosphate. MOP = muriate of potash. Credit: Derived from Green Markets and FMB Weekly. Modified
by "The  unprecedented rise in fertilizer prices—more than 200% in the past
year—is creating a fertilizer crisis for resource-poor farmers in developing countries,"
Bumb says. "Particularly hard-hit are farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Farmers there need fertilizers desperately, to replenish
their nutrient-depleted soils. But fertilizer use in Africa is the world’s lowest—about 8 kg per hectare. The lack of fertilizers in
Africa accentuates hunger and poverty. To stimulate adequate fertilizer use, the purchasing power of the poorest of the poor
                                                                                          The rising
must be enhanced through market-friendly safety nets so they can be included in the marketing process."
price of fertilizers contributes to a positive feedback loop for grain prices. As the cost of
inputs increase, so do prices of food. IFDC says the convergence of food prices and energy
prices is fueling rocketing fertilizer prices. "There was once a food economy and an energy economy—but the
boom in biofuels is now merging the two," said Phil Humphres, IFDC Senior Specialist-Engineering, noting that while 70 percent
                                                          the use of 18 percent to 20 percent of the
of corn production has traditionally been used as animal feed,
2007 U.S. corn crop was for ethanol, increased corn prices by 70 percent. He adds that the
situation may worsen in 2008 when 25 percent of corn production is forecast to go into
ethanol. But if all U.S. corn production were converted to ethanol, it would supply only
27% of the United States’ current transportation fuel demand." IFDC says changes in
natural gas use are also influencing fertilizer prices. Gas that once went toward ammonia
production in fertilizer manufacture is increasingly being liquefied (LNG) and used for
energy. The organization says that improvements in fertilizer use efficiency could help the
current bottleneck. "The sharp rise in fertilizer prices emphasizes the need for more research to improve the efficiency
of fertilizer use," said Dr. Amit Roy, IFDC President and Chief Executive Officer. "For example, most rice farmers in Asia
broadcast urea directly into the floodwater. But only one bag in three is used by the plants. The rest is lost to the air and water."
IFDC says it is working with farmers in developing countries to improve the efficiency of fertilizer use.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                              RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                                  61/130

JAMES HANNAH; Associated Press Writer; June 4, 2008 - 6:23am; High cost and demand
for fertilizer scares farmers

DAYTON, Ohio (AP) - Corn stalks normally dominate the fields of farmer Lyle McKanna. But this summer, leafy green soybean
                                            McKanna, who farms 800 acres near Lima, has replaced
plants will swallow up more acreage than ever.
more than one-fourth of his corn crop with soybeans, which require far less fertilizer. In part
because of a global surge in demand, the price of fertilizer has skyrocketed 228 percent since 2000,
forcing U.S. farmers to switch crops, cut back on fertilizer or search for manure as a
substitute. Wholesalers and retailers are scrambling to find and buy fertilizer and juggle what supplies they have to meet
customers' needs. Between 2001 and 2006, global demand jumped 14 percent, an amount equivalent to the entire U.S. market,
according to The Fertilizer Institute, a Washington D.C.-based trade group. "We're trying to get as much as we can and get it into
storage," said Joe Dillier, plant, food, markets manager for The GROWMARK System, a farm cooperative based in Bloomington,
Ill. "It's hard to buy as much as you want forward because everyone sees that this price is going to continue to go up."
price increase means the cost of fertilizing an acre of average-yield U.S. corn rose from
about $30 to $160. Mike Duffy, professor of economics at Iowa State University who closely tracks the costs of crop
production, said the more expensive fertilizer might increase the price of sweet corn this
summer. And if enough farmers change over to soybeans, it could cause some localized shortages of sweet corn and
increase the price of corn in grain markets. The demand for fertilizer has been driven by an increasing world population and a
                                                                                             many U.S.
growing middle class in developing nations that wants more grain-fed meat and more diverse diets. In addition,
farmers continue to use large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer on their corn because the
crop's market price remains high and they feel they can still make a profit. The stronger demand has
helped raise fertilizer prices, combined with a weak dollar and soaring energy costs that
make producing and transporting fertilizer more expensive. The United States has lost more than 40
percent of its capacity to produce nitrogen fertilizer since 1999 because of the high cost of natural gas. Hammelman Nitrate, a
small, independent fertilizer retailer in Edwardsport, Ind., lost a few sales last winter because the company couldn't get supplies
quickly enough for some of its customers. "It's a big concern because you don't know whether the supply is going to be there or
not," said Kevin Hammelman. "It's a big, big struggle." Normally, Ceres Solutions, an agricultural cooperative with 26 stores
around Indiana, buys fertilizer a few months before it sells it. Now it is buying nearly a year in advance to assure it can get what
it needs. "I'm already pre-ordering for next fall," added Thad Shidler of Howesville Farm Supply in Clay City, Ind. "We've never
had to do that. It's always been available." Some farmers are sticking to their traditional practices _ nervously. This year's corn
                     southern Ohio farm are getting the same amount of fertilizer they got
plants on Bob Peterson's
last year. But it's costing twice as much _ nearly $300 an acre. "This is the riskiest crop I've ever
planted," said Peterson, who farms 1,600 acres of corn and soybeans near Washington Court House, Ohio. "If we get a normal
yield, we will make money. But, boy, if we have a drought, reduced yields, insect problems _ we'll lose a lot of money." It costs
more to fertilize corn than soybeans _ about $160 per average-yield acre of corn to $120 for soybeans. And although the market
price of soybeans is about $12.90 a bushel compared with $5.50 for corn, farmers usually can produce about three times the
number of bushels of corn per acre than soybeans.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                            RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                                62/130

FAO, IFAD and WFP for the meeting of the Chief Executives Board for Coordination on
28-29 April 2008 High food prices: Impact and recommendations, Berne, Switzerland

International prices of basic food commodities have increased rapidly over the last three
years. The FAO food price index rose by 9 percent in 2006 and by 23 percent in 2007. As of
March 2008 wheat and maize prices were 130 and 30 percent higher than a year earlier. Rice
prices have engaged in a steep upwards trend since the beginning of 2008. After recording relatively moderate
increases of 9 percent in 2006 and 17 percent in 2007, the FAO All Rice Price Index gained
10 percent in February 2008 and another 10 percent in March. This situation poses a threat
to food security in developing countries, and calls for urgent coordinated action by the international community and in
particular by the United Nations. Without rapid and lasting reaction MDG 1 target for hunger reduction will be dramatically
missed. Causes of High Prices and the Medium-Term Outlook Six reasons explain the increase in food prices. First, world cereal
production fell by 3.6 percent in 2005 and 6.9 percent in 2006 due to bad weather in major producing countries. Second, stock
levels are very low, which magnified the impact of production shortfalls as markets worry about the lack of a buffer. The ratio of
world cereal ending stocks in 2007/08 to the trend world cereal utilization is estimated at 18.7 percent, the lowest in three
       Third, petroleum prices and food prices are highly correlated, with an estimated
correlation coefficient of more than 0.6. The rapid rise in petroleum prices exerted an
upwards pressure on food prices as fertilizer prices nearly tripled and transport costs
doubled over a two year period. Fourth, increased demand from the biofuels sector also tended to push prices
upwards. It is estimated that about 100 million tons of grain (some 4.7 percent of global cereal production) are being used for
biofuels in 2007/8. In 2007/8 the United States alone is expected to use about 80 million tons of maize to produce ethanol, a 37
percent increase over the previous year. Fifth, economic growth in some large developing countries is leading to changes in diet
and increased demand for food crops. Over the last 15 years, meat consumption more than doubled in China and grew by 70
percent in Brazil and 20 percent in India. Since it takes some 5 Kg of cereals to produce 1 Kg of meat, this shift in diet is also
leading to higher cereal prices. Sixth, trade policies put in place by some countries, such as export bans, has contributed to
higher prices in certain cases. Prices remain high today although world cereal production recovered, increasing by 4.7 percent in
2007 and 2.6 percent in 2008 (projected). Available medium-term projections by the International Food Policy Research
                  OECD/FAO indicate that food prices will remain above their previous
Institute (IFPRI) and by
trend level for the foreseeable future. Prices of food commodities for the next 10 years will be higher than
during the previous 10 years, even though a small decline in 2009 or 2010 is expected. Those projections are explained by three
factors. First, it is believed that   the demand for biofuels will continue to rise rapidly, partly driven by
high oil prices. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) the share of the world’s arable land devoted to the
growing of biomass for liquid biofuels could triple over the next 20 years. Second, developing country economic growth is
expected to continue at about 6 percent a year with significant implications for food demand. Third, climate-change risks are
likely to have adverse impacts on food production, compounding the challenge of meeting global food demand.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                                   RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                                       63/130

Higher food prices risk food riots in the US and throughout the world
Kent Garber; US News& World Report; The Growing Food Cost Crisis; March 7, 2008; Sharp
price hikes are hurting the poor and sparking violence

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 highs; wheat
                                                                             combination of high food prices
prices are up nearly 50 percent since the first of the year. To Americans, the
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
                            crude oil is selling at record highs, affecting not only the
they do today. Compounding 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                                                                                                                 64/130


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 modified foods. For now, however, the situation is grim.
programs, including 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
                                                    UNWFP Executive Director Josette
for hundreds of years have been emphasizing a chicken in every pot," said
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                                                                                                          65/130

High natural gas prices have drastic negative impacts on America‘s poor, making it hard
to eat and stay warm .
   Roy Ennis, Nation Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, Speak Out: Riter Tax
   Strike Hurt Poor,
   tax-hike-will-hurt-poor/, May 15 2008.

According to Energy Outreach Colorado, the state's low-income families spend an
average of 20 cents out of every dollar they earn on energy. The poorest families spend
as much as 50 cents on the dollar. By contrast, median-income families spend only 5
cents per dollar on energy - wealthy families even less.When families have trouble
paying energy bills, they skip meals, put off health care, suffer unsafe temperature
extremes, and sometimes heat their homes in unsafe ways. As I note in my book, Energy
Keepers, Energy Killers, these disproportionate impacts on minorities and low-income
families are driven in part by extremist environmental policies that restrict energy
supplies, raise energy prices and discriminate against the poor. This is the civil rights issue of
our time. Environmental elitists pushing the Ritter tax want higher prices because they know this forces people to
consume less and endure lower standards of living. These elitists claim this protects the environment. What shocks
                                                                 higher energy prices
me is that Ritter seems to have bought into this argument. Doesn't he understand that
mean higher food prices? Poor families rely heavily on grains that have doubled in
price, and people are rioting because they can't get enough to eat. Experts say these
soaring food prices are driven by higher costs for petroleum-based fuel, fertilizer and
insecticides, and by the diversion of cropland to ethanol production. And yet, the governor's
spokesman defended the proposed tax hike by saying "not one drop of the natural gas produced in Colorado ends up
in anyone's gas tank." Even more amazing, the Rocky failed to mention that this new tax would apply to natural gas
and oil, which is refined into gasoline. Higher wellhead prices for oil will bring higher prices at the pump. As a chemist
by training, I know that natural gas is vital in gasoline refining, so increased production costs for this fuel will impact
gasoline prices. Higher natural gas prices also will raise the cost of fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, plastics and other
products - and home heating. Perhaps Ritter endorses the severance tax because he believes it's fair to force higher
prices on consumers in exchange for scholarships funding. I don't think such trade-offs are good policy. There are
other ways to improve education funding than on the backs of our poorest consumers. The question is, will
Coloradans agree that the Ritter tax fosters consumer protection, civil rights and environmental justice, when

Low income families must choose between heating and eating
BBC, April 23, 2008. (BBC News, ―Measures to target fuel poverty‖
    Energywatch chief executive Alan Asher said electricity prices were unreasonably high
    and that many people faced "choosing between heating and eating" over the winter.The
    government has been criticised for failing to do enough to help low-income households
    having to pay an extra levy to use pre-payment meters."It turns out that the very poorest
    consumers often have to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds more than the rest of
    us," Mr Asher added.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                                                               RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                                                                   66/130

Electricity prices are killing low-income families, forcing them to reduce spending
on necessities, and leaving babies to die without heat in the winter
CAP, June 19, 2008. (Center for American Progress, ―Medicine or Electricity?
Americans Shouldn’t Have to Make the Choice.‖
  The National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association released a new energy costs survey last week, and the report found
  that high energy prices are squeezing nearly all households nationwide, and low-income
  families and individuals are being hit the hardest.Low-income households typically spend a greater
  percentage of their income on utilities than those in higher income brackets, and as prices rise, they are having to
  make increasingly difficult choices in order to keep the lights shining, the water flowing,
  and the stove running. As home energy and gasoline prices increase, low-income households—defined as families
  of four with a yearly income below $32,604—are having to make serious cutbacks on basic necessities in order to make
  ends meet:  31 percent of low-income households report maintaining unsafe or unhealthy
  home temperatures in order to lower energy bills. 29 percent risked loss of home energy
  service due to skipped or partial payments. 31 percent have reduced spending on
  medicine. 70 percent have reduced spending on food. 65 percent have lowered their
  purchases of other basic household necessities. These cutbacks on necessities are not
  simple inconveniences. They are detrimental to the health and well-being of vulnerable
  populations, particularly the elderly, disabled, and children. According to pediatric experts
  with the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program, babies can stop breathing if
  home temperatures are too cold. And efforts to reduce energy costs through space
  heaters, candles, or kerosene lamps can lead to increased risks of fire, burns, and carbon
  monoxide poisoning. What’s more, reductions in the amount of money spent on food can
  increase hunger, food insecurity, and lead to choosing cheaper and less healthy foods,
  jeopardizing children’s healthy growth and development. The NEADA study also reveals that home
  energy or gasoline costs are forcing households to work more and save less. Fourteen percent of low-income
  households reported that a member had taken a second job to cope with rising costs. And
  households across all income levels report putting away less money for savings. More
  than 70 percent of low-income households also bought less expensive products, reduced
  clothing purchases, and cut back on driving. Higher prices across the country are driving consumers to embrace energy
  conservation through home improvements and behavioral changes. Over 60 percent of low-income households report sealing up leaks in their homes to increase
  their energy efficiency. With summer approaching, families are also keeping shades closed during the day, running fans, and decreasing their use of air conditioning.
  Such changes may ultimately shrink the carbon footprint of American homes and reduce energy bills. However, care must be taken to ensure that the resulting
  behavior changes do not come at the expense of health and safety. As low-income households continue to struggle the most with rising energy costs, we must find
  ways to help them cope with rising prices in the short term. This means investing in principal federal programs designed to help low-income American households
  manage energy costs: the Weatherization Assistance Program and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. But with only 15 percent of eligible households
  receiving LIHEAP, inadequate funding continues to limit the ability of these programs to reach families in need. Center for American Progress proposals for federal
  climate and energy policies outline these options and show how they can have a positive effect on the home energy bills of low- and middle-income households.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                   67/130

Poverty causes a structural violence that outweighs nuclear war
Abu-Jamal 98 (Mumia, activist, 9-19,
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-
ranging "structural' violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness.
Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; By "structural
violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the
bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at
least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that
structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the
collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with
"behavioral violence" by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by
specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to
homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence:
Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence, not
covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and
because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it--really? Gilligan notes:
[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be
killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times
as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the
Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact
accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade,
throughout the world.

Marcia Angell, ―A response to Justice is Good For Our Health,‖ POCKETS OF POVERTY, 1999
One need not invoke some mysterious effect of inequality on health to make a very strong
argument for lessening inequalities that lead to deprivation at the low and of the scale. Poverty is
crippling not only physically but intellectually and spiritually. It cripples any wealthy society that
tolerates it on a large scale, as does the United States. In addition to the loss of human potential
and the social pathology that grows out of poverty, the costs include the callousness that inures
the rest of society to its presence, even as many people enjoy extraordinary riches. The fact that
there are also health consequences of poverty, whether they are exacerbated by inequality or
not, is doubly punishing and adds greatly to the injustice. Daniels, Kennedy, and Kawachi are
right about that. F. Scott Fitzgerald famously pointed out that the rich are different from the rest of
us. But what is less well known is that he observed that no difference that divides people is so
important as that between the well and the sick.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                 RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                    68/130

RPS will decrease the usage of natural gas by 2030
EIA (Energy Information Administration), November 2007, ―Oil and Natural Gas Market
Supply and Renewable Portfolio Standard Impacts of Selected Provisions of H.R. 3221‖,

The second section of the paper presents an analysis of Section 9611, which is similar in
many respects to RPS proposals that have previously been analyzed by EIA. Our analysis
shows that the RPS, taken alone, tends slightly to increase projected electricity prices and
costs by 2030, while tending to reduce the use of natural gas for electricity generation and
natural gas prices. Cumulative discounted residential energy expenditures through 2030,
which are projected to total $2,874 billion in the reference case, are unchanged or fall
slightly, with a reduction of approximately $400 million (.01 percent) in one of the two RPS
cases modeled.

The plan offsets natural gas use-investment in renewable infastructure key
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 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                                                                                                                  69/130

RPS lowers the cost of natural gas
EPA, environmental protection agency, Renewable Portfolio Standards Fact Sheet,
February 1 2008, online:
accessed June 29, 2008
A Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) provides states with a mechanism to increase renewable
energy generation using a cost-effective, market-based approach that is administratively efficient. An RPS requires electric
utilities and other retail electric providers to supply a specified minimum amount of customer load with electricity from eligible
                 The goal of an RPS is to stimulate market and technology
renewable energy sources.
development so that, ultimately, renewable energy will be economically competitive
with conventional forms of electric power. States create RPS programs because of
the energy, environmental, and economic benefits of renewable energy and
sometimes other clean energy approaches, such as energy efficiency and combined heat and power (CHP).1
he 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                                                                             70/130


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,

  One of the most frequently advanced policies for supporting renewable energy sources
  in electricity generation is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Also known as
  renewable obligations, green certificates, and the like, these market share requirements
  require either producers or users to derive a certain percentage of their electricity from
  renewable sources. Currently, nearly half of the U.S. states and the District of Columbia
  have established an RPS or a state-mandated target for renewables.1 Several other
  countries—including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark,
  Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—
  have planned or established their own programs.

  As these policies gain in popularity and stringency, understanding their costs and impacts
  becomes more important. However, little consensus seems to have emerged among
  analyses of policies for renewable energy, particularly with respect to consumer impacts.
  Many economic models for climate and energy policy analysis find that policies to reduce
  greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector, including RPSs, raise economic costs
  and raise electricity prices. Examples include studies by the U.S. Energy Information
  Agency (EIA 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), Palmer and Burtraw (2005), and Fischer
  and Newell (2004). On the other hand, some inquiries find little or no price impacts,
  including Bernow et al. (1997) and others by the Tellus Institute. Yet other studies find
  that policies for can actually result in lower consumer prices. Prominent examples
  include the studies by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), including Clemmer et al.
  (1999), and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).3 The driving
  factor behind this result is that additional renewable energy displaces gas-turbine
  generation; the decrease in demand lowers the price of natural gas and thus gas-fired
  generation costs and electricity prices. A recent analysis by Wiser and Bolinger
  (forthcoming) finds that studies of RPS policies using different variations of the National
  Energy Modeling System (NEMS)—which include the EIA, UCS, Tellus and ACEEE efforts—
  have produced a wide range of results themselves.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                         RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                           71/130

There is a growing need for renewable energy, that will also reduce the price of natural
Dr. Ryan Wiser, Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, March 8, 2005,Easing the
Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Prices Through Electricity Supply Diversification,
google it
   With the recent run-up in natural gas prices, and the expected continuation of volatile and high
   prices for at least the mid-term future, a growing number of voices are calling for increased
   diversification of electricity supplies. Such diversification holds the prospect of
   directly reducing our dependence on a fuel whose costs are highly uncertain, thereby
   hedging the risk of natural gas price volatility and escalation. In addition, as I will describe in a moment, by
   reducing natural gas demand, increased diversification away from gas-fired
   generation can indirectly suppress natural gas prices. Our report highlights the impact of
   increased deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency on natural gas prices and consumer natural gas
   bills. A growing number of modeling studies conducted by government, non-profit, and private sector entities are
   showing that renewableenergy and energy efficiency could significantly reduce natural
   gas prices and bills. Our report summarizes these recent modeling studies and reviews the
   reasonableness of their findings in light of economic theory and other analyses. (Though our report focuses on
   renewable energy and energy efficiency, other non-natural-gas resources would likely have a similar effect). We
   find that, by displacing natural-gas-fired electricity generation,increased levels of renewable energy
   and energy efficiency will reduce demand for natural gas and thus put downward
   pressure on gas prices. These price reductions hold the prospect of providing
   consumers with significant natural gas bill savings. In fact, although we did not analyze in detail the
   electricity price impacts reported in the studies, the studies often show that any predicted increase in
   the price of electricity caused by greater use of renewable energy or energy
   efficiency is largely or copletely offset by the predicted natural gas price savings. We
   conclude that policies to encourage fuel diversification within the electricity sector should consider the potentially
   beneficial cross-sector impact of that diversification on natural gas prices and bills. Our report confirms that the
   natural-gas-price reductions projected by earlier modeling studies are consistent with economic theory. Increased
   renewable energy and energy efficiency will cause an inward shift in the natural gas demand curve, leading to
   lower natural gas prices than would have been realized under the higher-demand conditions. Similar natural
   gas price reductions would likely result from increased use of other non-natural-gas
   energy sources that displace natural gas consumption (e.g., coal, nuclear). The magnitude of
   the price reduction will depend on the amount by which natural gas consumption is reduced, as well the shape of
   the natural gas supply curve (measured by the inverse price elasticity of natural gas supply, or the percentage
                                                                                      gas supply and
   change in price caused by a one percent change in demand). Given the ability of natural
   demand to adjust to altered prices over time, the price reduction is likely to be greater in the
   near term than over the longer term. These reductions in gas prices benefit
   consumers by reducing fuel costs faced by electricity generators, and by reducing
   the price of natural gas delivered for direct use in the residential, commercial,
   industrial, and transportation sectors. According to economic theory, this benefit to
   consumers will, to some degree, come at the expense of natural gas producers.
   However, if policymakers are concerned about the impact of natural gas prices on consumers, or are concerned
   about the macroeconomic impacts of higher gas prices on overall economic activity, then policies to reduce gas
   demand might be considered appropriate. In addition, given anticipated future growth in imported natural gas,
   reducing natural gas prices may well enhance social welfare in the United States
   (because the gain to U.S. consumers comes, in part, at the expense of foreign producers).
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                            RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                               72/130

Renewable energy usage will decrease natural gas prices
Dr. Ryan Wiser, Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, March 8, 2005,Easing the
Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural Gas Prices Through Electricity Supply Diversification,
google it
Elevated natural gas prices have emerged as a key energy-policy challenge for at least the
early part of the 21st century. While our nation will continue to rely on natural gas, most agree
that both supply-side and demand-side actions will likely be necessary to moderate prices.
Focusing on just the demand side, our study has found that increased diversification of energy
supplies should help to alleviate the threat of high natural gas prices over the short and
long term, thereby reducing consumer natural gas bills. The thirteen studies and twenty
specific modeling analyses reviewed in our report consistently show that increased use of
renewable energy and energy efficiency can begin to reduce natural gas prices. Our report
is the first to demonstrate that these results are broadly consistent with economic theory, results
from other national energy models, and limited empirical evidence. Of course, these effects are
not strictly limited to renewable energy and energy efficiency investments: any non-natural-gas
resource that displaces gas use is expected to provide similar consumer benefits. In addition, a
comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of policy efforts must consider other impacts as
well, including impacts on electricity rates, national security, environmental outcomes, and
economic development. Nonetheless, given present concerns about natural gas prices and the
findings reported in this testimony, I believe it is prudent to carefully evaluate the cross-sector
impacts of electricity-sector diversification policies on the natural gas market.

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: 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                                                                              73/130

Federal RPS will reduce price of power and natural gas
Press Release, Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard will Reduce Power and Natural Gas
Costs, but not have a significant Impact on GHG Emissions Levels,2007, online: accessed June
30, 2008
A 15-percent Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) will drive down natural
gas demand and price, lower the overall price of power, but only lead to a slowing in the
growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), not an absolute reduction from current levels
according to the new Wood Mackenzie report, "The Impact of a Federal Renewable Portfolio
Standard." According to the report, the adoption of a 15% Federal RPS will require a flood of
new wind and other renewable projects well beyond current proposed projects, leading to
a 500-percent increase in renewable capacity from current levels by 2026. This increase
translates into an incremental construction cost of $134 billion (2006 dollars) between 2006 and
2026. The report also shows the switch to renewable energy will drive down demand and
price of natural gas. "The lower fuel costs and fossil fuel consumption will lead to lower
electricity costs," continued Sannicandro. "Over the next 20 years, the Federal RPS case
leads to a savings of $240 billion (2006 dollars) in wholesale power costs, outweighing the
higher capital investment to build the additional capacity." The lower natural gas prices
also reduce the total value of other generation technologies, particularly coal and nuclear
capacity, potentially impacting the value of transactions involving existing generating
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                         RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                            74/130

Failure to make national efforts at carbon reduction will prompt a US-EU trade war
Fontaine in 2k4 (Peter, Esquire, Public Utilities Fortnightly, the gathering storm, August, LN)
In June 2001, the Bush administration withdrew an earlier campaign pledge to support the Kyoto
Protocol, claiming that the treaty was fatally flawed in not requiring China and India to reduce
carbon dioxide (CO[2]) emissions and that the science underpinning the treaty was not yet
definitive enough to justify the costs of compliance. n1 The underlying assumption of the
administration's decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and to oppose any regulatory efforts to
curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions n2 is that the costs to the American economy can be
avoided even as some of America's largest trading partners incur the pain of greenhouse gas
emissions controls. Regardless of whether one agrees with Bush administration policy on Kyoto,
the underlying assumption that America can avoid the costs of Kyoto is flawed. Even if America
remains on the sidelines, it is not likely to avoid the costs associated with the global effort to
reduce CO[2] emissions, because it is not in the self-interest of America's trading partners,
namely the European Union, to allow the United States to enjoy the competitive advantage of
avoided costs of CO[2] emissions controls.

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?

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                                                                                          75/130


The EU imposing ‗green‘ regulations will lead to a trade war with the United
James Kanter, Journalist for the International Herald Tribune, November 14, 2006 ―Europe
Seeks to Impose Airline Emission Controls‖;
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                                                                                                                  76/130

An EU imposed carbon tariff leads to a global trade war
Joe Castaldo,Canadian Business Online, global warming a taxing question April 1, 2008

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                                                                                77/130


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,

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                                                                                                                 78/130

Ahearn, 2002. (Raymond J., Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, ―U.S.-European Union
Trade Relations: Issues and Policy Challenges‖,

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.

EU-US trades are key to the economy.
Ahearn in 2006 (Raymond J., specialist in international trade and finance, foreign affairs, defense
and trade
division, Trade Conflict and the U.S.-European Union Economic Relationship, July 26, 2006, <>)

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
                                        fact that each side has a major ownership stake
EU market is also increasingly open and standardized. The
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
                                         massive amount of ownership of companies in
foreign investments are based in the United States. This
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                                                                                            79/130

US-EU trade relations key to economic growth
Raymond J. Ahearn-Specialist in International trade and finance, John W.   Fischer, Charles B. Goldfarb, and
       Hanrahan,Walter W. Eubanks,Janice E. Rubin; CRS Report to Congress; February 14,
Charles E.
The United States and EU share a huge, dynamic, and mutually beneficial
economic relationship. Not only are trade and investment ties between the two
partners huge in absolute terms, but the EU share of U.S. global trade and investment
flows has remained high and relatively constant over time, despite the rise of Asian trade and
investment flows. These robust commercial ties provide consumers on both sides of the
Atlantic with major benefits in terms of jobs and access to capital and new technologies.
Agreements between the two partners in the past have been critical to making the world
trading system more open and efficient. At the same time, the commercial relationship is
subject to a number of trade disputes and disagreements that potentially could have adverse
political and economic repercussions.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                          RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                             80/130


US EU relationship is key to maintain global economic growth and trade
Irish International in 2k7 (mandelson evokes spirit of nato as he promotes eu trade relations wit
US, nov 9, LN)
Europe and the United States must put "equitable economic globalization" at the core of their
relations, European Union Trade Chief Peter Mandelson said yesterday. The global economy can
only safely absorb the spectacular rise of China -- which just overtook Germany as the world's
biggest exporter -- and other emerging powers if Europe and the US push for more free trade,
good economic governance and fair investment rules. He also said that EU and US negotiators
on the continuing Doha round of global trade talks have been making progress on agricultural
disputes that have held up a deal. But he added that time was running out. "We can't go that far
into 2008 and sustain these negotiations without fatigue finally setting in," he said. Addressing
Russia in his speech, Mr Mandelson said the EU and the US should work toward an international
"code of conduct" to safeguard foreign investments in the country's vast energy industry. The EU
is concerned Russia uses its energy as a political tool to keep neighbours in line while keeping
investors out. "While I do not believe we can any longer dictate the global agenda, nor should we
do so, we nevertheless still have the collective weight and influence to shape that agenda," he
said in a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The inaugural session of
the trans-Atlantic Economic Council will take place today. Mr Mandelson said the German-
proposed forum, for the EU and US to discuss strategic economic issues, must be the venue
where the two develop joint approaches to sound economic governance. Jointly chaired by EU
Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen and Allan Hubbard, chief of the White House
National Economic Council, today's session will focus on transatlantic investments. Annual EU-
US trade totals e620bn and accounts for 40pc of world trade. Two-way investments provide 14
million jobs, according to EU data.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                        RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                           81/130

U.S.-EU trade relationship key to world trading system
Raymond J. Ahearn, Specialist in International Trade and Finance Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division, April 11, 2007, Accessed July 2, 2008, Trade Conflict and the U.S.-EU Economic
relationship, available at:
   The United States and the European Union (EU) share a huge, dynamic, and mutually
   beneficial economic partnership. Not only is the U.S.-EU trade and investment
   relationship the largest in the world, but it is also arguably the most important.
   Agreement between the two partners in the past has been critical to making the world
   trading system more open and efficient.

Directorate General for External Relations in 06 (branch of European Commission
responsible for external policy, EU, June,

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                                                                                 82/130


Collapse of free trade ensures nuclear war
Spicer 96 (Michael, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, 1996,
p. 121)
The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after
World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and
the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a
dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. The problem about the second
approach is not simply that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers
will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More
fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will
be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and
unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not
say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence
of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become
interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at
two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                             RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                83/130

National RPS key to avert a trade war-it evens unfair trade advantages
Fontaine in 2k4 (Peter, Esquire, Public Utilities Fortnightly, the gathering storm, August, LN)
By adopting some form of national legislation that begins to internalize the costs of global
warming, the United States would blunt any effort by the EU to impose trade sanctions on U.S.
goods. The EIA analysis points out one fundamental conclusion. The reduction of global warming
gas emissions called for under the Kyoto Protocol will increase electricity prices and therefore the
cost of goods. Even under the relatively modest goals of the McCain Lieberman bill, electricity
prices will increase due to the internalization of the costs of the cap and trade system.
The risk of trade sanctions by America's largest trading partners due to the failure of the United
States to control CO[2] emissions should be a real concern to U.S. policy-makers. If the United
States continues to resist global pressure to reduce its CO[2] emissions, it will largely cede
control over how the rules implementing Kyoto are written and risk trade sanctions by trading
partners seeking to reduce the disparity in production costs.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                  RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                      84/130


Virinder Singh, Research Director of Renewable Energy Policy Project, July 13, 2001,
―Production Tax Credits: Testimony before the US Senate‖,
One significant lesson from the history of renewable energy development is that sharp, policy-driven spikes in investment
and business activity are not good for the industry. The most well known example is the case of tax credit for solar water
heaters in the 1980s. In this case, a heavy dose of public incentives over a short period of time encouraged rapid, even
hasty business development. Ephemeral tax credits did not lead to the earnest expansion of capital and
overall industry capability. Instead, when the tax credits ended, so did most of the domestic
industry. Policies that encourage only short spurts in sales are not nearly as useful as policies
that provide a more predictable investment environment that is not buffeted by volatility. In a current
example, in the U.S. approximately 2,000 MW of wind power is coming on-line nationwide. That means about $2 billion of
investments in wind power. As in Texas, the timing of the PTC is the prime reason for the timing of this investment, though
not necessarily the top driver for the investment itself. Based on our discussions with the wind industry and utilities, the
surge is so great that wind developers are stretched to their limit. They cannot take on much more business this year,
even though opportunities continue to present themselves. In an ideal scenario, the PTC would last past 2001, stimulating
an orderly increase of projects that is in accordance with the size of the wind industry today. The problem with short
eligibility periods is that, without longevity, it does not encourage the kinds of capital investment in
wind-related businesses that are essential for long-term progress. Instead, short-term measures
force the existing resources of the wind industry to do a lot in one year, with the possibility of a
sharp contraction from which it must recover in the future. It appears that if the PTC is to
contribute to the steady growth on the U.S. renewable energy industry, it must avoid cycles of
boom and bust, or at least contribute to smoother cycles so that the nation does not squander the
market and technical advances it has pursued for decades, the fruits of which are just now
starting to be realized.

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                                                                                           85/130
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                                                                         86/130

The PTC policies have proved to be extremely effective in expanding industries and
helping the country as a whole.
AWEA(American Wind Energy Association), Legislative Affairs, 2008.

  Current Status: The PTC is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008. Since its
  establishment in 1992, the PTC has undergone a series one or two year extensions, and
  has been allowed to lapse in three different years: 1999, 2001 and 2003. The federal
  government’s uninterrupted commitment to the PTC from 2005 through the present
  has given the industry a steady base to build upon, enabling three straight years of
  growth. The most impressive expansion of the wind industry was seen in 2007, when a
  record 5200 megawatts of new wind power capacity were added. The PTC enables
  utilities, wind energy developers and manufacturers to invest billions of dollars each
  year in equipment and facilities associated with the generation of electricity from
  renewable energy resources, such as wind, geothermal, biomass and hydropower.

It is crucial that the Congress renew the PTC to save the economy and several
different industries.
AWEA(American Wind Energy Association), Legislative Affairs,, 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                                                                                    87/130

Lack of solidified legislative action has stifled the investment climate for renewable
energies-extension of the production tax credit and adoption of a national renewable
portfolio standard are key
Furman in 2k8 (Donald, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Transmission and Policy
Iberdrola Renewables, CQ Congressional Testimony, Transmission of renewable electricity, June
17, LN)

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.

Production tax credit is vital to investment in renewables
Friedman in 2k8 (Thomas, The Times of Trenton, lead or leave, june 25, LN)
That bill is HR 6049 - "The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008," which extends for
another eight years the investment tax credit for installing solar energy and extends for one year
the production tax credit for producing wind power and for three years the credits for geothermal,
wave energy and other renewables. These critical tax credits for renewables are set to expire at
the end of this fiscal year and, if they do, it will mean thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars
of investments not made. "Already clean energy projects in the U.S. are being put on hold," said
Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. People forget, wind and solar
power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S.
market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines -
because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve,
become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                             RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                88/130

Incentives for renewables are key to building infrastructure necessary for long-term
energy security
Furman in 2k8 (Donald, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Transmission and Policy
Iberdrola Renewables, CQ Congressional Testimony, Transmission of renewable electricity, June
17, LN)

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                                                                                                             89/130

Government incentives are key to industry growth.
Phan 06, The Business Times Singapore, (Matthew, “Weighing the costs of going green;
Must environmental friendliness always be at odds with the pursuit of profits?” The Business
Times Singapore, on lexis nexus)

                                              Pro-environment measures seldom get going
   He sketched a road map for initially costly regulation.
   without the government stepping in in the beginning, but at some point the private
   sector takes over, he said. As industry finds a technology-driven, cost-efficient way to
   meet mandated standards, people are awakened to the benefits, and it becomes
   received knowledge, then an accepted practice. Eventually, customers demand it and, in the long term,
   the benefits are unchallenged, said Mr Inglin, citing examples such as the clean-up of the Singapore River in the mid-1990s
                                                     a current example would be California in
   and the abolition of lead petrol engines around the world. He said
   the US - the state has led the US in terms of legislating stringent environmental and
   health standards, and such legislation had not damaged the economy. If anything it has
   made Californian companies leaders in their fields, who can sell their know-how as other regions step
   up environmental standards. The water industry provides a local example, noted Howard Shaw, executive director of the
   Singapore Environment Council. 'We dealt with the issue aggressively because it concerned our national security. We
   pumped money into institutes and within a 10-year period created a name for ourselves within the area of water
   technology. It became our asset and a big source of income,' he said.With respect to alternative energy and
   other means of reducing carbon emissions, he said: 'The technology is there. We are test
   bedding all over the Biopolis. We need to find a good business model and sell it to India and China'. The tough
   question is how to be a 'leading edge' and not a 'bleeding edge' company, as NEA chair Mr
   Tay puts it. 'Early starters can take the lead, but you don't want to plunge in at the wrong
   time.' Private sector 'carrots', such as funding for green projects, have helped in other
   countries such as the UK, US and Japan, while Singapore signing up to the Kyoto Protocol means companies here can
   sell unused pollution quotas in Europe, said Mr Tay. 'Carrots are everywhere for investors and
   companies alike who understand that tomorrow's world will adopt more systematically
   energy efficient technologies. Many green/cleantech funds have been established and there are companies
   such as SustainAsia in Hong Kong that can offer direction with these,' said Steve Puckett, managing director of Tri-Zen
   International, an energy consultancy. But he also said there are few viable carbon-saving projects for fund managers to
   invest in.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                    RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                       90/130

RPS Incentives are key to transitioning to alternative energy
Pernick and Wilder 08, co-founder and principal of Clean Edge and journalist and author, (Ron and
Clint, ―Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study: Reaching Ten Percent Solar By 2025‖, June 2008,
    Utilities operate in a highly regulated industry, which means that government—federal, state,
    and local—has a critical role to play if solar is to reach 10 percent by 2025. Indeed, this
    goal cannot be reached without policy makers removing roadblocks and increasing
    incentives. In the current regulatory framework, the natural evolution of solar energy‘s steady growth and
   gradually reducing prices is insufficient to transform it from a niche resource into a mainstream technology that
                                 Public policy provides both the carrots and sticks that
   becomes a pillar of the electricity mix.
   prompt utilities to add solar to their portfolios. Through legislation, they develop the
   financial incentives that can justify investing in solar power plants, or through
   renewable portfolio standards, they can require (either indirectly or through carve-
   outs) the inclusion of solar as a percentage of their power generation. Regulations control
   the technical standards that so far have hindered integrating solar, as well as the rules and licensing requirements
   for the power industry. Congress has established corporate tax credits for utilities and third-party power producers
   of solar energy; expansion of these incentives would likely result in increased investment from utilities. Similarly,
   federal tax credits for residential and commercial solar purchases made through the end of 2007 have spurred
   installations, but such tax credits are currently unavailable to utilities for distributed solar projects. The Federal
   Energy Regulatory Commission sets the rules for transmission requirements and permitting of power generation
   for utilities. States have their own rules for transmission and interconnecting solar resources with the grid, forcing
                                                                        State utility commissions
   utilities that do business across state lines to grapple with multiple regulations.
   control the electricity rates that can be used to finance expanded solar investments
   as well as the grid interconnection standards, while environmental agencies oversee
   siting and permitting. These rules and regulations vary by state and even within
   utility service territory, which can impede solar development because of the higher
   cost of compliance with multiple rules. The agencies‘ ability to create consistent
   statewide and interstate regulations can simplify and reduce the cost of developing
   and deploying solar power. Municipal rules for interconnections or permitting can
   also vary from city to city, hindering investments in solar for utilities who want to
   serve multiple regions. The glut of localgovernment paperwork and technical hurdles as well as the
   economic uncertainty from temporary incentives has dampened utility enthusiasm for solar. Local regulators and
   policy makers could play a significant role merely by showing interest in solar, as evidenced by the Berkeley,
   California, City Council‘s municipal loan program for residential solar installations as discussed in the Utility
   Pathways section. As one utility executive said, ―If (local) commissioners got fired up about solar, that is more
   powerful than anything else.‖
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                               RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                   91/130

Renewable investment is falling now-PTC stability is key
Union of Concerned Scientists, Renewable Energy Tax Credit Extended Again, But
Risk of Boom Bust Cycle in Wind Industry Continues.
renewable-energy.html. 2008

  From 1999 until 2004, the PTC had expired on three separate occasions. Originally enacted as part of the Energy
  Policy Act of 1992, the PTC—then targeted to support just wind and certain bioenergy resources—was first
  allowed to sunset on June 30, 1999. In December of 1999, again due to the efforts of UCS and other
  organizations, the credit was extended until December 31, 2001. The PTC expired at the end of 2001, and it was
  not until March 2002 that the credit was extended for another two years. Congress allowed the PTC to expire for
  the third time at the end of 2003. From late 2003 through most of 2004 attempts to extend and expand the PTC
  were held hostage to the fossil-fuel dominated comprehensive energy bill that ultimately failed to pass during the
  108th Congress. In early October 2004, a one-year extension (retroactive back to January 1, 2004) of the PTC
  was included in a larger package of ‗high priority‘ tax incentives for businesses signed by President George Bush.
  A second bill—extending the PTC through 2005 and expanding the list of eligible renewable energy
                                                  with a growing number of states that
  technologies—was enacted just a few weeks later. Combined
  have adopted renewable electricity standards, the PTC has been a major driver of
  wind power development over the past six years. Unfortunately, the "on-again/off-
  again" status that has historically been associated with the PTC contributes to a
  boom-bust cycle of development that plagues the wind industry (see Figure below). The
  cycle begins with the wind industry experiencing strong growth in development
  around the country during the years leading up to the PTC‘s expiration. Lapses in
  the PTC then cause a dramatic slow down in the implementation of planned wind
  projects. When the PTC is restored, the wind power industry takes time to regain its
  footing, and then experiences strong growth until the tax credits expire. And so on. The
  last lapse in the PTC—at the end of 2003—came on the heels of a strong year in U.S.
  wind energy capacity growth. In 2003, the wind power industry added 1,687
  megawatts (MW) of capacity—a 36 percent annual increase. With no PTC in place for
  most of 2004, U.S. wind development decreased dramatically to less than 400 MW—
  a five-year low. With the PTC re-instated, 2005 marked the best year ever for U.S.
  wind energy development with 2,431 MW of capacity installed—a 43 percent
  increase over the previous record year established in 2001. With the PTC firmly in
  place, 2006 was another near record year in the U.S. wind industry. Wind power capacity
  grew by 2,454 MW—a 27 percent increase. The American Wind Energy Association projects similar growth in
  2007. Extending    the PTC through 2008 will allow the wind industry to continue
  building on previous years‘ momentum, but it is insufficient for sustaining the long-
  term growth of renewable energy. The planning and permitting process for new wind
  facilities can take up to two years or longer to complete. As a result, many
  renewable energy developers that depend on the PTC to improve a facility's cost
  effectiveness may hesitate to start a new project due to the uncertainty that the
  credit will still be available to them when the project is completed. UCS is continuing to
  work with our coalition partners to secure a longer PTC extension that helps boost development of clean
  renewable electricity, not polluting energy sources.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                        RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                           92/130

The current renewable energy projects are not efficient and are at serious risk of
being downsized and put on hold
Carl Gawell, Staff Writer,, When Will Congress Pass Tax
Credits for Renewable Energy. 2007
  Congress enacted a broad range of renewable energy tax credits in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but most expire at the
             Geothermal projects are already feeling the impact of the approaching
  end of 2008.
  deadline, as companies must increasingly gamble on what Congress and the President
  will or will not do about these credits. Unfortunately, this means some projects could be
  downsized or put on hold. Both the House and Senate have passed energy legislation this year. The House bill
  proposes a four-year extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydropower as
  well as the investment tax credit (ITC) for solar, fuel cells and other distributed technologies. The Senate Finance
  Committee approved a five-year extension of the PTC and ITC; however, because there were objections to how the credit is
  paid for, the provision needs 60 votes to pass on the Senate floor. As a result, the tax extensions have not yet been voted
  on. In addition, both the House and Senate legislation have included provisions that would expand the Clean Renewable
  Energy Bond (CREBs) program, which gives co-ops and public power groups incentives to invest in renewable energy.
  the fate of the energy bill is still unclear, as you probably have read in the news. Even
  with oil hitting $90 a barrel and a growing consensus about the urgent need to address
  global warming, it’s unclear if Congress will extend these credits before they expire.
  There are still real hurdles to overcome. The Administration’s formal statements on the
  House and Senate energy bills indicate the President will likely veto the bills as currently
  written. Also, the official Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statement ambiguously expresses opposition to the
  House bill’s $8 billion in renewable energy and conservation “tax credit bonds” and voices generalized “concerns” about the
  bill’s renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits.

The renewable energy industry relies on the 2008 extension of PTC.
Carl Gawell, Staff Writer,, When Will Congress Pass Tax
Credits for Renewable Energy, 2007
The history of the production tax credit, which was first written for new wind and
closed-loop biomass plants in 1992, shows that the credit often expired before it was
extended. It has been a rollercoaster ride for wind project developers, causing
damage to the industry whenever the credit expired. Everyone in the renewable
energy industry hopes these credits will be extended before Congress adjourns this
year. If the credits expire in 2008, renewable energy leaders are worried about
declines in the positive momentum now evident in all of the renewable energy
markets. It’s a good sign that both the House and Senate have passed fairly
significant extensions of these tax incentives, and the congressional leadership has
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                                                                           93/130
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:
standard.html accessed July 2, 2008

The United States is blessed by an abundance of renewable energy resources from
the sun, wind, and earth. Combined, the technical potential of major renewable
technologies could provide more than five times the electricity this country
needs.1 Good wind areas, covering only 6 percent of the lower 48-state land area, could
theoretically supply more than 1.3 times the total current national demand for
electricity. A 12,000- square-mile area in Nevada could produce enough electricity
from the sun to meet annual national demand. We have large untapped geothermal
and bioenergy (energy crops and plant waste) resources. Of course, there are limits to
how much of this potential can be used economically, because of competing land uses,
competing costs from other energy sources, and limits to the transmission system, but
there is more than enough to supply 10 percent, or even 20 percent, of our nation’s
electricity needs.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                           RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                              94/130

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.,

  RECs offer the potential to create a tradable market for renewable energy attributes,
  develop a competitive market and provide a source of funding to lower the overall cost
  of project development. Although the principal purpose of RECs may be used for
  regulatory compliance with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) in different states, it
  is used in the voluntary market by utilities. In this way utilities can demonstrate to
  electricity consumers, who have elected or chosen to pay premium prices for the
  electricity consumed, that the supply would be from renewable sources. RECs are also
  traded to offset emissions reduction projects from fossil fired units. RECs have also been
  used for “Greening” of events, such as making a conference “Carbon Neutral” by retiring
  the RECs to offset the carbon emissions calculated for the travel for all participants to the

  Generally U.S. companies developing renewable energy projects may be able to set-up
  and obtain Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), which is the prevalent offset crediting
  mechanism in many states. RECs are required by many states in the United States, who
  have developed and mandated Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards (RPS). Renewable
  Portfolio Standards require that certain percentage of a utilities overall, or new
  generating capacity, or energy sales must be derived from renewable resources.
  Generally RPS is backed with some form of penalties for non-compliance.

  About twenty three states in the United States have adopted some sort of Renewable
  Portfolio Standard or a Carbon amendment. The RPS requirements legislated by the
  various states differ with some requiring compliance immediately versus others
  mandating compliance over a much relaxed schedule such as meeting energy portfolio
  goals by 2015 or 2025. All these states have legislated differing RPS goals, some more
  aggressive than others, that require higher amounts of RECs to be generated from fossil
  burning electric utilities. For example, 30 percent of electric generation in Maine has to be
  from renewable sources by the year 2000.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                           RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                              95/130


RECs help transition electricity generation to RPS
Dulcey Simpkins, Coordinator of Michigan Biomass Energy Program, June 2006,
―Clean Energy from Wood Residues in Michigan‖, Michigan Biomass Energy Program,

   An RPS is a market standard requiring the production of a set amount of renewable
   energy. While it is a form of mandate, the role of government is not to dictate who shall
   produce what energy, but only to provide the means for certifying that it is in fact
   produced. Renewable Energy Credits are tradable forms of proof that renewable energy
   has been generated; “The RPS requires all electricity generators (or electricity retailers,
   depending on policy design) to demonstrate, through ownership of Credits, that they
   have supported an amount of renewable energy generation equivalent to some
   percentage of their total annual kWh sales.” Investors and energy generators make
   decisions about how to comply with the RPS, and because it applies to all energy
   generators it is not an anti-competitive measure.

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                                                                             96/130

  PTC is key to geothermal energy.

  Bill Bonner, The Daily Reckoning, Betting on Buffett,, June 10, 2008.

  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                                                                                                               97/130

RPS is feasible-Solar energy can fill in at competitive prices
Pernick and Wilder 08, co-founder and principal of Clean Edge and journalist and author, (Ron
and Clint, ―Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study: Reaching Ten Percent Solar By 2025‖, June
   Solar power has been expanding rapidly, growing an average of 40 percent per year
   since the beginning of this decade. In the past five years, global solar installations have
   expanded more than fourfold from approximately 600 megawatts (MW) in 2003 to nearly 3000 MW (the
   equivalent of three conventional power plants) in 2008. Many industry analysts and experts believe that
   solar offers the promise of contributing a significant percentage of America’s and the
   world’s energy needs moving forward. How much could it reasonably contribute? Today, solar still
   represents a minuscule amount of U.S. energy supply—less than one tenth of one
   percent of total electricity generation. What would it take to dramatically increase this number to make
   solar a significant portion of electricity use, transforming the way U.S. utilities think about solar in the process? Our
   research indicates that the solar contribution could be quite considerable, realistically
   reaching 10 percent of total U.S. electricity generation by 2025 by deploying a
   combination of solar photovoltaics (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP). Historically, utilities have
   played a marginal role in the direct growth of solar power. This is due to a number of reasons,
   from a utility mindset not originally aligned with distributed resources to the very real
   issue of solar as an expensive and intermittent energy source. But things are beginning to change.
   Public resistance remains high against nuclear power and increasingly high against coal.
   Since 2006, some 60 new coal plants in the U.S. have been cancelled, blocked, or delayed, and dozens more are being
   challenged in 20 states. Some states such as Kansas are considering moratoriums against new coal-fired generation—and
   this is even before nationwide mandatory carbon caps. California utilities are prohibited from buying new coal-fired power
                                                                                             As conventional
   from out of state. In this new world, solar can help deliver the reliability that utilities need.
   electricity sources such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear become increasingly expensive
   and solar technologies continue their inexorable price decline, the promise of a solar
   future beckons. Already, solar power can compete in regions with high electricity rates and with favorable incentives.
   It can compete effectively today for peak power production, in grid-constrained
   territories, and for applications that are off the grid. Indeed, solar offers a number of
   significant benefits to utilities struggling with the complex issues of today’s energy
   landscape. These benefits include: n Solar can offer a price hedge against volatile and increasing costs for fossilfuel
   resources like coal and natural gas. Once installed, solar provides stable fixed prices to utilities
   and users. n Solar is becoming a cost-effective peak generation resource. n Within a decade,
   solar power will be cost-competitive in most regions of the U.S. on a kilowatt-hour (Kwh) basis. n Compared to coal,
   nuclear, and gas-fired power plants, solar has no fuel costs, low maintenance costs, and will provide credits, rather than
   costs, in a carbon-regulated world. n Solar PV is a widely available resource, suited to most locales around the nation. n
   Solar PV can ease congestion in regions where energy demands have stressed the grid.
   Utilities can use solar to meet state, and potentially national, Renewable Portfolio
   Standard (RPS) requirements. n Solar is a domestically available, carbon-free energy
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                            RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                               98/130


Solar can economically provide 10 percent of US electricty
Pernick and Wilder 08, co-founder and principal of Clean Edge and journalist and author, (Ron and
Clint, ―Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study: Reaching Ten Percent Solar By 2025‖, June 2008,
    This report, the Utility Solar Assessment (U.S.A) Study, provides a robust roadmap for
    electric utilities to accelerate the growth of solar energy. Our research incorporates
    the latest technology, market, and policy breakthroughs, and interviews with more than 30
    key industry players and experts, to show how a coordinated effort among regulators, the
    solar industry, and utilities can enable solar to reach 10 percent of U.S. electricity
    generation by 2025. We aren‘t alone in this assessment. The Solar Electric Industries
    Association (SEIA) trade group, in its Solar PV Roadmap issued in 2004, stated that solar
    could provide 50% of new U.S. generation by 2030, a projected 7 percent of total
    electricity at that time. In our 2005 report, SHINE, we highlighted a plan that would
    enable the U.S. to get ten percent of its electricity from PV sources alone by 2025 via a
    concerted effort by the federal government to encourage increased investment in and
    deployment of solar power. Some people have gone even further. In their widely cited
    Scientific American article, ―A Solar Grand Plan‖ published in January 2008, authors Ken
    Zweibel, James Mason, and Vasilis Fthenakis outline how the U.S. could get 69% of its
    electricity from solar by 2050.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                     RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                        99/130

Alternative energy is coming- with the help of government incentives, change could
happen by 2010
Pernick and Wilder 08, co-founder and principal of Clean Edge and journalist and author, (Ron
and Clint, ―Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study: Reaching Ten Percent Solar By 2025‖, June
   Equally important, we project that solar PV will reach cost parity with conventional retail
   electricity pricing, on a straight kWh rate basis, throughout much of the U.S. by
   around 2015. We project that the cost for crystalline silicon PV systems will drop
   from an average of $7 peak watt (19-32 cents kWh) today to approximately $3.00 (8-14 cents
   kWh) a decade from now. Thin-film PV systems and low-price, bulk-purchased crystalline PV systems are
   projected to drop from around $5.50 per peak watt today (15-25 cents kWh) to $3.00 peak watt in 2015 (8-14
   cents kWh) and less than $1.50 peak watt (4-7 cents kWh) in 2025. In our utility-scale concentrating solar power
   (CSP) calculations we show an average price of $3.50 per watt (around 18 cents per kWh) in 2007 declining to
                                                    Recent industry developments,
   around $1 peak watt (approximately 5 cents per kWh) in 2025.
   particularly large-scale solar deployment plans announced by major utilities,
   support the price projections outlined in this report. As utilities and others scale up
   their solar efforts, they are reaching economies of scale unlike anything we‘ve seen
   in the past. Southern California Edison‘s recently announced 250 MW rooftop
   installation program is the perfect case in point. SCE could reach the $3.50 peak
   watt installed price as early as 2010. This supports the case that such price points
   are achievable and that some players may even get there sooner. It is also possible
   that one or more disruptive players could enter the market at a scale and price
   points as early as 2010 that could achieve solar cost parity even sooner. While this report
   doesn‘t specifically map this more accelerated scenario, utilities and policy makers should keep a watch out for
   even more favorable solar cost comparisons than discussed by this report. In short, whether the market follows
   the trajectory mapped in this report, or a disruptive player forces an even more aggressive scenario, solar cost
   parity is within the planning horizon of most every utility in the U.S. Based on projected trends in declining costs of
   solar and increasing retail electricity rates, the following tables show how solar PV—beginning to reach cost
   competitiveness in just a few U.S. regional markets today—will be cheaper than standard grid power in most U.S.
   markets by 2025.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                      RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                       100/130

Alternative energy will be cost competitive.
Pernick and Wilder 08, co-founder and principal of Clean Edge and journalist and author, (Ron
and Clint, ―Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study: Reaching Ten Percent Solar By 2025‖, June
   Dramatic change is never easy. But we strongly believe, based on our assessment
   of industry dynamics and the many interviews conducted for this report, that today‘s
   grand vision—10 percent of U.S. electricity from solar by 2025—is not a pipe dream.
   Challenges exist, but the pathways we have mapped out for utilities, regulators,
   policymakers, and technologists are sensible and realistic. Most importantly, cost
   parity for solar is within the planning horizon of most every utility in the U.S. Grand
   visions for solar power are not new. Since the 1970s, solar industry advocates have waxed
   enthusiastic about the technology‘s potential to supply a significant portion of the nation‘s electricity needs. But for
   myriad reasons, the reality of solar power in the U.S. has fallen far short of that vision. We believe, based on the
   research in this report and the industry trends we see unfolding every day, that the context of solar power in the
                                  Technology and efficiency are improving, costs are falling,
   United States is changing rapidly.
   costs of traditional power sources including natural gas, coal and nuclear are
   skyrocketing, and utilities that have long ignored or even opposed solar on a large
   scale are changing their tune. From now to 2025 and beyond, solar (both PV and CSP)
   presents dramatic new, costeffective opportunities for utilities struggling with the
   challenges of increased fuel and construction costs for fossil fuel and nuclear
   plants, RPS mandates, public and political opposition to coal, demands for grid
   modernization, and the strong likelihood of nationwide carbon caps in the next 12 to
   18 months. Admittedly, the price tag to get to 10 percent solar—$450 billion to $560 billion—isn‘t small. But
   utilities are used to spending billions of dollars in capital investments for generation assets and transmission and
   distribution—as long as they have the incentives and tools to get there. Indeed, the financial requirements
   outlined in this report aren‘t for R&D, they would go toward the direct installation of solar PV systems on rooftops,
   carports, and adjacent to buildings and to large-scale PV and CSP systems. They would equate to actual energy
   production, a combined cumulative installation of 250 GW of solar power.To put the $450 billion to
   $560 billion price tag in perspective: the Edison Electric Institute estimates that the
   U.S. electric utility industry spent more than $70 billion on new power plants and
   new transmission and distribution investments in 2007 alone. As we point out earlier
   in the report, the estimated solar price tag would represent approximately a half to a
   third of utility investments between now and 2025, if similar spending patterns
   occur. Venture capitalists, government labs, corporations, and others have been building out the next-gen solar
   opportunity—with big players like Sharp, Applied Materials, and GE competing against relative newcomers like
   Suntech Power, SunPower, and Q-Cells, who themselves are working to stay ahead of smaller startups like
   Miasolé, Nanosolar, and SolFocus. These companies are delivering advanced, scaleable technologies that will
   enable the next wave of energy innovation. Our research indicates that the goal of 10 percent solar by 2025 is
   absolutely within reach. We recommend that all the players covered in this report—utilities, industry players,
                                                                        In the context
   regulators, and policymakers—start on these courses of action with a strong sense of urgency.
   of U.S. energy independence, economic innovation, job creation, and climate
   change—there is no time to lose.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                        RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                          101/130

Wind power combined with proper storage is an effective means of renewable
Richard Baxter in 2005 (December 16, Sr. Technology Analyst of Ardour Capital Investments,
Energy Pulse, ―Energy Storage - Supporting Greater Wind Energy Usage‖,
   The benefits of using wind energy can be quite high. A number of studies by US
   Government Laboratories (NREL, LLNL, etc.) have shown that adding wind to a diesel-
   powered local grid can reduce fuel consumption by 40%-50% and total costs by 30% to
   50% for areas with plentiful wind resources.(1) However, because of the small size of these power grids
   (lack of system inertia, etc.) simply adding wind turbines to small power grids cannot be done haphazardly—a systematic
   review of the load and potential additional wind turbines must be undertaken to ascertain potential benefits, and to
                                                               the opportunity exists to
   determine what level of wind penetration is best. For many of these power grids,
   have wind resources well in excess of 50% of the peak load. The same studies that
   showed that increasing the wind penetration can lower the diesel fuel costs on these
   systems also showed that adding a storage component can gain an additional 10%-20%
   in system cost reductions. Although wind turbines provide power with no fuel cost, they bring
   with them operational characteristics that cause the overall system to operate at sub-optimal conditions many times due to
   the variability of the wind energy, the non-dispatchability of the wind energy, and the additional system stabilization
   requirements (frequency and voltage) required. By alleviating some of the stress on the system by operating as a dynamic
   source and sink for power (a shock absorber), energy storage can be a beneficial additional to these island grids for three
   general reasons: reducing diesel starts/runtime, providing system stability, and improving the reliability of supply from
                                           The value of energy storage to the system
   increasing the level of wind penetration for the system.
   increases as the wind penetration increases, as there will be an increasing amount of
   time that the available wind power exceeds the total system loads. According to one
   NREL study(2), at 50% wind penetration, storage can provide 20% greater fuel saving
   and 20% fewer diesel run-tine than non-storage wind/diesel systems alone.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                       RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                         102/130

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‖,
  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
                                                                            one natural
  clothes and baked the mud bricks that became the foundation of many a civilization. But until recently,
  force has largely eluded the 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                                                                                   103/130

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                                                                                                     104/130

The counterplan either doesn‘t solve or there is no net benefit-the interstate transmission
of energy is preempted by federal law. Only federal action can get the right of way permits
needed to build infastructure
WGA no date (The Western Governors‘ Association, an independent, nonprofit organization
representing the governors of 19 states and three U.S.-Flag islands in the Pacific. Through their
Association, the Western governors identify and address key policy and governance issues in
natural resources, the environment, human services, economic development, international
relations and public management. The Reality of Permitting Interstate Transmission Facilities
Federal preemption of state siting and eminent domain processes will jeopardize the construction
of needed transmission facilities by: (1) centralizing land use decisions in Washington, D.C., far from
those impacted; (2) imposing new requirements on transmission line permitting (e.g., NEPA requirements in areas where
EISs are not currently required); and (3) requiring FERC, an agency already overburdened with its current workload
and frequently unable to make timely decisions, to take on massive new responsibilities. Granting FERC
eminent domain authority will undermine existing state processes that are working. As outlined below, the facts do not
support an argument for federal preemption of state authority. The federal government needs to act to get its own house
in order. THE WESTERN INTERCONNECTION • No state has ever denied a permit for an interstate transmission line. •
The major challenge to siting transmission in the Western Interconnection is securing rights-
ofway across federal lands. • A Protocol has been signed by Western states and federal agencies to formalize
cooperation in the review of proposed interstate transmission facilities. One of the reasons for this sterling record is that
for the past 20 years the states and provinces in the Western Interconnection have been sharing information on
transmission issues through the Western Interstate Energy Board‘s Committee on Regional Electricity Power
Cooperation. The common view of the interconnected nature of transmission issues that has emerged has smoothed the
way for state action on individual interstate transmission proposals. The major challenge to securing permits for
interstate transmission facilities in the West has been securing permits from federal agencies.
This is particularly troublesome in the West where the federal government owns vast tracts of
land in the West (e.g., the federal government owns 83% of the land in Nevada, 65% of Utah,
63% of Idaho, 53% of Oregon, 50% of Wyoming, 46% of Arizona, 45% of California, 36% of
Colorado, 34% of New Mexico, 29% of Washington, and 28% of Montana.) Federal land
management agencies operate under a myriad of laws.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                            RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                              105/130

States will deny each other permission to transmit power over state lines
WGA no date (The Western Governors‘ Association, an independent, nonprofit organization
representing the governors of 19 states and three U.S.-Flag islands in the Pacific. Through their
Association, the Western governors identify and address key policy and governance issues in
natural resources, the environment, human services, economic development, international
relations and public management. The Reality of Permitting Interstate Transmission Facilities

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                                                                                                      106/130

Federal action key-federal government will preempt authority over electricity transmission
US House Special Investigations Division in 2k6 (Congressional Preemption of State Laws
and Regulations United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform -
Minority Staff Special Investigations Division June 2006,
Republican leaders in Congress and President Bush have long claimed to respect the role of states as
laboratories of democracy. These claims were an important element of the midterm elections in 1994 that led to
Republican control of Congress. And they were an important part of George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 2000.
After the 2000 election, President Bush pledged to support the nation's governors and affirmed his view that the role of
the federal government is "not to impose its will on states and local communities." At the request of Rep. Henry A.
Waxman, this report evaluates the legislative record of the Republican-controlled Congress and President Bush
on a key aspect of state authority: federal preemption of state and local laws. The report is based on a
comprehensive list assembled by the Special Investigations Division of the preemptive legislation passed by the House
and Senate over the last five years. The report documents that there exists a wide gulf between the pro-states
rhetoric of Republican leaders and the actual legislative record. Rather than ceding power to the states,
the Republican-controlled Congress and President Bush have repeatedly preempted state authority and
centralized policy-making in Washington. Key Findings Over the past five years, the House and the Senate have voted 57
times to preempt state laws and regulations. These votes have resulted in 27 laws, signed by the President, that preempt
state authority. Some of this legislation contains multiple distinct preemptive provisions. Over the last five years, the
House and the Senate have passed 73 separate preemptive provisions, and 39 of these have become law.
An examination of this legislation reveals that Congress and the President have routinely backed federal
legislation that usurps traditional state powers. The reach of the preemptive legislation is broad and its
intrusiveness is deep. Literally hundreds of state laws have been or would be overridden. The House and Senate have
passed legislation that would preempt states from regulating sources of air pollution, setting health insurance standards,
and protecting consumers from contaminated food. Areas of traditional state prerogatives, such as local
land use decisions and the issuance of drivers' licenses, have been federalized, and states have been blocked
from protecting their citizens from emerging threats, such as unsolicited "spam" email. Last year, Congress passed - and
the President flew through the night to sign - legislation to override the judgment of a state court in an individual family's
private end-of-life decision. Most of the preemptive federal legislation passed by the House and the Senate over the last
five years falls into four general categories: Usurping State Choices on Social Policies. The House and Senate have voted
ten times to preempt states in the area of social policy. Congress has enacted laws that override state decisions regarding
abortion, gun control, and school prayer. The House has passed legislation that would displace state laws regarding
parental notification for teens seeking abortions. In the case of Terri Schiavo, Congress passed legislation and issued
subpoenas to overturn the judgment of state courts and prevent the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tubes.
Preventing States from Protecting Health, Safety, and the Environment. The House and the Senate have voted 15 times
to override state health, safety, and environmental laws. Congress has enacted laws that bar states from
regulating emissions from lawnmowers, requiring the use of clean-burning gasoline, or controlling the siting of
electricity transmission lines and liquefied natural gas terminals. The House has passed legislation that would
preempt state food safety laws and block states from requiring health insurers to offer basic services such as
ammography screening and maternity care. In these areas, the traditional approach of enacting a federal "floor," which
establishes minimum federal standards but allows states to adopt more stringent requirements, has been reversed in
favor of the creation of a federal "ceiling."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                               RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                 107/130

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

Renewable will be more cost effective and cheaper
Environment and Energy in 2k8 (renewable energy: high commodity prices hurt, but industry
backers see bright future, june 20, LN)
There was little discussion at the conference about high commodity costs.
"It's an irritant because it gets more expensive, but the fact is, these commodities have gone up
less than oil and gas prices, so they have a bigger problem then we do," Eckhart explained. "If
we're competing against oil and gas prices, our costs in prices have not gone up as much as
theirs, so even though ours are going up, the relative economics are still shifting in our favor."
What lies behind those favorable economics, analysts say, is that traditional coal and gas energy
generators are more vulnerable because they also have to purchase fuel, whose cost is expected
to steadily rise over time. Renewable energy developers still face a tough time financing and
building new projects, but their fuel is free. If energy prices continue to climb into the foreseeable
future, as most analysts expect, that should eventually shift the balance in clean energy's favor.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                   RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                     108/130

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‖
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.

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                                                                                                              109/130

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,,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                                                                                       110/130


Oil isn’t used for electricity production.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 07 (―Electricity from Oil‖,
                                                       or home heating purposes,
In the United States, oil is used mostly for transportation
although a small percentage is used as a fuel for electricity generating plants. As with other
fossil fuels, oil is found in underground reservoirs. It is the end product of the decomposition of organic
materials that have been subjected to geologic heat and pressure over millions of years. Oil is considered a
nonrenewable resource because it cannot be replenished on a human timeframe.

Only oil residue is used in electricity production.
New England Energy Alliance 05, (―Residual Fuel Oil‖,
Residual Fuel Oil: The topped crude of refinery operation including No. 5 and No. 6
fuel oils. Residual fuel oil is used for the production of electric power, space heating,
vessel bunkering, and various industrial purposes.

US only uses oil for 2 percent of electricity generation
Culverco 2k5 (company specializing in Educational Public Outreach Programs for Electric,
Natural Gas, and Water Utility Companies, electricity generation and distribution,
The majority of electricity used in the U.S. is generated from power plants that burn fossil fuels
(coal, oil, and natural gas) to heat water and make steam. The highly pressurized steam is
directed at the blades of turbines to make them spin. Coal, oil, and natural gas are known as
fossil fuels because they were formed from the fossilized remains of animals or plants that lived
long ago. Long ago, even before the dinosaurs, these plants and animals died and settled to the
bottom of lakes and oceans to be covered over by sand and mud. Over millions of years, the
earth's pressure and heat converted their remains into coal, oil, and natural gas. Coal is extracted
from the ground at large mines. Coal is used to generate about half of the electricity used in the
U.S. Natural gas and oil are obtained through wells drilled deep in the earth. Natural gas is used
to generate about 10 percent of the electricity used in the U.S., and oil is used to generate about
two percent of electricity used in the U.S. The U.S. depends on natural gas for about 24% of its
total primary energy requirements.

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,
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                                                                              111/130

RPS does not reduce enough carbon emissions to solve warming.
Press Release, Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard will Reduce Power and Natural Gas
Costs, but not have a significant Impact on GHG Emissions Levels,2007, online: accessed June
30, 2008
A 15-percent Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) will drive down natural gas
demand and price, lower the overall price of power, but only lead to a slowing in the growth rate
of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), not an absolute reduction from current levels according to
the new Wood Mackenzie report, "The Impact of a Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard." The
United States needs to build 420 GW of capacity over the next 20 years to replace aging facilities
and meet its ever-growing need for electricity. Mounting concerns over US dependence on fossil
fuels and the need to address global warming are helping to drive efforts in the US Congress to
pass legislation establishing a federal standard to mandate the use of renewable energy. Recent
RPS proposals call for an average of 15 percent of power generation to come from renewable
sources within the next two decades, up from 6 percent today. While the US Congress
contemplates a federal standard, 24 states have already adopted legislation mandating targets
for renewables. Renewable energy in this case is defined as wind, solar, landfill gas, biomass,
and small hydro power. "Renewable energy alone will not be enough to result in the large GHG
reduction targets being proposed," said Joe Sannicandro, VP - North American Power and
Michael Pickens, Senior Analyst - North American Power for Wood Mackenzie. "Currently, the US
power sector produces 39 percent of the country's total CO2 emissions. Our study shows that a
Federal RPS would only be one small piece in a large and complicated puzzle to halt the growth
of or reduce the absolute level of CO2 emissions. The study shows that implementing the Federal
RPS would reduce total domestic CO2 levels in 2025 by only 10% from the Wood Mackenzie
base case. Equally important is that the growth rate in CO2 production is still a positive 0.8% per
year under a Federal RPS compared with a growth rate of 1.2% per year in Wood Mackenzie's
base case outlook. Clearly, a reduction in total CO2 levels will require other options to be
implemented including nuclear power, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with carbon
sequestration and demand-side approaches to reduce the growth rate of electricity consumption."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                            RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                              112/130

90% of the public supports Renewable Energy improvements
R. Haynes, “An overview of U.S. state-level incentives and policies promoting fuel cell”, 2003
accessed July 2, 2008
Serious problems associated with fossil fuel dependency are becoming more
pronounced. Governing bodies—both in the United States and abroad—are increasingly taking actions to curtail short- and
long-term environmental degradation, public health complications, and the political and economic risks arising from fossil fuel
procurement and combustion. Moreover,    national security concerns have been a prime motivator
for energy policy re examination. One obvious alternative to fossil-fuel-based energy
is renewable energy, which is considerably cleaner and can be produced
domestically. Since 1979, U.S. public opinion polls consistently have shown that a
majority of citizens prefer renewable energy resources and energy efficiency
improvements over conventional energy options. Within the past three years, separate polls
have revealed that approximately 90 percent of U.S. citizens support ―investments
in new sources of energy such as solar, wind and fuel cells.‖ [5] However, the retail cost of
renewable energy is considerably higher than that of conventional energy, and consumers are generally unwilling
to pay more for it. Increased and sustained government support is therefore
desirable to expand the market for renewable energy and to ensure that the retail
cost of renewable energy continues to decline.

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,
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                                                                             113/130

Polls say that American voters agree that there’s an energy problem – 98% of thos
polled support 25% of our energy consumption becoming renewable
Agriculture Online 2006 (3/8/06, ―Survey shows public support for renewable energy‖,

  A new national public opinion survey demonstrates overwhelming public support for
  government policies and investments that will support development of renewable
  energy sources like solar, wind and ethanol. "This survey underscores a major shift in
  public opinion," says Read Smith, co-chair of the 25 x '25 Work Group, an organization
  that would like to see the US to get 25% of all energy from renewable resources by the
  year 2025. "Americans want to invest in renewable energy right here at home so that we
  are less dependent on countries in unfriendly and unstable parts of the world." Survey
  results were released today at the 25x'25 Agriculture and Forestry Renewable Energy
  Summit. Among the findings:

  Ninety-eight percent of voters see a national goal of having 25% of our domestic energy
  needs met by renewable resources by the year 2025 as important for the country, and
  74% feel that it is "very important." Ninety percent of voters believe this goal is
  achievable. Similar majorities support government action to encourage greater use of
  renewable energy: 88% favor financial incentives, and 92% support minimum government
  standards for the use of renewable energy by the private sector. Nearly all voters (98%)
  say the costs, such as the cost of research and development and the cost of building new
  renewable energy production facilities, would be worth it to move us toward the 25x'25
  goal. Voters consider energy to be an important issue facing the country, rating it
  similarly with health care, terrorism and national security, and education, and ahead of
  taxes and the war in Iraq. Half (50%) of voters believe America is headed for an energy
  crisis in the future, and 35% believe the country already is facing a crisis. Voters see many
  convincing arguments for a shift to renewable energy -- the need to reduce U.S.
  dependence on foreign oil, protection of the environment for future generations, the
  readiness of these technologies to contribute today, and the opportunities they present
  to create new jobs, especially in rural communities.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                           RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                            114/130

Public interest in renewables is massive.
Sarah Wynatt, 3-08-08. Staff Writer, 25x25. Survey shows Overwhelming support for
Renewable Energy. ( 7-01-
A new national public opinion survey demonstrates overwhelming public support for
government policies and investments that will support development of renewable energy
sources like solar, wind and ethanol.
 "This survey underscores a major shift in public
opinion," says Read Smith, co-chair of the 25 x '25 Work Group. "Americans want to invest
in renewable energy right here at home so that we are less dependent on countries in
unfriendly and unstable parts of the world."
 The survey of 1,000 registered voters was
conducted by Public Opinion Strategies of Alexandria, VA, for the Energy Future Coalition, a
non-partisan public policy initiative that sponsored the research for the 25x'25 Work Group.
Results were released on March 8th at the 25x'25 Agriculture and Forestry Renewable
Energy Summit. Among the findings: There is nearly unanimous support for a national goal
of having 25% of our domestic energy needs met by renewable resources by the year 2025.
Ninety-eight percent of voters see this goal as important for the country, and three out of
four (74%) feel that it is "very important." Ninety percent of voters believe this goal is
achievable. Similar majorities support government action to encourage greater use of
renewable energy. Eighty-eight percent of voters favor financial incentives, and 92%
support minimum government standards for the use of renewable energy by the private
sector. Nearly all voters (98%) say the costs, such as the cost of research and development
and the cost of building new renewable energy production facilities, would be worth it to
move us toward the 25x'25 goal. Voters consider energy to be an important issue facing the
country, rating it similarly with health care, terrorism and national security, and education,
and ahead of taxes and the war in Iraq. Half (50%) of voters believe America is headed for
an energy crisis in the future, and 35% believe the country already is facing a crisis. Voters
see many convincing arguments for a shift to renewable energy – the need to reduce U.S.
dependence on foreign oil, protection of the environment for future generations, the
readiness of these technologies to contribute today, and the opportunities they present to
create new jobs, especially in rural communities.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                          RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                            115/130

Wind energy has popular support
Jeff Dale, in 1997 (January, member of the National Conference of State Legislatures,
Wind Energy Issue Brief, National Wind Coordination Committee ―The Benefits of Wind
  In addition to its economic benefits, wind power has the benefit of public support.
  Because it produces no pollution or hazardous waste, it has far-reaching benefits for
  public health and the economy. Air pollutants have been shown to reduce lifespans,
  increase the incidence of debilitating illnesses, damage wildlife and plants, reduce crop
  yields and, potentially, cause major changes in climate. Utilities can take advantage of
  wind power's popularity with consumers-many of whom have indicated a willingness to
  spend more for "green power." The significant benefits of wind power should play an increasingly important
  role in decisions about future power plant construction. Regardless of the outcome of utility restructuring, the benefits of
  environmental protection, long-term price stability and economic development will continue to make wind power an
  attractive and viable energy source.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                  RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                    116/130

The public backs small-scale wind energy, but a large-scale effort such as the plan
would cause widespread opposition
U.S. Department of Energy in 2005 (―Policies to Promote Non-hydro Renewable
in the United States and Selected Countries‖, USDOE, February 2005)

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                                                                           117/130

McCain hates the plan
PR Newswire in 2k8 (democratic national committee, june 25, LN)
One thing McCain won't bring to Nevada, however, is green jobs. McCain has repeatedly voted
against the kind of tax incentives that would promote investments in renewable energy and create
green jobs. Just last year, McCain opposed legislation that would have extended the renewable
energy production tax credit, putting an estimated 116,000 American jobs at risk, including more
than 76,000 in the wind industry and 40,000 in the solar industry.

McCain hates the plan
States News Service in 2k8 (mccain continues to dim clean energy future while visiting sunny
Nevada, June 25, LN)
   John McCain continues to oppose essential incentives for clean energy that could be a
   boon to the economy of not only Nevada , but the nation as a whole. He opposes both the
   extension of the soon-to-expire Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit (these
   two incentives benefit renewable energy) and a national Renewable Electricity Standard.
   John McCain was the only Senator not to vote twice when extending the clean energy
   incentives failed by just a single vote ( 12/13/07 , Vote 425; 02/06/08 , Vote 8).

McCain has already voted against renewable energy in the past.
The Democratic Party in ‘08 (The Democratic Party, McCain Renewable Energy Record:
Endlessly Bad,

       McCain voted against an amendment to extend the renewable energy production
        tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years including
        $290 Million for renewable energy R&D on Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass,
        hydropower. [2006 Senate Vote #42, 3/14/2006]
       McCain Voted Against Major Energy Legislation Providing $18 Billion In Energy
        Related Tax Incentives. McCain voted against the passage of the Energy Policy Act
        of 2005. The bill would overhaul the nation's energy policy and provide for
        approximately $18 billion in energy-related tax incentives. [2005 Senate Vote #158,
       McCain voted against an amendment to establish tax credits for investments in
        renewable energy technologies, incentives for new energy efficient residential
        construction and tax deductions for increased energy efficiency in commercial
        buildings. [2001 Senate Vote #125, 5/21/2001]
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                          RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                           118/130

McCain’s proposed energy plan simply pushes for more coal and ethanol – he
doesn’t even support incentives to advance such technology
ENN on 7/2 (Environmental News Network, ―McCain and Obama’s Plans to Combat
Climate Change‖, July 2, 2008,, accessed July
6, 2008)

  Although McCain says that he supports renewable energy, he has not set specific
  targets. John McCain’s website ( makes no mention of solar, wind,
  renewable energy, or even public transportation under the section on climate change
  and has no section on energy. The Senate was one vote shy of passing an economic
  stimulus package earlier this year that contained an incentive for solar energy. McCain
  didn’t show up to vote. He also does support the subsidies for ethanol that are currently
  in place. “Coal fired power plants,” said McCain “are being proposed to be built all over
  this country”¦If you can generate that power and set up a station that is powered by
  solar, by God I would love it, but you know we don’t have that technology.” Despite the
  advancement of renewable energy in recent years, McCain doesn’t support incentives
  similar to what he has proposed for nuclear power and “clean” coal.

McCain show strong opposition against standards that require energy generating
form renewable sources.
   Noam N. Levey July 1, 2008 (Los Angeles Times Staff Writer;,0,6377903,full.story )

  McCain's record of tackling energy policy on Capitol Hill shows little of the clear
  direction he says would come from a McCain White House. Instead, the Arizona senator
  has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory
  stances on the federal government's role in energy policy. At times he has backed
  measures to ease restrictions on oil drilling off the coast and in Alaska's Arctic National
  Wildlife Refuge. Other times he has voted to keep them. He has championed standards
  to require that automakers make vehicles more fuel-efficient, yet opposed standards to
  require that utilities use less fossil fuel by generating more power from renewable
  sources, such as wind and solar. [Etc. etc.] McCain has rejected federal tax breaks for
  renewable energy producers, but backs billions of dollars in subsidies for the nuclear
  industry.He has criticized corn-based ethanol for doing "nothing to increase our energy
  independence." Yet while campaigning in 2006 in the Midwest corn belt, McCain called
  ethanol a "vital, vital alternative energy source."Senior McCain policy advisor Douglas
  Holtz-Eakin said McCain's positions reflected a pragmatic approach to governing. "Sen.
  McCain is interested in getting results," he said.But many environmentalists see it as
  inconsistency. "There is a very sporadic pattern here," said Tim Greef, deputy legislative
  director of the League of Conservation Voters.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                            RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                             119/130

Obama’s committed to establishing a Renewable Portfolio Standard and creating
tax credits
Grist 6/16 (Kate Sheppard, ―A matter of rust‖,

   In a speech this morning in Flint, Mich., Obama outlined plans to make America more
   competitive in the global economy -- including making the country more energy
   independent, and creating new manufacturing jobs in emerging energy, technology, and
   efficiency sectors. In his address, he promised to reduce U.S. dependence on oil and gas
   and create at least 5 million new "green jobs." He touted his plans to invest $150 billion
   over 10 years to create second-generation biofuels, develop other renewable energy
   sources, and transition to a digital electricity grid. He also promised to create a federal
   Renewable Portfolio Standard and extend the Production Tax Credit, actions that he
   says will help create new jobs.

Obama supports funding for renewable energy
Hargreaves in ’08 (Staff Writer, CNN, Shooting the Moon on Renewables,
   "That's less than a third of what we're spending in Iraq," said Keith Schneider, a
   spokesman for the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of politicians, environmentalists, labor
   groups and businesses pushing the idea. "It's not a big number." Barack Obama is
   halfway there. The presumed Democratic nominee wants to fund renewable energy to
   the tune of $15 billion a year for 10 years, paid for by auctioning off permits to
   companies that emit greenhouse gases. McCain also wants to issue permits to pollute
   in an effort to gradually reduce greenhouse gasses - a plan known as "cap-and-trade" -
   but he doesn't want to charge companies for them, at least at first.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                             RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                              120/130

Obama supports a national RPS
Environmental News Network in 08 (Environmental News Network, Environmental, McCain and Obama’s plan s to combat climate change,

  Obama’s goal is to have two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol in use by 2013. This is fuel
  made from non-food sources, such as switch grass and municipal waste. He plans to use
  tax incentives, government contracts and cash prizes to help this industry mature and
  specifically wants to encourage farmer-owned refineries. He would like renewable fuel
  standards to increase, such that 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels are in the fuel
  supply by 2030. A National Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a mechanism that Obama plans
  to use that requires fuel suppliers to decrease carbon emissions from fuels by 10% by
  2020 and he specifically wants to encourage non-petroleum fuels to reach this target.
  Renewable Energy “For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet,
  the age of oil must end in our time,” said Obama. By 2025, Obama would like 25% of
  U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and
  geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be
  invested over 10 years in clean energy, infrastructure to support it, and possibly nuclear
  energy. Investment in a national digital electric grid would allow greater amounts of
  renewable energy to be utilized and make plug-in hybrids more environmentally sound.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                       RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                         121/130

House democrats oppose the plan
Congressional Documents and Publications in 2k8 (after house democrats stymie renewable
energy tax credit extension, Domenici backs second effort in senate, june 20, LN)
   After House Democrats stripped an extension of tax credits for renewable energy out of
   one of the few bills likely to move through Congress this year, U.S. Senator Pete Domenici
   backed a prior bipartisan effort to restore the provisions and ensure that clean energy
   technologies continue to prosper. Domenici, who serves as ranking member of the Senate
   Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was an original cosponsor of a similar
   amendment extending the tax credits to the Housing Bill (H.R.3221) which passed the
   Senate in April on an 88-8 vote. However, during messages between the House and
   Senate, House Democrats stripped the tax credit extensions out of the bill.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                         RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                           122/130

The Democrats show huge support for renewable energy – a major turning point
has occurred to spur the Congress to follow
Washington Post in 2007 (Sholnn Freeman, Staff Writer, ―House Passes Bill to Support
Renewable Energy‖, August 5, 2007,
dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080400915.html, accessed July 6, 2008)

  Since taking control of Congress last year, the Democrats have identified the reordering
  of the nation's energy priorities as an important goal that would position their party as
  the principal advocates for environmentally friendly policies. "This is the historic break
  with the fossil-fuel past and the beginning of the solar wind renewable era in the United
  States," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the Select Committee on
  Energy Independence and Global Warming. "People will look back at this as the turning
  point where Congress began to embrace renewable energy."
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                      RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                       123/130

GOP filibusters anything considered ―Green‖, Plan unpopular
Brad Plumer, 6-10-08. The New Republic Staff Writer. Is any sort of climate action
possible this year?
Actually, a lot of states have pursued this strategy: Rather than trying to shoehorn one big
emission-capping bill through the legislature, the states have focused on smaller things
like tightening building efficiency codes, improving fuel-economy standards for
automobiles, or requiring utilities to get a certain percentage of electricity from
renewable sources. Pass enough of these measures, and pretty soon, they're making
decent headway on their emissions target. Mind you, a lot of these intermediate steps—
like the renewable portfolio standard—can't even squeak through the current
Senate, since the GOP has been filibustering anything with even a light-green tint to
it. But surely it's worth chipping away where possible while waiting around for the big
cap-and-trade bill or carbon tax to garner enough votes.

RPS is unpopular with the GOP, and Oil and Gas companies.
E&E News, 2k7. Accessed via (
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                                                                           124/130


GOP filibusters RPS bills, plan is unpopular with them.
NYT, 2k7. Energy measure blocked in senate by republicans, 7/1/08.
Republicans vowed to filibuster over a Democratic proposal that would force electric
utility companies to generate a big share of their power from renewable fuels, and
Democrats failed to muster the 60 votes needed to close off debate.
The impasse forced Democrats to begin negotiating a possible compromise with Republicans and
the power industry, which have argued that companies in many parts of the country simply cannot
generate enough power from wind or solar energy to meet the requirements.
―We‘re trying to work something out,‖ said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic
leader. But by early evening, the principle negotiators had failed to reach a deal and Democrats
decided to postpone further voting until next Tuesday.
The Democrats‘ unexpected difficulty meant they made virtually no progress on the energy bill
after about a week of floor debate. Though the Senate‘s intricate rules make such logjams
common, the delay was a bad omen for what lawmakers already knew would be a long and
grueling fight on one of the signature issues of energy conservation and renewable fuels.
At issue on Thursday was a provision called the ―Renewable Portfolio Standard,‖ which
would require electric utilities to obtain 15 percent of their electricity from wind, solar or
biomass energy,
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                         RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                          125/130


RPS programs are divisive in Congress.
Josef Hebert, Staff Writer Oakland Tribune, Dec 2007 .
( 7-02-08
   Democratic leaders were leaning Friday toward dropping a divisive requirement for
   utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such
   as wind, solar or biofuels. While more than half the states already have renewable
   energy standards for power producers, opponents of a national mandate maintain it
   would push up electricity prices in regions where wind or solar energy may not be
   feasible. Domenici said the decision to include the requirement on utilities has made the
   bill "untenable for many in the Senate."

Renewable energy policies are causing battles in the House
Newsday on 6/29 (Janie Lorber, “Partisan views on energy help stall gas compromise”, June
29, 2008,
usgas295745942jun29,0,4195606.story, accessed July 6, 2008)

   WASHINGTON - Just two days after gas prices hit $4 a gallon nationwide, Democrats
   took their answer to consumers' pain at the pump to the Senate floor, with a windfall
   profits tax on Big Oil as the centerpiece. But even that milestone wasn't enough to bring
   about compromise and the measure failed, with strong Republican opposition. Two
   weeks later - with gas prices up another 10 cents - House Democrats blocked a GOP
   effort to expand offshore drilling when it looked like the Republicans had enough to
   votes to end a 27-year moratorium.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                           RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                            126/130

Incentives programs are bipartisan
States News Service in 2k8 (as energy prices soar, klobuchar works to improve efficiency,
create jobs in bipartisan bill, april 3, LN)
   With oil prices at record levels, and American families and businesses concerned about
   their monthly electricity bills and the general state of the economy, U.S. Senator Amy
   Klobuchar joined today with Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) in
   addressing Americansa concerns by introducing The Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of
   2008. The bipartisan legislation will provide the continuation of clean energy production
   incentives and incentives to improve energy efficiency that will create jobs, save people
   and businesses money, and over time reduce energy costs. This measure is also co-
   sponsored by 20 other senators.

Renewable energy is bipartisan – recent votes prove overwhelming agreement
between both parties
PR Newswire on 4/17 (―Renewable Energy Industry Gets Bi-Partisan Support in Senate
Vote‖, April 17, 2008,, accessed
July 6, 2008)

   After months of intense effort to secure renewal of tax credits and other incentives
   which have helped spur record growth in the use of renewable energy, solar and wind
   power companies were rewarded when the U.S. Senate passed The Clean Energy Tax
   Stimulus Act of 2008 with strong bi-partisan support in an 88 to 8 vote. The legislation
   was co-authored by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV). "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.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                                                RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                                  127/130

Production Tax credit bill has bipartisan support to be extended through 2009.
  Renewable Energy World April 4, 2008 (U.S. Senate Introduces Bipartisan Renewable
  Energy Tax Credit Legislation Washington, D.C., United States
  [] )

  United States Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) have introduced the Clean Energy
                   The bill, which has bipartisan support extends the commercial
  Stimulus Act of 2008.
  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
                    The bill now has 30 co-sponsors, including members of the
  removes the US $2,000 cap.
  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                                                                                                      128/130

RPS has bipartisan support
Christopher Shays in 2007 (February 9, Congressman in Connecticut’s 4th District,
―Bipartisan Group Introduces
Renewable Portfolio Standards Bill‖,
  WASHINGTON -- U.S. Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM), Todd Platts (R-PA), Frank
  Pallone (D-NJ), Mark Udall (D-CO), Chris Shays (R-CT), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jerry
  McNerny (D-CA) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) introduced bipartisan legislation to establish a
  federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requiring electric utilities to acquire 20
  percent of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources by
  2020. The bill would increase the federal minimum standard mandating retail energy
  suppliers to diversify their portfolios with the first increase set for 2010, consistently
  increasing thereafter to meet the 2020 goal. Suppliers can meet these requirements by
  purchasing credits from other entities who have obtained credits by producing
  renewable energy. It also allows utilities to bank credits for four years and to borrow
  credits from up to three years in the future.
Democrats and Republicans support renewable portfolio standards.
  Coral Davenport May 25, 2007 (CQ Staff ; CQ GREEN SHEETS; Senate Democrats See
  Opening for Renewable Standard
  000002519747.html )

  Key Senate Democrats, believing the politics have shifted in their favor, are renewing
  their effort to require electric utilities to produce more power from renewable sources
  such as wind and solar. Such measures have passed the Senate three times in years past but died in a GOP-
  controlled House. Now that the Democrats are running the House, and fears about dependence on foreign oil and global
  warming are foremost in many minds, Senate leaders like Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., think the timing might
                 Supporters say a national “renewable portfolio standard” requiring 10
  finally be right.
  percent to 20 percent of electricity to be produced from renewables could go far toward
  lessening U.S. fossil fuel dependence. Less than 5 percent of the nation’s electricity now comes from
  renewable sources other than hydroelectricity. Twenty-two states have enacted renewable standards.On Thursday, a
  diverse group of 186 signatories — including some of the biggest names in industry,
  manufacturing and electric utilities, along with environmental groups — sent a letter to
  congressional leaders urging passage of a national renewable portfolio standard. “It’s
  the broadest ever, it’s the biggest ever” range of support seen for pushing the
  renewable standard, said Bingaman spokesman Bill Wicker of the spectrum of
  signatories, which includes General Electric, BP America, Google and the Edison Electric Electric Institute, which
  represents investor-owned utilities. Wicker called the effort “a very powerful endorsement” that
  could go far toward persuading lawmakers to support a renewable electricity standard.
  Bingaman wants his renewables proposal to be passed as an amendment to a major Senate energy package (S 1419). When
  debate begins on that measure in early June, Bingaman will have at the ready an amendment to require major utilities to
                                                         Bingaman’s staff say they anticipate
  generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
  bipartisan passage of the proposal. Fifty senators, including Democratic leaders and
  four Republicans, have signed a letter calling for a strong renewable portfolio standard.
GONZAGA DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                                               RPS AFF
MALGOR/IZAAK                                                                                129/130

Electricity lobby is powerful.
Pasternak 01, LA Times writer, (Judy, ―Bush’s Energy Plan Bares Industry Clout‖, LA
times, on
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                                                                                                                 130/130

Natural gas lobby is powerful.
Pasternak 01, LA Times writer, (Judy, ―Bush’s Energy Plan Bares Industry Clout‖, LA
times, on
Natural gas was connected in high places too. When the Energy Department drafted a chapter for the report
about how to increase domestic energy production, the text mentioned the importance of hydraulic fracturing, a method of accelerating
production of natural gas wells. It so happens that Halliburton is a major provider of the service. Chemicals and sand are injected
under high pressure into gas-bearing geological formations, causing underground cracks. The gas rises into the cracks and moves
closer to the well, making recovery easier. The process has its foes. Neighbors of natural gas wells in Alabama complained of oily
                                                                                        An Alabama federal
goop and sulfur smells streaming out of faucets just after a company conducted fracturing.
appeals court ordered the state to regulate the process--and EPA to step in if
needed. Natural gas drillers, and hydraulic fracturing purveyors, expect similar lawsuits to be filed in the Rocky Mountain states,
according to material submitted to the task force by the Domestic Petroleum Council. The EPA is studying whether hydraulic
fracturing is linked to water well contamination but doesn't expect to finish its preliminary inquiry until at least February. The agency
will decide then if further research is warranted, officials said. Halliburton complained in federal court, during Cheney's last year at
                                                                                                           The Energy
the company, that new federal restrictions on the process would "have a significant adverse effect" on its business.
Department chapter mentioned the environmental controversy as well as the
potential of hydraulic fracturing. With the Energy Department chapter in hand, a
Cheney assistant informed an EPA official in late March that hydraulic fracturing
would go on the April 3 agenda for the Cabinet-level gathering. The agency was advised to prepare a recommendation. EPA
officials balked at suggesting any actions for the task force before the study was
completed. The subject disappeared from the agenda by the day of the meeting. But it
didn't disappear from the final report. The document emphasized the technique's importance as "one of the fastest-growing sources of
                                                                         The information
gas production" and noted that "each year nearly 25,000 oil and gas wells are hydraulically fractured."
about potential water well contamination, the appeals court decision and the
possibility of EPA controls had all been dropped. A few paragraphs after the hydraulic fracturing
discussion comes the task force recommendation that the nation "promote enhanced oil and gas recovery from existing wells through
            Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said company executives did not
new technology."
discuss the energy report with Cheney. "Of course, we talk to him; you don't work
with someone for that long and then not talk to him. But not about the plan, and not about hydraulic

Shared By: