Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
RPS - Aff
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS – VERSION 1.0
RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS – VERSION 1.0..................................................................................1
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................6
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................7
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................8
1AC...............................................................................................................................................................................9
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................10
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................11
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................12
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................13
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................14
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................15
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................16
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................17
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................18
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................19
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................20
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................21
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................22
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................23
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................24
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................25
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................26
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................27
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................28
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................29
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................30
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................31
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................32
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................33
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................34
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................35
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................36
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................38
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................39
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................40
1AC.............................................................................................................................................................................41
INHERENCY EXTS – NO FEDERAL RPS.............................................................................................................42
WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................43
WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................44
WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................45
WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS.................................................................................................................46
WARMING EXTS – UTILITY INDUSTRY KEY...................................................................................................47
WARMING EXTS – REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS KEY............................................................................48
WARMING EXTS – REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS KEY............................................................................49
WARMING EXTS – POLAR BEAR KEYSTONE..................................................................................................50
WARMING EXTS – CLIMATE CHANGE OUTWEIGHS NUCLEAR WAR.......................................................51
1
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – LAUNDRY LIST...............................................................................................52
WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – NUCLEAR WARS.............................................................................................53
WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – ECONOMY........................................................................................................54
WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – MARINE BIODIVERSITY KEY......................................................................55
ENVIRONMENT EXTS – CONVENTIONAL ENERGY POLLUTANTS.......................................................56
ENVIRONMENT EXTS – SYSTEMIC DEATH IMPACTS...................................................................................57
ENVIRONMENT EXTS – POLLUTION HEALTH HARMS............................................................................58
ENVIRONMENT EXTS – POLLUTION COSTLY.................................................................................................59
ENVIRONMENT EXTS – SMALL THRESHOLD TO SPECIES LOSS................................................................60
ENVIRONMENT EXTS – RPS PREVENTS WATER SHORTAGE......................................................................61
ECONOMY EXTS – JOBS MODULE......................................................................................................................62
ECONOMY EXTS – FOSSIL FUELS HIGH ENERGY PRICES.......................................................................63
ECONOMY EXTS – OIL PRICES HIGH NOW......................................................................................................64
ECONOMY EXTS – RPS ↓ ENERGY COSTS........................................................................................................65
ECONOMY EXTS – RPS ↓ ENERGY COSTS........................................................................................................66
ECONOMY EXTS –RPS - PRICE STABILITY...................................................................................................67
ECONOMY EXTS – CLIMATE LEGISLATION KEY TO ECONOMY...............................................................68
ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES ECONOMIC COLLAPSE................................................................69
ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES ECONOMIC COLLAPSE................................................................70
ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES CONFLICT.......................................................................................71
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – 2AC/1AR MUST READ.............................................................................72
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – THEY ARE COMING................................................................................73
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – THEY ARE COMING................................................................................74
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – BRINKS......................................................................................................75
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – TRANSMISSION KEY..............................................................................76
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – HARMS ECONOMY..................................................................................77
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – ECONOMY.................................................................................................78
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – AT: STATUS QUO SOLVES....................................................................79
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – AT: SQUO SOLVES..................................................................................80
ECONOMY EXTS – RPS JOB GROWTH..........................................................................................................81
ECONOMY EXTS – RPS JOB GROWTH..........................................................................................................82
ECONOMY EXTS - RPS JOB GROWTH..........................................................................................................83
ECONOMY EXTS - ↓ FOSSIL FUEL TRANSPORTATION COSTS....................................................................84
ECONOMY EXTS – RPS HELPS RURAL ECONOMIES......................................................................................85
ECONOMY EXTS – US ECONOMY KEY TO WORLD ECONOMY..................................................................86
ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS................................................................................................................................87
ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS................................................................................................................................88
ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS................................................................................................................................89
ECONOMY EXTS – PEAK OIL IMPACTS – EXTINCTION................................................................................90
NATURAL GAS EXTS – NATURAL GAS PRICES HIGH NOW.........................................................................91
NATURAL GAS EXTS – PRICES VOLATILE.......................................................................................................92
NATURAL GAS EXTS – NATURAL GAS HURTS MANUFACTURING SECTOR...........................................93
NATURAL GAS PRICES – HIGH PRICES RECESSION.................................................................................94
NATURAL GAS EXTS – HIGH PRICES RECESSION.....................................................................................95
NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES.....................................................................96
NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES.....................................................................97
NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES.....................................................................98
NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS SHIFT FROM NATURAL GAS........................................................................99
2
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
DEPENDENCE EXTS – RPS KEY TO REDUCING FOREIGN ENERGY DEPENDENCE..............................100
DEPENDENCE EXTS - RPS KEY TO REDUCING FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE.......................................101
DEPENDENCE EXTS – RENEWABLES KEY TO REDUCING FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE....................102
DEPENDENCE EXTS – WE ARE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL.................................................................103
DEPENDENCE EXTS – DEPENDENT ON LNG..................................................................................................104
DEPENDENCE EXTS – DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL HIGH..........................................................105
DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS.............................................................................................................106
DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS.............................................................................................................107
DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS.............................................................................................................108
DEPENDENCE EXTS – PRICE SHOCKS.............................................................................................................109
DEPENDENCE EXTS – OIL DEPENDENCE MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY.............................................110
DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS IRAN.................................................................................................................111
DEPENDENCE EXTS – HARMS DEMOCRACY PROMOTION........................................................................112
DEPENDENCE EXTS – MIDDLE EAST INSTABILITY IMPACTS..................................................................113
DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM....................................................................................................114
DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM....................................................................................................115
DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM....................................................................................................116
DEPENDENCE EXTS - FUELS ANTI-WEST SENTIMENT..............................................................................117
DEPENDENCE EXTS – TERRORISM IMPACTS................................................................................................118
DEPENDENCE EXTS – HURTS US HEGEMONY..............................................................................................119
DEPENDENCE EXTS – HURTS US HEGEMONY..............................................................................................120
DEPENDENCE EXTS – DEPENDENCE BW ATTACKS...............................................................................121
DEPENDENCE EXTS - MILITARY INTERVENTIONS................................................................................122
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RPS KEY...............................................................................................................123
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RPS KEY...............................................................................................................124
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................125
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................126
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................127
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................128
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................129
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY............................................................130
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – GOVERNMENT ACTION NEEDED..................................................................131
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO HEGEMONY........................................................................................132
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO HEGEMONY........................................................................................133
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP KEY..........................................................134
COMPETITIVENESS ADV – HEGEMONY IMPACTS.......................................................................................135
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO ECONOMY...........................................................................................136
SOFT POWER ADV – PLAN INCREASES ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP..............................................137
SOFT POWER ADV – PLAN INCREASES ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP..............................................138
SOFT POWER ADV – PLAN IS A MODEL..........................................................................................................139
SOFT POWER ADVANTAGE – IMPACTS..........................................................................................................140
SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS RENEWABLES......................................................................................................141
SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS RENEWABLES......................................................................................................143
SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS RENEWABLES......................................................................................................144
SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY – EQUITY........................................................................................145
SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY- NATIONAL GRID.........................................................................146
SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY- FEDERAL LEADERSHIP.............................................................147
SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY – POST-PUCHA COMPLIANCE...................................................148
3
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – LAUNDRY LIST.......................................................................149
SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION.....................................................................150
SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION.....................................................................151
.................................................................................................................................................................................151
SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION.....................................................................152
SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION.....................................................................153
.................................................................................................................................................................................153
SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COST..........................................................................................154
SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY - DIVERSE PORTFOLIOS...........................................................155
SOLVENCY EXTS – NO GEOGRAPHICAL EXCLUSIONS..............................................................................156
SOLVENCY EXTS – NO FREE RIDERS..............................................................................................................157
SOLVENCY EXTS – NO FREE RIDERS..............................................................................................................158
SOLVENCY EXTS – NO BUREAUCRACY.........................................................................................................159
SOLVENCY EXTS – NO WINNERS/LOSERS....................................................................................................160
SOLVENCY EXTS – NO RACE TO THE BOTTOM............................................................................................161
SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS NOT COST-PROHIBITIVE........................................................................................162
SOLVENCY EXTS – RECs KEY...........................................................................................................................163
SOLVENCY EXTS – RECs KEY...........................................................................................................................164
SOLVENCY EXTS – RECs KEY...........................................................................................................................165
SOLVENCY EXTS – MARKET-BASED APPROACH SOLVES........................................................................166
SOLVENCY EXTS – MANDATE ON SALES KEY.............................................................................................167
SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: NO LAND SPACE......................................................................................................168
SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: INTERMITTENCY.....................................................................................................169
SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: LONG TIMEFRAME FOR RENEWABLES.............................................................170
SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: NO ENFORCEMENT.................................................................................................171
SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: HAMPERS STATE ACTION.....................................................................................172
SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD........................................................................................................173
SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD........................................................................................................174
SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD........................................................................................................175
SOLVENCY EXTS – SOLAR POWER GOOD.....................................................................................................176
T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVE.........................................................................................................................177
T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVES.......................................................................................................................178
T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVE.........................................................................................................................179
2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE..............................................................................................................................180
2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE..............................................................................................................................181
2AC STATES CP FRONTLINE..............................................................................................................................182
STATES CP EXTS – UNIFORMITY FIAT NOT REAL WORLD.......................................................................183
STATES CP EXTS – PERMUTATION..................................................................................................................184
STATES CP EXTS – INTERSTATE COMMERCE...............................................................................................185
STATES CP EXTS – ROLLBACK/COMMERCE CLAUSE.................................................................................186
STATES CP EXTS – ROLLBACK/COMMERCE CLAUSE.................................................................................187
STATES CP EXTS – FEDERAL INVESTMENT.............................................................................................188
STATES CP EXTS – FEDERAL INVESTMENT.............................................................................................189
STATES CP ANS – INVESTMENT KEY..............................................................................................................190
.................................................................................................................................................................................190
STATES CP ANS – CAN’T SOLVE ENVIRO LEADERSHIP.............................................................................191
STATES CP ANS – INDUSTRY PREFERS PLAN...............................................................................................192
2AC ENERGY EFFICIENCY COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS...............................................................................193
2AC COMMAND-AND-CONTROL CP ANS.......................................................................................................194
4
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
2AC ENERGY SUBSIDIES CP ANSWERS..........................................................................................................195
2AC “EXCLUDE A UTILITY” COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS............................................................................196
2AC “EXCLUDE AN ENERGY” PIC ANSWERS................................................................................................197
2AC “LOWER THE PERCENTAGE” COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS..................................................................198
2AC “LOWER THE PERCENTAGE” COUNTERPLAN ANSWERS..................................................................199
2AC SUNSET PROVISIONS CP FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................200
POLITICS DA – NON-UNIQUE.............................................................................................................................201
2AC FEDERALISM DA FRONTLINE...................................................................................................................202
2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL...............................................................................................203
. ................................................................................................................................................................................203
2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL...............................................................................................204
2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL...............................................................................................205
2AC BUSINESS CONFIDENCE FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................206
1AR BIZ CON EXTS – UTILITIES SUPPORT RPS.............................................................................................207
2AC SPENDING DA FRONTLINE........................................................................................................................208
2AC COAL DA FRONTLINE.................................................................................................................................209
2AC COAL DA FRONTLINE.................................................................................................................................210
2AC NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF DA FRONTLINE...................................................................................211
2AC NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF DA FRONTLINE...................................................................................212
1AR EXTS – NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF – RPS NOT AFFECT...............................................................213
ENVIRO K ANSWERS – HUMAN INTERVENTION NECESSARY.................................................................214
5
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
6
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD REQUIRE THAT RETAIL POWER
PROVIDERS PROVIDE, AT A MINIMUM, 20% OF THEIR NET ELECTRICITY DEMAND
THROUGH QUALIFIED RENEWABLE SOURCES BY 2020. A SYSTEM OF RENEWABLE
ENERGY CREDITS WILL BE INCLUDED TO FACILITATE COMPLIANCE.
7
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
CONTINUED GLOBAL WARMING WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE DIE-OFF OF CORAL REEFS – WILL
LEAD TO MASSIVE BIODIVERSITY LOSS, ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE, AND STARVATION
FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
HAWORTH 07-11-2008 [Jenny, staff writer, “Corals at risk and we are to blame”, THE SCOTSMAN,
Lexis / Nam]
A THIRD of the world's reef corals are at risk because of climate change and other human activities, scientists
have warned. Carbon dioxide levels, coastal development, sewage discharge and overfishing are all putting coral
species at the threat of extinction. Scientists said urgent conservation measures were needed or there could be mass
biodiversity loss, and an impact on the hundreds of millions of people who rely on reef fish for food. The authors of a
study published in the journal Science assessed 845 tropical reef-building species and found that, of the 704 for which sufficient information existed to judge the risks they
faced, 231 or 33 per cent, were under threat of extinction. When this was broadened out to include species that were "near threatened", 407 species - more than half of those
assessed by the scientists - were at risk. The report's authors warned: "Our results emphasise the widespread plight of coral reefs and the urgent need to enact conservation
measures." They said the results showed the extinction risks for corals had increased dramatically over the past decade and now exceeded those for all terrestrial animal
groups, apart from amphibians. The Caribbean has the largest proportion of species in the high extinction risk categories, the study said, while the Coral Triangle in the
threats were the result of rising levels
western Pacific has the highest proportion of species in all categories of extinction risk. The scientists said the
associated with climate change, as well as local human impacts. The raised levels of had increased sea surface temperatures, leading to the
"bleaching" of corals, and made the oceans more acidic, which harms the coral's ability to build its skeleton. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted increased acidification of the oceans by the end of the
century, and Dr Alex Rogers, one of the study's authors, said this presented "disastrous scenarios" for corals. The research warned destructive
fishing, sewage, coastal development and the use of agricultural chemicals were all reducing the ability of corals to withstand the threats caused by climate change and to
rebuild reefs. Dr Rogers, a senior research fellow at the Zoological Society of London's Institute of Zoology, said: "The resilience of corals to bleaching and ability to
recover is heavily influenced by other stresses the corals are under, such as overfishing or destructive fishing, declining water quality and nutrient loading from
agrochemicals." While coral reefs cover no more than 0.2 per cent of the earth's surface, they host to up to two million species, with a quarter of all marine fish species
found there. "In terms of humans, they are massively important as a source of food, and globally it is estimated they
deliver ecosystem services of GBP 15.2 billion," Dr Rogers said. "They also have major effects on coastal
protection from storms and flooding." The study concluded that whether corals become extinct this century will depend on the severity of climate change,
the extent of other environmental disturbances and the ability of corals to adapt. "If corals cannot adapt, the cascading effects of the functional loss of
reef ecosystems will threaten the geologic structure of reefs and their coastal protection function, and have huge
effects on food security for hundreds of millions of people dependent on reef fish," it warned.
9
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
10
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AND, A RISE IN TEMPERATURES MEANS GLOBAL WARMING WILL PUSH NUCLEAR NATIONS
TO THE BRINK OF ANARCHY – PUTTING TERRORIST ATTACKS TO SHAME
Meacher 2004 [“Apocalypse Soon” Michael, former environment secretary and MP for Oldham, 4/24/04
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,,1201866,00.html / ttate]
Even the Pentagon has noticed, and if there are two groups the Bush administration listens to, they are the oil lobby
and the Pentagon. Climate change "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security
concern", it says, predicting that climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop
nuclear arsenals to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. It recognises that this threat to
global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism. This is no rhetorical exaggeration. About 2,900 died in the Twin
Towers on September 11 2001, and just over 200 died in Madrid. But the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine has estimated that 160,000 people are dying each year from the consequences of climate change -
malaria, dysentery and malnutrition. And even that excludes some of the most extreme storm disasters plausibly
linked to climate change, notably the tropical cyclone in Bangladesh in 1991, which killed 138,000, as well as
Hurricanes Mitch and Andrew in the Caribbean, both hyper-intense category-five typhoons. What is really chilling
about the catastrophes occurring with increasing frequency across the globe is that they have happened, as the
overwhelming majority of the world's scientists confidently believe, after a warming of only 0.6C over the past
century. Imagine the consequences if, as predicted by the inter-governmental panel of the top 3,000 scientists on
climate change, global temperatures rise by 1.4C-5.8C over this century.
The 20 percent national standard would reduce the projected growth in power plant CO2 emissions under a
business-as-usual scenario by more than half, or 434 MMT per year by 2020. This level of reductions is equivalent
to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road or planting 104 million acres of trees—an area approximately the size
of Oregon and Washington combined. Even a 10 percent standard would deliver substantial climate benefits,
reducing annual CO2 emissions by 166 MMT by 2020. Studies by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy
Information Administration have shown similar results.
11
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
12
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE – NO TEXT DELETED]
Thermal Pollution
power plants have withdrawn hundreds of millions of gallons of water each
The Argonne National Laboratory has documented how
day for cooling purposes and then discharged the heated water back to the same or a nearby water body. This process of “once-through” cooling
presents potential environmental impacts by impinging aquatic organisms in intake screens and by affecting aquatic ecosystems by discharge effluent that is far hotter than the surrounding surface
waters.Drawing water into a plant often kills fish and other aquatic organisms, and the extensive array of cooling
towers, ponds, and underwater vents used by most plants have been documented to severely damage riparian environments. In some cases,
the thermal pollution from centralized power plants can induce eutrophication—a process where the warmer temperature alters the chemical
composition of the water, resulting in a rapid increase of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Rather than improving the ecosystem, such alterations usually promote
excessive plant growth and decay, favoring certain weedy species over others and severely reducing water quality. In riparian
environments, the enhanced growth of choking vegetation can collapse entire ecosystems. This form of thermal
pollution has been known to decrease the aesthetic and recreational value of rivers, lakes, and estuaries and complicate drinking water treatment.
13
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AND, A LARGE DISRUPTION OF THE ECOSYSTEM MEANS EXTINCTION
COYNE AND HOEKSTRA, professor of ecology @ University of Chicago and associate professor of
evolutionary biology @ Harvard, 2003[Jerry and Hopi, “The Greatest Dying”, TRUTHOUT,
http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying/ keehun]
Two hundred fifty million years ago, a monumental catastrophe devastated life on Earth. We don't know the cause - perhaps glaciers, volcanoes, or even the impact of a giant meteorite - but
whatever happened drove more than 90 percent of the planet's species to extinction. After the Great Dying, as the end-Permian extinction is called, Earth's biodiversity - its panoply of species -
. Aside from the Great Dying, there have been four other mass extinctions, all of which
didn't bounce back for more than ten million years
severely pruned life's diversity. Scientists agree that we're now in the midst of a sixth such episode. This new one, however,
is different - and, in many ways, much worse. For, unlike earlier extinctions, this one results from the work of a single species, Homo sapiens. We are
relentlessly taking over the planet, laying it to waste and eliminating most of our fellow species. Moreover, we're doing it much
faster than the mass extinctions that came before. Every year, up to 30,000 species disappear due to human activity alone. At
this rate, we could lose half of Earth's species in this century. And, unlike with previous extinctions, there's no hope that
biodiversity will ever recover, since the cause of the decimation - us - is here to stay. To scientists, this is an unparalleled
calamity, far more severe than global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming, which is, after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity.
Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly
how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50 million, and that doesn't count microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not
certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems
in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are
disappearing at a rate of 2 percent per year. Populations of most large fish are down to only 10 percent of what they were in 1950. Many primates and all the great apes - our closest relatives - are
nearly gone from the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: By burning rainforests, we're not only
polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) but destroying the very plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming
increases extinction, both directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global
warming, which in turn causes more extinction - and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case:
the rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming - raising temperatures, melting icecaps, and flooding coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the
inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times, and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully
jumped species boundaries, with humans as prime recipients. We have gotten aids from apes, sars from civets, and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from
Healthy ecosystems the world over
unknown microbes are a very real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us.
provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification, and oxygen
production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that turn
biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and
have damaged harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated
by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive - which, along with
temperature change, will diminish agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with
increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover,
ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the
most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides.
Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we
breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs - a major problem since these reefs have far more than recreational value:
They provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems - those services, like
waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And
Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where
that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber.
we're heading if species extinction continues at its current pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the
remote swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful
enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other
biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are
pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and aspirin. More than a
quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a
powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows
what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly
assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in
Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling
reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to
destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got
here by the same simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a
spiritual experience - not necessarily religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future
is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon
waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we
ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby
existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity finally faces the
consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.
14
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
ADVANTAGE ____: THE ECONOMY
THE FINITE NATURE AND SUPPLY INSTABILITY OF FOSSIL FUELS GUARANTEES PRICE
VOLATILITY – DELAYING ACTION INCREASES THE COST OF TRANSITIONING AWAY
FROM FOSSIL FUELS
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 2008 [“Statement on Energy Science and Technology”,
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1890&use_sec=false&sec
_url_var=region1/ ttate]
Plentiful, accessible, inexpensive energy is the underpinning of modern society. It is the basis for meeting
numerous national and global needs such as increased demands for electricity and transportation, affordable food
and water, and adequate resources for manufacturing. In the U.S., reliable, affordable energy is crucial to the
economic well-being and security of our nation. The time has come for us to confront future energy options. The
ACS and AIChE believe a comprehensive national energy strategy must address S&T opportunities thoroughly to
make the best near-term decisions and develop new options for a more sustainable future.
The most important reason to address this issue now is the growing, global dependence on oil and natural gas,
which experts agree are available in limited and rapidly declining quantities. Demand for oil will continue to grow
as countries raise standards of living—especially populous, developing nations like China and India. As we move
beyond the world’s maximum oil production point and demands continue to rise, prices and instability will
certainly increase. Estimates vary on total oil resources, but it would be a mistake to assume that fossil fuel would
remain at current prices, given the inherently unstable nature of commodity markets, geopolitics, and policy
changes. We believe a targeted allocation of funds and timely change in energy policy would postpone the inevitable date that oil production would begin to decline.
Thus, investment in increasing energy options is paramount. Market forces will play an important, but not sufficient, role in meeting future energy needs. A sudden
increase in energy prices or long periods of energy-price instability would result in energy shortfalls, which in turn
would significantly impact global economic growth. Sufficient investment in energy innovations to increase availability and allow profound
infrastructure changes (e.g., converting gasoline vehicles to hydrogen or increasing the use of public transportation) would require an ongoing, commitment over several
decades. Given the investment of time and the technology needed, it is imperative to take immediate steps toward solving this problem. According to the Energy
Information Agency, U.S. domestic energy utilization in 2003 was roughly 85 percent fossil fuel, 8 percent nuclear power, and 6 percent renewable energy—including
hydroelectricity. Clearly, America is overly dependent on fossil fuel, much of which comes from unstable regions of the world. Energy-use patterns—22 percent residential,
52 percent industrial, and 27 percent transportation—must also be considered in developing a comprehensive U.S. energy policy. Energy efficiency and conservation must
be encouraged across the board.
At present, the S&T required to move beyond fossil-energy dependence and provide safely produced, sustainable power to meet growing, global needs, is simply not
available. The ACS and AIChE recommend developing a dual-track, comprehensive R&D strategy that would simultaneously implement a near-term advancement of
energy technologies (including fossil, solar, wind, nuclear, and efficient utilization) and a comprehensive S&T policy for developing sustainable sources to replace
dwindling fossil supplies in the long term.
Finding solutions to meet advancing world needs for sustainable energy is one of the biggest challenges mankind
will ever face. Burning fossil fuels places humanity at risk environmentally, and the potential consequences are
dramatic. We must call upon universities, the private sector, and national laboratories to provide the best minds and teams to develop creative solutions through energy
R&D.
15
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AN OIL SHOCK WILL LEAD TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, NUMEROUS NUCLEAR WARS
AND GLOBAL STARVATION
RIDDOCH 2004 [Malcolm, PhD and prof of communications @ Edith Cowan University, June 19,
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/72000_comment.php / ttate]
There are lots of recent 2004 reports speculating about the Saudi's ability to increase production suggesting that the peak plateau may already have arrived with midpoint by
2008. OPEC is apparently pumping at its full rate, while everyone else from the Russians, US, North Sea to our own oil fields are apparently depleting already.
The
first major oil shock could be as early as the fourth quarter of this year and some analysts suggest that the Saudi's are on the verge of a collapse in their
major Gawar oil field, the largest in the world. The oil Beyond the current oil wars and the short term economic effects of unstable oil supply and prices over the next 5
peak oil threatens an irreversible global economic decline that will force a massive, radical and sustained
years,
change in our way of life as we transition to alternative energy sources and the economic/political order they support. The cost of everything
will rise and rise with the poorest of us the first to start suffering. A terminal economic decline will begin with a
recession in Australia the size of the one that occurred in WW2, and this possibility is already being discussed in our mainstream media. Think an end to public welfare
across the board, food stamps and eventually food riots, massive rising unemployment, the collapse of Medicare and public hospitals, a severe crisis in the cost and delivery
peak oil could mean a
of water ... but at least the roads will be less congested, more room for the ultra wealthy and their gas guzzling limousines. At worst
complete global economic collapse sometime after 2010, middle class poverty and the breakdown of law and order,
truly gigantic starvation in the third world and the unrestrained outbreak of global warfare with the risk of numerous
'limited' nuclear conflagrations. It could ultimately mean the extinction of the human species through global nuclear
war and its companions famine and pestilence.
16
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AND, A NATIONAL RPS IS KEY TO CHECKING BACK FUTURE ENERGY PRICE SHOCKS AND
VOLATILITY - SAVE CONSUMERS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate]
Both the UCS and EIA analyses show that a national RPS can save consumers money in several ways. First, by
reducing the demand for fossil fuels, and creating new competitors for the dominant fuel sources, renewable
energy helps reduce the price of fossil fuels and restrain the ability of fossil fuel prices to increase in the
future. Natural gas therefore costs less for electricity generation, as well as for other purposes, benefiting both electricity
consumers and other natural gas consumers. Second, some renewable resources, especially wind energy at good sites, are now less
expensive than building new natural gas- or coal-fired power plants over the expected lifetimes of the plants,
and reduce projected generation costs. And third, a national RPS reduces the cost of renewable energy
technologies, by creating competition among renewable sources and projects to meet the requirements, and
by creating economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operations, and maintenance. Most
importantly, projected savings are robust enough to be found in all of the recent RPS scenarios, at both the 10
percent and 20 percent levels, and despite large differences in projected renewable energy costs and performance in the EIA and UCS assumptions.
Using UCS assumptions for renewable energy technologies, average consumer natural gas prices would be lower than business
as usual in nearly every year of the forecast under the 20 percent RPS, with an average annual reduction of 1.5 percent. In
addition, average consumer electricity prices would be lower than business as usual in every year of the
forecast, with an average annual reduction of 1.8 percent. As a result, the 20 percent RPS would save consumers $49.1 billion on
their electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (Figure 1).19 All sectors of the economy would benefit, with
commercial, industrial, and residential customers' total savings reaching $19.1 billion, $17.4 billion, and
$12.6 billion, respectively.
With UCS running NEMS using EIA's assumptions unmodified, the results showed that a 20 percent RPS would still reduce gas and electricity prices. Cumulative
savings to electricity customers under a 20 percent RPS totaled $15.4 billion by 2020, with cumulative savings to gas consumers of an additional $11.6 billion, for
a total savings of more than $27 billion.
A 10 percent renewable standard would save less money than the 20 percent scenario. In the UCS scenario, consumers would save almost $28.2 billion on their
electricity and natural gas bills by 2020, with the savings continuing to grow to $37.7 billion by 2025. EIA's own analysis found that the 10 percent RPS would
save consumers $22.6 billion by 2025.20
energy bills would be reduced in every region of the
National RPS scenarios using either UCS or EIA assumptions also show that
country, including the Southeast, where some people have suggested there is limited low-cost renewable energy potential (Table 1). This is primarily
due to the lower natural gas prices for electricity generation and other direct gas consumers that all regions
would see. In addition, all regions do have some renewable energy resources, and would likely see an increase in using local resources for generation that
would often displace the need for importing fossil fuel. Furthermore, the national credit trading market created by a national RPS would allow utilities in all regions
to purchase RECs for the same price, providing utilities with negotiating leverage over local renewable generators.
The strong relationship between renewable energy generation, and natural gas demand and prices is further supported by a 2005 Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (LBL) study, which reviewed 13 analyses using different computer models and assumptions. The analyses all confirmed that renewable energy (and
energy efficiency) could reduce gas demand and put downward pressure on natural gas prices and bills by displacing gas-fired electricity generation. The report
also found that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved, and the more gas prices are reduced. Furthermore, LBL's study shows
how these results are broadly consistent with economic theory, with results from other energy models, and with limited empirical evidence.21
As gas price forecasts have
Because of this relationship, long-term natural gas prices have a significant effect on the impact of a national RPS.
increased, analyses have shown that a national RPS is more cost-effective. For example, a 2001 EIA analysis-using wellhead
natural gas prices that averaged $3.28 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period-projected that a 20 percent national RPS would result in cumulative consumer
energy bill costs of $14 billion by 2020.22 By comparison, the 20 percent RPS scenario (EIA assumptions) from 2004, which showed consumer savings of $27
billion, used a natural gas price forecast that averaged $3.97 per Mcf (2002$). While EIA changed a number of the assumptions used in NEMS between 2001 and
2004, most of the difference in energy bill impacts is due to the increase in natural gas prices. EIA has consistently increased its long-term natural gas price
projection each year since 1997 to conform to new data. In the recently released AEO 2007, wellhead gas prices average $5.06 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast
period.23
17
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
18
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AND, THE ENERGY GRID IS VULNERABLE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK, LEADING TO
BLACKOUTS ACROSS THE US, GUTTING THE US ECONOMY – A NATIONAL RPS
PREVENTS THIS
Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007
[“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007, http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS
%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100, Liu]
Second, larger penetration rates are needed to ensure energy security. This is because the geographical dispersion of
generators not only improves their overall reliability; it makes them more secure--and thus resilient to accidental
power outages and failure, or intentional attack and disruption. Notwithstanding intense media focus on the security dangers from nuclear
reactors and natural gas facilities, the nation's power grid represents an equally serious threat to energy security. The security issues
facing the modern electric utility grid are almost as serious as they are invisible.
For example, in 1975 the New World Liberation Front bombed assets of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company more than ten times, and members of the and San
Joaquin Militia have been convicted of attempting to attack electricity infrastructure. n23 Internationally, organized paramilitaries such as the Farabundo-Marti National
Liberation Front were able to interrupt more than ninety percent of electric service in El Salvador and even had manuals for attacking power systems. n24
Some caution that all it would take to cause a "cascade of power failures across the country," costing billions of dollars in
direct and indirect damage, is a few motivated people with minivans and a couple of mortars and balloons, which they would use to chaff substations and
disrupt transmission lines. n25 A deliberate, aggressive, well-coordinated assault on the electric power grid could devastate
the electricity sector. Replacement time would be "on the order of Iraq," not "on the order of a lineman putting things up a pole." n26
Several recent trends in the electric utility industry have increased the vulnerability of its infrastructure. To improve their
operational efficiency, many utilities and system operators have increased their reliance on automation and computerization. Low margins and various competitive priorities
have encouraged industry consolidation, with fewer and bigger facilities and intensive use of assets in one place. As the National Research Council noted, "control is more
centralized, spare parts inventories have been reduced, and subsystems are highly integrated across the entire business." n27
Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing
electricity generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them
to produce power in incremental and modular amounts makes it much more difficult to disrupt large segments of
generation. The International Energy Agency has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant targets for terrorism
because attacking a few facilities can cause large power outages. n28 In contrast to the security risks of large centralized generators,
decentralizing energy facilities and providing power through more modular and distributed energy systems
minimizes the risk of accidents and grid failures, and does not require transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have
tended to refer to renewable energy systems (and other forms of distributed generation such as fuel cells and small-scale cogeneration units) as "supple" power technologies
because they are modular suited to dispersed siting. n29 A
national RPS or SBC promoting renewables could greatly contribute to the
overall security of the nation's electric infrastructure by forcing more technologies into the portfolio of all
American utilities.
19
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
ADVANTAGE _____: NATURAL GAS
THE UTILITY SECTOR CONTINUES TO INCREASE THEIR DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS IN THE
STATUS QUO – CAUSING FUTURE PRICE SPIKES
Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 2007
[“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100,
Liu]
Natural Gas Prices Will Increase
“There is a risk in investment in nuclear and coal. Coal has got the carbon unknown mostly in terms of draconian impositions by the Feds. Nuclear has got safety and liability concerns. So I think
people will still go gas because they have less money invested in it, with the idea they can pass it on to retail customers, particularly in market-oriented areas.”
- Respondent #15, Platts Survey of Utility Executives, 2006
Many of the electricity generating units used for intermediate and “peaking” purposes (for example, to meet increased demand for air
conditioning on hot, summer days) use natural gas for fuel. This is because natural gas generating units usually require a lower capital investment than nuclear or coal-fired plants,
have shorter construction and lead-times, and tend to produce lower emissions than coal plants. Natural gas-fired units also can be turned on or off quickly, giving them operational flexibility to
meet short-term peak electricity demands.
The electricity sector’s demand for natural gas has increased from 24 percent of total natural gas consumption in 2000 to 29 percent in 2005.59 And
consumption of natural gas is likely to increase even further for two reasons:
Lower Reserve Margins
First, increased electricity demand in many areas has shrunk reserve margins to historically low levels. By 2005, reserve
margins across the contiguous United States had dropped to 15 percent and, in some large states (like Texas and Florida), as low as 9 percent. Shrinking reserve margins coupled with increased
electricity demands have forced many utilities to restart “mothballed” natural gas-fired generating units. And plans for new peaking units in large consumer states like Texas and Florida rely
overwhelmingly on natural gas.60
Prospects for New Sources
Second, because U.S. utilities have over-invested in gas-fired generating units, they hunger for new supplies of
natural gas. Congress responded recently by authorizing greater drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and has hinted at granting greater access to federal lands where natural gas drilling is
currently off-limits.61 Whether new drilling rights are granted or not, the tantalizing prospect of vast new sources of natural gas may lead utilities to believe that gas-fired units are safer investments
than they really are.
Future Carbon Controls
Third, as pressure builds for the United States to adopt some form of binding greenhouse gas reduction targets, more
generators will turn to natural gas because its carbon intensity is about half that of coal.62
Roger Garrett, Director of Puget Sound Energy’s Resource Acquisition Group, for example, recently told industry executives that PSE had plans to invest in a significant number of new natural-gas
fired combined cycle facilities partly because the company anticipates future binding carbon constraints.63
In its most recent energy outlook (AEO 2007), EIA projects natural gas wellhead prices to average $5.06 per million cubic feet (2002$) from 2007 to 2030. If there are delays in the construction of
the nearly 45,000 miles of new gas pipelines that industry analysts say are required to ensure adequate supply, the base-case price grows to $6.43 per million cubic feet.64 Since 1997, however, the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) has had to increase its projections for natural gas prices each year to conform to new data showing that the price was higher
than expected.65 The year 2007 was no exception. In its report on short-term energy and summer 2007 fuels outlook, the DOE said it expected natural gas prices over the summer season to be 18
percent above its predictions a year earlier.66
While natural gas has enjoyed a recent period of depressed prices, substantial long-term price increases are
virtually inevitable.
Recent evidence suggests that EIA’s long-term projections – as in its short-term forecasts – make optimistic assumptions about growth in domestic natural gas production. In October 2006,
for example, Chesapeake Energy stunned the gas industry by announcing that it would shut off 100,000 cubic feet per day of unhedged gas production until natural gas prices rebounded. A week
later, Questar Exploration & Production curtailed its output for the same reason.67 These unusual moves repudiated government (and industry) optimism about domestic natural gas output and
reminded analysts that the gas market can be far more volatile and easily manipulated than forecasts predict.
Greenspan predicted continued strain in the long-term market for natural gas:
As early as 2003, then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Today’s tight natural gas markets have been a long time in coming, and futures prices suggest that we are not apt
to return to earlier periods of relative abundance and low prices anytime soon.68 // pg. 38-40
20
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AND, HIGH NATURAL GAS PRICES COLLAPSE THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR – LEADING TO
RECESSIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT, INFLATION, AND HIGH INTEREST RATES
Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC
UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, "The Case Against Gas Dependence", April, lexis, Yoder)
The energy crises of the 1970s demonstrated the harmful impact on jobs and the economy that natural gas
shortages can have. The U.S. economy suffered through recessions, widespread unemployment, inflation, and
record-high interest rates. In the winter of 1975-76, unemployment resulting from gas curtailments in hard-hit regions ran as high as 100,000 for periods
lasting from 20 to 90 days. n14 These effects were especially serious for the poor and for the nation's minorities. n15 More recently, the winter of 2002-2003 brought
higher natural gas bills to many consumers, and low-income families were especially hard hit.
Moreover, two articles last year in Public Utilities Fortnightly that addressed natural gas supply, demand, and price issues seemed to confuse the solution with the
high gas prices would lead to "demand destruction" in the industrial sector, which would,
problem. Robert Linden noted that
in part, counterbalance increasing power sector demand. n17 He further stated, "This price-induced demand destruction can be added to the
other causes of reduced gas demand, including the closure of industrial facilities using natural gas as a feedstock." n18 Similarly, John Herbert, after noting that high
natural gas prices have forced U.S. fertilizer plants to shut down, stated, "As fertilizer and other chemical plants continue to shut down, this will reduce demand for
natural gas and increase overall supplies." n19
that high natural gas prices will tend to reduce industrial natural gas demand as
Both authors are correct in pointing out
industrial plants shut down, and that this will temper future natural gas price increases. However, the
"destruction" of the nation's industrial sector is an extremely serious problem for the United States; it is not a "solution"
to the natural-gas pricing problem. We should be very concerned with the strongly negative impact high natural gas prices
are having on the U.S. industrial sector and the potential implications of this for the U.S. economy.
Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They
and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our
system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that
case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China,
India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to
world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.
21
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AND, EXPANDING RENEWABLES THROUGH RPS DECREASES DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS
SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and
Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate]
A national RPS can save consumers money especially by reducing demand for natural gas. Several studies have
documented that an increase in renewable energy production would decrease costs for electricity generation by
offsetting the combustion of natural gas. [48] Because some renewable resources generate the most electricity
during periods of peak demand, they can help offset electricity otherwise derived from natural gas-fired “peaking”
or reserve generation units. Photovoltaics, for example, have great value as a reliable source of power during extreme peak loads.
Substantial evidence from many peer-reviewed studies demonstrates an excellent correlation between available
solar resources and periods of peak demand. In California, for example, an installed PV array with a capacity of 5,000 MW reduces the peak load for
that day by about 3,000 MW, cutting in half the number of naturalgas “peakers” needed to ensure reserve capacity. [49]
The value of renewable energy to offset natural gas combustion varies with the projected supply (and thus the
price) of natural gas. When demand for natural gas increases (or supply decreases), its price increases and so does
the value of the renewable resources used to displace it. Researchers at Resources for the Future calculated that,
given the historic volatility of the natural gas market, a 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand can reduce the
price of natural gas by up to 2.5 percent in the long term. [50] This inverse relationship between renewable generation and natural gas prices
was confirmed by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) who reviewed the projected effect of 20 different RPS scenarios on future natural gas
prices:
Each 1 percent reduction in natural gas demand could lead to long-term average wellhead price reductions of 0.8 percent to 2 percent, with some of the models predicting
more aggressive reductions. Reductions in the wellhead price will not only have the effect of reducing wholesale and retail electricity rates but will also reduce residential,
commercial, and industrial gas bills. [51]
LBNL researchers reviewed 13 studies and 20 specific analyses all confirming that the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved and the more
Nine of fifteen studies specifically evaluating national RPS proposals of 10 to 20 percent found
gas prices are reduced.
that consumers would save anywhere from $10 to $40 billion from decreased natural gas prices.
22
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
ADVANTAGE _____: FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE
23
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AS OUR ADDICTION TO OIL GROWS, SO DOES OUR DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL –
THIS WILL CONTINUE TO CAUSE ESCALATING OIL PRICES – PLAN BREAKS THE
ADDICTION AND SAVES THE US FROM ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
LASHOFF, senior scientist @ Natural Resources Defense Council, 2006 [Dan, “Energy Efficiency and
Conservation”, June 22, lexis/nalepka]
The central challenge to America's energy security is our dependence on oil and the web of geo-political and
economic forces that now govern access to and control of this increasingly costly and strategic global commodity. As we describe
in our 2005 report "Securing America: Solving Oil Dependence through Innovation" (attached for the record), our intense rate of oil consumption
already poses a clear and direct threat to America's national and economic security, as well as our environment. With only 3 percent of
global oil reserves, America's greatest leverage is reducing our demand for oil through innovation, efficiency gains and clean,
renewable alternatives. To enhance our energy security we must stop enabling the addiction and begin to move America
beyond oil.
"America is addicted to oil" the President said in his State of the Union. He was right. We consume nearly 21 million barrels of oil per day -
a quarter of the world's oil production and more than China, India, Japan and all of South and Central America use combined - and rely on
foreign suppliers for 60 percent of our daily oil needs. The U.S. also has by far the highest per capita oil consumption of all major countries.4 If
we continue with business as usual, by 2025 we will import over 70 percent of the oil we need to power our economy. With
limited domestic supply, the country that leaves itself most vulnerable is the one that is most dependent on the volatile global
market for its basic energy needs - and that country is the U.S.
First, our appetite for oil is unsustainable and it is shifting the balance of power toward oil rich suppliers (see figure above). The U.S. has just 3 percent of the global oil
reserves, while the Middle East is home to two thirds of the world's oil. Today we have the luxury of importing large amounts of
oil from friendlier nations such as Mexico and Canada but this luxury is fleeting. At current consumption rates, non-Organization of the
Petroleum-Exporting Countries (non-OPEC) production is expected to peak and begin declining as early as 2015, which means
that oil rich nations, especially those in the Middle East, will take even tighter control of the reins of the global oil
market.
Second, there is growing evidence that higher oil prices are here to stay. Most analysts agree that market
fundamentals of high demand and limited supply, and not speculation or market hysteria, are the primary reason for today's
high oil prices. These prices can be explained, in part, by continued growth in oil demand in the United States and explosive
Oil demand has grown a robust 5 percent since 2003, despite a doubling of oil prices during that
growth in Asia, especially China.
period. It appears likely that global oil demand and tight global oil supplies will keep fuel prices high for the foreseeable
future.
There is also little spare oil production capacity to cushion a sudden loss in supply and the mix of easily extractable crude oil
is moving away from "light, sweet" toward more "sour" grades that fewer refineries can handle. Considering these factors, oil prices
may abruptly jump even higher, as happened during the first two oil crises of 1973-75 and 1979-81. Oil prices could also decline for short periods, but unlike during the last
two oil crises, important oil market fundamentals now favor higher prices lasting for much longer--and perhaps becoming a
permanent feature of the market.
Moreover, oil suppliers are also less able to adequately cushion the market in the face of rising demand. Historically, producers were accused of holding back supplies when prices rose.
But most industry experts agree that OPEC and other suppliers are now pumping at or near the upper limits of their capability. Indeed, there are concerns that rapid exploitation degrades the long
term viability of some oil fields. Spare capacity, often used to cushion oil price spikes, is essentially gone.
Another reason to worry is that America's economy is already feeling the pinch of persistently higher oil prices. The run-up in oil prices, including the cost of the new "fear premium", exerts an
inflationary impact on everyday goods and services, consumers are left with less disposable income after their trips to the pump, and businesses of all sizes (except the oil companies) are seeing
shrinking profits in the face of pricier fuel. Oil imports now account for a quarter of the ballooning trade deficit. At an average cost of $70 per barrel, we spend nearly $1.5
billion every day on oil and over $300 billion annually just for oil imports. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has called the
cost of oil a "hidden tax" on consumers and despite the economy's resilience to rising energy costs, the economy remains extremely vulnerable to supply disruptions and oil prices shocks in the
global market, as we experienced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Finally, above and beyond the direct cost of oil dependence, we
invest billions of dollars annually to acquire and protect access to oil
resources. According to recent estimates by the National Defense Council Foundation, the hidden military and economic cost of oil dependence is in the range of $800
billion annually and oil supply disruptions like those we experienced in the 1970's could cost the economy as much as $8 trillion. Moreover, our oil dependence has
enormous environmental costs, including emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, air and water pollution, and the despoiling of pristine public lands.
24
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
25
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
26
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AND, HEIGHTENED INSTABILITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST COULD LEAD TO NUCLEAR WAR
STEINBACH 2003 [“Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace,
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mat0036.htm ]
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious
implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour
Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against
Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong
probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and
the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the
major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel
was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting
strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes
aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very
least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers
the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar
pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever
reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)
27
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
C. TERRORISM
OUR ADDICTION TO OIL ARE FEEDING GLOBAL TERRORIST NETWORKS – OUR FOREIGN
OIL DEPENDENCE BREEDS WESTERN RESENTMENT AND FEEDS DOLLARS INTO TERRORIST
COFFERS
SANDALOW, senior fellow in foreign policy @ Brookings Institute, 2008 [David, “Rising Oil Prices,
Declining National Security”, BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2008/
0522_oil_sandalow.aspx/ ttate]
First, oil dependence strengthens Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists.
The United States is in a long war. Islamic fundamentalists struck our shores and are determined to do so again. Like the Cold War, this struggle has many causes and will
Unlike the Cold War, oil dependence plays a central role in the struggle.
last for generations.
For more than 50 years, the need to protect oil flows has shaped U.S. policy and relationships in the Persian Gulf.
During the Cold War, we supported the Shah of Iran in part to keep oil flowing from the region. In 1980, President Carter declared that attempts by outside forces to gain
control of the Persian Gulf would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In 1991, with Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush
told Congress that war was necessary because “[v]ital economic interests are at risk…Iraq itself controls some 10% of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait
controls twice that.” After removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, U.S. troops remained in Saudi Arabia where their presence bred great resentment.
These steps to secure oil flows have come at a cost. By making us central players in a region torn by ancient
rivalries, oil dependence has exposed us to resentment, vulnerability and attack. Osama bin Laden’s first fatwa, in 1996, was titled
“Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”
Today, deep resentment of the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf remains a powerful recruitment tool for Islamic
fundamentalists. Yet the United States faces severe constraints in responding to this resentment. With half the
world’s proven oil reserves, the world’s cheapest oil and the world’s only spare production capacity, the Persian
Gulf will remain an indispensable region for the global economy so long as modern vehicles run only on oil. To
protect oil flows, the U.S. policymakers will feel compelled to maintain relationships and exert power in the region in ways likely to fuel Islamic terrorists.
Compounding these problems, the huge money flows into the Persian Gulf from oil purchases help finance terrorist
networks. Al Qaeda raises funds from an extensive global network, with Islamic charities and NGOs playing an important role. Saudi money provides critical support
for madrassas with virulent anti-American views.
The sharp increase in oil prices in recent months deepens these problems, further enriching those who fund
terrorists committed to our destruction.
AND, EXTINCTION
PACOTTI 2003 [SALON.COM, March 31,
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/31/knowledge/index.html/ ttate]
Advances in biotech, chemistry, and other fields are expanding the
A similar trend has appeared in proposed solutions to high-tech terrorist threats.
power of individuals to cause harm, and this has many people worried. Glenn E. Schweitzer and Carole C. Dorsch, writing for The Futurist, gave this warning
in 1999: "Technological advances threaten to outdo anything terrorists have done before; superterrorism has the potential to
eradicate civilization as we know it." Schweitzer and Dorsch are so alarmed that they go on to say, "Civil liberties are important for a democratic society; the time has arrived,
however, to reconfigure some aspects of democracy, given the violence that is on the doorstep."
The Sept. 11 attacks have obviously added credence to their opinions. In 1999, they recommended an expanded role for the CIA, "greater government intervention" in Americans' lives, and the
"honorable deed" of "whistle-blowing" -- proposals that went from fringe ideas to policy options and talk-show banter in less than a year. Taken together, their proposals aim to gather information
from companies and individuals and feed that information into government agencies. A network of cameras positioned on street corners would nicely complement their vision of America during the
21st century. If
after Sept. 11 and the anthrax scare these still sound like wacky Orwellian ideas to you, imagine how they will
sound the day a terrorist opens a jar of Ebola-AIDS spores on Capitol Hill. As Sun Microsystems' chief scientist, Bill Joy, warned: "We have
yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies -- robotics, genetic engineering, and
nanotechnology -- pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and
nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once -- but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control." Joy
calls the new threats "knowledge-enabled mass destruction." To cause great harm to millions of people, an extreme person will need only
dangerous knowledge, which itself will move through the biosphere, encoded as matter, and flit from place to place as easily as dangerous ideas now travel between our minds. In the
information age, dangerous knowledge can be copied and disseminated at light speed, and it threatens everyone. Therefore, Joy's perfectly reasonable conclusion is that we should relinquish "certain
kinds of knowledge." He says that it is time to reconsider the open, unrestrained pursuit of knowledge that has been the foundation of science for 300 years. " Despite the strong historical
precedents, if open access to and unlimited development of knowledge henceforth puts us all in clear danger of extinction, then common sense
demands that we reexamine even these basic, long-held beliefs."
28
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
1AC
[TEXT CONTINUED FROM ABOVE…NO DELETIONS]
of fuel supply, improved energy and national security, rapid and modular deployment, and a global potential for technology transfer and
innovation.
In addition, renewable energy technologies provide more jobs per unit of energy generated than do conventional
energy technologies. According to the Department of Energy, wind energy provides about five times more jobs per dollar invested than coal or nuclear power. A
recent study concluded that solar PV provides the most jobs of any renewable technology, on an energy capacity basis, and many of these positions are high-wage, high-tech
jobs.
The global markets for renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are booming. Wind has been the fastest growing
energy source worldwide for most of the past decade, while global shipments of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and modules have increased at an average annual rate of 33
percent since 1996.
During the same period, the use of coal for generating electricity has declined by 9 percent worldwide. Solar PV and wind power technologies have matured considerably
since the 1980s, experiencing dramatic increases in productivity and lifetime, while achieving significant declines in cost. In good wind sites, wind power is now the
cheapest new energy source, with full life-cycle costs below those of most fossil-fuel powered plants.
Today, solar PV provides electricity for several hundred thousand people around the world, creates employment for more than ten thousand people and generates business
worth more than $2 billion annually. According to some forecasts, clean-energy markets will grow from less than $7 billion in 2000 to more than $82 billion by 2010 , and
the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) predicts that PV technology has "the potential to become one of the world's most important industries."
Driven by concerns about global warming, energy security, increasing demand for energy worldwide - particularly in developing countries and advances in renewable
nations around the world are setting targets for renewable energy. The European Union aims to
energy technologies,
generate ten percent of its electricity with renewables by 2010, and the European Wind Energy Association projects that Europe will have
60,000 MW of installed wind capacity by that year. By the year 2020, wind energy could generate 10 percent of the world's electricity and create more than 1.7 million jobs.
The European PV Industry Association projects that solar PV will provide 26 percent of total global annual electricity demand by 2040.
Even China, India and Brazil have committed to significant increases in the use of renewable energy; India established a
ministry for advanced energy technologies, and China has eliminated subsidies for coal. These three nations combined have more than two billion
people, with rapidly rising demand for energy and the technologies that produce it, offering nearly unlimited
market potential.
The current political and commercial commitment to renewable energy around the world implies that the recent surge of
activity in this industry is only the beginning of a massive transformation and expansion expected to occur over the
coming decades. But without strong and sustained political leadership at home, Americans will lose out in this
energy revolution. To compete successfully in the clean energy race, U.S. industries must be strong and resilient,
which requires a strong and consistent domestic market for their products.
30
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
While there is some validity to both sides of the argument, the growing prevalence of a risk-averse mindset is
stifling the American entrepreneurial spirit that fuels the national economic engine.
Government may have been among the first to corner the risk-aversion market. The operating mantra for the
bureaucracy was, and remains, that the punishment for taking a risk and making a mistake to be ridiculed,
disciplined or fired was far more severe than the potential reward for thinking beyond the norm and dreaming up
with a better idea, program or policy.
The result is to discourage innovation by many of the people who know best how to fix the broken programs that
they deal with every day.
Elected leaders, as well as CEOs, who embark on radically different paths are often lambasted by the protectors of
the status quo and likely to find themselves with the label "former" attached to their titles simply for traveling
down the path of innovation.
Risk aversion has had a devastating impact on America's leadership in technology. The fact is, no president,
Republican or Democrat, and no previous Congress has ever developed a meaningful national technological
strategy for the United States.
Certainly, there were fits and starts the Kennedy Space Program, the Carter Shale Oil Program, the Reagan
Strategic Defense Initiative and the Clinton/Gore Human Genome Initiative but never has a comprehensive and
consistent strategy been employed.
The failure may be directly linked to the potential backlash that could result from a president or Congress being
accused of "picking the winners and losers" for future business growth.
Unfortunately, this kind of government thinking has reached the private sector.
The Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, whose purpose was improving accountability and transparency in corporate
governance, has also chased innovative thinkers from corporate boardrooms. Choosing to serve on a corporate
board or deciding to take a small private company public may now not be worth the risk.
Risk aversion in the private marketplace has had a paralyzing effect on high-tech growth. In 2000, there were an
estimated 170 initial public offerings for high-tech companies; by 2006 the number of such IPOs dwindled to 35.
Economic competition from Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, India, China and Japan reminds us of the atrophy in the
domestic auto industry. The burgeoning presence of nail and tanning salons on Main Street USA stands in stark
contrast to Singapore's stem-cell "research city," Taiwan's science parks and the new R&D labs in Bangalore,
India.
To be remembered for rebuilding America, our president must commit to re-establishing the global technological
leadership of the United States and take a risk on some technologies that meet our national needs, such as
alternative energy, for decades to come.
If the new Congress really wants to improve the future for America's working families, it will leave the self-
congratulatory echo chamber about enhancements to the minimum wage and get down to the hard work of
implementing a national strategy for technological innovation, even if this threatens the defenders of the status
quo.
The 110th Congress can be inspired by the bipartisan 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, enabling universities to own
intellectual property from federally sponsored research. Prior to this transformational legislation, the annual
number of university patents fluctuated below 500. By 1990 it doubled and, by 2003 it exceeded 3,000, with a
threefold increase in the number of participating universities, which furthered high tech economic growth.
We need such visionary initiatives now from Congress and the president.
31
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
32
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
33
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
34
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
35
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
36
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
a move would also make it more difficult for critics to use the symbolism of U.S. obstructionism on climate for
their own domestic grandstanding or to engage in quasi-balancing behavior.71
37
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
38
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
CONTENTION 2: SOLVENCY
39
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
AND, A CONTINUED RELIANCE ON THE STATUS QUO SYSTEM OF STATE RPS WILL FAIL TO
LEAD TO A RENEWABLE ENERGY TRANSITION – PLAN NECESSARY TO INCREASE
RELIABILITY AND SECURITY OF ENERGY SECTOR AS WELL AS STAVING OFF CLIMATE
CHANGE
SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization
and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How
Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe:
State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With
the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY,
Fall, lexis/ ttate]
There are three reasons, however, why continued reliance on state-based efforts such as SBCs and RPSs will be
insufficient to promote renewable energy technologies in the United States on the scale needed to fight climate
change.
IMPROVING RELIABILITY
First, federal intervention is needed to improve electricity reliability. Contrary to what some opponents of renewable energy assert, the
variability of renewable resources becomes easier to manage the more they are deployed. Electrical and power systems
engineers have long held the principle that the larger a system becomes, the less reserve capacity it needs. Demand variations between individual
consumers are mitigated by grid interconnection in exactly this manner. When a single electricity consumer, for example, starts drawing more
electricity than the system allocated for each consumer, the strain on the system is insignificant because so many consumers are drawing from the grid that it is entirely
likely another consumer will be drawing less to make up the difference. This "averaging" works in a similar fashion on the supply side of the grid. Individual wind turbines
average out each other in electricity supply. n18 So when the wind is not blowing through one wind farm, it is likely blowing harder through another.
Because the technical availability of one wind turbine rivals that of a single conventional power plant, wind farms of hundreds or thousands of turbines have even greater
reliability because it is unlikely that all turbines would be down at the same time. Furthermore, when turbines do malfunction, they take far less time to recover than massive
conventional power plants or nuclear reactors that have literally millions of individual components, arranged in complex circuits prone to mechanical failure. n19 Analysts
already confirmed the benefit of wind power's greater technical availability in the United States. Indeed, a November 2006 study assessing the widespread use of wind
power in Minnesota [*7] concluded that "wind generation does make a calculable contribution to system reliability" by decreasing the risk of large, unexpected outages.
n20
Improved reliability of supply is important, as blackouts and brownouts exact a considerable toll on the American
economy. The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") estimates that while power interruptions often last only seconds or minutes, they cost consumers an average of $
150 to 400 billion every year. n21 The Electric Power Research Institute projects the annual costs of poor power reliability at $ 119 billion, or forty-four percent of all
electricity sales in 1995. n22
However, to capture such benefits, renewable energy technologies must be spatially deployed in every state and
must have national penetration rates above ten percent. Penetration rates of renewable energy technologies nationwide are still low--around three
percent of overall installed electricity capacity in 2007. Collective state efforts are expected to increase this amount to only around four percent by 2015 and five percent by
Federal intervention in the form of a
2030, but the environmental benefits of renewable energy only really start to accrue at penetration rates well above this rate.
nation-wide SBC or RPS aiming for targets of ten to twenty percent by 2020 would expand the diversity of technologies
used to access renewable resources.
IMPROVING ENERGY SECURITY
Second, larger penetration rates are needed to ensure energy security. This is because the geographical dispersion
of generators not only improves their overall reliability; it makes them more secure--and thus resilient to accidental
power outages and failure, or intentional attack and disruption. Notwithstanding intense media focus on the security dangers from nuclear
reactors and natural gas facilities, the nation's power grid represents an equally serious threat to energy security. The security issues facing the modern
electric utility grid are almost as serious as they are invisible.
For example, in 1975 the New World Liberation Front bombed assets of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company more than ten times, and members of the and San
Joaquin Militia have been convicted of attempting to attack electricity infrastructure. n23 Internationally, organized paramilitaries such as the Farabundo-Marti National
Liberation Front were able to interrupt more than ninety percent of electric service in El Salvador and even had manuals for attacking power systems. n24
Some caution that all it would take to cause a "cascade of power failures across the country," costing billions of dollars in direct and indirect damage, is a few motivated
A deliberate,
people with minivans and a couple of mortars and balloons, which they would use to chaff substations and disrupt transmission lines. n25
aggressive, well-coordinated assault on the electric power grid could devastate the electricity sector. Replacement time
would be "on the order of Iraq," not "on the order of a lineman putting things up a pole." n26
[CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE – NO TEXT DELETED]
40
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
1AC
[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE – NO TEXT DELETED]
Several recent trends in the electric utility industry have increased the vulnerability of its infrastructure. To improve their operational efficiency, many utilities and system
operators have increased their reliance on automation and computerization. Low margins and various competitive priorities have encouraged industry consolidation, with
fewer and bigger facilities and intensive use of assets in one place. As the National Research Council noted, "control is more centralized, spare parts inventories have been
reduced, and subsystems are highly integrated across the entire business." n27
Federal promotion of renewable energy on a national scale can improve the security of the grid by decentralizing
electricity generation. Even when renewable resources like wind and solar are concentrated, the tendency for them to produce power in incremental and modular
amounts makes it much more difficult to disrupt large segments of generation. The International Energy Agency has noted that centralized energy facilities create significant
targets for terrorism because attacking a few facilities can cause large power outages. n28 In contrast to the security risks of large centralized generators, decentralizing
energy facilities and providing power through more modular and distributed energy systems minimizes the risk of accidents and grid failures, and does not require
transporting or storing hazardous or radioactive materials. Analysts have tended to refer to renewable energy systems (and other forms of distributed generation such as fuel
A national RPS or SBC
cells and small-scale cogeneration units) as "supple" power technologies because they are modular suited to dispersed siting. n29
promoting renewables could greatly contribute to the overall security of the nation's electric infrastructure by
forcing more technologies into the portfolio of all American utilities.
PROVIDING CLIMATE BENEFITS
Third, and perhaps most important, federal intervention is needed to fight climate change and minimize "free-
riding" going on in states that have chosen to rely on nuclear and fossil fuels to generate electricity, instead of
promoting renewable energy. The DOE has already determined that only "the imposition of [a national] RPS
would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities." n30 Examinations of fuel generation in
several states confirm this finding, as well as the tendency for a national RPS to displace oil-fired generation, which is still a significant source of
electricity in Florida, New York, and Hawaii. Equally important, but often overlooked, is how SBC- or RPS-induced renewable generation would offset nuclear power in
several regions of the United States.
[*8] Researchers in North Carolina, for example, determined that a state-wide RPS would displace facilities relying on nuclear fuels and minimize the environmental
impacts associated with the extraction of uranium used to fuel nuclear reactors. n31 In Oregon, the Governor's Renewable Energy Working Group analyzed a twenty-five
percent statewide RPS by 2025 and projected that every fifty MW of renewable energy would displace approximately twenty MW of base-load resources, including nuclear
power. n32 Environment Michigan estimates that a twenty percent RPS by 2020 would displace the need for more than 640 MW of power that would have otherwise come
from both nuclear and coal facilities. n33
By offsetting the generation of conventional and nuclear power plants, only large-scale renewable energy
penetration rates would avoid many of the environmental and social costs associated with the mining, processing,
transportation, combustion, and clean-up of fossil and nuclear fuels. By promoting technologies that displace
conventional forms of electricity generation, federal promotion of renewable energy would substantially decrease
air pollution in the United States. A single one MW wind turbine running at only thirty percent of capacity for one year displaces more than 1,500 tons of
carbon dioxide, 2.5 tons of sulfur dioxide 3.2 tons of nitrous oxides, and 60 pounds of toxic mercury emissions. n34
One study assessing the environmental potential of a 580 MW wind farm located on the Altamont Pass near San Francisco, California, concluded that the turbines displaced
hundreds of thousands of tons of air pollutants each year that would have otherwise resulted from fossil fuel combustion. n35 The study estimated that the wind farm would
displace more than twenty-four billion pounds of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxides, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide over the course of its twenty-year lifetime--enough
to cover the entire city of Oakland, California in a pile of toxic pollution forty-stories high. n36
Renewable energy technologies possess an even greater ability to mitigate climate change. The International
Atomic Energy Agency estimates that when direct and indirect carbon emissions are included, coal plants are
around ten times more carbon intensive than solar technologies and more than forty times more carbon intensive
than wind technologies. Natural gas fares little better, at three times as carbon intense as solar and twenty times as carbon intensive as wind. n37 The
Common Purpose Institute estimates that renewable energy technologies could offset as much as 0.49 tons of
carbon dioxide emissions per every MWh of generation. According to data compiled by the Union of Concerned
Scientists, a twenty percent RPS would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 434 million metric tons by 2020--a
reduction of fifteen percent below "business as usual" levels, or the equivalent to taking nearly seventy-one million
automobiles off the road. n38
FIGURE 2: DIRECT AND INDIRECT CARBON EMISSIONS BY ELECTRICITY TECHNOLOGY (EQUIVALENT GRAMS OF CO[2]/KWH) n39
These estimates are not simply theoretical. Between 1991 and 1997 renewable energy technologies in the
Netherlands reduced that country's annual emissions of CO[2] between 4.4 million and 6.7 million tons.
Renewable technologies were so successful at displacing greenhouse gas emissions that Europe now views
renewable energy as "the major tool of distribution utilities in meeting industry CO[2] reduction targets." n40
41
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
A Federal National RPS has not been signed—Most of the changes happen within state boundaries
Ryan Wiser and Galen Barbose, Energy researchers, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2008
[“Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, April 2008,
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-154e.pdf , Liu]
Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) have proliferated at the state level in the United States since the late 1990s.
In combination with Federal tax incentives, state RPS requirements have emerged as one of the most important
drivers of renewable energy capacity additions. The focus of most RPS activity in the U.S. has been within the
states. Nonetheless, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have, at different times, each passed versions of
a Federal RPS; a Federal RPS, however, has not yet been signed into law.
Fortunately, there are practical and affordable ways to achieve this goal. Homegrown renewable energy resources
—such as wind, solar, bioenergy, and geothermal—can help reduce our dependence on polluting fossil fuels.
These clean energy sources can also help stabilize energy prices, stimulate the development of innovative new
technology, and create high-quality jobs and other economic benefits.
Strong national policies can ensure these benefits are fully realized. The policy that has proven most effective and
popular at the state level is the renewable electricity standard (also known as the renewable portfolio standard or
RPS), which requires electricity providers to supply a minimum percentage of their power from clean energy
sources. As of June 2007, renewable electricity standards have been adopted in 23 states and Washington, DC. At
the national level, the U.S. Senate has passed a 10 percent by 2020 national renewable electricity standard three
times since 2002—most recently in June 2005—only to be rejected by the House conferees each time.
42
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
43
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
44
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
"These new state standards are kicking in right now," says Jeff Deyette, an energy analyst with the UCS, based in
Cambridge, Mass. "We're seeing states like Texas, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin that are meeting or exceeding
their goals to build clean energy sources rather than dirty" ones.
Already, states have trimmed an estimated 20 million metric tons of CO2 emissions through renewable-energy
portfolio standards (RPS), which require that a certain percentage of power come from renewable sources.
"Renewable standards are one of the biggest steps we can take to cut global-warming pollution in the next 10
years," says Alison Cassady, author of a new US Public Interest Research Group report released earlier this month.
Several bills pending in Congress would require 20 percent of US energy to come from renewables by 2020. That
standard would be tougher than many state requirements and could cut the growth of US emissions 60 percent by
2020, the UCS analysis shows. At that level, state RPS would produce 180,000 megawatts of power, 11 times
current levels. Most important, it would prevent 434 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from entering the
atmosphere.
That still leaves CO2 emissions growing in the future. But it shows RPS can eliminate a substantial portion of
greenhouse-gas emissions, paving the way perhaps for a broader national push for energy efficiency with tougher
standards for appliances and lighting, for instance.
45
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
WARMING EXTS – RPS ↓ EMISSIONS
The new requirement will bring about a 30 percent increase on the current obligatory utilization of 12.2 billion kilowatt-hours, which will end in fiscal 2010. With
the new obligatory amount, power generation from new energy sources would account for 1.63 percent of total electricity sales, compared to the previous target of
1.35 percent.
Under the new RPS utilization rules, solar power--the most costly renewable energy source--will be
considered to be worth twice as much as other new energy sources as an incentive designed to appease the
power industry, which opposes the increase of the obligatory standard.
The RPS system requires that a certain proportion of utility companies' power supply must come from new
energy sources. If a company fails to meet the target, it will be obliged to purchase electric power generated by wind or other new sources from other
companies to cover the shortfall.
Under this system, the ministry aims to increase the value of new energy, as well as its attractiveness, to promote the development of power generation from new
sources.
Energy security
Expanding the use of wind and solar power, which do not emit CO2, would help tackle global warming and,
as such energy can be produced domestically, improve the nation's energy security.
46
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
47
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Caldeira et al, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, 03 (Ken Caldeira, Atul K. Jain, Martin I. Hoffert “Climate
Sensitivity Uncertainty and the Need for Energy Without CO2 Emission” Science, 3/03,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5615/2052, Yoder)
Here, we investigated uncertainties in allowable CO2 emissions and carbon emissions-free power requirements
introduced by uncertainties in climate sensitivity, for a specific set of temperature stabilization pathways. However,
time-varying allowable emission rates are sensitive to the details of the stabilization pathway; mean or cumulative
emissions are less sensitive (12). Figure 3 shows the rate at which carbon emissions-free energy sources must be
added to the power generating capacity to achieve CO2 stabilization. To achieve stabilization at a 2°C warming, we
would need to install ~900 ± 500 MW of carbon emissions-free power generating capacity each day over the next
50 years. This is roughly the equivalent of a large carbon emissions-free power plant becoming functional
somewhere in the world every day. In many scenarios, this pace accelerates after mid-century. If climate sensitivity
is in the middle of the IPCC range, under IS92a assumptions, even stabilization at a 4°C warming would require
installation of 410 MW of carbon emissions-free energy capacity each day.
Uncertainty in climate sensitivity could perhaps be reduced by a well-designed program of climate model
evaluation and improvement and by observationally narrowing uncertainties in non-CO2 sources of radiative
forcing (e.g., aerosols, solar variation), changes in heat storage among various components of Earth's climate
system, top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes, and changes in Earth's surface temperature. But, uncertainty in climate
sensitivity is only one factor affecting uncertainty in allowable CO2 emissions. Uncertainty is introduced when
determining (i) acceptable amounts and rates of climate change, (ii) greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations
consistent with those amounts and rates of climate change, and (iii) greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions
consistent with those concentrations. Predicting future carbon emissions-free energy requirements incorporates
further uncertainties in projection of future economic conditions, energy-use efficiency, demographics, and other
factors. Nevertheless, climate stabilization will require new energy technologies and structural changes in our
economy (14, 24).
48
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
WARMING EXTS – REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS KEY
WE ARE THE KEY INTERNAL LINK – ELECTRICITY IS THE KEY OUTPUT OF CO2 EMISSIONS,
WHICH IS THE KEY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING
POWER SCORECARD 2000 [“Climate Change”, http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?
issue_id=1/ ttate\]
The generation of electricity is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States. The combustion of
fossil fuels such as coal is the primary source of these air emissions. Coal supplies 57 percent of the total energy
harnessed to generate electricity (and approximately 86 percent of all coal consumed in the United States is used
for electricity generation). Burning coal produces far more CO2 than oil or natural gas. Reducing reliance upon
coal combustion has to be the cornerstone of any credible global climate change prevention plan.
Some methods of electricity production produce no or few CO2 emissions - solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower,
and nuclear systems particularly. Power plants fueled by wood, agricultural crop wastes, livestock wastes, and
methane collected from municipal landfills release CO2 emissions but may contribute little to global climate
change since they also can prevent even greater releases of both CO2 and methane.
49
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
A key element of WWF’s mission is to preserve biodiversity for future generations. To achieve this, large tracts comprising
entire intact ecosystems must be managed on a sustainable long-term basis, and global trends threatening these ecosystems,
such as human-induced climate change and the emission of POPs and heavy metals, must also be halted or reversed.
As the polar bear is a keystone species at the top of the food web in the arctic seas, which include some of the world’s
most productive marine ecosystems, it is a good indicator of the overall status of these ecosystems (Eisenberg 1980).
Successful conservation of polar bears and their habitats can thus have positive effects on many other species, in several key
ecoregions, as well as on local human communities within the Arctic. Addressing the conservation of such keystone species
therefore has a high priority within WWF. Through its work in priority ecoregions, WWF is a driving force in the protection
of large expanses of unfragmented land and marine areas to ensure that space-demanding species, such as the polar bear, can
continue to roam undisturbed in intact ecosystems.
50
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Lovelock's current prognoses for the earth's inhabitants are as gloomy as they are provocative. He is convinced that
the 21st century will not be a good one. He claims that climate change caused by human activity will devastate
large swaths of the earth, and by the year 2100 there will only be about a billion people left -- and possibly only
half as many.
Lovelock is now 87 years old and happy that he will be able to avoid this future -- although he has nine
grandchildren. Sometimes he feels like a Roman citizen living around the year 480, watching as an empire meant
for eternity fades away, or like a doctor delivering a fatal diagnosis. And at times he probably relishes how he
distresses his audiences (he is in demand worldwide as a speaker) in his role as a prophet of doom. "Even a nuclear
war," says Lovelock, "would not lead to the level of devastation worldwide that global overheating will cause."
No world power, no scientist, no politician, no consumer forsaking his or her familiar comforts, and neither
emissions trading nor wind energy nor biofuels will be capable of preventing the earth's demise, he says.
According to Lovelock, it will at best be possible to delay the catastrophe for a while -- primarily through the
massive expansion of nuclear energy.
A reliable supply of electricity, says Lovelock, is the key issue when it comes to survival on a warmer planet. He
loses no sleep over the risks of nuclear power.
"Show me the mass graves of Chernobyl," he demands provocatively. No more than a few thousand people died
after the 1986 meltdown -- a small price to pay, he says, compared to the millions who could fall victim to CO2.
He adds that compact nuclear waste is vastly easier to control than the close to 30 billion tons of CO2 released into
the atmosphere each year by the burning of fossil fuels.
51
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – LAUNDRY LIST
Global warming causes natural disasters, resource scarcity, poverty, disease, nuclear war, and extinction
The Tyee 5 (Mark Hertsgaard, 2/16/07, “Kyoto Protocol Is Not Enough”,
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/02/16/KyotoProtocolNotEnough/)
The IPCC scientists predict that because of global warming the future will bring more and deadlier extreme
weather of all kinds: more hurricanes, tornadoes, downpours, heat waves, droughts and blizzards. Then there’s the
matter of all that comes in their wake: more flooding, landslides, power outages, crop failures, property damage,
disease, hunger, poverty and loss of life.
In California, torrential rains induced a mudslide on Jan. 11 that killed 10 people, buried children alive and crushed
dozens of houses. In 2003, a record summer heat wave left 35,000 – mainly elderly people – dead across Western
Europe.
Insurance companies sound alarm
And this is just the beginning. Scientists are careful to say that no single weather event can be definitively linked to
global warming. But the trend is unmistakable to the insurance companies that end up paying the bill. “Man-made
climate change will bring us increasingly extreme natural events and consequently increasingly large catastrophe
losses,” an official of Munich Re, the world’s large reinsurance company in the field of natural disaster mitigation,
said recently. Swiss Re expects losses to reach $150 billion a year within this decade.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair regards climate change as “the single biggest long-term problem” of any kind
facing his country. His government’s top scientist, Sir David King, goes further, calling climate change “the
biggest danger humanity has faced in 5,000 years of civilization.”
Though the Bush White House continues to downplay the urgency of global warming, some parts of the Bush
administration have recognized the gravity of the situation. A report released last April by the Pentagon’s internal
think-tank, the Office of Net Assessments, said that, by 2020, climate change could unleash a series of interlocking
catastrophes. This could include mega-droughts, mass starvation and even nuclear war, as countries like China and
India battle over river valleys and other sources of scarce food and water.
All of this underlines the urgency of revising the world’s response to climate change. To be sure, it remains
essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by strengthening the Kyoto Protocol and augmenting it with other
measures; otherwise, the amount of future warming civilization eventually will have to endure will prove too great
to survive. But in the meantime, it is imperative to prepare against the climate change already on its way.
52
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
53
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
WARMING EXTS – IMPACTS – ECONOMY
54
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
research [*506] suggests that the oceans contain animal life that rivals tropical forests in its diversity of species.
37
As Professor G. Carlton Ray of the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia writes,
"the coastal zone may be the single most important portion of our planet. The loss of its biodiversity may have
repercussions far beyond our worst fears." 38
55
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Conventional power plants dump a hundred million tons of poisonous sludge -- pollutes groundwater and
increase the risk of cancer, miscarriages, and birth defects
Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07
[“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 100,
Liu]
America’s 600 coal and oil-fired power plants produce more than one hundred million tons of sludge waste every
year. Seventy six million tons of these wastes are primarily disposed on-site at each power plant in unlined wastewater
lagoons and landfills that are seldom fully monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. These wastes are
highly toxic, containing concentrated levels of poisons such as arsenic, mercury, and cadmium that can severely
damage the human nervous system. Nuclear facilities may be even worse. To produce fuel for nuclear reactors, uranium is
often “leached” out of the ground by pumping a water solution through wells to dissolve the uranium in the ore. The
uranium is then pumped to the surface in a liquid solution. About 20 such in-site leach facilities operate in the United States. At the reactor site,
electricity generation using nuclear technology creates waste water contaminated with radioactive tritium and other
toxic substances that can leak into nearby groundwater sources. In December 2005, for example, Exelon Corporation reported to
authorities that its Braidwood reactor in Illinois had since 1996 released millions of gallons of tritium-contaminated waste water into the local watershed,
prompting the company to distribute bottled water to surrounding communities while local drinking water wells were tested for the pollutant. The
incident led to a lawsuit by the Illinois Attorney General and the State Attorney for Will County who claimed that “Exelon was well aware that tritium
increases the risk of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects and yet they made a conscious decision not to notify the
public of their risk of exposure.”
56
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
ENVIRONMENT EXTS – SYSTEMIC DEATH IMPACTS
Without the implementation of cleaner electricity generation, 70,000 will die each year from excessive air
pollution
Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07
[“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 102,
Liu]
Conventional electricity generation is by far the largest source of air pollutants that harm human health and
contribute to global warming. In 2003, for example, fossil fuel use (for all energy sectors, not just electricity) was responsible for
99 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, 93 percent of its sulfur dioxide (SOx) emissions, and 96 percent of its
nitrous oxides emissions (NOx). Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health estimated that the air pollution from
conventional energy sources kills between 50,000 and 70,000 Americans every year. These researchers found that the
emissions from just 9 power plants in Illinois directly contributed to an annual risk of 300 premature deaths, 14,000 asthma attacks, and more than
400,000 daily incidents of upper respiratory symptoms among the 33 million people living within 250 miles of the plants. Compiling data from the
American Cancer Society, Harvard School of Public Health, and Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean the Air Grassroots Network estimated that
residents in every single U.S. state were at risk to premature death from air pollution. Children are particularly
vulnerable to the pollution from fossil fuels. Because children spend more time outside and have smaller airways that necessitate more
rapid breathing, they are much more vulnerable to develop illnesses associated with air pollution. By promoting
technologies that displace conventional forms of electricity generation, a national RPS would substantially
decrease air pollution in the U.S. A single 1 MW wind turbine running at only 30 percent of capacity for one year
displaces more than 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide, 2.5 tons of sulfur dioxide 3.2 tons of nitrous oxides, and 60
pounds of toxic mercury (Hg) emissions. One study assessing the environmental potential of a 580 MW wind farm located on the Altamont
Pass near San Francisco, California, concluded that the turbines displaced hundreds of thousands of tons of air pollutants each year that would have
otherwise resulted from fossil fuel combustion. The study estimated that the wind farm would displace more than 24 billion pounds of nitrous oxides,
sulfur dioxides, particulate matter and carbon dioxide over the course of its 20-year lifetime — enough to cover the entire city of Oakland in a pile of
toxic pollution 40 stories high.
57
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
AIR POLLUTION LEADS TO HARMFUL SMOG AND ACID RAIN – DIRTIES OUR WATER SUPPLY
NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate]
Electricity use has a significant impact on the environment and public health. Electricity accounts for less than 3
percent of U.S. economic activity, yet the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for power currently accounts
for more than 26 percent of smog-producing nitrogen oxide emissions, one-third of toxic mercury emissions,
and 64 percent of acid rain-causing SO2 emissions. Increased renewable energy use can help reduce these
harmful emissions, or reduce the cost of complying with pollutant reduction requirements. And by reducing
the need to extract, transport, and consume fossil fuels, a national RPS would limit the damage done to our
water and land and conserve natural resources for future generations.
58
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
59
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
60
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
61
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
THE LATEST JOB GROWTH REPORT IS DISMAL – IT HAS GUTTED CONSUMER CONFIDENCE
AND WILL CAUSE THE ECONOMY TO CONTINUE TO DECLINE
REUTERS 2008 [“Weak Confidence, Prices Stroke U.S. Stagflation Fears; Housing Worsens. Collapse in
Home Prices Accelerates to Record Pace”, February 27, lexis/ ttate]
U.S. consumer confidence slumped to its worst in five years this month as a tough job market helped produce the
grimmest future outlook in 17 years, while soaring inflation among producers at the year's start stoked fears of
stagflation.
Bad news also poured in from the beleaguered housing market, other data showed yesterday. The collapse in U.S. home prices accelerated to a record pace in the fourth
quarter of 2007, with prices plunging 8.9 per cent last year, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index.
A government report showed U.S. producer prices jumped one per cent in January on rising energy costs and posted the biggest 12-month gain in more than 26 years, which
was the last time the U.S. was emerging from a stagflationary period of low growth and high inflation.
The Conference Board said its index of consumer sentiment fell to 75.0 in February, significantly worse than economists' forecasts and its lowest in five years. The
Conference Board's expectations index fell to 57.9 - its lowest in 17 years.
"It looks like there is no confidence in an economy where inflation is getting out of control," said Andrew Brenner, market analyst at MF Global in New York.
"This is a classic stagflation scenario."
It was the biggest monthly drop in the consumer confidence and expectations indexes since September 2005,
following Hurricane Katrina. The present situation index saw its biggest tumble since October 2001, the last time
the United States was in recession.
Sentiment suffered amid a worsening view of the jobs market. The measure of "jobs hard to get" rose to 23.8 in February - its highest since
October 2005 - from 20.6 in January.
The measure of "jobs plentiful" fell to 20.6 - its lowest since April 2005 - from 23.8.
The proportion of respondents identifying jobs as plentiful fell by 3.2 percentage points, the biggest drop in a year
and a half. The jobs hard to get response shot up by the most in nearly five years.
62
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
63
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Oil Prices high now—thicker oil requires more refinement and investment
Wagner, writer The Market Oracle, 7/11/08 (Hans Wagner, “High Gas Prices Investment Opportunities”, The
Market Oracle, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5406 Yoder)
Oil does not come out of the ground in the same form everywhere. The price for oil that is widely quoted is for
light/sweet crude. This oil is easier to refine into useful end products by refineries. Since it is easier to refine this
type of oil is in high demand. As oil gets thicker, or what is called heavy, it requires more processing to ship and
refine into end products. Add in impurities such as sulfur and it requires additional refining. This heavy/sour crude
is widely available in Canada and Venezuela. The problem there is not sufficient refining capacity to process this
heavy/sour crude, since it requires more expensive capital investment. Much of the additional oil Saudi Arabia is
making available is heavy/sour, however, since there isn't sufficient refining capacity to process this oil is either
not being sold or is going for much lower prices. This is one of the reasons the Saudis say there is sufficient oil
available on the market.
Demand for oil has been growing at an annualized compound rate slightly more than 2 percent in recent years. As
expected this growth is highest in the developing world, particularly in China and India (each with a population in excess of 1 billion) and to a lesser extent in Africa and
South America. This growth is primarily due to rapidly rising consumer demand for transportation via cars and trucks.
The United States consumes about 21 million barrels of oil each day.
The growth in demand is coming from the new economic growth of China and India with their growing middle
class. According to the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association, China's consumption of oil rose 17% in the first quarter of 2008 alone, According to some
estimates China's oil consumption will increase by 62% over the next decade. This would mean they would be using at least 12 million barrels of oil a day by 2020
compared to the 21 million barrels currently consumed each day by the U.S.
China is building 42,000 miles of new interstate highways over the next twenty years to accommodate the all the new car sales in China. The U.S. has about 86,000 miles of
interstate highways. China expects to have 10 million new cars in 2008. Their sales of cars are expected to grow between 15 to 20% per year. In comparison the U.S. is
expected to sell 14 – 15 million cars in 2008. India has plans to construct another 25,000 miles of expressways. Cars driving on those highways are going to consume more
gasoline.
Prices help to allocate scarce goods. Although demand for gasoline is more elastic in the long-run, in the short run,
small disparities in supply and demand (in either direction) will have a large impact on prices. This inelasticity
means that if prices go up, demand goes down, but not by very much. The problem is people are locked into their
existing life patterns for the near term. While they can change their fuel consumption by buying more fuel-efficient vehicles, or move closer to work,
these things take time. They can also take public transit where it is available. The point is rapid price increases tend to have only a small
impact on the demand for fuel over the short run. Longer term they change patterns of behavior and the investing opportunities that are available
64
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
ECONOMY EXTS – RPS ↓ ENERGY COSTS
NATIONAL RPS LOWERS PRICES OF ENERGY RATES – LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES
FERSHEE, asst prof of law @ University of North Dakota School of Law, 2008 [Joshua P., “Changing
Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy
Industry”, 29 Energy L.J. 49, lexis/ttate]
A reduction in the use of natural gas would also, by many accounts, lead to lower prices for consumers. A recent
study by Woods Mackenzie, an energyindustry consultancy, indicated that a 15% national RPS would "drive
down" the demand for, and price of, natural gas and "lower the overall price of power."58 The company found that
regardless of whether a national RPS is implemented, the "United States needs to build 420 GW of capacity over
the next twenty years to replace aging facilities and meet its ever-growing need for electricity." 9 A national RPS
would create incentives ensuring, essentially requiring, that some of that new generation be fueled by renewable
sources. This switch, according to the Woods MacKenzie study, to renewable generation sources would lower fuel
costs and reduce fossil fuel consumption, leading to lower electricity costs, amounting to approximately $100
billion in savings.60
65
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
66
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
67
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
And this becomes more and more true as energy costs rise. Oil, natural gas, and coal are all going up and are
almost certain to continue rising in the mid- to long-term, no matter the short-term volatility. As those prices rise
we're shoveling money out of our country into the pockets of oil regimes and paying to blow up our own
mountains. Every dollar that shifts from fossil spending to R&E spending generates comparatively more jobs,
keeps comparatively more money in the economy, and has comparatively more positive multiplier effects. Every
dollar that is saved by end-use efficiency moves investment from an extraordinarily low labor intensity sector
(fossil fuels) to a higher one (virtually anything else, but particularly renewables).
It is long past time to stop acceding to the absurd notion that money spent to avoid high fuel prices is just sunk
inflationary cost. It's not. It is investment in other things, and those other things will generate economic activity
and jobs.
The economy is headed for serious, serious trouble. Reducing our carbon intensity will reduce both energy demand
and energy prices and spur a wave of productive investment. Sane climate policy is not a burden to bear or castor
oil to choke down -- it's going to save our f*cking hides.
68
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
KOREA TIMES 06-15-2005 [“Rising Oil Prices Cast Shadow Over Economy”, lexis/ttate]
Higher oil prices have added upward pressure on consumer prices and dampen otherwise gradually improving
consumer and business confidence. The price of Dubai crude, which accounts for more than 80 percent of the
nations oil imports, has risen above $50 per barrel.The price of Dubai crude hovered between $44 and $46 in May,
but jumped to $49.26 per barrel at the end of last month to $50.01 on June 6 and $50.08 last Friday. West Texas
Intermediate crude oil jumped to $55.62 per barrel to a record $54.93 a barrel on the New York Mercantile
Exchange last Friday, while Brent crude oil has climbed to $54.78 a barrel. This years Dubai crude averaged $43.9
per barrel as of the end of May, which is 19 percent higher than an average price of $35 per barrel for this year
projected by the government. The Korea Energy Economics Institute said that for the nation, the worlds
fourthlargest oil importer, a $5-a-barrel rise in oil prices would likely reduce the country's current account surplus
by $5.91 billion. The institute also says that a 10 percent gain in oil prices will cut the nations growth rate by 0.13
to 0.14 percentage point, while adding 0.09 to .0.1 percentage point to consumer prices. A rise in oil prices weighs
heavily on domestic demand and the current account balance as it has the same effect as tax increase on the
economy. ''Oil supply may fall short of demand in the second half of this year, keeping oil prices at high levels, the
institute said. It forecast that Dubai crude would rise to as much as $46.50 a barrel this year, up more than $5 from
the previous year. The problem is that oil prices are expected to continue in an upward trend. ''Usually, oil prices
are stabilized in the second quarter due to low demand, but this year, all kinds of oil, including gasoline and diesel,
are on the sharp rise, an official at the Korea National Oil Corp. said. ''Dubai crude price is expected to stay around
$50 throughout the year due to an imbalance in the supply and demand situation in the Middle East region, he
added. Analysts said that if oil prices continue to remain at these high levels, the nation may fail to get back on
track for a full recovery. Samsung Economic Research Institute managing director Cheong Mun-kun said that oil is
now the biggest threat to economic recovery. ''The real reason behind the Great Depression in the U.S. was high oil
prices, and the government should take this more seriously and take effective measures to weather high oil prices,
he said
69
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
ECONOMY EXTS – HIGH OIL PRICES ECONOMIC COLLAPSE
70
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
It will therefore be left to the Middle East producers to alert the World to its predicament. They wont do so for an
altruistic purpose, but simply to raise their revenues. Motive apart, their action will carry an important message. I
don't think that their message will be delivered in small doses, nor can it be, given the efficiency of the new oil
commodity markets. It will be the marginal barrel that sets the price. Quite a small shortfall could trigger a strong
reaction. There will be nothing to counter it: oil will suddenly be in strong demand and the traders will hourly mark
up its price as more buyers than sellers appear in the bullpen. Probably, as prices rise the buyers would at first hold
back, but since their physical stocks are now so low, they could not do so for long. The market would move into
contango whereby the futures would be above the present. That itself would deliver a message, which the sellers
would pick up, holding back on physical delivery. It would spiral upwards as a crisis feeding on itself. Where
would it end?
The epoch immediately following the shock will likely see great volatility. There will be no shortage of comment,
informed or otherwise, and it will be a field day for radio and television panel discussions. Mr Clinton may launch
a few more missiles at someone. He might send in the marines to occupy Saudi Arabia. But it would all be
posturing and gesture. If Exxon, backed by the marines, found itself controlling the world's oil supply, what would
it do? Put up the price.
71
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – 2AC/1AR MUST READ
The report could complicate movement by lawmakers to legislatively bolster grid security as a national priority, the source suggests, because it may expose a need
to fundamentally rebuild the grid as well as address vulnerabilities. Grid stakeholders continue to believe new investment in the grid is crucial and needed,
highlighted by the 2003 blackout, and are expected to argue reinvestment is a matter of national security as well.
Recently, FERC has suggested to Congress the need for increased authority to enhance its regulatory mission to defend against cyber security threats alongside the
Department of Homeland Security. FERC has already approved critical infrastructure protection (CIP) reliability standards, which has utilities scrambling to
develop cyber-security compliance measures, according to industry sources. A report that says the grid is even weaker than believed
could help arguments for delaying mandatory CIP compliance until more basic grid improvements are made. It would spur arguments to use the time and funds
meant for CIP compliance for grid development, industry observers and others suggest.
Industry, for the most part, says there is need for both cyber defense and grid investment. Still, consultants are advising that grid development should be the
Bringing new, cleaner energy generation resources onto the grid
priority, especially as the nation moves toward carbon regulations.
will require a bolstered electricity transmission and distribution system, say these sources. According to the report's
contributor, the study would help reexamine core vulnerabilities to the power grid, notably its lack of resiliency, disrepair and need for investment. Some lobbying
Congress on energy matters suggest that grid issues could spark new debate in the fall as the federal infrastructure bill is debated. But many also believe a
reinvigorated energy/climate debate next year would stoke new interest in addressing grid concerns.
The NAS Board on Energy and Environmental Systems has overseen the drafting of the grid report since the summer of 2005. The study was originally called:
"Enhancing the Robustness and Resilience of Future Electric Transmission and Distribution in the United States to Terrorist Attack." NAS sources say the title has
since been shortened to "Terrorism and the Electric Power Delivery System."
The report was meant for release last June, but has been delayed due to a "security review" being conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, according to
a NAS spokesperson. The spokesperson could give no specific details on why it has taken a year to vet the report, and could offer no information on when to expect
the study's release. The report was being examined to make sure no sensitive information was included that could be used to harm the power grid, the spokesperson
said.
National security proponents, including former CIA director Jim Woolsey, have in recent weeks cited a National Journal
article that said Chinese hackers were behind the 2003 blackout to bolster the debate for protecting the power
grid from cyber attacks. The story is being discredited by the administration, with former White House officials in charge of critical infrastructure
lashing out at the article. The departments of energy and homeland security did an investigation that concluded no attack took place.
As national security proponents wrangle over cyber security protections in Washington, security system vendors are carving out market share using ailing grid
infrastructure to their advantage.
Based on what these sources consider hurdles in CIP compliance, aging grid infrastructure could be considered part of the problem in creating a more secure grid.
New hardware to better incorporate so-called SCADA, or control system electronics, networks would improve cyber security, but would also mean improved
reliability through incorporation of advanced smart grid systems and new distribution and transmission networks, according to stakeholders.
72
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
As the 21st century progresses, major cities in heavily air-conditioned California can expect more frequent
extreme-heat events because of climate change.
This could mean increased electricity demand for the densely populated state, raising the risk of power
shortages during heat waves, said Norman Miller, an earth scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and geography professor at the
University of California, Berkeley, and Katharine Hayhoe, a climate researcher at Texas Tech University. If the electricity were generated using fossil fuels, this
could also mean even more emissions of heat-trapping gases that cause climate change.
Their results were published in the online version of the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. Co-authors included Maximilian Auffhammer, of the
Agricultural and Resource Economics Department at UC Berkeley, and Jiming Jin, formerly of the Earth Sciences Division at Berkeley Lab and now at Utah State
University.
"Electricity demand for industrial and home cooling increases near linearly with temperature," said lead author Miller, a climate scientist and a principal
"In the future, widespread climate warming across the western U.S. could
investigator with the Energy Biosciences Institute in Berkeley.
further strain the electricity grid, making brownouts or even rolling blackouts more frequent."
When projected future changes in extreme heat and observed relationships between high temperature and electricity demand for California are mapped onto current
the researchers discovered a potential for electricity deficits as high as 17 percent during peak
availability,
electricity demand periods.
Climate projections from three atmosphere-ocean general circulation models were used to assess projected increases in temperature extremes and day-to-day
variability, said Hayhoe. Increases range from approximately twice the present-day number of extreme heat days for inland California cities such as Sacramento
and Fresno, to up to four times the number of extreme heat days for previously temperate coastal cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego before the end of the
century.
This year, California experienced an unusually early heat wave in May and is currently in the midst of its second major heat wave of the summer, one that has
already broken high temperature records for several more California cities and increased fire and health risks. One hundred and nineteen new daily high
temperature records were set during the May heat wave, including the earliest day in the year in which Death Valley temperatures reached 120 degrees F (on May
19, beating the old record of May 25 set in 1913).
In the future, the authors say, the state should brace for summers dominated by heat wave conditions such as those experienced this year. Extreme heat and heat
wave events have already triggered major electricity shortages, most notably in the summer of 2006. Given past events, the results of this study suggest that
future increases in peak electricity demand may challenge current and future electricity supply and
transmission capacities.
Similar increases in extreme-heat days are likely for other U.S. urban centers across the Southwest, including Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas, as well as for large cities in developing nations with rapidly increasing electricity demands.
73
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
74
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
75
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
TRANSMISSION IS THE KEY WEAKNESS OF NATIONAL GRID – STATUS QUO NOT SOLVING
WASHINGTON POST 2004 [“Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable”, August 10,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52858-2004Aug9.html /
ttate]
Most fundamentally, they said, power companies have not solved complications associated with deregulation of
the industry over the past decade. Before deregulation, electricity was typically generated closer to where it was
used. With deregulation, electricity is increasingly being shipped on high-voltage transmission lines from power
plants in one part of the country to consumers who live hundreds of miles away.
In addition, there still has not been significant investment in new transmission lines that specialists say are needed
to allow electricity to flow freely from one part of the country to another and provide a route for backup electricity
that could limit the scope of a blackout.
"The sorts of things that you need to do to make sure that we're not going to have a blackout are not coming into
place," said Michael W. Golay, a professor of nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"The blackout reports and actions that have been taken have really been, in my view, exercises in damage control
to try to deflect criticism. We'll see if I'm right when we see if we have more blackouts, which I'm expecting we
will."
76
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
AN ATTACK ON THE NATION’S POWER GRID WOULD COLLAPSE OUR ECONOMY – WORSE
THAN THE GREAT DEPRESSION
CNN 2007 [Jeanne, “Mouse click and plunge city into darkness, experts say, September 27,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/power.at.risk/index.html#cnnSTCText / ttate]
Researchers who launched an experimental cyber attack caused a generator to self-destruct, alarming the government and electrical industry about what might happen if
the same attack scenario could be used
such an attack were carried out on a larger scale, CNN has learned. Sources familiar with the experiment said
against huge generators that produce the country's electric power. Some experts fear bigger, coordinated attacks
could cause widespread damage to electric infrastructure that could take months to fix. CNN has honored a request from the
Department of Homeland Security not to divulge certain details about the experiment, dubbed "Aurora," and conducted in March at the Department of Energy's Idaho lab. In
a previously classified video of the test CNN obtained, the generator shakes and smokes, and then stops. DHS acknowledged the experiment involved controlled into a
replica of a power plant's control system. Sources familiar with the test said researchers changed the operating cycle of the generator, sending it out of control. Watch the
generator shake and start to smoke » The White House was briefed on the experiment, and DHS officials said they have since been working with the electric industry to
devise a way to thwart such an attack. "I can't say it [the vulnerability] has been eliminated. But I can say a lot of risk has been taken off the table," said Robert Jamison,
acting undersecretary of DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate. Government sources said changes are being made to both computer software and physical
hardware to protect power generating equipment. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it is conducting inspections to ensure all nuclear plants have made the fix.
Industry experts also said the experiment shows large electric systems are vulnerable in ways not previously demonstrated. "What people had assumed in the past is the
worst thing you can do is shut things down. And that's not necessarily the case. A lot of times the worst thing you can do, for example, is open a valve -- have bad things
spew out of a valve," said Joe Weiss of Applied Control Solutions. "The
point is, it allows you to take control of these very large, very
critical pieces of equipment and you can have them do what you want them to do," he said. Adding to the
vulnerability of control systems, many of them are manufactured and used overseas. Persons at manufacturing
plants overseas have access to control system schematics and even software program passwords, industry experts
say. Weiss and others hypothesize that multiple, simultaneous cyber-attacks on key electric facilities could knock
out power to a large geographic area for months, harming the nation's economy. See how America's power grid works » "For about
$5 million and between three to five years of preparation, an organization, whether it be transnational terrorist groups or nation states, could mount a strategic attack against
the United States," said O. Sami Saydjari of the nonprofit Professionals for Cyber Defense. Economist
Scott Borg, who produces security-related
data for the federal government, projects that if a third of the country lost power for three months, the economic
price tag would be $700 billion. "It's equivalent to 40 to 50 large hurricanes striking all at once," Borg said. "It's
greater economic damage than any modern economy ever suffered. ... It's greater then the Great Depression. It's
greater than the damage we did with strategic bombing on Germany in World War II." Computer experts have long warned of
the vulnerability of cyber attacks, and many say the government is not devoting enough money or attention to the matter. "We need to get on it, and get on it quickly," said
former CIA Director James Woolsey on Tuesday. Woolsey, along with other prominent computer and security experts, signed a 2002 letter to President Bush urging a
massive cyber-defense program. "Fast and resolute mitigating action is needed to avoid a national disaster," the letter said.
77
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
ECONOMY EXTS – BLACKOUTS – ECONOMY
OUR NATIONAL GRID IS A KEY TARGET FOR POTENTIAL TERRORISM – WOULD COLLAPSE
THE ECONOMY – EVEN SMALLER POWER OUTAGES FROM THE WEAK GRID ARE
ECONOMICALLY DAMAGING
FOX NEWS 06-06-2008 [“Project Hydra: Keeping Power Out of the Hands of Terrorists”,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364104,00.html / ttate]
Stories of Chinese hackers causing blackouts in Florida and the Northeast have had the blogosphere on fire for
days. False alarm: The real threat comes from physical terrorist attacks on the world’s largest machine — the U.S.
power grid.
The Northeast blackout of 2003 began in Eastlake, Ohio, but didn’t just take out power to that one small town. Due
to the structure of our power grid, a problem in that one local station cascaded down, cutting power to 20 million
people. The blackout, which covered almost 10,000 square miles, resulted in economic losses estimated at over $6
billion.
Eastlake was chalked up to human error, but a deliberate terrorist attack on the electric grid could be devastating to
American security and the economy — making the grid a very attractive target to terrorists.
Sound far-fetched? If we lost power on Wall Street, it would disrupt more than $100 billion a day in Federal Funds
trading and billions more in private transactions.
The only thing that prevented that catastrophe five years ago were emergency generators that kept Wall Street
running in the days following the blackout — and they almost ran out of time.
Even without a terrorist attack on the grid, $100 billion is lost annually in the United States from power outages.
That means that nearly 50 cents for every dollar we spend on electricity goes toward dealing with outages.
78
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
STATUS QUO NOT ADDRESSED TRANSMISSION ISSUES – KEY WEAKNESS OF NATIONAL GRID
SCIENCE DAILY 2006 [“Transmission congestion threatens to clog nation’s power grid”, July 27,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727162612.htm / ttate]
ScienceDaily (July 27, 2006) — Inadequate investment in the power grid transmission network remains the
Achilles heel of the nation's electric system, an engineer who specializes in utility policy at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says.
The electric industry and government regulators have addressed the immediate problems that led to the nation's
worst power failure three years ago on Aug. 14, 2003, said George Gross, a U. of I. professor of electrical and
computer engineering. This includes mandatory reliability standards for the industry, which were passed by
Congress as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
But the broader problems of transmission congestion and bottlenecks continue to threaten the reliability of the grid,
particularly during periods of peak demand.
"The August 2003 blackout was a wake-up call for the country to upgrade its transmission grid system," Gross
said. "But the truth is that very few major transmission projects have been constructed and, as a result, transmission
capacity has failed to keep pace with the expansion of power demand."
In the period between 1988 and 1998, for example, growth in electric demand grew by 30 percent, but growth in
transmission capacity was just 15 percent, Gross said.
79
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
STATUS QUO ATTEMPTS ARE FOCUSED ON MINOR OUTAGES – WILL NOT SOLVE MASSIVE
BLACKOUT – NEW REGULATIONS ARE VOLUNTARY
WASHINGTON POST 2004 [“Bandaged Grid Still Vulnerable”, August 10,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52858-2004Aug9.html /
ttate]
In the year since the largest blackout in American history, utilities have fixed many of the problems that
contributed to the breakdown but still have not resolved larger issues that could lead to future outages, according to
industry officials, regulators and specialists.
Utilities and operators of the nation's electrical grid said they have done what a post-blackout report suggested to
diminish the possibility of a recurrence: cut more trees to prevent them from interfering with lines, upgraded
computer systems to give a better view of how electricity is flowing in other regions and provided more training to
control-room employees.
The cascading power failure that spread across eight states and into Canada, affecting 50 million people,
highlighted that some of the operators running the nation's power grid were not following voluntary rules designed
to promote electrical reliability. Jolted by the failures of Aug. 14 -- which disrupted traffic lights, travel and phone
service in the Northeast, Midwest and Canada -- utilities and electrical grid operators have been following the rules
much more closely, according to the industry and its overseers.
"At least for the short term, we're at a much better state than we were last summer," said Patrick H. Wood III,
chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees wholesale power.
But Wood and some utility executives remain concerned that operators of the grid could again stray from the rules
as memories of the blackout fade -- unless Congress makes the rules mandatory and approves fines for violators.
Even though mandatory rules are supported by the industry and its harshest critics, Congress has not enacted the
legislation, which is part of a larger, controversial energy bill.
80
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Renewable energy technologies tend to create more jobs than fossil fuel technologies because they are more
labor-intensive. A large share of the expenditures for renewable energy is spent on manufacturing equipment, and installing and maintaining it. With
biomass, money is also spent on fuel, but usually from sources that are within 50miles of a biomass plant, because it is too expensive to transport it for long
renewable energy facilities avoid the need to export cash to import fuel from other states,
distances. Therefore,
regions, or countries-keeping money circulating in the local economy, and creating more local jobs.
Many of the new jobs would be located in rural areas where the renewable energy generating facilities would
be sited. However, a national RPS can also benefit manufacturing states, even those with less abundant renewable resources,
by providing them the opportunity to manufacture and assemble components for renewable energy facilities. Developing a strong manufacturing
base can also create enormous export opportunities, given the rapidly growing commitment of the rest of the
world to expand use of renewable energy.
81
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
The report considered the impact on U.S. manufacturing jobs if there were eight times more wind energy
installations, which would mean a capital investment of $50 billion.65 Again, while this report is an estimate based
on a number of major assumptions, the conclusions are still compelling, especially in states that have lost hundreds
of thousands of jobs in the past six years.66
Romm, acting principal deputy assistant secretary office of energy efficiency and renewable energy, 96(Joesph, Capitol Hill Hearing
Testimony FDCH, March 14th,, Ricardo saenz )
A decade's worth of little-heralded technological advances funded by the Department of Energy have helped to
bring such a renewables revolution within our grasp. Yet budget cuts already proposed by Congress would ensure
that when renewable energy becomes a source of hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of new high-wage jobs in
the next century, America will have lost its leadership in the relevant technologies and will once again be
importing products originally developed by U.S. scientists. Moreover, Congress's present and planned cuts in advanced transportation and fossil-fuel research
and development impede efforts to maximize the nation's conventional-energy resource base.
82
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
83
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
84
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
85
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
86
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
US ECONOMIC COLLAPSE KILLS HEGEMONY AND CAUSES WMD WAR WITH CHINA
MEAD 04 (Walter Russell, Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, America’s
Sticky Power, Foreign Policy, March/April)
87
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
ECONOMY EXTS – IMPACTS
Economic collapse will spawn regional wars around the globe, fuel weapons proliferation, and ensure US
intervention in numerous foreign conflicts
Lopez 98, Freelance Journalist and Frequent Author on International Economic Issues
[Beranrdo V., “Global Recession phase two” Catastrophic”, BusinessWorld, September 10, p. 12, LN]
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 internationally.
88
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
89
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
90
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Natural gas prices continue to surpass historical norms for this time of year, exceeding $11 per MMBtu at trading
locations throughout the Lower 48 States, with the exception of Rocky Mountain market centers. Nonetheless,
price decreases during the report week were significant and appeared to represent at least a temporary shift in
sentiment toward natural gas market conditions. Before the Independence Day weekend, spot prices at the Henry
Hub had breached $13 per MMBtu for the first time since December 2005 in the aftermath of the hurricane season
that year. With temperatures relatively moderate this report 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 (after 4 consecutive days of price
declines) was a decrease of $1.22 per MMBtu, or 9 percent. On a regional basis, spot markets along the Gulf Coast
in Louisiana and East Texas registered an average price decrease of $1.19 and $1.16 per MMBtu, respectively. The
average regional price yesterday was $12.79 in Louisiana and $12.53 in East Texas.
91
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Natural gas prices are likely to remain extremely volatile during the next two decades. This volatility likely will worsen,
given the increased demand for natural gas (especially for electricity generation) and tightening supplies. Even more
seriously, this volatility will be occurring along a trend line of increasing gas prices. EIA forecasts that natural gas
prices will increase as technology fails to offset resource depletion and increased demand, and prices to electricity
generators are projected to reach $ 4.40/mcf by 2015 (2001 dollars)--equivalent to more than $ 6.00/mcf in nominal
dollars.
92
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
NATURAL GAS EXTS – NATURAL GAS HURTS MANUFACTURING
SECTOR
Manufacturing critical to US economy and will be destroyed by high gas prices—solution to replace gas
Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC
UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, "The Case Against Gas Dependence", April, lexis, Yoder)
Despite all of the hype in recent years about the new economy, the information economy, the service economy,
etc., manufacturing is, by far, the most critical sector of the U.S. economy, and it creates the broad foundation
upon which the rest of the economy grows. n20 Manufacturing drives the rest of the economy, provides a
disproportionate share of the nation's tax base, generates innovation, and disseminates new technology
throughout the economy. The average manufacturing job creates 4.2 jobs directly and indirectly throughout the
economy, whereas the average service and retail job generates about one other job, directly and indirectly.
The manufacturing sector uses 40 percent of the natural gas consumed in the United States, and virtually every
manufacturing industry is heavily dependent on natural gas as a fuel, feedstock, and, increasingly, as a source
of electricity generation. Price spikes in the cost of natural gas and electricity in the fall of 2000 precipitated
the current manufacturing recession. During the past three years, this sector has been severely affected, losing
more than 2.5 million jobs. n21 The current manufacturing recovery is slower than the first year of any
recovery in 40 years. n22 Manufacturing is suffering from intense global competition and cannot pass though
increased energy costs via product price increases.
Reliance on low-cost natural gas has been an often-unrecognized factor in the U.S. manufacturing sector's global
competitiveness, and an ample supply of reasonably priced natural gas is critical to its competitiveness. This
sector is bearing the brunt of the energy impacts of the natural gas crisis and is suffering from a triple whammy:
High natural gas prices are causing industrial electricity prices to increase, the cost of natural gas as a feedstock
and fuel is greatly increasing manufacturing costs, and industrial operations are the first to be cut off from
natural gas supplies when winter emergencies occur. The natural gas crisis has become a matter of exporting
profits and jobs to countries with cheaper natural gas.
Thus, the impact of high natural gas prices is, indeed, to destroy the U.S. industrial sector. However, instead
of viewing this as an effect that will serve to moderate future natural gas price increases, this must be viewed
as a very serious problem resulting from high natural gas prices. To the extent natural gas demand and prices
are being driven by the increasing use of gas for electric power generation, the solution should be to
substitute other fuels, such as nuclear and coal in this sector, and not to accept demand destruction in the
nation's industrial sector.
93
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
NATURAL GAS PRICES – HIGH PRICES RECESSION
The energy crunch that has hit North America in the past several months can best be viewed as a cautionary tale of the folly of short-
sightedness, of bad planning, of the volatility inherent in even the most efficient open markets.
Experts tell us there's no need to panic, that the markets have a way of correcting themselves, of bringing supply and demand back into balance and bringing prices for oil,
natural gas and electricity back down to more affordable levels.
energy markets, not just in Canada and the United States, but throughout the world, are
However, underneath these assurances lies the inescapable reality that
undergoing radical changes that are fundamentally altering the flows and economics of our energy supplies.
Increasing reliance on natural gas to fuel electrical generation. The rapid expansion of the technology-intensive
New Economy, with its heavy demand for electrical power. Robust economic growth in the developed and the developing world.
Globalization, trade liberalization and the deregulation of energy markets to promote increased competition. Untimely energy policies in North
America and abroad that discouraged development of new energy sources. The convergence of these factors
contributed to the current crunch, which caused California to be nearly crippled by high electricity prices and dangerously low
supplies, consumers to be pummeled by skyrocketing home heating costs, and angry motorists to protest prices.
High energy prices are jamming the brakes on the U.S. economy, threatening to trigger a recession that could
spread globally. An economic slowdown should take the pressure off energy demand and ease prices over the next year. Nevertheless, the mess in the
energy markets should serve as a distant early-warning to policy makers that energy issues will demand a lot of
attention in the first part of the new millennium.
the next decade will see a showdown between a continued surge in energy demand on the one hand, and
Experts say
financial constraints, infrastructure limitations, domestic politics and environmental pressures on the other.
94
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
95
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Two recent studies by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)1, using high renewable energy
cost estimates, found that a national RES to provide 10 percent of U.S. electricity from renewables by 2020
would lower natural gas prices, have virtually no impact on electricity prices, and could save energy
consumers as much as $13.2 billion.2
• A 2002 UCS report, Renewing Where We Live, also found that a 10 percent by 2020 national RES could
significantly reduce consumer energy bills. In addition, the UCS report looked at what would happen if the
national RES were doubled to 20 percent by 2020. In this case, the RES would achieve greater diversity,
economic development, and environmental benefits, while still saving consumers $4.5 billion on their
energy bills between 2002 and 2020.
96
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Two recent studies by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)1, using high renewable energy
cost estimates, found that a national RES to provide 10 percent of U.S. electricity from renewables by 2020
would lower natural gas prices, have virtually no impact on electricity prices, and could save energy
consumers as much as $13.2 billion.2
• A 2002 UCS report, Renewing Where We Live, also found that a 10 percent by 2020 national RES could
significantly reduce consumer energy bills. In addition, the UCS report looked at what would happen if the
national RES were doubled to 20 percent by 2020. In this case, the RES would achieve greater diversity,
economic development, and environmental benefits, while still saving consumers $4.5 billion on their
energy bills between 2002 and 2020.
97
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS LOWERS NATURAL GAS PRICES
National RPS scenarios using either UCS or EIA assumptions also show that energy bills would be reduced in every region
of the country, including the Southeast, where some people have suggested there is limited low-cost renewable energy
potential (Table 1). This is primarily due to the lower natural gas prices for electricity generation and other direct gas
consumers that all regions would see. In addition, all regions do have some renewable energy resources, and would likely see
an increase in using local resources for generation that would often displace the need for importing fossil fuel. Furthermore,
the national credit trading market created by a national RPS would allow utilities in all regions to purchase RECs for the
same price, providing utilities with negotiating leverage over local renewable generators.
The strong relationship between renewable energy generation, and natural gas demand and prices is further supported by a
2005 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) study, which reviewed 13 analyses using different computer models and
assumptions. The analyses all confirmed that renewable energy (and energy efficiency) could reduce gas demand and put
downward pressure on natural gas prices and bills by displacing gas-fired electricity generation. The report also found that
the higher the level of renewable energy penetration, the more gas is saved, and the more gas prices are reduced.
Furthermore, LBL's study shows how these results are broadly consistent with economic theory, with results from other
energy models, and with limited empirical evidence.21
Because of this relationship, long-term natural gas prices have a significant effect on the impact of a national RPS. As gas
price forecasts have increased, analyses have shown that a national RPS is more cost-effective. For example, a 2001 EIA
analysis—using wellhead natural gas prices that averaged $3.28 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period—projected that a
20 percent national RPS would result in cumulative consumer energy bill costs of $14 billion by 2020.22 By comparison, the
20 percent RPS scenario (EIA assumptions) from 2004, which showed consumer savings of $27 billion, used a natural gas
price forecast that averaged $3.97 per Mcf (2002$). While EIA changed a number of the assumptions used in NEMS between
2001 and 2004, most of the difference in energy bill impacts is due to the increase in natural gas prices. EIA has consistently
increased its long-term natural gas price projection each year since 1997 to conform to new data. In the recently released
AEO 2007, wellhead gas prices average $5.06 per Mcf (2002$) over the forecast period.
98
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
NATURAL GAS EXTS – RPS SHIFT FROM NATURAL GAS
Typically, contracts for natural gas generation are variably priced, which leaves utilities and their customers exposed to
periods of price volatility such as that which has plagued the U.S. gas industry since 2000. By contrast, generation from
renewable energy systems is normally sold under fixed-price contracts. Increasing the amount of renewable energy included
in a utilities’ energy portfolio can provide an important hedge against this gas price risk.
Furthermore, the value of this reduced exposure is often underestimated. LBL analyzed the cost of hedging natural gas price
risk through traditional methods (e.g., futures, swaps) compared with forecasts of spot natural gas prices. They found that, at
least from 2001–05, forward gas prices (two to 10 years) have been considerably higher than most natural gas spot price
forecasts, including EIA's baseline forecasts used in NEMS. Therefore, resource portfolio planning or other policy
evaluations based on these forecasts have been biased in favor of natural gas generation. To more accurately capture the
value of long-term price stability provided by renewable energy technologies, LBL recommends a comparison of the cost of
fixed-price renewable generation to the guaranteed cost of new natural gas-fired generation that have been locked in through
forward markets.
99
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
100
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
101
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
WE ARE ADDICTED TO FOREIGN OIL THAT PROPS UP TERRORIST REGIMES - PLAN IS KEY
TO CHOKING OFF THE FUNDING SUPPLY
LASHOFF, senior scientist @ Natural Resources Defense Council, 2006 [Dan, “Energy Efficiency and
Conservation”, June 22, lexis/nalepka]
On a global stage of energy winners and losers, America's over- dependence on oil is now a liability that comes
with costly consequences. One that is particularly dangerous is the connection between oil and terror. As we
describe in the joint report with the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (see attached), terror networks
have clearly identified oil as the Achilles' heel of our economy and continue to carry out numerous attacks on oil
infrastructure around the globe. The billions of dollars we export every year facilitates a massive transfer of wealth
to oil suppliers that help finance terrorism and support the spread of hostile ideology. According to defense and
national security experts, because of our oil dollars, America helps "fund both sides of the war on terror". Oil has
become a strategic commodity that can easily be used against us.
To answer this multifaceted challenge of energy security we must pursue solutions that will tackle the core of the
problem - our demand for oil - and make new policy commitments, such as the Enhanced Energy Security Act
(S.2747), that will offer lasting relief to consumers and clean, renewable energy alternatives. Scaling back our
appetite for oil is essential to safeguarding our national security, economy and environment.
102
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Our nation currently relies on foreign oil for 55 percent of our energy requirements, and this dependence is
expected to rise to 65 percent by 2020. Indeed, during the next 20 years, our energy demand is expected to increase
more than 50 percent. The United States uses oil to supply about 40 percent of our energy needs. No one could
question the fact that energy is absolutely indispensable to maintain our national security and our way of life.
America has become increasingly dependent on petroleum from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. With about 250
billion barrels, Saudi Arabia has more proven oil reserves than any other country; that is, one-fourth of the world's
oil reserves.
Iran and Iraq each control about 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, with large amounts of unexplored resource.
The expectation is that the Persian Gulf must expand oil production by almost 80 percent during the next two
decades to supply the world market. That region has the natural resources and technical capability to achieve that
production, but what will it cost us?
Our country is already too dependent upon foreign oil imports from the Middle East and this dependence is getting
worse, not better.
103
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Lacking long fuel supply chains, renewable energy facilities are also not vulnerable to supply shortages or
disruptions, price spikes, price increases, or price manipulation. And because they do not use volatile fuel or
produce dangerous wastes, renewable energy facilities (except large hydropower dams) do not present
inviting targets for sabotage or attack.
104
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
US DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL IS HIGH AND WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE – HOT
SPOT FOR TENSIONS
Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 07[Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage
Foundation “State of the Union 2007: Recognizing the Threat of Strategic Oil Dependency”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1324.cfm,
January 24, 2007, Nalepka]
Bush called a spade a shovel. Building on his earlier statement that America is “addicted to oil”, he said:
In the State of the Union address, President
For too long, our Nation has been dependent on oil. America’s dependence leaves more vulnerable to hostile
regimes and to terrorists, who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil, and do great
harm to our economy.
The President called on Congress to double the capacity of the strategic petroleum reserve and for America to provide global leadership to encourage our friends and allies
to consider policies to enhance their energy security.
To improve the global energy balance, America’s friends and allies should
increase their production of oil, natural gas, and substitute fuels; diversify their supplies as much as possible away from unstable regions;
make fuel consumption more efficient through technological innovation; and increase their Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPRs).
The United States, said the President, must oppose “foreign actions that undermine free, open and competitive
markets for trade and investment in energy supply”—a not-so-veiled reference to the policies of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) and its individual member states.
A Strategic Threat
The United States is the largest oil importer in the world, importing 13.5 million barrels per day (mbd), which
accounts for 63.5 percent of total U.S. daily consumption. Oil from the Middle East—specifically, the Persian Gulf
—accounts for 17 percent of U.S. oil imports, and this dependence is growing.
The U.S. government predicts that by 2025, the country will import 68 percent of its oil.The measures of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 will slow the growth rate of U.S. dependence only slightly. Recognizing the threat of strategic oil dependency, President Bush has suggested a number of measures,
including increasing domestic drilling.
The President is right about this threat. Today, the U.S. faces a dire geopolitical challenge. Two-thirds
of the world’s oil reserves are
concentrated in the increasingly unstable Middle East. The Persian Gulf will remain the largest and most important
oil producer on the planet. Today, the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran is launching a bid to acquire both
conventional and nuclear capabilities that will threaten its oil-producing neighbors, as well as America’s allies,
such as Egypt, Turkey, and Israel. Iranian dominance of the oil fields of the Gulf countries, some of which are
populated by Shi’a Muslims, is an escalating strategic threat.
105
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Supply disruptions are another economic cost of dependency. In a 2003 report, the National Defense Council
Foundation (NDCF) estimated total costs to the American economy from supply disruptions in 1973, 1979,
and 1990 at $2.3 to $2.5 trillion.
A new term, demand disruption, has recently emerged in the financial press to explain the current high price
of oil. Demand disruptions occur when demand exceeds supply. While supply disruptions tend to be short-
term and fairly easily resolved, demand disruptions are longer-term and much more difficult to resolve.
Other than paying up for oil and suffering the economic consequences, our only solution during extended
demand disruptions would be to be capable of rapidly switching to alternative motor fuels or other means of
transportation.
106
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
107
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
108
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
109
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
CONTINUED US NEED FOR MIDDLE EAST OIL HEIGHTENS RISK OF ATTACK ON ENERGY
SOURCES IN THE REGION
Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 07
[Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, “IMPLICATION OF OIL DEPENDENCE”, Lexis Nexis Academic, March 22, 2007, Nalepka]
Oil as a Weapon. Many Arab leaders understand the dynamic of the world's oil dependence. For example, as early
as 1990, the late Yassir Arafat said:
When the North Sea oil dries up in 1991, the United States will want to buy Arab petroleum. And when the
American oil fields themselves run dry and oil consumption in the United States increases, the American need for
the Arabs will grow greater and greater.[7]
This observation has not been lost on the current generation of politicians and terrorist leaders. However, bin
Laden and Al- Zawahiri are not satisfied with the unwieldy weapons of oil boycotts and buying political influence
in the West. Instead, they are clearly zeroing in on the oil-rich kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf as their
principal targets. They also appear increasingly interested in attacking the entire global oil industry, from wells to
wheels.
The failed February 2005 strike and the prevented March 2005 attack on Abqaiq, mentioned earlier, were not the
first times that al-Qaeda has targeted energy assets in the region. In October 2002, al-Qaeda attacked the
Limbourg, a French oil tanker, off the coast of Yemen with a suicide boat filled with explosives. In 2002,
American and Saudi intelligence agencies uncovered a plot by al-Qaeda sympathizers inside Saudi Aramco to
destroy key Saudi oil facilities. In 2003-2004, al-Qaeda attacked the Saudi port of Yanbu and murdered five
Western engineers working there.[8]
Some analysts have warned that a carefully targeted terrorist attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia could reduce
Saudi oil production to 4 million barrels per day or less for up to three months, which would have disastrous results
for the global economy.
Bush has spectacularly backed off efficiency programs, says the ACEEE. He tried to reduce the new energy-
conservation standards for air conditioners. His proposed 2004 budget all but wiped out spending to improve
efficiency (Congress restored some of the cuts). The 2005 budget chops again. Required new-appliance
standards haven't been issued.
Tying our future to oil is a dangerous game. Dependency on crude is one of the things that enmeshes us in
the explosive conflict of the Middle East at a cost, so far, of 1, 051 lives. I wish that Iraq's only export
were nuts and dates. We'll be engaged in that part of the world until oil doesn't matter anyway.
110
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
111
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
DEPENDENCE EXTS – HARMS DEMOCRACY PROMOTION
112
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
AND, MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT SPREADS AND ESCALATE TO NUCLEAR WARS ACROSS ASIA
MORGAN, labor political analyst, 2007 [Stephen, “Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban
NUCLEAR Pakinstan!?”, June 03 / ttate]
Strong centrifugal forces have always bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan, and, in the context of the new
world situation, the country could be faced with civil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably
including a military-fundamentalist coup d'état.
Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular
name given to male children born that year was "Osama" (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood.
Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup d'état
by the fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of
radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be
likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war
conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni
and minority Shia populations.
The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an arc of
civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine,
through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast.
Undoubtedly, this would also spill over into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir.
Border clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war, and possibly
nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could not be ruled out.
Atomic Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong Al Qaeda
influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a "Pandora's box" for the region and the
world. With the possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the
Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition
of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda.
113
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
U.S. increasing oil dependence in the Middle East can trigger more extremists’ attacks like 9/11.
Burns, Republican of Montana, 03
[Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana,“Beyond the Middle East: In Search of Energy Security”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl780.cfm, March 28,
2003, Nalepka]
In spite of these improvements, there is one area on which our country has neglected to take a strong stand: energy
security.
Many have not realized the incredibly big impact that our oil dependency has on the security of our country. The
attack on 9/11 by Islamic extremists should have been a wake-up call to the nation that our vital security interests
are threatened by our increasing dependence on Middle East oil imports. I am sorry to say that our nation still
slumbers.
We should see the danger that lies in buying up to a quarter of our imported oil from Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
We should see the dangers of paying billions of dollars to a man committed to amassing weapons of mass
destruction.
We should see and understand that every time America buys a barrel of rogue oil we are in part funding unseen
radicals.
And we should see that our national security is at risk, our foreign policy is shackled, and our diplomatic
credibility in the Middle East undermined, so long as we buy from regimes that deny democracy and freedom.
America should not allow these regimes to maintain such a strong influence over our economy.
114
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
OUR OIL POLICIES BREED TERRORISM – OUR GEOPOLITICAL RELATIONS IN THE MIDDLE
EAST BREEDS RESENTMENT AND OUR OIL DOLLARS FEED TERRORIST CELLS
SANDALOW, senior fellow of foreign policy @ Brookings, 2007 [David, “Ending Oil Dependence: Protecting
National Security, the Environment, and the Economy”, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION,
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/~/media/Files/Projects/Opportunity08/PB_Energy_Sandalow.p
df/ ttate]
The United States is in a long war. Islamic fundamentalists struck our shores and are determined to do so again.
Oil dependence is an important cause of this threat. For example, according to Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser at the time of the first
Gulf War, “…what gave enormous urgency to [Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait] was the issue of oil.” After removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, U.S. troops remained in
Saudi Arabia where their presence bred great resentment. Osama bin Laden’s first fatwa, in 1996, was titled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land
of the Two Holy Places.”
Today, deep resentment of the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf is a powerful jihadist recruitment tool. Resentment
grows not just from the war in Iraq, but also from our relationship with the House of Saud, the presence of our
forces throughout the region, and more. Yet the United States cannot easily extricate itself from this contentious
region. The Persian Gulf has half the world’s proven oil reserves, the world’s cheapest oil, and its only spare
production capacity. So long as modern vehicles run only on oil, the Persian Gulf will remain an indispensable
region for the global economy.
Furthermore, the huge flow of oil money into the region helps finance terrorist networks. Saudi money provides
critical support for madrassas promulgating virulent anti-American views. Still worse, diplomatic efforts to enlist Saudi government
help in choking off such funding, or even to investigate terrorist attacks, are hampered by the priority we attach to preserving Saudi cooperation in managing world oil
markets.
115
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
DEPENDENCE EXTS – FUNDS TERRORISM
LOWERING OIL PRICES AND DEPENDENCE CUTS OFF FUNDS FOR TERRORIST CELLS IN THE
MIDDLE EAST
BARNES, JAFFE, AND MORSE 2004 [Joe – research fellow @ Institute for Public Policy @ Rice, Amy –
fellow for energy studies @ Institute for Public Policy @ Rice, Edward – exec adviser @ Hess Energy
Trading Company, NATIONAL INTEREST, Winter 2003/2004, lexis/ttate]
Neoconservative concerns (and increasingly left of center commentators as well) center on a belief that oil revenues permit
countries like Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia to sustain authoritarian regimes and promote anti-American policies.
Collusion on production levels through OPEC, in turn, sustains those rents at a high level. Saudi Arabia, though nominally an ally
of the United States, plays a particularly pernicious role under neoconservative ideology, by using its immense oil
revenues and leadership in OPEC to promote the Kingdom's own brand of fundamentalist Islam -- Wahhabism -- in
the Middle East and Central Asia. At one level, the neoconservative argument is logical: low oil prices-in addition to providing
substantial economic benefits for the United States and global economies -- will reduce the revenue available to oil states,
which sponsor terrorism or pursue the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.
116
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
117
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
118
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Oil dependency destroys US global influence, causes regional hegemony, and erodes leadership.
Matt Piotrowski, Energy Intelligence Group, “Experts Say US Losing Global Clout Due to Oil Dependence”,
3/14/07, l/n
Energy independence is a "myth" but there are ways of managing the consequences of oil dependency, said a
group of experts gathered on Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Policy in Washington , DC . One major
consequence of the US ' dependence on oil is the shift of power to producer countries. High prices have
emboldened many unstable regimes and limited US influence in all regions abroad. But it is not only US
dependence on oil, but also China 's, India 's and Western Europe's dependence that has given producer
countries like Russia , Venezuela and Iran the upper hand in the geopolitical spectrum ( OD Mar.9 ,p1 ). "At
$25 oil, [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez wouldn't be a strong regional influence and Iran can't thumb its
nose at the world," said David Goldwyn, the president of Goldwyn International Strategies, a consultancy that has
advised clients such as the World Bank and the federal government of Nigeria . "This is not an economic
problem. We can afford the price [of oil]. It is a security problem." One major concern is that national oil
companies (NOC), which control some 80% of the world's oil reserves but are slow on investment, are not giving
upstream access to international oil companies (IOC). As a result, the industry cannot develop excess
capacity to provide a significant supply cushion -- which was prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s, keeping
prices low. Supermajors have voiced their frustration with growing resource nationalism worldwide ( OD
Feb.14 ,p1 ). Not only has the tighter market given more clout to large NOCs , but marginal producers --
Ecuador, for example -- have also gained more political power ( OD Feb.16,p5 ). "We're not running out of oil,
but we are running out of oil production capacity," said Robin West of PFC Energy, who noted that oil
windfalls in producer countries have fostered significant corruption, with billions of dollars flowing into
personal bank accounts.
119
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
DEPENDENCE EXTS – HURTS US HEGEMONY
120
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
121
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
DEPENDENCE EXTS - MILITARY INTERVENTIONS
122
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
123
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
NATIONAL RPS CAN POSITION US AS A GLOBAL LEADER IN THE GREEN TECH MARKET
Sierra Club, 2008
[“Myths vs. Reality About a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard”, Sierra Club, 2008,
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/cleanenergy/renewables.asp, Zhang]
Claim: A 20% RPS will hurt consumers and reduce economic growth and employment.
Reality: : A national RES would have substantial economic benefits. Both EIA and UCS analyses found that under
a 20% RES, total consumer energy bills would be lower in 2020 than business-as-usual because the RES would
reduce natural gas prices. Lower energy bills will make the American economy more competitive and increase
economic growth and employment. A 20% RES would create 80,000 new, high quality jobs in the wind industry
alone; spur $80 billion in new capital investment; and provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers, ranchers and
rural landowners and $5 billion in property tax revenues for communities.
Furthermore, creating a healthy renewable electricity industry would position U.S. renewable energy firms to
compete successfully with European and Japanese companies for a multi-billion international market in renewable
energy.
124
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
125
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – RENEWABLES DEVELOPMENT KEY
126
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
127
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
128
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
129
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Clean energy systems and energy efficiency investments also contribute directly to energy security and to
domestic job growth versus off-shore migration. Renewable energy systems are more often local than imported
due to the weight of biomass resources and the need for operations and maintenance.
130
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Imagine if President Bush were to announce at the G-8 summit that the United States
would institute a cap on emissions. We would instantly have the world's largest carbon
market and it would, instantly, change the price of clean energy. It would unleash a
tsunami of economic activity in renewables that could, over time, give American
productivity the next big boost it needs. It would, of course, also quickly send a signal to the market about future
demand for oil, which would in turn affect the price. But somehow I don't think that's what Bush is going to say in Hokkaido this week.
132
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO HEGEMONY
133
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
134
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
The collapse of U.S. leadership will unleash conflicts – resulting in great power wars
Thayer, 6 (Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The
National Interest, November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”, lexis)
A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States . Of course,
this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence.
Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change
from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies.
U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the
behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free
Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan
and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation
network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation.
You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do
not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States.
Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging
China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even
U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may
not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than
China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations.
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international
politics.
Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing
respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained
without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders
collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power,
the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is
important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world.
U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today,
During the Cold War,
American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan,
Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's
likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars.
Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism.
Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American
once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is
worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition,
significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership.
And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at
windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted.
Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The
United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the
military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style
democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the
With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide
world has been the growth of the global economy.
network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this
economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United
States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy
makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service
diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is
through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic
prosperity it provides.
the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people
Fourth and finally,
all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in
nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought,
volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond
with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water,
food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical
reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces.
American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the
tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October
2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those
in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more
people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on
opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg.
THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even
comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified
force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only
practical hope of solving the world's ills.
135
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
COMPETITIVENESS EXTS – KEY TO ECONOMY
“Education is the single most important factor for U.S. citizens in terms of job creation and life success. I know
this from personal experience,” concluded Ruiz.
For many decades, the United States has exemplified this truth, and millions of American families have benefited
from America’s economic freedom. However, this may change soon. The growing fiscal burden of America’s
government could hold back the U.S. economy’s future by undercutting U.S. competitiveness.
There are myriad factors influencing the U.S. economy, but innova tion ultimately drives the U.S. standard of
living. Here is why: economists agree that economic growth is the key ingredient to improving standards of living.
Even slight improvements in economic growth, when compounded over time, can make enormous differences in
per capita income. The linchpin to U.S. economic growth is productivity growth. Productivity growth allows
companies to make more with less—less money, fewer workers, fewer machines. The money left over can be
passed to consumers, workers, or leveraged and reinvested. Each of these uses ultimately translates into better jobs
and greater wealth for Americans. (Of course, there is no guarantee that wealth will be distributed evenly.) What
spurs productivity growth? As the McKinsey Global Institute's Diana Farrell says, "[T]he key to productivity growth
is innovation," and many have argued it will be the most important factor driving American economic success this
century. Technological improvements have accounted for up to 50 percent of U.S. GDP growth, and some 65
percent of productivity growth since World War II.
136
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
137
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
138
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
139
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
one nation becomes too strong, others will join hands to balance its power. There is also an opposite school holding the view that the present American pre-eminence will last well into the 21st
century, only if the US is able to display strategic restraint and uses its power wisely. Predicting the rise and fall of nations is a hazardous guess. When Britain lost its American colonies in the
18th century, Horace Walpole visualised Britain's reduction to a little island as insignificant as Denmark or Sardinia. He failed to foresee the coming industrial revolution that would give Britain another century with greater power.
[continues]
Spreading disenchantment American hegemonic power is of course generating animosity. The imperial power
always looks like a bully. The claim of a superpower to act in the interest of others is always taken with a grain of salt. It always creates fears and anxieties among
other powers. The First World War had its genesis in Germany's rise to power and the fear it caused in Great Britain. Similarly in this century China's growth will create fear in the US and may generate conflict. Indeed anti-
American sentiment is sweeping the world after the Iraq war. It has, of course, been aggravated by the aggressive style of the present American President. Under George Bush, anti-
Americanism is widely thought to have reached new heights. In the coming years the USA will lose more of its ability to lead others if it decides to act unilaterally. If other states step aside and
question the USA's policies and objectives and seek to de-legitimise them, the problems of the USA will increase
manifold. American success will lie in melding power and cooperation and generating a belief in other countries that their interests will be served by working
with instead of opposing the United States. It is aptly said that use of power without cooperation becomes dictatorial and breeds resistance and resentment. But cooperation without power produces posturing and no concrete
progress. There is also another disquieting development.It seems American soft power is waning and it is losing its allure as a model society.
Much of the rest of the world is no longer looking up to the USA as a beacon. Rising religiosity, rank hostility to the UN, Bush's doctrine of preventive
war, Guantanamo Bay etc are creating disquiet in the minds of many and turning them off America. This diminution of America's soft power will also create
140
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
SOLVENCY EXTS – RPS RENEWABLES
141
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
142
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
2020 national RPS would support as much as four times the development of renewable energy capacity (see
Section V). Because all national RPS proposals to date have established a national floor, with states allowed to
continue to set higher standards, a combination of state and federal standards would create the most development.
143
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
RPS reduces fossil fuel use and lowers renewable energy costs
Nogee et. al., 7 – energy analyst and advocate for UCS (Alan Nogee, Jeff Deyette, Steve Clemmer, The Electricity Journal,
"The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard," May 2007, lexis-nexis, Yoder)
Both the UCS and EIA analyses show that a national RPS can save consumers money in several ways. First, by reducing the
demand for fossil fuels, and creating new competitors for the dominant fuel sources, renewable energy helps reduce the price
of fossil fuels and restrain the ability of fossil fuel prices to increase in the future. Natural gas therefore costs less for
electricity generation, as well as for other purposes, benefiting both electricity consumers and other natural gas consumers.
Second, some renewable resources, especially wind energy at good sites, are now less expensive than building new natural
gas- or coal-fired power plants over the expected lifetimes of the plants, and reduce projected generation costs. And third, a
national RPS reduces the cost of renewable energy technologies, by creating competition among renewable sources and
projects to meet the requirements, and by creating economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operations, and
maintenance. Most importantly, projected savings are robust enough to be found in all of the recent RPS scenarios, at both
the 10 percent and 20 percent levels, and despite large differences in projected renewable energy costs and performance in
the EIA and UCS assumptions.
Using UCS assumptions for renewable energy technologies, average consumer natural gas prices would be lower than
business as usual in nearly every year of the forecast under the 20 percent RPS, with an average annual reduction of 1.5
percent. In addition, average consumer electricity prices would be lower than business as usual in every year of the forecast,
with an average annual reduction of 1.8 percent. As a result, the 20 percent RPS would save consumers $49.1 billion on their
electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (Figure 1).19 All sectors of the economy would benefit, with commercial, industrial,
and residential customers’ total savings reaching $19.1 billion, $17.4 billion, and $12.6 billion, respectively.
144
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
145
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
SOLVENCY EXTS – FEDERAL RPS KEY- NATIONAL GRID
146
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
147
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
A FEDERAL RPS IS MORE EFFECTIVE – BRINGS UTILITIES INTO COMPLIANCE WITH POST-
PUCHA – ALLOWS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ENERGY
SOVACOOL 2007 [Benjamin - research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization, “A Matter of Stability and
Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT / ttate]
A federal RPS better matches the post-PUCHA interstate power landscape. The elimination of PUCHA in
2005 removed the geographical restrictions that limited public utility holding companies to
single, integrated systems. [19] More utilities operate across state lines, and many have
begun to merge and consolidate to maximize profits and deal with the perceived
challenges of restructuring. While they are still pending approval, the proposed mergers of
MidAmerican Energy Holdings with Pacificorp and Constellation Energy with FLP serve as
prominent examples of this trend. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also accelerated the
regionalization of the industry by authorizing more interstate compacts and promoting
interstate planning and cooperation. Using individual states as a crucible for innovations in
electricity generation and marketing may have made sense when PUHCA limited the size
and geographic scope of utility holding companies, but makes little sense now. Using the
states alone to promote renewable energy technologies endorses action at the improper
scale since electricity flows across state lines.
148
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
It is time to decide. By establishing a consistent, national mandate and uniform trading rules, a national RPS can
create a more just and more predictable regulatory environment for utilities while jump-starting a robust national
renewable energy technology sector. By offsetting electricity that utilities would otherwise generate with
conventional and nuclear power, a national RPS would decrease electricity prices for American consumers while
protecting human health and the environment. There is a time for accepting the quirks and foibles of state
experimentation in national energy policy; and there is a time to look to the states as laboratories for policy
innovation. Now is the time to model the best state RPS programs and craft a coherent national policy that protects
the interests of regulated utilities and American consumers. Now is the time for federal leadership.
149
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
SOLVENCY EXTS – NATIONAL RPS KEY – COORDINATION
Contrary to enabling a well-lubricated national renewable energy market, inconsistencies between states-over what
counts as renewable energy, when it has to come online, how large it has to be, where it must be delivered, and
how it may be traded-clog the renewable energy market like coffee grounds in a drain. Implementing agencies and
stakeholders must grapple with inconsistent state RPS goals, and investors must interpret competing and often
arbitrary statutes.19
To pick just a few prominent examples, Massachusetts set its target at 4 percent by 2011, while Rhode Island chose
15 percent by 2020. In Maine, fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration units count as "renewables," while the
standard in Pennsylvania includes coal gasification and small-scale fossil fuel power plants. Iowa, Minnesota, and
Texas set their purchase requirements based on installed capacity, whereas other states set them relative to
electricity sales. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island trade renewable energy credits
(RECs) under the New England Power Pool, whereas Texas has its own REC trading system. Minnesota and Iowa
have voluntary standards with no penalties, whereas Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania
all levy different noncompliance fees.20 The result is a renewable energy market that deters investment,
complicates compliance, discourages interstate cooperation, and encourages tedious and expensive litigation.21
150
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
151
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
152
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Connecticut rated so poorly on the outcome-based criteria, described earlier. In Connecticut, the
legislature originally exempted providers of last resort from meeting the RPS. These providers serve
the customers that have chosen not to switch to a competitive provider, and account for well over
95% of the total load in the state. As such, until recently (the legislature enacted changes to the
policy in 2003), the RPS applied to less than 5% of electricity load in the state, eviscerating the
impact of the RPS. Furthermore, when an RPS requirement does not apply to every potential
supplier, it is not competitively neutral and creates barriers to entry to competitive electricity
suppliers. Though Connecticut recently expanded the applicability of their policy to ‘fix’ this
problem, Pennsylvania’s policy still exempts most major LSEs in the state and, in part as a result,
the policy is not expected to benefit the renewable energy industry.
153
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Reality: A 20% renewable electricity standard by 2020 would cost consumers almost nothing. The Department of
Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA), in a report completed at the request of Senator Murkowski (R-
AK), found that consumer prices for electricity under a 20% standard would be largely the same as business-as-
usual (if there were no renewable energy standards at all). BAU would result in a retail electricity cost of 6.5 cents
per kilowatt-hour in 2020, and a 20% standard would result in 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour: only a 3% increase from
BAU, and no more than electricity prices in 1999. The chart below is taken from the EIA report and shows how
little effect a 10% or 20% RPS would have on consumers' electricity bills in 2010 and 2020.(1)
154
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
155
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
National RPS will not disadvantage South—they have plenty of biomass fuel
Sissine, Specialist in Energy Policy at the Congressional Research Service, 2007
[Fred, “Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS):Background and Debate Over a National Requirement”,
National Council for Science and the Environment, September 6, 2007,
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Sep/RL34116.pdf, Zhang]
Proponents counter-argued that a national system of tradable credits would enable retail suppliers in states with less abundant
resources to comply at the least cost by purchasing credits from organizations in states with a surplus of low-cost
production. Also, supporters pointed out that S. Amdt 1537 provided that funds collected from payments for alternative compliance and penalties would be used to
provide grants:
... to states in regions which have a disproportionately small share of economically sustainable renewable energy generation capacity ...
The proponents also noted that in addition to many environmental and public interest groups, the RPS proposal was supported by some electric and natural gas utility
companies as well as several corporations, including BP America and General Electric.
Perhaps most importantly, RPS proponents countered by citing a study prepared by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). The report
examined the potential impacts of the 15% RPS proposed in S.Amdt. 1537. Regarding resource availability, the report found that:
Biomass generation, both from dedicated biomass plants and existing coal plants co-firing with biomass fuel,
grows the most by 2030, more than tripling from 102 billion kilowatt-hours (kwh) in the reference case to 318 billion kwh with the RPS policy.
“the South has significant biomass potential. Compared with other regions of
In a follow-up fact sheet to that study, EIA noted that
the country, EIA found that the South would not be “unusually reliant on purchases of allowances from other
regions or the federal allowance window....” Further, EIA found that the net requirement for the core region of the South defined by the Southern Electric Reliability
Corporation (SERC) — after subtracting exemptions for small retailers and adjusting the baseline generation for pre-existing hydropower and municipal solid waste
facilities — was “below the national average requirement across all regions.”
156
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
NATIONAL RPS SOLVES THE “FREE RIDERS” ARGUMENT – NATIONAL RPS LEVELS THE
PLAYING FIELD – LOSERS NOW IN STATE MISMATCH OF RPS
SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization
and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How
Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe:
State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With
the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY,
Fall, lexis/ ttate]
The first criticism is that a national SBC or RPS would create "winners and losers." In reality, all states have
renewable resources they can affordably develop. However, under the current system of state mandates, some
states are "losers" by subsidizing the cheap, polluting electricity in other states. Other states are victims to
inconsistencies between state mandates that produce perverse predatory trade-offs and require them to export their
cheap in-state renewable electricity in exchange for more expensive electricity or renewable energy credits. A
national mandate would level the playing field by creating consistent, uniform rules and by allowing utilities to
purchase renewable energy credits or develop renewable resources anywhere they are cost competitive.
STATUS QUO CREATES FREE RIDERS – STATES WITHOUT RPS ENJOYING BENEFITS FROM
NEIGHBORS
SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization
and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Exploring How
Today’s Development Affects Future Generations Around the Globe:
State Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy: Tripping the Horse With
the Cart?”, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW AND POLICY,
Fall, lexis/ ttate]
The Bush Administration officially rejects a national RPS on the grounds that it would create inequities between
states. But the irony is that, under the current system of state-based RPS mandates, some states are paying for the
improved environmental and security situation enjoyed by all. While RPS states pick up the tab for cleaning the air
and water and diversifying the nation's electricity generation, other states enjoy artificially deflated electricity
prices as they tap cheap sources of energy that pollute the environment of their neighbors.
Employing a decentralized, state-by-state approach to address pollution that does not respect state borders is
remarkably challenging because upwind and upstream states do not suffer the full burdens of their pollution and
may have little incentive to act.34 Historically, some states have rejected environmental protections when they
believe that such policies would raise compliance costs and encourage industries to flee to less stringent states.
Meanwhile, cleaner air and more reliable power from renewable resources are enjoyed by all states, even though
their costs are borne by only the few generators who have invested in renewable energy by choice or mandate.35
As long as policymakers try to combat national problems using a state-by-state approach, state lawmakers can use
parochial interests to perpetuate the disparity.
157
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
158
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
159
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
160
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
161
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
The RPS has been recognized by some as perhaps the ideal way to encourage renewable energy
development in competitive markets: the RPS aims to ensure that renewable energy targets are met at least cost
and with a minimum of ongoing administrative involvement by the government (Rader and Norgaard 1996,
Haddad and Jefferiss 1999, Berry and Jaccard 2001, Morthorst 2000). Detailed recommendations for the proper
design of an RPS have been provided (Rader and Hempling 2001, Timpe et al. 2001, Mitchell and Anderson 2000,
Price Waterhouse Coopers 1999, Schaeffer et al. 2000, Wiser and Hamrin 2000, Schaeffer and Sonnemans 2000,
Espey 2001). Others have sought to project the costs and impacts of RPS requirements (e.g., Clemmer et al. 1999).
Most of these recommendations and cost estimates have had to rely on theoretical principles, however, as practical
experience in the application of the RPS has been limited. RPS policies have been established by legislation in 10
U.S. states, and in the countries of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Italy, and the United Kingdom, but little experience
has been gained with the actual operation of the policy.2
Replacing existing renewable energy policies with an as-of-yet untested approach in the RPS is risky
business. Some countries – including Germany, Spain, and Denmark – have had particularly good success in
driving clean energy development with attractive “feed-in” tariffs. And experience in several U.S. states shows that
a poorly designed RPS does little to increase renewable generation (Rader 2000). Nonetheless, emerging
experience from the state of Texas demonstrates that a well-crafted and implemented RPS can deliver on its
promise of strong and cost-effective support for renewable energy with a minimum of ongoing administrative
intervention by the government. While experience even in Texas is limited, the Texas RPS has already fostered
substantial renewable energy development, surpassing the achievements of any other RPS developed to date. This
article describes the design of the Texas RPS and offers an early assessment.
162
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
163
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
164
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
165
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
166
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
167
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Alternative energy technologies use up much less space than conventional power plants AND only takes up a
small fraction of that land, keeping it available for other uses
Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07
[“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 123,
Liu]
Recent advances in renewable energy technologies have made them much less land-intensive. In fact, the
Worldwatch Institute recently estimated that harnessing renewable energy for electricity production requires less
land than conventional systems. The study noted that solar power plants that concentrate sunlight in desert areas,
for instance, require 2,540 acres per billion kWh. On a lifecycle basis, this is less land than a comparable coal or
hydropower plant generating the same amount of electricity. Similar projections from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) demonstrate that solar and wind technologies use extensively less land than conventional systems when their
complete fuel cycles are considered. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that in open and flat terrain a large-
scale wind plant will require about 60 acres per MW of installed capacity (this drops to as little as 2 acres per MW
for hilly terrain). However, AWEA emphasizes that only 5 percent (3 acres) or less of this area is actually occupied by
turbines, access roads, and other equipment—95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching. At
the High Winds Project in Solano, California, 8 different landowners host 90 separate 1.8 MW wind turbines that total 162 MW of electricity capacity,
but are still able to use almost all of the farmland around and between the turbines. Using a conservative figure of 26 acres for each wind turbine,
researchers from Oberlin College estimated that 40 square miles could support roughly 38,000 turbines producing 3-4% of
total US electric demand each year. The actual footprint of these turbines would be roughly 10,000 acres, leaving the surrounding 990,000
acres of land either untouched or available for other uses. This figure beats both coal and natural gas in terms of total land use.
NREL estimates that solar PV could supply every kilowatt-hour of our nation’s current electricity requirements
with modules on only 7% of the country’s available roofs, parking lots, highway walls, and buildings without
substantially altering appearances. Solar PV requires even less new land. A PV system at the California Exposition Center in
Sacramento, California, for example, fully integrates 450 kW of PV into a parking lot. Indeed, NREL concluded that, “a world relying on PV would offer
a landscape almost indistinguishable from the landscape we know today.” For example, the Energy Policy Initiatives Center at the University Of San
Diego School Of Law recently estimated that the City of San Diego could construct 1,726 MW of solar PV relying only on available roof area
downtown.
168
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: INTERMITTENCY
169
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
170
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
SOLVENCY EXTS – AT: NO ENFORCEMENT
171
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
172
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD
WIND POWER EMPIRICALLY THE PRIMARY RESOURCE FROM STATE RPS SYSTEMS
Wiser and Barbose, Berkeley National Lab, 08 (Ryan Wiser and Galen Barbose,
“Renewable Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Status Report with Data Through
2007”, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, 4/08, http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/927151-UbxeVG/,
Yoder)
Of the more than 8,900 MW of new non-hydro renewable energy capacity that has come on
line in RPS states from 1998 through 2007, roughly 93% has come from wind power, with
biomass (4%), solar (2%), and geothermal (1%) playing lesser roles (see Figure 6).
Though renewable resource diversity has so far been limited, there is some evidence that
diversity may increase over time as RPS policies expand, at least in some states. In
California, for example, of the more than 7,000 MW of contracts for new or repowered
renewable energy projects signed from 2002 through 2007 by the state’s IOUs and POUs,
58% of the total capacity is wind, 23% solar, 12% geothermal, 7% biomass/MSW, and less
than 1% is small hydro and ocean energy, demonstrating a greater level of diversity than
historical trends, both nationally and in California.15 Additionally, largely because of
technology tiers that exist in a number of states, a growing amount of solar energy is being
motivated by RPS obligations, as discussed further in a later section of this report.
173
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
174
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
SOLVENCY EXTS – WIND POWER GOOD
WIND CAN PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT ENERGY AND CAN CREATE JOBS
AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION 2007 [“The benefits of wind energy”, February,
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/The_Difference_Wind_Makes.pdf/ andy w]
At growth rates like that, experts said, wind power could eventually make an important contribution to the nation’s
electrical supply. It already supplies about 1 percent of American electricity, powering the equivalent of 4.5 million homes. Environmental
advocates contend it could eventually hit 20 percent, as has already happened in Denmark. Energy consultants say that 5 to 7 percent is a more
realistic goal in this country.
The United States recently overtook Spain as the world’s second-largest wind power market, after Germany, with $9 billion
invested last year. A recent study by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., projected $65 billion in investment
from 2007 to 2015.
In 2007, new tower, blade, turbine and assembly plants opened in Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas and
Wisconsin. In the same year, seven other facilities were announced in Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina,
New York, and Oklahoma. Altogether, the new and announced facilities are expected to create some 6,000 jobs.
Investment in manufacturing capability signals confidence in the market and lays the groundwork for expanded growth.
New York’s 322-MW Maple Ridge Wind Farm, which began operating in September 2006, provides $8 million annually in local property tax revenue, pays landowners
$1.65 million each year in lease payments, and created 163 new local long-term jobs.
In Washington State, 1,000 MW of installed wind capacity is estimated to create 2,650 new local jobs during construction, an additional 400 new local long-term jobs
during the operational years of the wind farms, and a $1.1 billion total economic benefit over the lifetime of the wind projects.
One large (108-turbine, 162-MW) project in rural Prowers County, Colorado, increased the county’s tax base by 29%, adding annual payments of about $917,000 to the
general school fund, $203,000 to the school bond fund, $189,000 to a county medical center, and $764,000 in new county revenues, as well as 15-20 permanent and well-
paying full-time jobs at the wind farm.1
In 2007, an analysis from global energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie found that providing 15% electricity
from renewable energy resources by 2020 [through a Federal renewable electric standard] could lower consumer
expenditures by nearly $100 billion, reducing both natural gas prices and electricity prices.2
175
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Solar Power is Renewable, Clean, and Becoming More Cost-Effective: They Generate Electricity at the
Same Cost as Conventional Power Plants
Kanellos Editor-At-Large for CNET News 2007 Michael Shrinking the Cost for Solar Power CNET News May
2007 http://news.cnet.com/Shrinking-the-cost-for-solar-power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html?hhTest=1 Fu
One of the big problems with solar power has been that it costs more than electricity generated by conventional
means. But some experts think that, under certain circumstances, the premium for solar power can be erased,
without subsidies or dramatic technical breakthroughs.
A sufficiently large solar thermal power plant (also called concentrated solar power, or CSP) could potentially
generate electricity at about the same cost as electricity from a conventional gas-burning power plant, experts say.
Solar Power is in High Demand and Boosts the Economy by Creating Jobs
Mufson Washington Post Staff Writer 2006 Steven A Sunnier Forecast for Solar Energy Washington Post
November 20 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900688.html
Fu
"The demand for solar energy is so strong, not only in the United States but around the world, that we have to keep
up," Lee Edwards, chief executive of BP Solar, said at a ceremony attended by Maryland politicians, congressional
aides, BP employees and a group of local elementary-school pupils.
Many boosters of solar, wind and biofuels have tried to sell them as pieces of a new American economy, but these
nascent industries rely on many of the same skills and materials as the old American economy-- and that's good for
people looking for jobs.
176
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
T HELPERS – RPS = INCENTIVE
RPS is an incentive – the state level RPS proved that growing renewable energy utilities were due to state
incentives.
Rubens, contributor earth2tech/GigaOM, 2K7 (Craig, "States will Continue to Drive Renewable Portfolios in 2008" Dec 28,
http://earth2tech.com/2007/12/28/states-will-continue-to-drive-renewable-portfolios-in-2008/, accessed 06/22/2008) NALEPKA
Can the states do it on their own? They have so far. And state level RPS will increasingly drive large utilities to
switch to renewable energy sources and allow for new energy players to take advantage of state incentives.
Greening the economy increasingly is becoming the states’ responsibility and states rights are being fought
over when it comes to environmental standards. In 2008 the race to see which state will lead the green
economy will continue to heat up and a strong RPS program will be a big incentive for renewable power
companies.
177
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
The popularity of RPS is increasing due to three main reasons (Berry, 2001):
RPS provides incentives for renewable energy generators to decrease the cost of energy as a result of cost
competition among producers for their share in the RPS;
RPS target is being established by the government, thus it ensures that the implementation of the policy will
lead to specific environmental and economic benefits;
In the same time the RPS minimizes government involvement into the process, as the main forces that affect
the implementation of the policy after it being adopted are the market forces.
RPS IS AN INCENTIVE
JACCARD, professor in School of Resource and Environmental Management @ Simon Fraser University, 2005
[Mark, SUSTAINABLE FOSSIL FUELS: THE UNUSUAL SUSPECT IN THE QUEST FOR CLEAN AND
ENDURING ENERGY, page 286/ ttate]
Four characteristics help explain the emerging interest in the RPS. First, ongoing competition for the renewable
market share maintains an incentive for renewables producers to reduce costs, thereby enhancing economic
efficiency. Second, because the supply portfolio blends a small share of high-cost renewables with a large share of
low-cost conventional electricity, the policy's impact on consumer prices is small (as long as bidding and price
setting in the two markets are segmented), which helps with political feasibility. Third, the policy can be directly
linked to environmental targets given that renewable: have zero emissions (except for local air emissions from
combusting biomass). Fourth, the policy minimizes government budgetary involvement because customers pay
producers directly for the extra financial cost of renewables, and the selection of renewables can be left to market
forces through a competitive bidding process. In contrast, the Danish government paid over 100 million Euros in
1998 alone in annual subsidies to wind generators.
178
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
179
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
180
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
182
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
183
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
184
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
185
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
STATES CP EXTS – ROLLBACK/COMMERCE CLAUSE
EVEN ONE RULING AGAINST A STATE RPS WOULD DOOM THE COUNTERPLAN
ELECTRIC UTILITY WEEK 2007 [“Federal RPS is needed now, group says, point to problems
with state plans”, PLATTS ELECTRIC UTILITY WEEK, June 11, lexis/ Nam]
The nonprofit group has called for federal action before, when it released its report ranking
state net metering plans and suggesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
be put in charge on national net metering rules (EUW, 27 Nov '06, 9). Legal battles are
being waged over state RPS plans and a handful of states, including California, Maryland,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas, have adopted restrictions on out-of-state renewable
resources that many scholars believe violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution,
NNEC said. Growing tensions between federal and state regulators has brought about a
type of "Commerce Clause brinksmanship" that invites utilities to challenge the
constitutionality of state RPS mandates. One successful legal challenge could cascade into
more litigation, "collapsing the entire state-based RPS structure and destroying the
emerging interstate renewable energy market," NNEC said.
AND, RPS STATUTES WOULD BE REPEALED IF THEY ARE FOUND TO VIOLATE BY THE
COURT
SOVACOOL AND COOPER 2007 [Ben and Chris, research fellow @ Centre for Asia and Globalization
and Exec Dir of Network for New Energy Choices, “Big Is Beautiful:
The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio
Standard”, ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis/ ttate]
While the legality of these restrictions has yet to be challenged on Commerce Clause grounds, Eisen warns that
state and federal regulators are starting to engage in a kind of "Commerce Clause brinksmanship."46 As recently as
2006, Constellation Energy threatened to sue Maryland's Public Utility Commission on Commerce Clause grounds
for rejecting its merger with Baltimore Gas and Electric.47 If a state RPS were found to violate the Commerce
Clause, the practical effect would be its immediate repeal. While state legislatures could try to craft an RPS that
would pass Constitutional muster or appeal to a higher court, one successful challenge would be enough to risk a
cascade of copy-cat litigation as regulated entities piggyback on judicial precedent. In any event, the result is a
risky and unpredictable regulatory environment threatening the longevity of state-based RPS mandates and the
long-term stability of the nation's renewable energy market
186
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
STATES CP EXTS – ROLLBACK/COMMERCE CLAUSE
PLAN IS BETTER THAN THE CP – PLAN AVOIDS LITIGATION CONCERNS FROM THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE
Rosalie Westenskow, UPI Correspondent, 8/6/07
[“Analysis: Nation ripe for a federal RPS,” UPI Energy, June 2008, http://mridan.com/analysis-nation-ripe-for-a-
federal-rps/ , Liu]
"Many large companies now ... face this hodgepodge of different rules," Marilyn Brown, a commissioner for the
National Commission on Energy Policy, told United Press International. "Different renewable resources qualify in
one state and not the other, so it really is a competitiveness issue. How can the U.S. compete and be effective if the regulations
aren't uniform?" A federal RPS would attempt to reconcile the current patchwork of standards and distribute the
burden of renewable-energy development among the states, eliminating so-called "free-rider" states that benefit
from the efforts of their neighbors but impose no mandates within their own borders. Adopting a federal RPS isn't a new
idea. Various U.S. policymakers have proposed a national standard 17 times since 1996, but none has passed into law. This year, the legislation comes
from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., requiring that 15 percent of electricity come from renewables by 2020 and allowing states to create higher standards if
they chose to do so. Although not incorporated in any bill at the moment, Bingaman plans to propose an amendment creating a federal RPS to the
Senate's main energy bill -- the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 -- when it comes to the floor sometime next
week. Despite failure of similar legislation in the past, the prospects for approval look good this year, said Barry Rabe, professor in the Gerald Ford
School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. "These policies have proven popular in a number of states," he said. "The majority of American
citizens already live in Congressional districts with an RPS." And it looks like more states will join their ranks this year, namely Michigan, North
Carolina and Illinois, where legislators are considering making the current voluntary standard mandatory. Passing a federal RPS soon may
be necessary to avoid costly lawsuits brought by frustrated utility companies against the states they operate in, said
Chris Cooper, co-author of "Renewing America," a report scheduled for release next week that advocates a
national standard. Utility companies that initiate litigation have a good chance of winning because many RPSs
erect barriers to the trade of goods with other states -- a power denied the states in the Constitution. "Some states
won't recognize renewable energy from other states," said Cooper, executive director of Network for New Energy
Choices. For instance, Pennsylvania's legislature recognizes energy generated from clean coal as renewable, but
New Jersey's does not, creating confusion for utilities in both states over whether imported electricity from the
other can be used to meet their state requirements. "Because that question is open, it could be taken to court by the
regulated utilities who could say, 'Look this is a violation of interstate commerce,'" Cooper told UPI. "Now, should one
187
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
of those court cases be successful, the practical effect is that it would nullify the state's RPS mandate ... (then) you'd
have all of this copycat legislation that would collapse what is our national energy strategy at the moment."
188
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
(__) Federal RPS good—long-term predictability, attracts more investment, more technology
TONKEN AND TORP, Attorneys LLP, 2007
[“Why We Need a Federal Portfolio Standard”, Sustainability Law Blog, December 3, 2007,
http://www.sustainabilitylawblog.com/2007/12/why_we_need_a_federal_renewabl.html, Zhang]
A federal RPS would be good for the renewable energy industry as a whole, providing long-term predictability,
attracting more investment capital and allowing manufacturing of renewable energy technologies to achieve
economies of scale. Contrary to claims of anti-RPS industry groups, most legal observers and HR 969’s sponsors
in Congress are confident a federal RPS would not pre-empt more stringent state standards, such as those of
Oregon and Washington. In fact, Oregon and Washington are poised to take particular advantage of the benefits of
a federal standard. Both states can quickly capitalize on increased market demand for renewable energy.
189
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
STATES CP ANS – INVESTMENT KEY
Whether from wind, solar, biomass, or other renewable sources, massive amounts of renewable energy generation
would require tremendous investment in new generation facilities. Some sources, like solar or wind, could even
require additional investment in additional traditional-fuel generation to support the intermittent energy sources
(i.e., to provide energy when the wind or sun is not available).129 Furthermore, to provide renewable energy at
that level, major investments in the transmission grid would need to occur.130 Infrastructure changes at such a
high level would fundamentally change how electricity is delivered, and thus how utilities operate.
190
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
STATES CP ANS – CAN’T SOLVE ENVIRO LEADERSHIP
191
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
192
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
193
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
2AC COMMAND-AND-CONTROL CP ANS
194
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
195
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
196
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
2AC “EXCLUDE AN ENERGY” PIC ANSWERS
EXCLUDING SPECIFIC ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES WILL GUT SOLVENCY
Christopher Cooper, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Policy Director, Senior Research Fellow, 6/2007
[“Renewing America,” Network for New Energy Choices, June 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf, page 97,
Liu]
As a second example, consider Arizona, which created a “carve out” for solar photovoltaic technologies by
mandating that at least 50 percent of the state’s RPS must be met by solar technologies. To meet the non-solar part of the RPS,
utilities bought approximately 10 MW landfill gas and several additional MW of biomass energy. However, utilities have been unable to fully comply
with the solar mandate because of the sizeable financial commitment needed to purchase more expensive solar
technology.378
Arizona has created even more incentives for the solar market by offering $4 per watt of utility-scale installed photovoltaics. However, utilities pass the higher cost of solar
onto ratepayers.
Tucson Electric Power is scheduled to complete a 64 MW thermal solar plant in Boulder City, Arizona, by the end of 2007, costing ratepayers an estimated $106
million,379 even though solar photovoltaic is still by far the most expensive renewable energy technology in the state (See Table 1).380
Allowing the market to dictate deployment does not mean utilities will not invest in solar and other more
expensive renewable energy technologies. It does, however, mean that utilities will not invest in them first.
Instead, power providers will maximize all of their least-cost options before moving to more expensive
technologies. The Renewable Energy Policy Project put it this way:
The RPS will tend to support those renewables that are cheapest at the margin. In California’s case, wind power would likely benefit
the most, with geothermal and biomass also benefiting as the size of the requirement increases. Distributed renewable generation technologies such as PV and small wind
turbines are unlikely to benefit as much from the RPS in the near term, due to their higher cost and greater barriers to installation.381
The long term stability of an RPS ensures that investors and manufacturers will have time to develop more cost
effective methods of utilizing renewable resources. In the long run, manufacturers may benefit from waiting until
renewable energy technologies are ready for the market instead of forcing deployment of inferior technology to
meet unrealistic state targets.
In the end, the point of an RPS is not to set restrictions on when and where renewables can be deployed. Like “natural selection”, it is the market—not the
regulators or politicians—that should decide which technologies investors should develop to meet a national RPS
mandate. 382
197
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
AND, THE EUROPEAN WIND MARKET PROVES THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISPERSION SOLVENCY
DEFICIT
SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008
[Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate]
The European Wind Energy Association explains how the smaller unit size and larger geographical dispersion of wind turbines
actually turns the variability of wind power into an advantage over large, conventional systems:
Variations in wind energy are smoother, because there are hundreds or thousands of units rather than a few large
power stations, making it easier for the system operator to predict and manage changes in supply as they appear
within the overall system. The system will not notice the shutdown of a 2 MW wind turbine. It will have to respond to the shutdown of a 500 MW coal fired
plant or a 1,000 MW nuclear plant instantly. [35]
The catch is that penetration of renewable energy technologies has to be large enough to achieve these benefits of
diversification, generally above 20 percent. [36]
Because the technical availability of one wind turbine rivals that of a single conventional power plant, wind farms
of hundreds or thousands of turbines have even greater reliability (since it is very unlikely that all turbines would
be down at the same time). [37] Analysts have already confirmed the benefit of wind power’s greater technical
availability in the United States. Indeed, a November 2006 study assessing the widespread use of wind power in
Minnesota concluded that “wind generation does make a calculable contribution to system reliability” by
decreasing the risk of large, unexpected outages, but only if renewable energy penetration is substantial. [38]
198
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
20% STANDARD SOLVES EMISSIONS OUTPUT FAR MORE THAN 10% STANDARD
NOGEE, ET AL, energy analyst and advocate for UCS, 2007 [Alan, “The Projected Impacts of a National
Renewable Portfolio Standard”, THE ELECTRICITY JOURNAL, May, lexis / ttate]
Increased renewable energy use would reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. Using UCS assumptions, the 20
percent national RPS is projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 434 million metric tons (MMT) per year by 2020—
15 percent below business as usual levels or a 59 percent reduction in the projected growth in emissions. This
reduction is equivalent to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road. Using EIA assumptions, a 20 percent RPS
would produce slightly greater CO2 reductions of 468 MMT by 2020, as the increased use of biomass sources
displaces higher amounts of coal generation.
Under a 10 percent RPS, UCS and EIA analyses show that CO2 emissions would be reduced 166 MMT to 215
MMT nationally by 2020—a reduction of up to 7.2 percent below business as usual levels. As with the 20 percent
scenarios, the use of EIA's assumptions results in greater emission reductions due to higher levels of biomass
energy production.
199
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
200
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
POLITICS DA – NON-UNIQUE
CONGRESS WILL DEBATE ENERGY THIS SUMMER – STATUS QUO WILL START THE DIVISIVE
DEBATE
HULSE and HERSZENHORN 07-09-2008
[Carl, David M., Congress Feeling Pressure for Action on Oil Prices, New York Times, 07/09/08,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/washington/09cong.html?
_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin, Hayes]
After spending a week in their states and districts with angry and frightened consumers, many lawmakers have
returned to Capitol Hill convinced that Congress cannot afford a prolonged stalemate over energy policy.
“This is the No. 1 issue on people’s minds, very clearly,” said Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota
and one of a bipartisan group of 10 senators who met Tuesday morning to pursue ideas on a compromise energy
plan that could be enacted this year.
With Republicans pushing for more domestic oil and gas production and many Democrats focusing on alternative
energy sources, finding consensus will not be easy, Congressional leaders acknowledge.
Democratic leaders in the Senate also are not ready to embrace the idea of a bipartisan compromise on energy
legislation, in part out of concern about adopting a position at odds with their expected presidential nominee,
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
201
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
FIRST, THE PLAN CREATES A FLOOR FOR STATES, NOT A CEILING – STATES CAN STILL BE
LABORATORIES
ENDRUD, JD Candidate @ Harvard Law, 2008 [Nathan, “State Renewable Portfolio Standards: Their
continued validity and relevance in light of the Dormant Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and
possible federal legislation”, 45 Harv. J. on Legis. 259, Winter, lexis/ ttate]
It is generally recognized that federal law can preempt state laws in three different ways: "by express language in a congressional enactment, by implication from the depth
and breadth of a congressional scheme that occupies the legislative field, [and] by implication because of a conflict with a congressional enactment." n139 These forms of
Under the doctrine of express preemption, it is
preemption are commonly referred [*281] to as "express," "field," and "conflict" preemption.
elementary that all state RPS programs would be invalidated by a congressional RPS statute that explicitly
provided for preemption. In the absence of such express language, however, the relevant question would be
whether "conflict" preemption existed due to conflicts between the state and federal standards. In general, state
environmental standards that are more stringent than their federal counterparts have been upheld by the courts, either
because Congress has explicitly reserved authority in its otherwise-conflicting statute for the states to adopt such controls n140 or because of the Supreme Court's long-
standing presumption against implied preemption. n141 Meanwhile, state standards that are less stringent than federal ones might be allowed to stand, but, as a practical
matter, the state standards would become largely irrelevant because the necessary compliance with the more stringent federal standards would effectively guarantee
compliance with the state standards. n142
In order to remove any possible ambiguity regarding more stringent state RPSs, Congress should put an explicit
savings clause into any federal RPS statute to confirm the validity of such standards. n143 Such authorization
[*282] would permit states to serve as policy laboratories n144 in environmental regulation and would restore to
states some of their traditional authority over regulating their local environments. n145 Further, unlike the case of vehicle emissions
regulation, where Congress has explicitly preempted most state standards, n146 RPS obligations that are more stringent than their federal
counterparts are unlikely to create economic inefficiency attributable to non-uniform manufacturing requirements
on industry. n147
AND, TURN – ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PLAN
SOVACOOL, research fellow @ Energy Governance Program @ Centre on Asia and Globalization, 2008
[Ben,“A Matter of Stability and Equity”, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, p. 241+/ttate]
While the states have a significant history and authority as regulators of electric utilities, only the federal
government has the constitutional authority to regulate wholesale electric power and interstate commerce (in the
form of RECs). While the states have historically set prices for retail electricity sales, approved the permitting of
electric generators, regulated the environmental effects of electricity sales, and developed integrated resource plans
for utilities, only the federal government has the power to regulate the national wholesale power market under the
Federal Power Act of 1935. This Act gives The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive
authority over the sale of electric power at wholesale rates and the transmission of electric power on a national
scale.
202
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
"First, I encourage the U.S. Congress to pass a comprehensive Energy Bill - and to ensure a strong Renewable
Portfolio is part of it," said Governor Culver "Second, today I issue a challenge. I call on each of the 2008
presidential candidates of both parties to commit to a National Renewable Portfolio Standard calling for at least 15
percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020."
The national effort would create thousands of high-quality manufacturing jobs, save consumers approximately
$100 billion in energy costs, create billions of dollars in economic development and reduce America's dependence
on foreign oil.
"By committing to a renewable energy economy, our next president could address American energy security, job
security and environmental security all at the same time," said Governor Culver. "I call on all of the 2008
presidential candidates of both parties, as well as our leaders in congress, to support the new American renewable
energy economy and a clean, more secure future for our children. If we are to effectively address energy security,
job creation and climate change issues in the United States, a national approach with federal leadership is critical."
A national RPS goal would spur economic development, especially in rural areas. It is estimated that
approximately $1.5 million in economic activity is generated for every utility-scale wind turbine installed. This
includes roughly $100,000 in lease payments to each landowner, per turbine, over a 20-year period. Many of the
beneficiaries of these lease payments are farmers, ranchers, and other rural landowners.
Embracing a new wind energy economy could also create thousands of jobs. In just the past 24 months, three
major wind energy manufacturers have chosen Iowa as the place to establish their North American production
facilities - Acciona, Siemens, and Clipper, and a fourth company - Hendricks - will soon begin construction of a
plant in the city of Keokuk. Combined, these wind energy manufacturing plants will create almost 900 high-quality
jobs. A recent report by the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers Union showed that Iowa has the potential to
create 5,193 new wind energy manufacturing jobs in the state.
A study by Wood MacKenzie, a nationally-respected energy research firm, concludes that American consumers
could save approximately $100 billion in energy costs, due to decreased demand and costs for natural gas and coal.
203
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL
RPS systems encourage market-based renewables at low prices
Lipman et al, Research Engineer Institute Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley, 01
(Timothy E. Lipman, Antonia V. Hartzog, Jennifer L. Edwards, Daniel M. Kammen, “Renewable Energy: A
Viable Choice”, Environment Vol. 43, No. 10, 12/01, http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/2001/Herzog-Lipman-Edwards-
Kammen-RenewableEnergy-2001.pdf Yoder)
A number of studies indicate that a national renewable energy component of 2 percent in 2002, growing to
10 percent in 2010 and 20 percent by 2020, that would include wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, and landfill gas,
is broadly good for business and can readily be achieved. States that decide to pursue more aggressive goals could
be rewarded through an additional federal incentive program. In the past, federal RPS legislation has been
introduced in Congress and was proposed by the Clinton administration, but it has yet to be re-introduced by either
this Congress or the Bush administration.
Including renewables in the United States’ power supply portfolio would protect consumers from fossil fuel
price shocks and supply shortages by diversifying the energy options. A properly designed RPS will also create
jobs at home and export opportunities abroad. To achieve compliance, a federal RPS should use market dynamics
to stimulate innovation through a trading system. National renewable energy credit trading will encourage
development of renewables in the regions of the country where they are the most cost-effective, while avoiding
expensive long-distance transmission.
The coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power industries continue to receive considerable government
subsidies, even though they are already well established in the marketplace. Without the RPS or a similar
mechanism, many renewables will not be able to survive in an increasingly competitive electricity market focused
on producing power at the lowest direct cost. And while the RPS is designed to deliver renewables that are most
ready for the market, additional policies will still be needed to support emerging renewable technologies, like
photovoltaics, that have enormous potential to become commercially competitive.
The RPS is the surest market-based approach for securing the public benefits of
renewables while supplying the greatest amount of clean power at the lowest price. It creates an ongoing
incentive to drive down costs by providing a dependable and predictable market. An RPS will promote vigorous
competition among renewable energy developers and technologies to meet the standard at the lowest cost.
204
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
2AC ECONOMY DA FRONTLINES – GENERAL
RPS IS COST-EFFECTIVE – MOST EFFECTIVE RENEWABLES PATH TO SPUR INVESTMENT
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007
[“Renewable Electricity Standard FAQ”, August 27, 2007,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/the-renewable-electricity-standard.html#6, Zhang]
The RES is the best policy to ensure we meet resource diversity and environmental goals at the lowest cost. By
stimulating a long-term market for renewable energy, the RES reduces the investment risk associated with building
renewable facilities. Lower investment risk promotes cost-effective financing of new projects. Increasing the
deployment of renewable technologies reduces manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and other costs over the
long term. At the same time, competition among a variety of renewable sources to meet the RES also helps drive
renewable energy prices down. Using renewable energy credits (see below) creates additional savings.
205
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
2AC BUSINESS CONFIDENCE FRONTLINE
206
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
207
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
2AC SPENDING DA FRONTLINE
208
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
FIRST, RPS WILL NOT UPSET THE COAL INDUSTRY – IT PRIMARILY WILL TARGET OIL AND
NATURAL GAS USE
HALL AND KIRKHAM, environmental/energy attorneys, 2007
[“Coal: Like It or Not, It’s Here to Stay, Stoel Rives”, 6/4/07, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484, Sui]
Some point to the introduction of renewable portfolio standards as a means to reduce coal reliance and the
environmental impacts associated with coal-fired generation. Renewable portfolio standards typically require a
certain level or percentage of electricity purchased or consumed by a utility or governmental entity to be produced
from renewable sources. While renewable portfolio standards have had measured success in promoting the
development of renewable energy sources, they do not appear to have a significant effect on coal consumption.
Due to price differentials, renewable portfolio standards tend to decrease the consumption of natural gas, rather
than coal. In the long run, the development of renewable energy sources may certainly prove key to reducing global reliance on coal. However, in the short term,
encouraging the development of renewable energy sources alone does not appear to have a substantial effect on
coal use or carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector in the absence of other policy measures.
209
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
210
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
2AC NUCLEAR POWER TRADE-OFF DA FRONTLINE
FIRST, PLAN DOES NOT TRADE-OFF WITH THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 2007 [“Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio
Standard”, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, June 07, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html/ ttate]
Under the proposed RPS program, generation from renewable resources increases relative to the reference case
(Figure 3). Biomass generation, both from dedicated biomass plants and existing coal plants co-firing with biomass fuel, grows the most by 2030, more than tripling from
102 billion kilowatthours in the reference case to 318 billion kilowatthours with the RPS policy (Table 2). Wind generation increases by almost 50 percent by 2030, from 52
billion kilowatthours in the reference case to 76 billion kilowatthours with the RPS.
Although total solar generation does not reach the level of wind or biomass, it has a higher absolute increase than wind and a higher percentage increase than either wind or
biomass by 2030, when compared to the reference case. Solar generation, including utility-owned solar thermal and PV and customer-sited PV, increases from 7 billion
kilowatthours in 2030 in the reference case to almost 38 billion kilowatthours with the RPS, a five-fold increase. Because customer-sited PV earns 3 credits for every
kilowatthour generated, this generation counts as approximately 110 billion kilowatthours for RPS compliance purposes in 2030. This is twice the compliance share
accounted for by wind and about half of the biomass compliance share. Geothermal and landfill gas facilities also show a slight increase in generation compared to the
reference case.
The increase in renewable generation stimulated by the RPS primarily displaces coal fired generation. By 2030, coal
generation is 3,086 billion kilowatthours with the RPS compared with 3,330 billion kilowatthours in the reference case, a reduction of about 7 percent. Coal
generation is still expected to grow significantly from 2,000 billion kilowatthours in 2005. Nuclear generation is reduced by less than
5 percent, to 856 billion kilowatthours with the RPS from 896 billion kilowatthours in the reference case. As with coal,
this still represents significant growth relative to 2005 generation levels. Natural gas generation is about 2 percent less than the 2030 reference
case level of 932 billion kilowatthours.
211
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
Increased reliance on nuclear power causes climate change, terrorism, proliferation, and nuclear war
Tammilehto 2 (Olli, author, free lance writer and researcher, editor, January, “Nuclear Energy and Global Risks”,
http://www.tammilehto.info/nuclearglobal.htm)
Nuclear power industry is international business, and this is enough to make the risks of any individual NPP global. The industry is
currently going downhill and most European and North-American companies have given up constructing NPPs. An order for a new
plant in any country would be a significant boost for the remaining companies. This would improve their possibilities to sell
NPPs to countries where technological knowhow and safety culture are at a level far worse than in the country in question. This
means that any new NPP would increase the probability of a major nuclear accident in many countries.
Usually in nuclear power discussion only NPPs are considered. This is no more reasonable than to think of a wall socket as a primary
source of electricity. In addition to the NPP at least uranium mines, uranium mills, conversion plants, enrichment
plants, fuel factories and various nuclear waste storages are needed. With the exception of some nuclear waste storages these
are usually located around the world, outside the country where the NPP is located. All these cause local and divisible risks that
threaten, for instance, indigenous peoples, who have lived near the site for ages. They cause global and indivisible risks, too. One of
these is the radon gas released from the piles of "tailings" in the vicinity of mines and mills. These releases cause
thousands of extra cancers around the world. Another global and indivisible risk is that these plants are typically run with
fossil fuels that cause climate change.
Anyway the most important global and indivisible risk is the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increase of the
chance of a nuclear war caused by the nuclear energy production of any country.
The peaceful and military use of nuclear power are indistinguishable simply because they are based on the same technology. Uranium mines and mills,
conversion and enrichment plants serve both the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear electricity. Weapons grade uranium can be produced simply
by continuing the concentration process of uranium further than normally, to a level where the U-235 content is somewhat higher. NPPs produce the
other raw material of nuclear bombs: plutonium. When the fuel rods are taken out from the reactor earlier than normally, they contain weapons grade
plutonium. On the other hand, nuclear weapons can be made from the reactor grade plutonium, too. United States exploded this kind of atom bomb in
Nevada in 1977.
The more nuclear power is being used around the world, the easier it is for any terrorist group to acquire nuclear
weapons and the easier any state can disguise its nuclear weapons program with peaceful nuclear activities. India
produced the plutonium for its first A-bombs in "peaceful" experimental reactors supplied by Canada.
The connection between nuclear power in a peaceful country and nuclear weapons is usually denied on the grounds that nobody would
imagine of the country trying to achieve an A-bomb. This denial is based on the common conception in the upper echelons of society that
global and indivisible risks need not to be considered. Now that the global and indivisible risk of climate change is being
taken seriously with fossil fuels, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation has to be taken equally seriously if we
want to consider different sources of energy impartially. The influence of the civil nuclear program of a country on the chances
of nuclear war may be impossible to determine, as impossible as the influence an individual coal power plant on climate change.
However, as a country can contribute to the prevention climate change by joining the Kyoto protocol, it can
contribute to the prevention of a nuclear war by refraining from nuclear power – like the majority of all countries have
done
212
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
RPS PRIMARILY TRADES-OFF WITH COAL – WON’T AFFECT NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY
ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION 2007 [“Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio
Standard”, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, June 07, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html/ ttate]
The RPS causes a dramatic shift away from coal and natural gas to renewable fuels, particularly biomass and wind.
* Coal-fired electricity generation in the Policy Case is 938 billion kilowatthours (28 percent) lower in 2030 than
in the Reference Case. Natural-gas-fired generation is 99 billion kilowatthours (11 percent) lower in 2030.
Generation from nuclear power is 80 billion kilowatthours (9 percent) lower in 2030.
213
SDI 2008 KMT Lab
RPS - Aff
At a more general level, the most effective argument that human activities should safeguard biodiversity is the
need to secure the basic ecosystem services dependent on that diversity. Ecosystem process and function effected
by a critical number of interacting species secures the quality of the environment on the broadest front and, thus,
has direct impact on human health and well-being (45). This is not an easy argument to make to highly competitive
and heavily consuming populations in industrialized countries or to impoverished, marginalized populations in
developing countries. But the argument, nonetheless, must be made, through demonstration of the services the
natural world provides and the benefits of living compatibly with biodiversity.
In the world of uncertainty surrounding the nature of global biodiversity, the nature of its destruction, and the most
effective steps for mitigating that destruction, scenarios for recovery are far from clear. Nonetheless, our review
and discussion of many aspects treated in this colloquium do permit several general impressions and
recommendations. Although major extinction events of the past underscore the reality and the possibility of such
catastrophes today and in the future, they provide limited insight on the current biodiversity crisis. Such past
extinction events do, however, suggest that if recovery is left to natural processes, the rebound of global
ecosystems to some state beneficial to many of its species, including humans, is measured in unacceptably long
timescales—on the order of millions or even tens of millions of years. Intervention on the part of the source of
these current traumas, namely humans, is required for any possibility of recovery or even maintenance of the biota
in any condition that approaches its present state.
214