2014 ndi – Pre Camp Natural Gas Negative
Download 1.07 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- CP Solves Warming 1. Wind Energy
- 2NC CP Solves Manufacturing
- CP solves flexibility, readiness, islanding, and reallocated resources
- Counterplan solves the economy – closes trade gaps, reinvigorates jobs, reduces environmental costs and oil price pressure
- 2NC Solves Energy Independence
- Doesn’t Link To Politics
Renewable Energy CP1NC CP ShellText: The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in renewable energies.2NC Renewable Energy is ViableRE can fill in and workIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012 Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Full_Report.pdf The global technical potential of RE sources will not limit continued growth in the use of RE. A wide range of estimates is provided in the literature, but studies have consistently found that the total global technical potential for RE is substantially higher than global energy demand (Figure SPM.4) [1.2.2, 10.3, Annex II]. The technical potential for solar energy is the highest among the RE sources, but substantial technical potential exists for all six RE sources. Even in regions with relatively low levels of technical potential for any individual RE source, there are typically significant opportunities for increased deployment compared to current levels. [1.2.2, 2.2, 2.8, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.2, 6.4, 7.2, 8.2, 8.3, 10.3] In the longer term and at higher deployment levels, however, technical potentials indicate a limit to the contribution of some individual RE technologies. Factors such as sustainability concerns [9.3], public acceptance [9.5], system integration and infrastructure constraints [8.2], or economic factors [10.3] may also limit deployment of RE technologies 2NC Solves WarmingCP Solves Warming1. Wind EnergyPlatt et al, 2012 (Reg Platt is a research fellow at IPPR. Oscar Fitch-Roy is a senior policy consultant at GL Garrad Hassan. Paul Gardner is a senior principal engineer at GL Garrad Hassan. BEYOND THE BLUSTER WHY WIND POWER IS AN EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY http://www.gl-group.com/HOW2012/presentations/beyond_the_bluster_Aug_2012.pdf) Is switching to use more wind power an effective way of reducing carbon emissions? Wind turbines convert wind into electrical energy without emitting polluting gases. However, the effectiveness of wind power in reducing emissions has been questioned. Using a simple model we show that every megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced by wind power in Great Britain results in a minimum CO2 saving of around 350kg. On this basis carbon dioxide emission savings from wind energy were at least 5.5 million tonnes in Great Britain in 2011. While this is a reliable minimum, there are good reasons to think that the actual figure is considerably greater (DECC 2012) and empirical examples from electricity systems in the US support this conclusion. 2. Solar EnergyKrugman, 2011 (Paul, nobel prize winner, economist, badass, “That's right: Solar power is now cost-effective” http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2016712561_krugman08.html) For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore's Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook. Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago. But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That's right, solar power. If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil-fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives. Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let's talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, aka fracking. Fracking — injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels — is an impressive technology. But it's also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads. Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to "internalize" those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation's infrastructure. Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that energy! For example, the industry-backed organization energyfromshale.org declares that "there are only two sides in the debate: those who want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don't want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all." So it's worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government "pick winners," yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner. And now for something completely different: The success story you haven't heard about. These days, mention solar power and you'll probably hear cries of "Solyndra!" Republicans have tried to make the failed solar-panel company both a symbol of government waste — although claims of a major scandal are nonsense — and a stick with which to beat renewable energy. But Solyndra's failure was actually caused by technological success: The price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn't keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, "there's now frequent talk of a 'Moore's law' in solar energy," with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year. This has already led to rapid growth in solar installations, but even more change may be just around the corner. If the downward trend continues — and if anything it seems to be accelerating — we're just a few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal. And if we priced coal-fired power right, taking into account the huge health and other costs it imposes, it's likely that we would already have passed that tipping point. But will our political system delay the energy transformation now within reach? Let's face it: A large part of our political class, including essentially the entire GOP, is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers' money and indirectly by letting the industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar. So what you need to know is that nothing you hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true; solar is now cost-effective. Here comes the sun, if we're willing to let it in. 2NC CP Solves ManufacturingThe CP outweighs oil production benefits and solves US manufacturing and the economy.Wood, 2012 (Duncan Wood, professor and director of the International Relations Program and the Canadian Studies Program and the Instituto Technologico Autonomo de Mexico, head researcher for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholors in Mexico, “RE-ENERGIZING THE BORDER: RENEWABLE ENERGY, GREEN JOBS AND BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE,” May 2012, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/RE_Energizing_Border_Wood.pdf) Economic spillover: It is clear that the development of renewable energy projects brings economic benefits to the areas in which they are located, not merely through the generation of electricity or the production of fuel, but also through the spillover effect in terms of employment, infrastructure spending, services, and the potential for creating industries focused on manufacturing equipment and components. Renewable energy technologies tend to create more jobs per unit of energy generated than their conventional energy counterparts. This is because the RE sector tends to create jobs not only in the generation of electricity and fuel and in the manufacture of equipment and parts, but also indirectly in the form of maintenance, repairs and services. It is estimated that more than three million people are employed in the RE sector worldwide, and in Mexico the government has suggested that the sector could employ up to 100, 000 people if it were implemented alongside a complementary industrial policy.3 A second level of economic benefit stems from the potential for energy cost savings for local authorities who decide to purchase their electricity from renewable energy sources. In Mexico, for example, the lower cost of wind energy in relation to power generated through conventional means by the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), has encouraged municipal authorities to purchase wind energy for public lighting and buildings. These cost savings mean that the government has the opportunity to use those funds for other public purposes. If public authorities such as state governments are themselves partners in green energy generation projects, the resulting profits may be employed as a way of providing subsidies to the local population. This will help to secure local approval of RE projects. Lastly, we should point to the significant infrastructure investments that often accompany renewable energy projects. As wind and solar plants are often located in remote areas, it may be necessary to build roads and bring in water supplies to make them viable. Of course transmission lines will also be needed to transport the electrons generated to market. All of this infrastructure spending is another potential source of employment and income for local citizens and businesses, but also implies a potential obstacle due to financing limitations. 2NC CP Solves HegemonyCP solves flexibility, readiness, islanding, and reallocated resourcesSklar 5/28/2012 (Scott, Ph.D in in Environmental Management and Policy, with particular research on multi-sector partnerships, market-based environmental solutions, and organizational policy at the business, NGO, and government levels, “Increase Defense Energy Options” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/powering-our-military-whats-th.php) The US military's job is to protect the United States from its military bases and on the front lines "in theater of war". Energy is one of the critical determinants of how well DOD can fulfill it’s job. Just in 2012, we have had three military bases lose power due to unexpected electric grid outages. On the front lines, we lose a large portion of our soldiers and contractors, ferrying fuel to the front lines for electricity and transportation. Soldiers carry around from 20 – 60 pounds of batteries in the modern fighting force. Diesel engines make noise, leave a heat signature, and when they malfunction. Drop fuel. The integration of renewable energy and on-site distributed generation has spanned over four Administrations and supported by both political parties, with the first such conferences in the early 1990’s, and now embraced by all three services and the last three Secretaries of Defense. The concept is quite simple, just like portfolio theory in stock investing. The military needs to have the maximum options to reduce costs which including transporting and ferrying fuels, reducing het and noise signatures, insuring maximum operating times with the least amount of operations and maintenance, and most importantly, lightening the soldier’s equipment weight and increasing their agility. All new technologies and weapons systems cost more in the beginning and as they scale lower in cost – from the giant one room mainframe computers to the handheld microprocessors as stark examples. We can no longer afford outages at military bases due to squirrels and downed power lines, not our special forces troops being found by the noise and vibration of their diesel generators or have our mile long fuel convoys be sitting ducks for our enemies with the ensuing loss of life. Attempts by either party to make renewable energy a political football undercuts our Defense capabilities. The programs underway are sorting out and improving deployable systems for our Defense and Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Missions. Let the defense and security professionals do their jobs. 2NC CP Solves EconomyCounterplan solves the economy – closes trade gaps, reinvigorates jobs, reduces environmental costs and oil price pressureStevenson et al 2010 (*Andrew, Andrew Stevenson is a researcher at Climate Advisers and Resources for the Future, *Nigel Purvis, CEO of Climate Advisors,*Claire O’Connor, Claire O’Connor is dedicated to finding and facilitating solutions that will lead to sustainable economic development. Most recently, she has focused on the transition to a low carbon world from positions at The Carbon Trust, and Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection and Climate Reality Project. She holds an MPA from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government (2004) and MSc. in Social Policy from the London School of Economics (1997). *Andrew Light, Andrew Light, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow at American Progress specializing in international climate and science policy, and a professor at George Mason University where he is director of the Center for Global Ethics. He leads CAP’s work on international climate issues including participation in the Global Climate Network and efforts involving the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings. “The U.S. Role in International Climate Finance A Blueprint for Near-Term Leadership” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/12/06/8811/the-u-s-role-in-international-climate-finance/) Ensuring that developing countries have the technical, institutional, and financial capacity to adopt clean energy technologies is an essential component of fostering global clean energy market development. U.S. support for such activities will promote job creation by increasing demand for clean energy products created by U.S. companies and research labs, those manufactured in the United States, and services provided by U.S. companies. HSBC Global Research, for example, forecasts the low-carbon energy market will triple over the next decade, reaching 2.2 trillion per annum by 2020.1 If the United States maintains a 14 percent share of exports of environmental goods and services to developing countries, one estimate found that international climate investments in four clean energy technologies—smart grid equipment, mass transit, wind turbines, and solar photovoltaics—could create as many as 850,000 long-term jobs.2 As one more specific example, the Center for American Progress found that U.S.–China cooperation to accelerate deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology could create as many as 940,000 direct and indirect U.S. jobs by 2022.3 International climate investments also could benefit the U.S. economy more broadly by reducing global pressure on energy prices—particularly for oil. The International Energy Agency (IEA) compared oil and coal prices in scenarios where the world implements policies needed to meet global climate objectives versus the current trajectory of energy investments. In the climate policy scenario global oil prices were 10 percent lower and coal prices 23 percent lower than business-as-usual, driven by lower global energy demand.4 Given that 378 million gallons of gas are consumed on U.S. roads each day, investing in efforts to help major emerging economies increase efficiency and deploy clean technology will provide substantial benefits in the form of reduced prices for traditional fuels. Climate financing also can limit the negative economic impacts on U.S. farmers and ranchers of illegal logging and deforestation in developing countries. An analysis by Avoided Deforestation Partners found that stopping deforestation abroad would increase U.S. agricultural revenues by $190–$270 billion between 2012 and 2030, mostly because of increased production in the United States.5 2NC Solves Energy IndependenceSolves energy independenceSovacool, 2007 (Research Fellow for the Energy Governance Program @ National University of Singapore Benjamin K. Sovacool (Professor of International Affairs @ Virginia Tech University, “Oil Independence Possible for U.S. by 2030” http://scitizen.com/future-energies/oil-independence-possible-for-u-s-by-2030_a-14-1167.html) Oil independence is possible for the U.S. if comprehensive and aggressive energy policies are implemented aimed at reducing demand for oil, increasing supply, and promoting alternative fuels. default textContrary to what most people might think, oil independence is possible for the United States by 2030. The news is especially important when one considers that, between 1970 and 2000, economists estimate that the costs of American dependence on foreign supplies of oil have ranged between $5 and $13 trillion dollars. That’s more than the cost of all wars fought by the U.S. (adjusted for inflation) going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. The trick is to start by thinking about oil independence a little differently. Oil independence should not be viewed as eliminating all imports of oil or reducing imports from hostile or unstable oil producing states. Instead, it should entail creating a world where the costs of the country’s dependence on oil would be so small that they would have little to no effect on our economic, military, or foreign policy. It means creating a world where the estimated total economic costs of oil dependence would be less than one percent of U.S. gross domestic product by 2030. Conceived in this way (and contrary to much political commentary these days), researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) have calculated that if the country as a whole reduced their demand for oil by 7.22 million barrels per day (MBD) and increased supply by 3 MBD, oil independence would be achieved by 2030 with a 95 percent chance of success. By reducing demand for oil, increasing its price elasticity, and increasing the supply of conventional and unconventional petroleum products, ORNL researchers noted that the country would be virtually immune from oil price shocks and market uncertainty. If large oil producing states were to respond to the U.S. by cutting back production, their initial gains from higher prices would also reduce their market share, in turn further limiting their ability to influence the oil market in the future. So if decreasing American demand for oil by 7.22 MBD and increasing supply by 3 MBD would enable the U.S. to achieve oil independence in 2030, which combination of policies offers an optimal strategy? Policymakers, for instance, could lower demand for oil by making automobiles more efficient (by legislating more stringent fuel economy standards for light and heavy duty vehicles or lowering the interstate speed limit), promoting alternatives in mode choice (such as mass transit, light rail, and carpooling), or establishing telecommuting centers and incentives for commuters to work from home. They could also promote rigorous standards for tire inflation and reduce oil consumption in other sectors of the economy. Alternatively, they could increase alternative domestic supplies of oil, develop better technologies for the extraction of oil shale, mandate the use of advanced oil recovery and extraction techniques, and promote alternatives to oil such as ethanol, bio-diesel, and Fischer-Tropsch fuels. Taken together, such policies could reduce demand for oil by 8.266 to 12.119 MBD and increase American oil supply by 8.939 and 12.119 MBD by 2030—well over the target set by the ORNL study. Thus, to insulate the American economy from the vagaries of the world oil market, policymakers need not focus only geopolitical power structures in oil producing states. Instead, attempts to change the behavior of the country’s automobile drivers, industrial leaders, and homeowners could greatly minimize reliance on foreign supplies of oil. To battle the “oil problem” policymakers need not talk only about sending more troops to Iraq or Saudi Arabia nor drafting new contracts with Nigeria and Russia. They could also focus on curbing American demand for oil and expanding domestic conventional and alternative supplies. Doesn’t Link To PoliticsDirectory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014 2014 -> For want of a nail 2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six 2014 -> United states patent and trademark office 2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus 2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now 2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender Download 1.07 Mb. Share with your friends:
|