Gdi 2010 Energy Reform Politics da



Download 0.59 Mb.
Page27/58
Date18.10.2016
Size0.59 Mb.
#1194
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   58

Heg & Econ Impacts


Energy reform will revolutionize America’s clean energy market- ensuring US economic competitiveness, reaffirming American leadership

Jenkins and Swezey 4/19 [Jesse, Director of Energy and Climate Policy Breakthrough Institute, Devon, Energy Political Analyst Project Director for Breakthrough Institute, 2010, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Devon+Swezey&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=355c0c6008861bf6] KLS

In the face of aggressive foreign competition in the clean energy industry, the United States urgently needs a comprehensive competitiveness strategy of its own to accelerate the development of a domestic clean energy industry and take advantage of emerging export opportunities. Such a strategy should prioritize large and sustained public investments in clean energy R&D, advanced clean energy manufacturing, innovative deployment, and clean energy education. Clean energy technologies today are still too expensive relative to fossil fuels to be widely deployed at scale around the world. In the long term, relying on either high carbon prices or permanent ongoing subsidies to make clean energy competitive will effectively close off export opportunities to developing nation markets that will be unable to impose either high carbon fees or sustain large ongoing subsidies for clean energy sources. If the United States wants to tap the multi-trillion dollar export opportunity that lies in meeting the rapidly growing demand for energy in the developing world, we much therefore focus on making clean energy technologies cheaper in unsubsidized terms. The overarching goal that should permeate all aspects of a new clean energy competitiveness strategy should be to make clean energy cheap. In light of this goal, there is strong expert consensus around the need to dramatically boost public investment in energy R&D by at least $15 billion per year in order to invent new breakthrough technologies, and improve existing clean energy technologies and reduce their costs. The U.S. government must also invest in the creation of a robust clean energy manufacturing industry in the United States, and should adopt an explicit manufacturing agenda. They U.S. government has consistently lacked a set of policies to help U.S. clean energy manufacturers scale up, reduce costs, and stay at the cutting edge. The government must help provide the financing necessary for the creation of expansion of clean energy manufacturing facilities here in the United States. The government must also rethink the way that it structures its clean energy deployment policies. Currently policies like the wind production tax credit (PTC) are designed simply to drive more wind turbines into the ground. Rather, we need a set of policies that treat deployment as part of the innovation process and rationalize deployment around reducing the real costs of clean energy technologies. One proposed institution, the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), would help achieve this goal, and has explicit technology and cost improvement goals as part of its mission. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the United States must inspire and train a new generation of scientists and engineers and equip them with the tools necessary to solve our long-term energy, climate, and economic challenges. U.S. students consistently trail their peers in leading science and math education indicators. Securing long-term economic competitiveness will require major new investments in our energy workforce as clean energy emerges as one of the most promising economic opportunities of our time. America can still be the world leader in new global clean tech industry. We remain one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial countries in the world. But without a comprehensive clean energy competitiveness strategy that can compete with those implemented around the world, America will lose out on one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century.

Heg Impacts- Shell


Energy Reform key to restoring American primacy- technology, competitiveness

Jenkins and Norris 6/9 [Jesse, director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute Teryn, Director of Americans for Energy Leadership; Senior Advisor at Breakthrough Institute, Breakthrough Institute, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/06/kerry_lieberman_competitiveness.shtml#more] KLS

A new policy brief released today by the Breakthrough Institute and Americans for Energy Leadership provides the first independent analysis of how the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act would impact U.S. competitiveness in the global clean energy industry, benchmarking its provisions against key policy components for technological innovation and industrial development in the low-carbon power and transportation sectors. The policy brief, titled "The Power to Compete: Analysis of Key Clean Energy Technology and Competitiveness Provisions in the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act of 2010," assesses the proposal's key technology provisions, including research and innovation, manufacturing, and domestic market demand -- the central pillars of a national clean energy competitiveness strategy -- as well as supportive mechanisms in infrastructure, workforce development, and industry cluster formation. Federal energy policy has become a primary U.S. national priority in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and amidst the ongoing Senate debate over comprehensive climate and energy reform. The May 2010 release of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act (APA) currently represents the flagship proposal for comprehensive reform in the Senate, and its future within the context of broader energy legislation will be determined in the weeks ahead. The renewed urgency for energy reform arrives among growing national concern that the United States is falling behind its competitors in the growing clean energy industry. Thus, in addition to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, one of the core objectives of the Kerry-Lieberman proposal is to enhance U.S. competitiveness in clean energy technology markets. As Senator Kerry declared in the opening of the APA release press conference, "The bill that we are introducing today and revealing today, the American Power Act, will restore America's economy and reassert our position as a global leader in clean energy technology."


Energy reform key to restoring American leadership

Jenkins and Norris 6/9 [Jesse, director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute Teryn, Director of Americans for Energy Leadership; Senior Advisor at Breakthrough Institute, Breakthrough Institute, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/06/kerry_lieberman_competitiveness.shtml#more]

As the policy brief notes, restoring U.S. leadership in this industry requires a robust, comprehensive, and well-targeted set of public investments and policies to match and exceed those of competing nations. This includes substantially larger and more targeted technology investments and incentives, as well as improved institutional structure and policy mechanisms. If federal policy aims to secure the nation's leadership in this growing sector, the scale and scope of these provisions must be significantly improved in future legislative proposals.


Nuclear war

Khalilzad 95 [Zalmay, RAND analyst and now U.S. ambassador to Iraq, The Washington Quarterly, Lexis]

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




Download 0.59 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   ...   58




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page