**AFF Answers**
A2: Heg/Competitiveness Impacts
No impact- Energy reform cant address all the components needed to regain US environmental 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]
The United States currently lacks an effective national strategy for competitiveness in this sector, and as numerous reports have documented -- including our previous report "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," which provided the first comprehensive comparison of clean energy competitiveness in the U.S. and Asia -- the nation is falling behind in a number of core metrics. However, the policy brief finds that the American Power Act does not contain a comprehensive clean energy competitiveness and technology innovation strategy. While the legislation includes a number of measures with varying degrees of support, it falls substantially short in each core policy component of clean energy competitiveness. In research and innovation, the legislation would invest an order of magnitude less than the majority of energy experts recommend. In manufacturing, it would provide a modest expansion of existing programs, along with some targeted support for advanced vehicles and general manufacturing efficiency. Beyond a modest carbon price, APA would not provide robust and direct support for clean energy deployment and market creation besides carbon capture and storage, with largely insignificant results for renewable energy technology. Finally, it provides little support for clean energy industry cluster formation, clean energy workforce development, and infrastructure development.
A2: Energy Dependence Impacts
Energy reform can’t address energy dependence
Weiss and Lyon 1/28 [Daniel J, Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress Susan, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Policy Carol Browner, 2010, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/sotu_energy.html] KLS
New Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union and urged adoption of Bush-Cheney-Palin energy policies. His energy plan would primarily rely on more offshore oil drilling and higher oil company profits, while opposing reductions in global warming pollution. Following big oil’s agenda by pursuing offshore oil drilling is no panacea for our oil dependence. The Department of Energy determined that even drilling for oil and gas in the newly opened Outer Continental Shelf and the expansion of shale gas production would still require liquid fuel imports of 45 percent in 2035. The most cost-effective solution is to reduce demand for oil by making cars and trucks much more fuel efficient, and to transition to cleaner nonoil fuels, including electricity, natural gas, and advanced clean bio fuels.
I/L – Winners Win
Winners win- Obama’s popularity proves
Singer 9 [Jonathan, senior writer for the progressive blog MyDD, March 3, Direct Democracy.com, http://mydd.com/2009/3/3/by-expending-capital-obama-grows-his-capital]KLS
Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration.
Winners win and losers lose – losing makes Bush look weak
Barnes 3 [Fred, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard, The Weekly Standard, March 24, Lexis]
That Bush has persisted on Iraq in the face of sinking polls, diplomatic setbacks, and rising criticism argues against the cynical view. Thomas DeFrank of the New York Daily News reported last week that Bush told friends nearly a year ago that he'd concluded Saddam Hussein must be deposed. Since then, the president hasn't flinched. "He's using his political capital to take a reluctant nation to war," says a White House official. It's not the other way around--Bush taking the country to war to build political capital. Let's not exaggerate. Bush has lost some ground politically, but he's not in freefall. The latest Gallup Poll showed approval of his performance dipped from 63 percent to 57 percent over the past two months. This brings Bush roughly back to where he was prior to September 11. The rally-around-the-president phenomenon usually vanishes in seven or eight months. With Bush, it took 18 months to disappear, and it's likely to return when war with Iraq begins. The long road to war has created uncertainty about the future, and this is partly responsible for the weak economic recovery. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, among others, says so. The vote by Turkey not to join the war, the opposition of France, Russia, and Germany, the troubles at the U.N.--all have shown the president as less than dominant. And not only have Bush's political opponents been emboldened, an antiwar movement has had time to mobilize, though less effectively in America than in Europe. Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has a theory that winners win. That sounds tautological, but it means that winners create confidence in their ability to keep winning and thus improve their chances of doing just that. But lose or hit a roadblock, and the opposite occurs. "If you're not winning, you look vulnerable," Ornstein says. Rebuffs by allies and the U.N. "make Bush look less formidable. He looks not impotent but weaker." There's something to this. Certainly Daschle and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic presidential candidates act as though they believe it. Their criticism of Bush has become frequent and harsh.
Share with your friends: |
