Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics Energy Bill Wave 2

Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 1 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2

POLITICS – ENERGY BILL DA – WAVE 2

WINNER’S DON’T WIN...... 2 WINNER’S DON’T WIN...... 3 NU - WINNER NOW…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...4

ENERGY BILL – TOP OF DOCKET...... 5 ENERGY BILL – WARMING IMPACTS – IT IS ANTHROPOGENIC...... 6 ENERGY BILL – WARMING IMPACTS – IT IS ANTHROPOGENIC...... 7 ENERGY BILL – WARMING IMPACTS – BRINKS...... 8 ENERGY BILL – WARMING IMPACTS – TERRORISM...... 9

ENERGY BILL – NO –REID...... 10 ENERGY BILL – NO – VOTE COUNT...... 11 ENERGY BILL - NO - GOP…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12 ENERGY BILL – NO – REGIONAL INTERESTS...... 13 Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 2 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2 WINNER’S DON’T WIN

OBAMA DISPROVES THE “WINNER’S WIN” THEORY – HE HAS ACHIEVED SOME LEGISLATIVE SUCCESS BUT THIS HAS NOT SPILLED OVER TO MORE POLITICAL CAPITAL OR POPULARITY Harris & Vandehei. 7-15 (JOHN F. HARRIS & JIM VANDEHEI, "Why President Obama loses by winning," 7/15/10, pg online @ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39772.html//gh-ag) Thursday’s passage of financial reform, just a couple months after the passage of a comprehensive health care overhaul, should decisively end the narrative that President Barack Obama represents a Jimmy Carter-style case of naive hope crushed by the inability to master Washington. Yet the mystery remains: Having moved swiftly toward achieving the very policy objectives he promised voters as a candidate, Obama is still widely perceived as flirting with a failed presidency. Eric Alterman, in a column that drew wide notice, wrote in The Nation that most liberals think the president is a “big disappointment.” House Democrats are in near-insurrection after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated the obvious — that the party has a chance of losing the House under Obama’s watch. And independent voters have turned decisively against the man they helped elect 21 months ago — a trend unlikely to be reversed before November. This is an odd reversal of expectations. When Obama came into office, the assumption even among some Democrats was that he was a dazzling politician and communicator who might prove too unseasoned at governance to win substantive achievements. The reality is the opposite. You can argue over whether Obama’s achievements are good or bad on the merits. But, especially after Thursday’s vote, you can’t argue that Obama is not getting things done. To the contrary, he has, as promised, covered the uninsured, tightened regulations, started to wind down the war in Iraq and shifted focus and resources to Afghanistan, injected more competition into the education system and edged closer to a big energy bill. The problem is that he and his West Wing turn out to be not especially good at politics or communications — in other words, largely ineffective at the very things on which their campaign reputation was built. And the promises he made in two years of campaigning turn out to be much less appealing as actual policies. “I tell you, it’s very frustrating that it’s not breaking through, when you look at these things and their scale,” said a top Obama adviser, who spoke on background to offer a candid take on the state of play. “Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had achieved even one of these? Part of it is because we are divided, even on the left. ... And part of it is the culture of immediate gratification.” But there are many other reasons for Obama’s woes. Based on interviews with officials in the administration and on Capitol Hill, and with Democratic operatives around town, here are a half-dozen reasons why Obama is perceived as failing to win over the public, even though by most conventional measures he is clearly succeeding. Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 3 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2

WINNER’S DON’T WIN

WINNER’S LOSE—OBAMA CAN’T REGAIN POPULARITY EVEN WITH CONVINCING WIN Politico.com 07/15/10 [John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei, staff writers for Politico, Why President Obama loses by winning, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39772.html] The passage of financial reform , just a couple months after the passage of comprehensive health care reform, should decisively end the narrative that President Barack Obama represents a Jimmy Carter-style case of naive hope crushed by the inability to master Washington. Yet the mystery remains: Having moved swiftly toward achieving the policy objectives he promised voters as a candidate, Obama is still widely perceived as flirting with a failed presidency. Eric Alterman, in a column in The Nation that drew wide notice, wrote that most liberals think the president is a “big disappointment.” House Democrats were at near-insurrection after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated the obvious — that the party has a chance of losing the House under Obama’s watch. And independent voters have turned decisively against the man they helped elect 21 months ago — a trend unlikely to be reversed before November. This is an odd reversal of expectations. When he came into office, the assumption, even among some Democrats, was that he was a dazzling politician and communicator who might prove too unseasoned at governance to win substantive achievements. The reality is the opposite. You can argue over whether Obama’s achievements are good or bad on the merits. But especially after Thursday’s vote, you can’t argue that Obama is not getting things done. To the contrary, he has, as promised, covered the uninsured, tightened regulations, started to wind down the war in Iraq and shifted focus and resources to Afghanistan, injected more competition into the education system and edged closer to a big energy bill. The problem is that he and the West Wing are not especially good at politics, or communications — in other words, largely ineffective at the very things on which their campaign reputation was built. And the promises he made during two years of campaigning have turned out to be much less appealing as actual policies. “I tell you, it’s very frustrating that it’s not breaking through, when you look at these things and their scale,” said a top Obama adviser, who spoke on background to offer a candid take on the state of play. “Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had achieved even one of these? Part of it is because we are divided, even on the left…And part of it is the culture of immediate gratification.” But there are many other reasons for Obama’s woes. Based on interviews with officials in the administration and on Capitol Hill, and with Democratic operatives around town, there are a half-dozen reasons why Obama is perceived as failing to win over the public, even though by most conventional measures, he is clearly succeeding: The flight of independents Obama sees himself as a different kind of Democrat: one who transcends ideology but is basically a centrist. By some measures, his self-image fits. His war and anti-terrorism policies are remarkably similar to those advocated by the man he blames for most the country’s problems: former President George W. Bush. He’s butting heads with teachers unions by enticing states to stop rewarding teachers on tenure rather than on merit. On immigration, he stresses border security instead of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 4 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2

NU – HE’S A WINNER NOW

WALL STREET REFORM WAS A LEGISLATIVE VICTORY FOR OBAMA CNN 7-16-10 (7-16, “U.S. Senate passes financial reform”, http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/07/15/us.financial.reform.ft/index.html) dhara Washington (FT.com) -- The U.S. Senate finally passed a landmark reform of Wall Street on Thursday, delivering President Barack Obama's second big legislative victory and ushering in a raft of restrictions on banks. Mr Obama will next week sign into law the Dodd-Frank Act, bringing to a close a year-long effort to overhaul the U.S. financial system and its regulators. "The American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes," the president said. Democrats in the Senate managed to attract three Republicans to secure the minimum 60 votes necessary to bring the debate to a close. A final vote was 60-39 in favor of the bill. The action on financial reform now switches to the U.S. Treasury and regulatory agencies, which will have to decide which companies should be designated as "systemically significant" and face higher standards of capital and supervision. Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, indicated he would use the passage of the law as leverage at the Basel negotiations on new bank capital standards. "I am very confident that with the strong hand this legislation gives us, we're going to be able to bring the world with us in putting in place much stronger capital standards across the financial system,'' he said. Republicans and bankers have complained that the law perpetuates uncertainty, given the amount of work still to be completed by the regulators. "It creates vast new bureaucracies with little accountability and seriously undermines the competitiveness of the American economy," said Richard Shelby, the senior Republican on the banking committee. While much of the 2,300-page bill is highly complex, Democrats are trying to craft a political narrative in the run- up to the November mid-term elections that casts them as the consumer champions and the Republicans as the shills for Wall Stree t. A new orderly liquidation authority to deal with a future AIG or Lehman without any cost to the taxpayer is widely thought to be the most significant innovation. However, Mr Obama and congressional Democrats have been celebrating the bill's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A toughening of the bill since January, including the introduction of the so-called Volcker Rule to ban proprietary trading, was aided by the Securities and Exchange Commission's fraud charges against Goldman Sachs, which were settled on Thursday. Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, said: "The financial reform legislation approved by Congress today represents a welcome and far-reaching step towards preventing a replay of the recent financial crisis." Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 5 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2 ENERGY BILL – TOP OF DOCKET

ENERGY BILL TOP PRIORITY FOR OBAMA Reuters 7/18/10 [Reuters, Republicans oppose broad US energy bill-McConnell, http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1817018620100718] WASHINGTON July 18 (Reuters) - Republicans "are happy" to consider legislation tied to the BP Plc oil spill but will not support a U.S. energy bill that includes climate regulations, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday. Congress is considering several dozen bills to prevent another disaster like the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico but broad legislation that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions has stalled in the Senate. "We are happy to look at oil spill legislation ... There are some things we can do (on an energy bill)," McConnell told CNN's "State of the Union" program when asked if his party could support some of President Barack Obama's agenda. A climate change and alternative energy bill passed the House of Representatives last year, with minimal Republican support. It mandated a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, from 2005 levels. But McConnell said Republicans in the Senate would oppose climate regulations in an energy bill, which he described as an energy tax on the nation. A scaled-back climate change bill that Senate Democrats are considering would achieve far less than Obama promised at a U.N. global warming conference last year -- but even this may be too much for Congress. The White House has said an energy bill is a top legislative priority this summer. Without legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency could go ahead early next year with new regulations on carbon pollution that are already facing legal challenges. (Writing by Paul Simao; Editing by John O'Callaghan) Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 6 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2 ENERGY BILL – WARMING IMPACTS – IT IS ANTHROPOGENIC

Global Warming is 90% caused by humans—UN study and historical evidence confirms

Finfacts 07(Irelands Business and Finance Team“UN report says Global Warming is caused by humans; Temperature and sea-level to rise by end of the century”http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10008928.shtml KD)

The United Nationstoday issued a summary of its most comprehensive report * to-date on climate change, saying it's more sure than ever that global warming is caused by humans and warning of temperature and sea-level rises by the end of the century.Global temperatures are likely to rise by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century relative to the last, with a ``best estimate'' of 3 degrees, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the report. Sea-level gain over the same period may range from 18 to 59 centimeters, it said.The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.The last Ice Age was the result of a dip in global temperatures of around 4°C-5°Celsius, according to the report on climate change that was published by the UK government in October 2006. A key change in the report's language from that used in 2001 showed there is more certainty that human activity is causing the warming. The report says the link is ``very likely'' or a probability of more than 90 percent, compared with the 66 to 90 percent likelihood signalled in 2001.Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture .Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas. The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm (parts per million) to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year- to-year variability in growth rates.The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions4 increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] 5 GtC (Gigatons of Carbon)) (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s, to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty.

Global Warming is Anthropogenic – we must change our ways USA Today 7-16 [Wendy Koch, “Scientists: Climate Change launches geologic epoch”, 7-16-10, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/07/climate-new-geological-epoch/1?csp=outbrain&csp=obnetwork]

The world has entered a new geologic epoch, in which human activities will largely determine the planet's evolution, reports the United States' chief scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences. Rising carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have triggered this epoch, which could include profound changes in rainfall, crop yields, wildfires and sea levels, according to the sobering report, released Friday. It says: The world is entering a new geologic epoch , sometimes called the Anthropocene, in which human activities will largely control the evolution of Earth's environment. Carbon emissions during this century will essentially determine the magnitude of eventual impacts and whether the Anthropocene is a short-term, relatively minor change from the current climate or an extreme deviation that lasts thousands of years.The scientists say atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen about 35% since 1750 and is now at about 390 parts per million, the highest level in at least 800,000 years. Depending on emission rates, they estimate those levels could double or nearly triple by the end of the century. The report, requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, does not make specific policy recommendations but suggests major action is needed, adding: Emissions reductions larger than about 80%, relative to whatever peak global emissions rate may be reached, are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so at any chosen target level. President Obama is prodding the Senate to pass a climate bill, similar to one the House of Representatives approved last year that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 7 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2 ENERGY BILL – WARMING IMPACTS – IT IS ANTHROPOGENIC

PROOF OF ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING REAL—MULTIPLE STUDIES Connor 2005 [Steve, The Independent's Science Editor, lndependent/UK, 2/19/05, “The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man- Made Disaster,” http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm] Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere. The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say. Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?" The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans." He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no. "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming. America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon. Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said. The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center. They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming. "Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming." Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world. Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said. Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 8 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2 ENERGY BILL – WARMING IMPACTS – BRINKS

GHG is at the Brink of Disaster – changes need to be made now The Gazette (Montréal) , 6-18 [Margaret Monroe, “Carbon emissions harming the oceans; Reports find the burning of fossil fuels creates risk of irreversible transformation”, 6-18-10, http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Carbon+emissions+harming+oceans/3168965/story.html]

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a disaster, but it may pale compared to what scientists say is brewing in the world's oceans because of everyday consumption of fossil fuels. The billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide sent wafting into the atmosphere each year through the burning of oil, gas and coal are profoundly affecting the oceans, says a series of reports published yesterday in the journal Science. One says there is mounting evidence that "rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving ocean systems toward conditions not seen for millions of years, with an associated risk of fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation." Another says that the effects are already rippling through the food web in Antarctica. And a third says humans, and their ever- increasing carbon emissions, are acidifying the ocean in a "grand planetary experiment" that could have devastating impacts. Marine scientists Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, at the University of Queensland in Australia, and John Bruno, at the University of North Carolina, describe how the oceans act as a "heat sink" and are slowly heating up along with the atmosphere as greenhouse gas emissions climb. The warming, they say, is "likely to have profound influences on the strength, direction and behaviour" of major ocean currents and far-reaching impacts on sea life. The oceans also soak up close to a third of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the atmosphere, and it reacts with sea water to form acidic ions. The rising acidity "represents a major departure from the geochemical conditions that have prevailed in the global ocean for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years," the scientists report. Add it all up and they say there is there is "overwhelming" evidence human activities are driving changes on a scale similar to volcanic eruptions or meteorite strikes, which have driven ecosystems to collapse in the past. "The impacts of anthropogenic (human) climate change so far include decreased ocean productivity, altered food web dynamics, reduced abundance of habitat-forming species, shifting species distributions and a greater incidence of disease," they say. In a second report, Oscar Schofield at Rutgers University and his colleagues describe how rising temperatures over the last 30 years have coincided with a shift in the food web along the West Antarctic Peninsula -most notably to a shrinking of marine algae cells. Organisms known as tunicates are so efficient at feeding on the smaller algae they appear to be displacing krill, a mainstay of many creatures up the food web. Fish, seals, whales, penguins and other seabirds could all be affected, they say. A news report accompanying the Science papers on the oceans says by increasing the ocean's acidity, "humans are caught up in a grand planetary experiment" that could take a "potentially devastating toll on marine life." The rising acidity could erode the calcium carbonate shells and skeletons of corals, mollusks and some algae and plankton -and there is evidence it is already starting to occur. "The physics and chemistry of adding an acid to the ocean are so well understood, so inexorable, that there cannot be an iota of doubt -gigatons of acid are lowering the pHof theworldocean, humans are totally responsible, and the more carbon dioxide we emit, the worse it's going to get," it says. It goes on to quote a recent issue of the journal Oceanography that said unconstrained growth of emissions is likely to leave the current era of human planetary dominance "as one of the most notable, if not cataclysmic, events in the history of our planet." Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 9 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2 ENERGY BILL – WARMING IMPACTS – TERRORISM

GLOBAL WARMING TRIGGERS BREEDING GROUNDS FOR TERRORISTS—DECREASES DEFENSE CNN 8 6/25/ [2008, “Global Warming could increase terrorism”, CNN Politics http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/25/climate.change.security/index.html] Global warming could destabilize "struggling and poor" countries around the world, prompting mass migrations and creating breeding grounds for terrorists, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council told Congress on Wednesday. Climate change "will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions," Thomas Fingar said. "All of this threatens the domestic stability of a number of African, Asian, Central American and Central Asian countries." People are likely to flee destabilized countries, and some may turn to terrorism, he said. "The conditions exacerbated by the effects of climate change could increase the pool of potential recruits into terrorist activity," he said."Economic refugees will perceive additional reasons to flee their homes because of harsher climates," Fingar predicted. That will put pressure on countries receiving refugees, many of which "will have neither the resources nor interest to host these climate migrants," he said in testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Reactions to the report broke down along partisan lines, with Democrats generally praising it and Republicans expressing doubts. Committee members had concerns about the report's secrecy, reliability and use of intelligence resources. Global warming may have a slight positive effect on the United States, since it is likely to produce larger farming yields, Fingar said But it is also likely to result in storm surges that could affect nuclear facilities and oil refineries near coasts, water shortages in the Southwest and longer summers with more wildfires, the study found. International migration may also help spread disease, Fingar added, and climate change could put stress on international trade in essential commodities. "The United States depends on a smooth-functioning international system ensuring the flow of trade and market access to critical raw materials, such as oil and gas, and security for its allies and partners. Climate change and climate change policies could affect all of these," he warned, "with significant geopolitical consequences." The report was the conclusion of the most comprehensive government analysis the U.S. intelligence community has ever conducted on climate change. Fingar emphasized that it could make no hard and fast predictions, saying that the operative word in his assessment was "may." Wealthy countries will be able to handle the situation better than poorer ones, he said. "We assess that no country will be immune to the effects of climate change, but some will be able to cope more effectively than others," he said. "Most of the struggling and poor states that will suffer adverse impacts to their potential and economic security are in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southeast Asia. "However, the spillover -- from potentially increased migration and water-related disputes -- could have a harmful global impact," he added. Fingar painted a mixed picture of the effects of climate change on the United States itself. "Most studies suggest the United States as a whole will enjoy modest economic benefits over the next few decades, largely due to the increased crop yields," he said. "Costs begin to mount thereafter, however, and some parts of the United States -- particularly built-up coastal areas -- will be at greater risk of extreme weather events and potentially high costs related to losses in complex infrastructure." The impact of fighting and preparing for climate change may be greater than the effect of global warming itself, Fingar said. "Government, business and public efforts to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to deal with climate change -- from policies to reduce greenhouse gases to plans to reduce exposure to climate change or capitalize on potential impacts -- may affect U.S. national security interests even more than the physical impacts of climate change itself," he said. The report, the "National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030," relied on U.S. government, military, academic and United Nations studies of climate change. The report itself is classified, which some members of the House committee objected to. "I am disappointed it is classified," said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California. Secrecy "prevents this report from being released and discussed in public domain." Committee Chairman Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would ask the administration to declassify it. Markey opened the hearing by saying "human beings all over the planet face death or damage or injury if we do not act." He blasted the White House stance on climate change, saying, "The Bush administration continues to limit what their experts know. The president doesn't want America to know the real risk of global warming."Republicans on the committee criticized the report as wasteful, with Rep. Darrell Issa of California calling it a "dangerous diversion of intelligence resources."Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, said that the report was unreliable and that its authors admitted as much. "We have a lot of information where we are incapable of assessing it," Fingar conceded. Hoekstra also questioned the committee's priorities. "There are a lot more pressing issues out there for the intelligence community to be focused on right now that would help keep America safe," he said. The assessment "was a waste of time, a waste of resources for the intelligence community to be focused on this issue versus other folks in the government that could have done this job and have a responsibility for doing it." Fingar said the intelligence community had relied on the science of others because it did not itself monitor climate change. He said the assessment was based on midrange predictions of global warming. Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 10 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2 ENERGY BILL – NO –REID

REID JUST INTRODUCED A VERY LIMITED CLIMATE BILL – COMPREHENSIVE CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION DEAD BEFORE MIDTERMS truthout 7/23 (Sarah Laskow, 7/23/10, " How Reid's Energy Bill Undermines Senate Climate Efforts ", http://www.truthout.org/how-reids-energy-bill-undermines-senate-climate-efforts61635) ttate Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced a limited energy bill that responds to the oil spill and promotes energy efficiency. Reid's action is a signal that the Senate will not pass climate legislation before November, although Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said that a climate bill could come up in the lame-duck session following the election. "The Senate' s climate bill is officially dead," Kate Sheppard writes at Mother Jones. "; And given that Democrats will almost certainly hold fewer seats in Congress next year, major action on the climate is unlikely to be revived anytime soon." Since 2009, expectations for a bill regulating carbon emissions have steadily declined. After this latest failure in the Senate, the best near-term hope for addressing climate change comes from the Environmental Protection Agency, which still has the power to regulate carbon emissions.

REID’S LIMITED VERSION GUTS MOMENTUM FOR PASSAGE OF COMPREHENSIVE CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION BrighterEnergy.org 7/23 (James Cartledge, 7/23/10, " Hopes fade for Senate energy bill as 'limited' version is drafted ", http://www.brighterenergy.org/14087/news/legislation/hopes-fade-for-senate-energy-bill-as-limited-version-is-drafted/) ttate Hopes for comprehensive energy and climate reforms being passed by the Senate before the August recess are fading fast. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is now understood to be bringing forward a bill that will include little by way of climate or clean energy measures. Reports suggest a national renewable energy standard will not be included, and neither will any caps on carbon emissions. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who has led efforts to produce a comprehensive bill, the American Power Act, said last night he believed there was still some chance of getting the 60 votes needed to pass the legislation. But, he said priority was now on Senator Reid's “admittedly narrow, limited bill”, which would seek better safeguards against oil spills in the light of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, rather than the kind of changes needed to combat climate change. Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 11 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2 ENERGY BILL – NO – VOTE COUNT

VOTES NOT THERE FOR PASSAGE OF COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY LEGISLATION NYT (blog) 7/23 (Bernie Becker, 7/23/10, " The Early Word: Climate Bill on Ice ", http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/the-early-word-climate-bill-on-ice/) ttate So much for a comprehensive climate change bill this summer. On Thursday, Senate Democrats announced that they would tackle a more limited energy measure, with a focus on energy efficiency and the response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, told reporters, was straightforward — Democrats didn’t have the votes. With that, as Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn reports, the finger-pointing began: An administration official blamed environmentalists, for example, while others said the president was too removed. Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 12 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2

ENERGY BILL – NO – GOP

WON’T PASS NOW - GOP OPPOSITION REUTERS 07-18 [“Republicans oppose broad US energy bill – McConnell”, http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1817018620100718] ttate WASHINGTON July 18 (Reuters) - Republicans "are happy" to consider legislation tied to the BP Plc oil spill but will not support a U.S. energy bill that includes climate regulations, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday. Congress is considering several dozen bills to prevent another disaster like the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico but broad legislation that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions has stalled in the Senate. "We are happy to look at oil spill legislation ... There are some things we can do (on an energy bill)," McConnell told CNN's "State of the Union" program when asked if his party could support some of President Barack Obama's agenda. A climate change and alternative energy bill passed the House of Representatives last year, with minimal Republican support. It mandated a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, from 2005 levels. But McConnell said Republicans in the Senate would oppose climate regulations in an energy bill, which he described as an energy tax on the nation. A scaled-back climate change bill that Senate Democrats are considering would achieve far less than Obama promised at a U.N. global warming conference last year -- but even this may be too much for Congress. Northwestern Debate Institute 2010 13 Tate/Gannon/Fisher/Lee Politics – Energy Bill – Wave 2 ENERGY BILL – NO – REGIONAL INTERESTS

WON’T PASS NOW - REGIONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS WASHINGTON DAILY NEWS 07-16 [“Energy bill mired in doubt”, http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2010/07/16/news/doc4c3f95bbb9942182904241.txt] ttate One reported snafu in the process is a lack of consensus among senators in the Democratic caucus, but another stumbling block could be more regional than political. Traditionally, energy policy has been shaped less on party lines than along regional barricades, one source said, adding that a lawmaker’s position on climate legislation could depend on whether his or her district is heavily served by, say, coal-fired power plants or other sources. The Wall Street reform bill favored by congressional leaders achieved final, bipartisan passage in the Senate with a 60-39 vote, but a proposed new energy law could cycle through a tough struggle more than a year after the House moved on its efforts to combat climate change. There are a number of dueling energy proposals in circulation in the Senate, including one put forward by U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., has some clear priorities of her own. “We must invest in sustainable, American-made energy that will put our country back in control of our energy future,” Hagan said in a statement released Thursday. “I am reviewing climate change legislation in detail, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to ensure that any final bill will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our economy. I will also be working to ensure the legislation does not have an unfair impact on energy costs for North Carolina’s families and businesses or place our manufacturers at a disadvantage internationally.” The Burr-Chambliss bill would set about boosting “the use of natural gas for heavy duty and fleet vehicles, expansion of nuclear power generation, as well as addressing spent fuel recycling, promoting electric vehicles and continued support for renewable energy sources,” an outline reads. Burr-Chambliss would get to their end result partly by extending tax credits for natural gas and vehicles powered by alternative fuels, and by expanding a tax credit for electric vehicles. Other senators have other ideas, and it’s up to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Senate majority leader, to pull his more cooperative colleagues together. Further complicating matters is the fact that Congress still has other pressing business before it, including appropriations that must be approved to keep government running. The House already has done most of its work on crafting energy policy, but it doesn’t seem as if that chamber’s voluminous bill is destined to become law.