This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Any other Republican running against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would quickly put the Democrats on the defensive over their refusal to promise that millions of undocumented workers and their families will be deported someday soon, or ever. Any other Republican would be able to portray the Democratic Party as advocates of unrestricted immigration and "amnesty" for immigrants who have entered the United States illegally. It is simple to conjure a negative ad showing dark, frightening foreigners, with a script bemoaning lost jobs, rising crime and welfare costs, even the threat of terrorism. Stimulating fear has become a tradition in American elections.
But Mr. McCain cannot plausibly endorse or benefit from that kind of demagogic commercial. After all, he was for amnesty before he was against it, as his conservative critics might put it. And much as he may now wish to pretend that the issue is moot, his name remains on the reform bill sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy.
Advisers to Mr. McCain may plan to mount a different brand of fear-based attack, much as former White House adviser Karl Rove did so successfully during the 2002 and 2004 elections. That campaign would feature ads assaulting the Democrats as disloyal and timid, for daring to voice even the mildest objection to the Bush administration's surveillance and torture policies.
Dramatic commercials might steal a page from television, with a president trying to decide how to interrogate a suspect who knows where to find the nuclear suitcase bomb. Could we count on a Democrat to authorize the waterboarding in time? Yet that scary scenario won't work for Mr. McCain, either, because he has stood forthrightly against torture, to the great dismay of many detractors in his own party.
The war in Iraq
will afford him the chance to draw sharp distinctions with his Democratic opponent, but that difference will place him on the wrong side of the electorate. He will win points, perhaps, for sticking with the unpopular position. But with the prospect of recession growing each day, his devotion to military solutions and neglect of economic concerns may make him appear not only dangerous but irrelevant.
AT: Iraq Is The Key Issue IRAQ IS NOT KEY TO THE ELECTION
Pew Research Center, 2007 (November 9, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/633/iraq-news-less-dominant-still-important) News about the Iraq war does not dominate the public's consciousness nearly as much as it did last winter. Currently, just 16% of Americans name the Iraq war as the news story that first comes to mind when asked what has been in the news lately. In December and January, a period when U.S. policy toward Iraq and President Bush's troop surge drew extensive news coverage, far greater numbers named the Iraq war as the first story that came to mind.
Elections – Defending The ‘Keys’ Model KEYS MODEL PREDICTS A DEMOCRATIC WIN UNLESS A POPUALR POLICY LIKE THE PLAN IS ENACTED
– WITHIN OUR METHODOLOGY WE CONTROL
LINK AND UNIQUENESS CLAIMS
THE KEYS MODEL IS EMPIRICALLY AND CONSISTENTLY CORRECT
– IT’S THE ONLY MODEL TO PREDICT GORE’S POPULAR VOTE WIN
Elections Solves The Case – Alternative Energy OBAMA SOLVES THE AFF
– HE WILL INVEST IN RENEWABLE ENERGY
LA Times, 6/24/2008 (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign24-2008jun24,0,832512.story) Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign dismissed the proposal as "tinkering at the edges." The two campaigns have been sparring over how to address skyrocketing gasoline prices and climate change. In mid-April, McCain proposed a summer gas-tax holiday that would suspend federal gasoline and diesel taxes. That proposal was matched by Hillary Rodham Clinton but derided as a gimmick by Obama, who said it would not resolve the country's reliance on petroleum. The Illinois senator, who advocates more federal support for renewable energy sources and higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, has taken aim at oil speculators, whom he has blamed for the recent run-up in prices. McCain said last week that he wanted to open up additional areas off the nation's coasts for oil and gas exploration, and aggressively promote construction of more nuclear power plants.
OBAMA SUPPORTS INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
– MCCAIN DOES NOT
Hook, 2008 (Janet, LA Times, “Repairing the U.S. Economy Is A Question of How”) McCain has called for mandated emissions limits to curb global warming, an example of him embracing government regulation and parting ways with most fellow Republicans. But he opposes most government incentives and subsides to help meet those emissions limits, and which are favored by Obama and many other officials. Obama, for example, would invest $150 billion in subsidies over 10 years to develop alternative fuels. McCain, discussing environmental issues last month, told voters in Washington state, "I'm a little wary -- I have to give you straight talk -- about government subsidies. When the government jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as well as intended."
Elections Solves The Case – Cellulosic Ethanol OBAMA SUPPORTS CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
Bevill, 2008 (Kris, contributor to Ethanol Producer Magazine, “U.S. Presidential Candidates’ Views Vary on Biofuels”, Ethanol Producer Magazine, July) There are a few similarities between the candidates—but also some glaring differences. Obama, D-Ill., and Clinton, D-N.Y., have plans to continue funding research for cellulosic ethanol and other types of biomass-derived fuels. Both have a $150 billion, 10-year investment plan to fund the continuation of renewable energy technologies. Obama hasn’t mentioned where the money for his plan will come from, but Clinton has stated that one-third of her $150 billion plan will be provided by a Strategic Energy Fund partially financed by oil companies.
MCCAIN WON’T USE GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES TO SPUR CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
Bevill, 2008 (Kris, contributor to Ethanol Producer Magazine, “U.S. Presidential Candidates’ Views Vary on Biofuels”, Ethanol Producer Magazine, July) McCain, R-Ariz., has said he’s in favor of using switchgrass, sugarcane and ethanol to reduce the nation’s dependency on foreign oil, but he hasn’t delivered a financial plan as to how he will support the advancement of those fuels. Although he said he supports ethanol, McCain is the only candidate who has taken a stance against ethanol subsidies. He said the industry is mature enough to exist without government help. According to McCain’s Web site (www.johnmccain.com), he views ethanol subsidies and the current ethanol tariff as a cause of higher transportation and food costs. “Ethanol subsidies, tariff barriers and sugar quotas drive up food prices and hurt Americans,” McCain said on the Web site.
OBAMA WILL INVEST TONS IN CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
Power, 2008 (Stephen, Wall Street Journal, “In Energy Policy, McCain, Obama Differ on Role of Government”, June 9) Sen. Obama has no such compunction about using the government's means to achieve his ends on energy and climate change. He says the U.S. doesn't do enough to move promising but risky clean-energy technologies from the research lab to the marketplace. He's promising to invest $150 billion over the next decade in alternative fuels such as cellulosic ethanol that can be made from materials such as switchgrass and wood chips. He'd push a requirement that the U.S. by 2025 get at least 25% of its electricity from renewable sources like the wind, the sun and geothermal energy (which together currently account for less than 1% of U.S. electricity supply).
Elections Impact – Polish BMD Module MCCAIN WILL PUSH FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF BMD IN POLAND
Council on Foreign Relations, 2007 (http://www.cfr.org/bios/662/) Sen. McCain (R-AZ) has strongly criticized Vladimir Putin, whom he has called “a dangerous person.” In an October 2007 Republican debate, McCain expressed support for President Bush’s plan to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. “I don't care what [Putin’s] objections are to it,” he said.
THAT CAUSES ACCIDENTAL WAR WITH RUSSIA ENSURING EXTINCTION
Whitney, 2007 (Mike, Global Research, December 19, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18926.htm) Finally, Russia Chief of Staff, General Yuri Balyevsky warned: “A possible launch of a US interceptor missile from Central Europe may provoke a counterattack from intercontinental ballistic missiles....If we suppose that Iran wants to strike the United States , then interceptor missiles which would be launched from Poland will fly towards Russia and the shape and flight trajectory are very similar to ICBMs” (Novosti Russian News Agency) Balyevsky's scenario of an “accidental” World War 3 is more likely than ever now that Bush is pressing ahead with his plans for Missile Defense. Russia's automated missile warning systems can be triggered automatically when foreign missiles enter Russian air space. Its a dangerous game and potentially fatal every living thing on the planet. To great extent, the American people have no idea of the reckless policy that is being carried out in their name. The gravity of the proposed Missile Defense system has been virtually ignored by the media and Russia's protests have been dismissed as trivial. But hostilities are steadily growing, military forces and weaponry are being put into place, and the stage is set for a major conflagration. This is every bit as serious as the Cuban Missile Crisis, only this time Russia cannot afford to stand down.
Elections Impact – Yucca Mountain Module MACCAIN WILL STORE NUCLEAR WASTE AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, OBAMA WON’T
Bohan, 2008 (Caren, Reporter for News Daily, “Obama Criticizes McCain’s Nuclear Power Plan”, News Daily) Obama was speaking in Nevada, a state where proposals to build a nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain have generated strong opposition. He also took aim at McCain's plan to allow more offshore U.S. oil drilling. "It doesn't make sense for America," Obama said. "In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain," the Illinois senator said. The U.S. Energy Department has applied for a license to operate a long-delayed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles from Las Vegas. Opposition in the U.S. Congress to the Yucca Mountain waste site is among the hurdles it faces. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is among those who oppose it. McCain, an Arizona senator, backs the project, while Obama is against it. Asked his views on nuclear power in Jacksonville, Florida on Friday, Obama said, "I think that nuclear power should be in the mix when it comes to energy." But he added, "I don't think it's our optimal energy source because we haven't figured out how to store the waste safely or recycle the waste." Obama supports using federal research and development dollars to explore whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for reuse.”
THIS RISKS NUCLEAR VOLCANOES
New Scientist, 2002 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523571.300-yucca-mountain-could-become-nuclearvolcano.html) If A volcano ever erupted beneath the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada it could cause a devastating explosion that sent high-level nuclear waste spewing into the atmosphere. Yucca Mountain lies about 145 kilometres north-west of Las Vegas, within an active volcanic field. An eruption at the site is considered extremely unlikely, but it is possible. There are six craters within 20 kilometres of the site, including Lathrop Wells volcano, which formed by eruptions just 80,000 years ago. A study in 2000 estimated that there was a 1 in 1000 chance of an eruption at the site during the 10,000 years it will take for the radioactivity of the waste stored there to dissipate. And a recent report suggests that a more active cluster of volcanoes 100 kilometres to the north could be an even bigger threat
EXTINCTION
Camarow, 2001 (David, “Yucca Mountain: Time To Think The Unthinkable”, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/keyissues/nuclear-energy/issues/yucca-mountain/yucca-mountain-testimony-comarow_2001-12-08.htm) None of that is impossible, and therefore none of that is unthinkable. We are not talking about the short-term or even long-term economic prosperity of Las Vegas. We are talking about nothing less than the survival of the human race. Lest you dismiss this as just more fanatic hyperbole, let this be a reality check: Yucca Mountain will hold all of the high level nuclear waste ever produced from every nuclear power plant in the US - with about 10% additional defense waste -- some 77,000 tons. The danger of getting it here aside for a moment, the amount of radioactivity and energy to be stored in one place, under that relatively tiny little bump in the desert is easily enough to contaminate and sterilize the entire biosphere. Is that unthinkable? No. If it is possible, it is thinkable. When you are talking about these types of risks, risks that can endanger entire segments of our population, let alone the entire earth, then the risk analysis must go into higher gear. It is not enough to merely calculate the risks as "extremely low" - because there is no "low enough" when the consequences are so cataclysmic. We accept certain risks, which are relatively high - 50,000 traffic deaths per year for example. But, as terrible as those deaths and injuries are, they do not imperil our culture, our nation or the survival of the human race. We are less willing to accept such risks when the consequences happen all at once -- plane crashes for example. That is our human nature. We are willing to spend much more to lower the risk of death in groups than chronic deaths spread out over time and space. As a people, as caretakers for future people, we cannot create unnecessary catastrophic risks like biosphereicide, the agonizing death of billions.
Elections Impact – Iran Strikes Module MCCAIN WILL STRIKE IRAN
Jones, 2007 (Terry, “Saved By the Bomb: Senator McCain Has Hit Upon A Solution to All the Republican Party’s Woes: A Nuclear War With Iran”, Common Dreams News) “Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John McCain was asked what should be done about Iran. He responded by singing, “Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran”, to the tune of the Beach Boys’ Barbara Ann. (Join the hilarity and see for yourself on YouTube.) How can any thinking person disagree? I mean, any country with a president who doesn’t shave properly and never wears a tie deserves what’s coming to it - a lot of American bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don’t miss out on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism. The problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year’s US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican party re-elected. This is essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is discovering what a shoddy job Halliburton has been doing. In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the US - inspectors have discovered buckled floors, crumbling concrete, failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance.
The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more problematic as opinion turns against George Bush’s little invasion of Iraq. Even Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as “an illegal foreign occupation”; his nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn’t been returning calls for weeks. More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise. The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III called a “poisonous” environment has begun to dent fundraising - an unheard-of problem for the Republicans. So the only solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and amusingly suggests. The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the job properly and go nuclear. Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the country uninhabitable for years. With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring more costs. But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that the world would be totally changed. A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis “Scooter” Libby signed a statement for the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative thinktank. They rather hoped for “some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor” to kickstart their dream of a world run by US military might. A nuclear war would do the trick in spades. The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or even 100 years. Of course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in the process, but that shouldn’t be a problem as long as there are anti-radiation suits for White House and Pentagon staff. Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner what’s left of the world’s oil reserves. In 1955 Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said the world was faced by a “stark and dreadful and inescapable” choice: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” Senator McCain wasn’t bothered by such questions; the human race may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of permanent reelection.”
IMPACT IS WORLD WAR THREE AND NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE
Chossudovsky, 2007 (Michel, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, Global Research, September 16, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070916&articleId=6792) Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in Congressional debates. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022. Tactical nuclear weapons directed against Iran have also been deployed at military bases in several NATO non-nuclear states including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey. It should be understood that even without the
use of nukes, the proposed US aerial bombardments of Iran's nuclear facilities could result in a nuclear Chernobyl type disaster on a significnatly larger scale. World War III Scenario While the war on Iran is acknowledged by the Western media, it is not front page news. The broad implications of an impending catastrophe are simply not addressed. Escalation could lead us into a World War III scenario. Through media disinformation, the seriousness of a US-led war on Iran allegedly in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the "international community" is downplayed . The objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led military operation, which would inevitably lead to escalation. War propaganda consists in "fabricating an enemy" while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government. "Make the World safer", "prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace". "Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states"... Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
Elections Impact – Iran Strikes Ext. OBAMA WILL PURSUE DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN
Robinson, 2008 (Dan, Reporter for Capitol Hill, “Obama Pledges Security for Israel, Toughness, Diplomacy on Iran”, VOA News) “Referring to threatening statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against Israel, Senator Obama said his goal would be to eliminate what he called the real and grave danger of Iran's activities in support of terrorism and pursuit of nuclear capabilities, which Iran denies. "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything," he said. At the same time, he again sought to contrast his approach with presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, on the question of how to engage with Iran. Obama says he would personally lead diplomatic efforts, carefully prepared with a specific agenda, and coordinated with key allies. "Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversary just for the sake of talking," he said. "But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if, it can advance the interests of the U.S. That is my position. I want it to be absolutely clear." There should be no doubt, Obama added, that as president he would never take the threat of military action off the table, but said any use of military force is more likely to succeed if diplomatic efforts are first exhausted.”
Elections Impact – Terrorism Module OBAMA WIN IS CRITICAL TO STOP TERRORISM
Khalil, 2008 (Yasser, Researcher and Journalist, “Muslim World Speaks Out On Obama”, Turkish Daily News, June 27) “US Senator Barack Obama represents a phenomenon that has drawn global attention and captivated the minds of Muslims around the world as he wages a spirited campaign to become the next president of the United States. In spite of the campaign's heated debate and some controversial rhetoric regarding Islam, large segments of Muslims remain fascinated with the election and have become big fans of Obama. This level of support for an American presidential candidate is unprecedented in the Muslim world. The fact that it comes amidst an almost unanimous feeling of indignation and rage towards US foreign policy – particularly in Iraq and Palestine – makes it even more noteworthy. The simple explanation is that many Muslims see new reason for hope in the political approach of Obama and his advisors. His apparent eagerness to rally more international support for US policy, and even talk to America's "enemies", is cause for optimism. Imagine what global politics might look like in Iraq, or Sudan, or Afghanistan, if Obama-like vision had influenced US leadership earlier. As an Arab Muslim in Egypt who is affected by US foreign policy, I believe an Obama approach may help solve the accumulated problems between Muslims and the United States that have become more aggravated since the September 11 terrorist attacks. New and more creative techniques for dealing with extremists instead of the controversial methods used by the current US administration could also stop giving Al Qaeda and other such groups the pretext for recruiting new members. Then, perhaps, extremists would lose the arguments that fuel their criminal machine and lead them to destroy innocent people.”
TERRORISM RESULTS IN EXTINCTION
Sid-Ahmed, 2004 (Mohammed, Political Analyst, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm) WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK BY TERRORISTS? EVEN IF IT FAILS, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. SOCIETIES WOULD CLOSE IN ON THEMSELVES, POLICE MEASURES WOULD BE STEPPED UP AT THE EXPENSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, TENSIONS BETWEEN CIVILISATIONS AND RELIGIONS WOULD RISE AND ETHNIC CONFLICTS WOULD PROLIFERATE. IT WOULD ALSO SPEED UP THE ARMS RACE AND DEVELOP THE AWARENESS THAT A DIFFERENT TYPE OF WORLD ORDER IS IMPERATIVE IF HUMANKIND IS TO SURVIVE. But the still more critical scenario is IF THE ATTACK SUCCEEDS. THIS COULD LEAD TO A THIRD WORLD WAR, FROM WHICH NO ONE WILL EMERGE VICTORIOUS. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, THIS WAR WILL BE WITHOUT WINNERS AND LOSERS. WHEN NUCLEAR POLLUTION INFECTS THE WHOLE PLANET, WE WILL ALL BE LOSERS.
Elections Impact – OCS Drilling Module MCCAIN SUPPORTS OFFSHORE DRILLING
– OBAMA DOES NOT
Fox News, 6/19/2008 On Monday, GOP presidential candidate John McCain made lifting the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development a key part of his energy plan. McCain said states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts and get some of the royalty revenue. He repeated the call Tuesday, with his campaign launching an ad faulting Bush for not getting behind domestic production sooner. "In effect, our petrodollars are underwriting tyranny, anti-Semitism, the brutal repression of women in the Middle East, and dictators and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years.
OCEAN DRILLING CAUSES METHANE HYDRATE RELEASE
Industries in Transition, 2002 (September, Lexis) Ocean drilling plays a critical role in addressing questions about hydrates because it provides the only means available of directly sampling the material and the sediments that host them deep beneath the seafloor. In 1995, ODP researchers drilled into gas hydrates in a relatively stable area off the U.S. East Coast. Scientists have estimated that area could contain enough methane to supply U.S. energy needs for more than 100 yr. They also found evidence suggesting that hydrates are involved in the global climate cycle, and that they can cause massive landslides.
METHAN HYDRATE RELEASE WILL FRY THE PLANET CAUSING EXTINCTION
Inside Energy, 2001 (November 5) 'If we begin as a civilization to exploit methane hydrates, and use technology experimentally, we may destabilize methane hydrates and create a real big jump of methane hydrates release to the atmosphere,'' Charter said. ''If it could end the ice age, what if it were induced by man on top of the current global warming change? ... We may not just say, 'oops, we ended the ice age.' But, 'oops,' we fried the planet.' It's best to understand the implications before we go poking around the Earth.''
Elections Impact – OCS Drilling Ext. MCCAIN WILL LIFT THE BAN ON OCS DRILLING, OBAMA WILL NOT
Times, 6/18/2008 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4159793.ece) John McCain called for an end to the 27-year ban on offshore oil production as he risked tainting his green credentials with an attempt to tap the fears and resentment of American voters over $4-a-gallon (£2) petrol prices. The Republican presidential nominee’s speech in Houston triggered a swift reaction from his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, who accused him of betraying previous promises on the environment. Both sides recognise that the 74-per cent increase in prices at the pump over the last 18 months has been one of the biggest contributors to a growing sense of insecurity for voters who grew up on cheap fuel. Although petrol costs might still seem low compared to those in Britain — where prices are at least twice as high — the attachment of Americans to their cars and the distances driven daily by suburban or rural families has sent a shock of pain across the political spectrum.
Alternative Energy – Popular Among Public PUBLIC STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY
Grey, 2001 (Thomas O., AWEA Communications Director, “Wind Energy Views on the Environment: CLean and Green”) The Vermont survey was mailed to a random sample of residents in the town of Searsburg, where a 6-megawatt wind farm was planned (and has since been built). Sixty-three percent of those receiving the survey questionnaire completed it, a very high percentage. Of those responding, 89% said they would like to see increased use of wind energy, compared with 79% for hydro, 53% for municipal waste, 47% for gas, 25% for nuclear, 22% for wood, 6% for coal, and 5% for oil.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES ARE POPULAR AMONG THE PUBLIC
Electrtic Light and Power Magazine, 2008 (Electric Light and Power Magazine and Utilitu Automation & Engineering T&D Magazine (Joint Website), “New Report Finds Majority of Americans Want Solar Power, June 19) A recent poll has found that a majority of Americans, across all political parties, support development and funding of solar energy. According to the study, ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. The findings were reported in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer, a survey conducted by the polling firm Kelton Research. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. Eighty-six percent of Independents supported the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were president, 41 percent of Americans picked solar. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent) and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended.
MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008 (“Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy”, March 6) However, there continues to be substantial agreement across partisan lines on several areas of energy policy. Roughly 90% of Republicans, Democrats and independents support tougher auto fuel standards, and about 80% in each group favor more federal funding for research into alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydrogen technology.
Alternative Energy – Popular Among Public MASSIVE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Broder and Connelly, 2007 (John M. and Marjorie, New York times, “Poll Finds Majority See Threat in Global Warming”, April 26) The poll also found that Americans want the United States to support conservation and to be a global leader in addressing environmental problems and developing alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuels like oil and coal. Americans broadly support using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power and say fueling vehicles with ethanol, which is now made largely from corn, is a good idea, the survey found. They also are nearly evenly split on building nuclear power plants to reduce reliance on imported energy sources. When asked whether they would accept a nuclear plan in their community, they said no, 59 percent to 36 percent.
Alternative Energy – Popular In Congress OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FOR THE USE OF ALTERNAITVE SOURCES OF ENERGY
NYT, 2006 (New York Times, December 10) Now some analysts and money managers are hoping the imminent Democratic takeover of Congress will also be bullish for alternative energy stocks by improving prospects for favorable legislation for the industry. One likely initiative, known as a national renewable portfolio standard, would require utilities to derive 10 percent of their electricity output from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, less than 3 percent of electricity is generated from such sources. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the presumptive chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, says he hopes to pass “some version” of a renewable portfolio standard in the next Congress. The details of such legislation — as well as whether it would be approved by Congress and signed by President Bush — are very much uncertain. But that hasn’t stopped investors from placing their bets.
Democrats may be in the forefront, but they aren’t the only ones to jump on the alternative energy bandwagon, said Randy Gwirtzman, a research analyst at Baron Capital, which is based in New York. “Both sides of the aisle have shown they’re in favor of alternative energy sources,” he said. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, for example, is concerned about the nation’s reliance on imported oil. “With the surging prices of oil,” he said, “there’s a strong feeling among Republicans that our economy and national security can be damaged if we don’t decrease our dependency.” Mr. Gwirtzman recommends shares of SunPower, which he said has a highly competitive solar-cell product line that is well positioned to benefit from a more sympathetic Congress. Stuart Bush, technology analyst at RBC Capital Markets based in Austin, Tex., also likes SunPower, which is a spin-off of Cypress Semiconductor. Mr. Bush says SunPower solar cells are more efficient than the industry average in converting solar energy into electricity. Unlike many other alternative energy companies, SunPower already generates a small profit, and its revenue could reach $600 million next year and $1 billion in 2008, Mr. Bush said. A renewable portfolio standard should help alternative energy move closer to parity with traditional energy sources, Mr. Bush said. “Each technology individually is on a path to reducing costs and achieving parity with traditional energy sources, some very dramatically. The wind industry is probably closest to achieving economic viability without any support” from the federal government. One company he favors is Zoltek, which makes lightweight carbon-fiber blades for wind turbines. Zoltek could also be helped by a longer extension of federal renewable energy tax credits, a legislative goal of wind-energy lobbyists. The production tax credits, which reward electricity producers for each kilowatt of energy they generate from renewable sources, are scheduled to expire next year. In the past, the credits have typically been extended for two years at a time, which the wind-energy industry maintains is too short a period to stimulate long-term investment.
Democrats will support a longer extension, Senator Bingaman said. “Clearly, we do need to extend those tax credits that relate to renewable energy, and we need to do so for a longer period,” he said. A consensus on alternative energy is perhaps closest in biofuels, which have the support of many Republicans, particularly from farm belt and southern states. “I do think we need to increase the use of biofuels as much and as quickly as possible,” Senator Sessions said.
Alternative Energy – Bush & GOP Supports BUSH AND REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS SUPPORT ALTERNRATIVE ENERGY
– 2005 ENERGY BILL PROVES
Smith, 2005 (Don C., “RE Gains? The US Policy Act of 2005”, Science Direct, Volume 6 Issue 5, September) When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, one of his expressed goals was to push through a new energy policy. As a first step, the president assembled a major task force, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, to study the country's energy situation. The aim was to prepare a strategy to “address the nation's energy needs for the 21st century.” Despite the president's investment of time and political capital, however, the energy bill stalled in the 107th and 108th Congresses. Nevertheless, this year the political climate changed and with - among other things - the support of more Republican members of the U.S. Senate the energy bill1was passed. At the top of the list was the extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy and biomass electricity. Under the legislation, the “placed-in-service” date to which the 1.9 cents per kWh credit applies was extended through 2007. The credit applies over the first 10 years of a project's operation, and is a particularly critical factor in financing wind farms. Randell Swisher, American Wind Energy Association executive director, lauded this provision and said, “This is the first time that an extension of the production tax credit for wind energy has been approved before the credit expires, and, following the past six years of boom-and-bust cycles caused by successive expirations, that is very good news for the industry.” Consequently, the passage of the PTC portends strong growth momentum for wind energy at least in 2006 and 2007. The wind industry was also encouraged by provisions requiring that utility system reliability rules to be developed be non-discriminatory and that incentives be provided to encourage construction of new and upgraded transmission lines. “By requiring that new national reliability rules be non-discriminatory and by providing incentives to ease transmission bottlenecks, the [bill] chips away at two important barriers to continued wind energy development in this country,” Mr. Swisher said. “These long-term reliability and transmission provisions could help level the playing field and brighten the long-term planning horizon for wind power.” The bill also represented “the strongest national policy for solar power in two decades,” according to Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. For the first time since 1985, homeowners who install solar energy systems will receive a tax credit worth 30 percent of the system cost, capped at $2,000. Businesses that purchase solar equipment will also receive a credit worth 30 percent of the system cost. “These tax credits will bring solar power costs over the tipping point in many areas of the country,” Mr. Resch said.
Alternative Energy – Bush Supports BUSH SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES
Bush, 2008 (President Bush, Speech on June 18, Office of the Press Secretary) In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.
Alternative Energy – GOP Opposes REPUBLICANS OPPOSE GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Edwards, 2008 (John G., “Bill To Lift Solar Power Halted By Republicans”, Las Vegas Review Journal, June 18) The solar energy industry is poised to pump billions of dollars into the Nevada economy and create thousands of jobs - but advocates say the Senate on Tuesday shot down a bill needed to give the sun power industry a jump-start. Republicans for the second time in a week prevented the Senate from taking up a tax bill providing more than $50 billion in renewableenergy credits and tax breaks for families and businesses. The vote Tuesday to move to the legislation was 52-44, eight short of the 60 votes needed. Only five Republicans voted to end the filibuster against action on the bill; others objected to the Democratic plan to pay for the tax relief by making some hedge fund managers and multinational corporations pay more taxes.
Alternative Energy – Democrats Support STRONG DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Mufson, 2007 (Steven, Washington Post Staff Writer, “Democrats Hope to take From Oil, Give to Green Energy”, Washington Post, January 4) House Democrats are crafting an energy package that would roll back billions of dollars worth of oil drilling incentives, raise billions more by boosting federal royalties paid by oil and gas companies for offshore production, and plow the money into new tax breaks for renewable energy sources, congressional sources said yesterday.
DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES
Lengell, 2007 (Sean, “Democrats Eye Cutting Dependence on Foreign Oil; Plan Pushes Renewable Energy Such As Wind, Solar, Geothermal”, Washington Times, June 29) The House's Democratic leaders are planning an end of summer energy onslaught - a broad legislative push designed to make the nation less dependent on foreign oil. The developing plan would extend existing tax credits for the production of renewable energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power, and create new incentives for the use and production of renewable energy.
DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Lautenberg, 2008 (Senator Frank, Weekly Democratic Radio Address, democrats.senate.gov, April 26) “Democrats are fighting hard for change, and we have made real progress. We passed a new energy bill that begins to turn the tide by improving gas mileage for cars and trucks, investing in clean, renewable fuels and other smart energy steps, such as improving the energy efficiency of our buildings. “The long-term solution to our energy crisis lies in alternative fuels and efficiency. If we aggressively promote innovation in solar, wind, biofuels and geothermal power, we can help lower energy prices, turn the tide on global warming and strengthen our national security. And while we’re doing all that, we will be creating hundreds of thousands of good new jobs right here in America.
Biofuels – Popular In Congress BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FROM BIOFUELS
Whitman, 2006 (Christine Todd, President of the Whitman Strategy Group, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, “Open Dialogue on Environment Key to Improving Faith in Government”, June 27) Similarly, representatives of both parties have shown support for increased production of renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass fuels. Domestic production of these renewable fuels is not only good for the environment, but also promotes rural economic development and may lessen the international trade gap. American innovation, in this case to improve the environment and stimulate economic growth, can always count on bipartisan support.
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR BIOFULES IN CONGRESS
The Hill, 2007 (“Rapidly Growing Investment in Biofuels Catches Markets Off-Guard”, March 6) Biofuels find significant bipartisan support in the United States and a number of supportive policy ideas are being floated in and around Congress. These include raising RFS standards significantly, implementing loan guarantees or tax breaks, or improving infrastructure for ethanol use. Senators have proposed mandates in these areas rather than softer supports. The focus on distribution infrastructure reflects a fear that production capacity will grow while demand is stunted by a lack of access, leading to an ethanol glut.
Biofuels – Popular Among Public MAJORITY OF PUBLIC WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO DO MORE TO PROMOTE BIOFUELS
Energy Resource, 2006 (“Majority of US Adults Would Give Thumb’s Up to Candidates Who Support Biofuel Development”, October 25) Four of every five U.S. adults say they are likely -- and four out of every 10 say they are very likely -- to support federal and state political candidates who favor providing incentives to promote increased national production and availability of biofuels, a new survey shows. Released today by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the survey conducted by Harris Interactive also finds that 50% of U.S. adults strongly agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels, which are made from agricultural crops or plant matter. Additionally, 82% of adults say national and state governments should provide financial incentives to biofuels producers to encourage the production and availability of biofuels. "A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote greater development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil," said Brent Erickson, executive vice president of BIO's Industrial & Environmental Section. "And they seem ready to support political candidates who support biofuels and favor such incentives."
OVERWHELMING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR BIOFUELS
BIO, 2006 (Biotechnology Industry Organization, “Survey Shows U.S. Adults Support Government Incentives for Biofuels”, October 18) Four in five U.S. adults (80%) strongly or somewhat agree that national and state governments are not doing enough to promote production of biofuels -- fuels made from agricultural crops or plant matter -- according to a new survey released by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of BIO, said, "Developing domestic biofuels and ending our over-reliance on foreign oil appear to be top concerns among Americans in this election year, our survey finds. Reducing dependence on oil and lessening environmental impacts are important to our nation's future economic growth and competitiveness. A strong majority of Americans clearly support federal and state financial incentives to promote development of biofuels such as ethanol that can help end our addiction to oil. And they are ready to support political candidates who favor such incentives."
PUBLIC SUPPORTS BIOFUELS
– SPECIFICALLY ETHANOL
Pew Research Center for People and the Press, 2008 (“Public Sends Mixed Signals on Energy Policy”, March 6) Comparable majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents also favor more funding for ethanol research, but support for this policy has slipped among all three groups since February 2006.
Biofuels – Bush Supports BUSH SUPPORTS THE USE OF BIOFULES
Rohter, 2006 (Larry, “With Big Boost From Sugar Cane, Brazil is Satisfying it’s Fuel Needs”, New York Times, April 10) In his State of the Union address in January, Mr. Bush backed financing for ''cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but wood chips and stalks or switch grass'' with the goal of making ethanol competitive in six years.
INCENTIVES FOR BIOFULES HAVE THE SUPPORT OF BUSH
DOE, 2007 (U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding”, February 28) Today’s announcement is one part of the Bush Administration’s comprehensive plan to support commercialization of scientific breakthroughs on biofuels. Specifically, these projects directly support the goals of President Bush’s Twenty in Ten Initiative, which aims to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector to the equivalent of 35 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2017. Funding for these projects is an integral part of the President’s Biofuels Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels, electricity, and other products. The solicitation, announced a year ago, was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. However, in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative, within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Section 932, Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling.
Biofuels – Democrats Support DEMOCRATS SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF BIOFUELS
Bellatoni, 2006 (Christina, “Democrats Push Ethanol Growth; Bills Promote Alternative Energy, ‘Flex Fuel’ Vehicles”, Washington Times, May 12) House Democrats said yesterday that the answer to the fuel crisis is growing in the fields of rural America, and they introduced bills to expand production of ethanol. "We can grow new energy here at home from American farms to American families," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota Democrat.
Cap & Trade – Republicans Oppose REPUBLICANS OPPOSE CAP AND TRADE REGULATION
Hunt, 2008 (Tam, Community Environmental Council, Renewable energy World.com, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story?id=52717) This brings us back to cap and trade. Any legislation that could be passed by this Congress this year and not vetoed by President Bush will have far less impact on consumer behavior than market forces are already achieving. Republicans in Congress have a decent point when they say the last thing consumers need right now is even higher prices due to federal legislation (though higher prices in the short and mid-term would likely lead to longer-term cost savings for consumers as alternatives came online in a big way).
Cellulosic Ethanol – Lobbies Support POWERFUL POLITICAL INTEREST GROUPS SUPPORT CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
Lashinsky and Schwartz, 2004 (Adam and Nelson D., “How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline, Forever”, Fortune Magazine, January 26) What's more, powerful political lobbies in Washington that never used to concern themselves with botanical affairs are suddenly focusing on ethanol. "Energy dependence is America's economic, environmental, and security Achilles' heel," says Nathanael Greene of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a mainstream environmental group. National- security hawks agree. Says former CIA chief James Woolsey: "We've got a coalition of tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, hawks, and evangelicals." (Yes, he did say "evangelicals"--some have found common ground with greens in the notion of environmental stewardship.)
Cellulosic Ethanol – Bush Supports BUSH SUPPORTS THE TRANSITION TO CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
DOE, 2007 (U.S. Department of Energy, “DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding”, February 28) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385 million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. This production will help further President Bush’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012 and, along with increased automobile fuel efficiency, reduce America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years.
Corn Ethanol – Unpopular Among Public PUBLIC OPPOSES THE MANDATE FOR CORN ETHANOL
National Center for Public Policy Research, 2008 (“Farm-Belt Voters Favor Eliminating or Reducing Corn Ethanol Mandate, Poll Finds”, June 10) Most Americans, including those living in the Farm Belt, want Congress to reduce or eliminate the corn ethanol mandate, according to a new poll released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The poll, published by the Public Opinion and Policy Center of the National Center for Public Policy Research, found that 41% of Americans want Congress to repeal the corn ethanol mandate entirely, while 35% want Congress to repeal the law it passed just last December, which will double it. Just 6% want the mandate to increase as planned while 5% want it to be even expanded further.
Corn Ethanol – GOP Opposes REPUBLICANS OPPOSED GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CORN ETHANOL
Associated Press, 2008 (June 30) The Environmental Protection Agency is being urged to reduce ethanol production this year. Almost 50 House Republicans say the energy law requiring production of 9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 has pushed up corn prices, hurting low-income people and livestock producers. The Agriculture Department says 30 to 35% of this year's corn crop is slated for ethanol. Corn prices are up more than 80% in the past year. This year's crop is being hurt by flooding in the Midwest and drought in the South. The Agriculture Department says farmers will harvest 9% fewer acres of corn this year. The House Republicans say the administration could immediately affect the supply of corn used for food and feed.
Corn Ethanol – Democrats Are Split DEMOCRATS ARE SPLIT ON CORN ETHANOL
LA Times, 2007 (November 28) But a plan to dramatically increase ethanol production has become a major sticking point in congressional negotiations to complete work on the bill. And it has created a challenge for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose Democratic caucus has split over the issue. Pro-ethanol Democrats and farm groups want the bill to require a nearly fivefold increase by 2022 in the amount of home-grown alternative fuels that must be blended into gasoline. They say the mandate would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and help America’s farmers. Democrats on the other side, joined by environmental and food-industry groups, think the mandate could raise the price of corn used for food; harm the environment by using more land to produce biofuels; and gouge taxpayers by expanding ethanol subsidie.
Geothermal Energy – Bush Opposes BUSH OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
Butler, 2007 (Rhett A., “Bush Administration Cuts Funding for Geothermal Energy”, Mongabay.com an Environmental Science and Conservation News Site, March 13) The Bush Administration is seeking to eliminate federal funding for geothermal energy research according to a report from Reuters. Oddly, the move comes as the White House has made a push for renewable energy to reduce dependence on foreign oil imports. Apparently the administration appears to be focused on biofuels as liquid fuels and nuclear for electricity generation. "The Department of Energy has not requested funds for geothermal research in our fiscal-year 2008 budget," Reuters quoted Christina Kielich, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, as saying. "Geothermal is a mature technology. Our focus is on breakthrough energy research and development."
Hydrogen Cars – Popular Among Public AMERICAN PUBLIC INCREASINGLY SUPPORTS HYDROGEN POWERED VEHICLES
Nguyen, 2008 (Daisy, Associated Press, “Hydrogen Fuel Station Opens in LA”, July 3) Although there are few hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles on the road, supporters hope the station will show the public that hydrogen can become a mainstream, eco-friendly alternative to petroleum. California officials see it as part of the Hydrogen Highway, a developing network of fueling stations to promote commercialization of hydrogen-powered cars. "It was only a few years ago that this was just a concept; now you can see it, touch it and feel it," Fred Joseck, technology analyst of the U.S. Department of Energy's hydrogen program, said at the opening ceremony.
Nuclear Energy – Popular Among Public NUCLEAR ENERGY IS POPULAR AMONG THE PUBLIC
Taylor, 2006 (James M, Managing Editor of Environment and Climate News at the Heartland Institute, “Public Favors Nuclear Power: Poll”, October 1) Twice as many Americans support nuclear power as oppose it, according to a new poll by Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times. In a telephone poll of nearly 1,500 Americans conducted from July 28 through August 1, 61 percent of respondents said they support the increased use of nuclear power as a way to contain projected global warming, while only 30 percent opposed it. The poll continues a trend of ever-increasing public support for nuclear power as a clean, economical, and environmentally friendly power source. Global warming fears have swayed many former opponents to support nuclear power. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll results, published August 4, are in line with increasing support for nuclear power in newspaper editorial departments. Shortly after the poll results were released, the Miami Herald and Kalamazoo Gazette published house editorials supporting increased use of nuclear power.
MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PUBLIC SUPPORTS NUCLEAR ENERGY
Bisconti, 2006 (Ann Stouffer, Ph.D. and President of Bisconti Research Inc., “Clear Majority of Americans Agree Nuclear Energy Will Play Important Future Role in Electricity Supply”, May) There is a consensus among Americans that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting the nation’s electricity needs in the years ahead, according to two March national public opinion surveys conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK NOP (formerly NOPWorld and RoperASW). Eighty-six percent of the public and 88 percent of college graduate voters agree that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting future electricity demand. Majorities also support license renewal for existing nuclear power plants and “definitely building” new nuclear power plants. Seventy-three percent of Americans would find it acceptable to add a new reactor at the nearest existing nuclear power plant site. The Nuclear Energy Institute sponsored the two surveys. The general public survey was based on telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 and older. The margin of error in this survey was plus or minus three percentage points. A national sample of 500 college graduates who are registered to vote also was surveyed, with a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.
Nuclear Energy – GOP Supports GOP SUPPORTS RELIANCE ON NUCLEAR POWER
NEI, 2000 (Nuclear Energy Institute, News Release, “Republican Platform Recognizes Nuclear Energy’s Environmental Benefits”, July 30) The Republican National Convention today voted on its national platform, which recognizes nuclear energy, along with hydro power, as America's leading sources of clean electricity. The platform language states: "The current administration has turned its back on the two sources that produce virtually all the nation's emission-free power: nuclear and hydro, the sources for nearly 30 percent of the country's electricity. Because of cumbersome federal relicensing of hydro and nuclear operations, we face the prospect of increasing emissions and dirtier air." The following is a statement by John Kane, vice president of governmental affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, in response to the platform language.
RPS – Controversial In Congress FEDERAL RPS IS EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL
– GENERATES RIFTS WITHIN CONGRESS
Davenport, 2007 (Coral, Congressional Quarterly Staff, “A Clean Break in Energy Policy”, CQ Weekly, October 8) Experts believe Congress is more likely to embrace the renewable energy standard than other climate-change proposals that require especially difficult political trade-offs, such as imposing new carbon taxes. But the renewable standard, proposed by New Mexico Democratic Rep. Tom Udall and Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Todd R. Platts, remains enormously contentious. It faces powerful opposition from many big, investor-owned utilities that would probably have to raise rates and cut shareholder dividends in order to pay for more expensive electricity. The companies’ Washington trade group, the Edison Electric Institute, has branded the proposal “little more than an electricity tax” consumers would have to pay on top of the energy they use. Coal producers and the United Mine Workers are also strenuously fighting the mandate. So is President Bush, who, notwithstanding his support for the Texas renewable energy standard, believes such mandates should be confined to those states that want them. The proposal is also creating regional rifts within Congress. House members and senators from the Southeast contend that their region will have to shoulder an especially heavy burden because of a shortage of wind power, meaning utilities in states such as Georgia and Tennessee would have to import considerable amounts of renewable energy from elsewhere. Those objections convinced senators to refuse to take up a renewable energy standard that Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico proposed this summer, despite the fact that the chamber endorsed similar proposals three times in the past. Bingaman and Udall are prominent figures in the debate because their home state is a major source of geothermal energy.
RPS – Popular In Congress RPS IS EXTREMELY POPULAR IN CONGRESS
– IT WILL BUILD POLITICAL CAPITAL
NYT, 2006 (New York Times, December 10) Now some analysts and money managers are hoping the imminent Democratic takeover of Congress will also be bullish for alternative energy stocks by improving prospects for favorable legislation for the industry. One likely initiative, known as a national renewable portfolio standard, would require utilities to derive 10 percent of their electricity output from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, less than 3 percent of electricity is generated from such sources. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the presumptive chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, says he hopes to pass “some version” of a renewable portfolio standard in the next Congress. The details of such legislation — as well as whether it would be approved by Congress and signed by President Bush — are very much uncertain. But that hasn’t stopped investors from placing their bets. Democrats may be in the forefront, but they aren’t the only ones to jump on the alternative energy bandwagon, said Randy Gwirtzman, a research analyst at Baron Capital, which is based in New York. “Both sides of the aisle have shown they’re in favor of alternative energy sources,” he said. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, for example, is concerned about the nation’s reliance on imported oil. “With the surging prices of oil,” he said, “there’s a strong feeling among Republicans that our economy and national security can be damaged if we don’t decrease our dependency.” Mr. Gwirtzman recommends shares of SunPower, which he said has a highly competitive solar-cell product line that is well positioned to benefit from a more sympathetic Congress. Stuart Bush, technology analyst at RBC Capital Markets based in Austin, Tex., also likes SunPower, which is a spinoff of Cypress Semiconductor. Mr. Bush says SunPower solar cells are more efficient than the industry average in converting solar energy into electricity. Unlike many other alternative energy companies, SunPower already generates a small profit, and its revenue could reach $600 million next year and $1 billion in 2008, Mr. Bush said. A renewable portfolio standard should help alternative energy move closer to parity with traditional energy sources, Mr. Bush said. “Each technology individually is on a path to reducing costs and achieving parity with traditional energy sources, some very dramatically. The wind industry is probably closest to achieving economic viability without any support” from the federal government. One company he favors is Zoltek, which makes lightweight carbonfiber blades for wind turbines. Zoltek could also be helped by a longer extension of federal renewable energy tax credits, a legislative goal of wind-energy lobbyists. The production tax credits, which reward electricity producers for each kilowatt of energy they generate from renewable sources, are scheduled to expire next year. In the past, the credits have typically been extended for two years at a time, which the wind-energy industry maintains is too short a period to stimulate long-term investment. Democrats will support a longer extension, Senator Bingaman said. “Clearly, we do need to extend
those tax credits that relate to renewable energy, and we need to do so for a longer period,” he said. A consensus on alternative energy is perhaps closest in biofuels, which have the support of many Republicans, particularly from farm belt and southern states. “I do think we need to increase the use of biofuels as much and as quickly as possible,” Senator Sessions said.
RPS – Popular In Congress BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR RPS IN CONGRESS
Manka, 2007 (Maria Surma, Prominent Journalist, “Congress To Pass Federal Renewable Energy Standard?”, Green Options) The Dow Jones Newswire reports that Congress is “likely” to pass a renewable energy standard – in this instance called a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) – in the next several months. Renewable energy requirements have stronger support on both sides of the aisle as opposed to the more controversial limits on global warming emissions. Prudential Equity Group analyst James Lucier went so far as to say, “An RPS can almost certainly be done this year… It's one of the few things investors can count on in this Congress."
MASSIVE CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE PLAN
Synder, 2007 (Jim, Correspondent for The Hill, The Hill, August 3, http://thehill.com/business--lobby/disagreement-onrenewable-energy-complicates-bill-passage-2007-08-03.html) There is a Jenga-like quality to the delicate work of constructing national energy policy, where votes fall along regional lines as much as party affiliation. As Democratic leaders worked Thursday to build support for one of their top priorities before heading into the August recess, there was evidence of growing divisions within the caucus over efforts to promote renewable energy. Mandates for the production of renewable fuels for transportation and electricity generation enjoy significant support among Democrats and environmental groups, a key party constituency.
PLAN IS POPULAR AMONG DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
PRL, 2003 (Press Releases Live, April 8) U.S. Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Udall (D-CO), and Jim Leach (R-IA) Tuesday confirmed that they will likely offer an amendment to the House energy bill requiring electric utilities to acquire 20% of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources by 2025. The amendment is based on bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1294, which was introduced earlier this year. While its acceptance as an amendment and overall passage of the bill are uncertain, the federal lawmakers are actively seeking support from their colleagues to get the best possible vote on the floor. The House energy bill is not comprehensive without an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard, Tom Udall, a member of the House Resources Committee, said. We are urging Congress to heed calls from farmers and consumers to make this renewable portfolio standard part of this year's energy bill. I believe there is genuine, bipartisan support for this approach.
RPS – Democrats Support STRONG DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR A FEDERAL RPS
Clotter, 2007 (Christopher, J.D. University of Dayton School of Law, University of Dayton Law Review, Spring, Lexis) There also appears to be strong Democratic support for a federal RPS. n314 Democratic Senator and new Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Jeff Bingaman, has already created an investigation team to determine how a national RPS should be crafted. n315 Since Democratic leadership "is likely to support an RPS," there is at least some possibility that a federal RPS 10 or RPS 20 will be enacted soon.
Solar Energy – Popular In Congress BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FOR SOLAR POWER
Strain, 2008 (Jeffery, Freelance Personal Finance Writer, “Solar Power’s Great, But Is It Worth It?” The Street.com, June 12) With energy prices at all time highs, should you be looking to solar power to help your pocketbook? When it comes to politics, there aren't many issues where more than 90% of Republicans, Independents and Democrats can agree -- but that's exactly how things stand when it comes to developing solar power. According to a recently released SCHOTT Solar Barometer report, 91% of Republicans, 98% of Independents and 97% of Democrats believe it's in the vital interest of the U.S. to develop solar power.
Solar Energy – Unpopular In Congress CONGRESS OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR SOLAR ENERGY
Wilson, 2008 (Keplie, Freelance Writer Covering Energy and Environmental Issues, “Democrats Are Blowing Out Best Chance for Clean Energy”, June 30) On June 18th, Congress failed for the tenth time this year to pass an extension of the renewable energy tax credits that have nurtured the infant wind and solar power industries in the US but are set to expire at the end of 2008. The tax credit extension should have been included in the big renewable energy bill that Congress passed at the end of 2007, but Republicans blocked the provision because they didn't like closing oil tax loopholes to pay for it.
Solar Energy – Popular Among Public MASSIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SOLAR ENERGY
Electrtic Light and Power Magazine, 2008 (Electric Light and Power Magazine and Utilitu Automation & Engineering T&D Magazine (Joint Website), “New Report Finds Majority of Americans Want Solar Power, June 19) A recent poll has found that a majority of Americans, across all political parties, support development and funding of solar energy. According to the study, ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. The findings were reported in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer, a survey conducted by the polling firm Kelton Research. The survey revealed that 77 percent of Americans feel that the development of solar power, and other renewable energy sources, should be a major priority of the federal government. Eighty-six percent of Independents supported the statement. When asked which one energy source they would support if they were president, 41 percent of Americans picked solar. Solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than coal (3 percent). According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of Republicans (72 percent), Democrats (72 percent) and Independents (74 percent) favor an extension of the federal investment tax credits (ITC) as a way to encourage development of solar power and fund continued development of the technology. In contrast, only 8 percent of Americans believe the ITC should not be extended.
MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS SOLAR ENERGY
Solar Hope Online, 2007 (“Majority of Americans Favor Solar on New Homes”, June 2) According to a recent Roper survey commissioned by Sharp Electronics Corporation, nearly 90 percent of Americans think that solar electricity should be an option for all new home construction, up significantly from one year ago (79 percent). Three-quarters of survey respondents perceive solar power to be more important than ever, evidence that Americans recognize the value of solar as a clean, renewable form of energy.
Solar Energy – Bush Supports BUSH SUPPORTS SOALR ENERGY
Broehl, 2006 (Jesse, Editor of Renewable Energy Access, “President Bush Visits Solar Energy Facility”, February 21) Solar energy enjoyed its fair share of prime time exposure this week thanks to President George W. Bush who visited a solar manufacturing facility as part of his two-day tour aimed at shoring up support for his new energy initiatives he says will help wean U.S. dependence from foreign oil. "The ultimate goal is to have solar technology on your home, and that home will become a little power-generating unit unto itself, and that if you have extra electricity, that you could put it back in your grid, so you become a power producer, but you're using renewable sources of energy to power your homes and to fire up your refrigerators," Bush said. "And this is real. I really am thankful that the folks of this company gave me a chance to come and visit about it."Included in the Bush Administration's new energy proposals unveiled during his State of the Union Address is the Solar America Initiative (SAI), which proposes the largest funding increase for solar energy research in U.S. history. By 2015, this initiative aims to make solar power cost-competitive with conventional energy.
Wind Energy – Unpopular In Congress CONGRESS OPPOSES GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR WIND ENERGY
Wilson, 2008 (Keplie, Freelance Writer Covering Energy and Environmental Issues, “Democrats Are Blowing Out Best Chance for Clean Energy”, June 30) On June 18th, Congress failed for the tenth time this year to pass an extension of the renewable energy tax credits that have nurtured the infant wind and solar power industries in the US but are set to expire at the end of 2008. The tax credit extension should have been included in the big renewable energy bill that Congress passed at the end of 2007, but Republicans blocked the provision because they didn't like closing oil tax loopholes to pay for it.
Wind Energy – Democrats Support DEMOCRATS FAVOR WIND ENERGY
DNC, 2008 (Democratic National Committee, “Idaho Taking the Lead in Wind Energy”) Wind power is one of many technologies that Democrats want to invest in to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. From more fuel efficient cars to wind power to cleaner gas, Democrats have taken the lead in cutting our addiction to oil. Idahoans have shown that they are ready to take a lead in energy independence by their support for wind power and can be taken as a model for other states in the use of this emerging technology.