Obama Good - Links

SDI ‘08 Elections

Elections – Internals and General Links Elections – Internals and General Links.................................................................................................................................................. .....1 1NC Shell................................................................................................................................................................................ ....................2 1NC Shell................................................................................................................................................................................ ....................3 OBAMA WIN ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .....4 OBAMA WIN ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .....5 OBAMA WIN ........................................................................................................................................................................................ .....6 Energy Key Issue............................................................................................................................................................................. ............8 Alt Energy Link - General........................................................................................................................................................................... .9 Alternate Energy Link – General........................................................................................................................................... ....................10 Alt Energy Link - Independents............................................................................................................................................... ..................11 Ext – Independent Links........................................................................................................................................................... .................12 Ext – Independents Links...................................................................................................................................................................... .....13 Independents key.................................................................................................................................................................... ...................14 Alt Energy Link – Colorado ................................................................................................................................................................ ......15 Ext – Colorado Link.................................................................................................................................................................................. .16 Colorado Key....................................................................................................................................................................................... ......17 Alt Energy Link - Florida....................................................................................................................................................................... ....18 Ext – Florida Link............................................................................................................................................................................... .......20 Emission Cap Link................................................................................................................................................................................... ..21 Emission Cap Link................................................................................................................................................................................... ..22 Emission Cap Link................................................................................................................................................................................... ..23 Permits/Lieberman Warner Link.................................................................................................................................................. ..............24 Permits/Lieberman Warner Links............................................................................................................................................................. ..25 Warming Link................................................................................................................................................................................. ...........26 A2: GOP Opposes – Emissions Cap........................................................................................................................................................ ..27 A2: GOP Opposes - General..................................................................................................................................................... ................28 A2: Base Key................................................................................................................................................................................... .........29 A2: Oppose Economic Costs – General................................................................................................................................... .................30 A2: Oppose Economic Costs – Emission Cuts................................................................................................................................. .........31 A2: Opposes Economic Costs – Permits Specific.................................................................................................................. ...................32 Bush Key................................................................................................................................................................................. ..................33 Bush Key................................................................................................................................................................................. ..................34 Bush Key................................................................................................................................................................................. ..................35 A2: McCain Distances Himself.............................................................................................................................................................. ...36 Obama Solves – Alt Energy....................................................................................................................................................... ................37 Obama Solves – Emissions/Cap and Trade................................................................................................................................ ................38 Ext – Normal Means = Grandfater.................................................................................................................................................. ...........39 Ext – Grandfathering Bad........................................................................................................................................................ ..................40 Obama Solves – Biofuels/Cellulistic Ethanol.......................................................................................................................................... ...41

1

SDI ‘08 Elections

1NC Shell A. Uniqueness – (Or insert update card) OBAMA WILL WIN - INDEPENDENTS. CILLIZZA 6/26/08 [CHRIS, staff writer for washingtonpost.com, Washington Post.com, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062601307.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008062601354&pos=] Independents, who were widely written off during the 2004 election in favor of appeals by the candidates to their respective party bases, look likely to play a central role in picking the next president in these four battleground states. And for now, Obama has a clear edge over McCain among independent voters

in all four states. That lead is largest in Minnesota, where Obama takes 54 percent among independents compared with just 33 percent for McCain. The Democrat's lead was 13 points in Wisconsin, 12 in Colorado and eight in Michigan. Obama's lead among independents is all the more important given the large number of voters eschewing the two major parties in each state. In Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, roughly three-in-ten voters identify as independents; in Colorado that number is closer to four in ten. The political environment in each state suggests a decidedly uphill climb for McCain in the general election. In Colorado, just 31 percent of voters approve of the way President Bush is handling his job, while 63 percent disapprove. In Michigan, the numbers are even more dismal, with a meager 26 percent expressing approval of Bush and a whopping 67 percent disapproving.

B. Link 1. Supporting Alternate Energy Swings Election – its the key issue Young, 6/24/08 (Eric, NRDC, PR Newswire) "Tied into both the economy and the environment, energy will be the defining issue of this election," LCV President Gene Karpinski said. "The American people demand a new energy policy that breaks our addiction to oil and dirty coal. Members of Congress who fight for a clean, renewable energy future will be back to fight next year, but those who stand in the way will have to answer to the voters in November. A Gallup poll released today indicates that energy is the top issue priority for 51% American voters. ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx ). "Americans are feeling pain at the pump and many experts say high gas prices are here to stay," NRDC's Energy Advocate Jim Presswood said. "With prices set in the global marketplace and only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves here at home, there is simply nothing we can do to impact prices by drilling. The real solution is clear: we must take bold action to break our addiction to oil and transition to a clean energy future. A future where new cars like plug-in hybrids go farther on a gallon of gas, enhanced public transit systems give Americans more transportation options, and renewable sources of energy power our communities.

2

SDI ‘08 Elections

1NC Shell 2, Increasing Bush’s Popularity is the only way for McCain to win – its the vital internal link and he can’t distance himself Farmar, 5/21/08 (John, national political correspondent for The Star-Ledger of Newark, Times of Trenton, lexis) The most important name in this November's presidential and congressional elections won't be on the ballot in the fall. It's Herbert Hoo . . . oops, it's Bush, George W. Bush. As if more evidence was needed that Bush is the chief issue this year, last week's election of a Democrat in a deeply conservative and usually reliable Republican congressional district in Mississippi, of all places, underscores the fact that he has become toxic for his party, as close to a pariah as a president can get. Bush, whose approval ratings are lower than any previous president's, may be a nice guy, as his admirers insist, but he has made himself and the GOP label he embodies a liability for all those who'll run under the Republican banner this fall, from John McCain, the party's presidential standard-bearer, to any number of poor blokes running for sheriff in the boondocks. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the leaders of the GOP establishment in Washington. Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, for one, served as the canary in the mine shaft after the stunning victory May 13 of Democrat Travis Childers in Mississippi. In a 20-page memo to his House Republican colleagues, Davis wrote that "the political atmosphere facing Republicans this fall is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006." The GOP lost 30 House seats two years ago in districts that stretched from coast to coast; it could lose up to 25 more this year, Davis said. Republicans have gone through this kind of ordeal before, in each case as a result of a national revolt against a GOP president. In 1932, Herbert Hoover and Republicans suffered a crushing defeat, ushering in the New Deal era under Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. In November 1974, Republicans paid for Richard Nixon's breach of the public trust even though Nixon had resigned. Davis was not alone. "The Republican brand is down, and it is going to be hard to get it back," lamented Rep. Devlin Nunes, a California Republican. And New York Republican Rep. Peter King even suggested that, for safety sake, Republicans may have to find another identity - like figures in the witness protection program, say. "You are going to have to run on who you are," King said, "and establish some independence, and that is going to be tougher for some than others." What's ironic here is that many of the same Bush Republicans had little or no use for McCain who, because of his frequent breaks with Republican orthodoxy - on embryonic stem cell research, campaign finance reform and global warming - wears the GOP brand more lightly than most. But even McCain has the Bush monkey on his back, as Mike Huckabee, his erstwhile rival for the presidency and now a staunch supporter, observed after Childers' victory in Mississippi. "The Republican brand is badly damaged," Huckabee said. McCain, he said, "can't run on the Republican brand." How McCain can escape it, however, remains a mystery. He's tied hand and foot to Bush on the president's Iraq policy. But even more potentially damning is McCain's embrace of the Bush's unwise and unfair tax cut regime, which, if kept in place, would make it virtually impossible to deal rationally with the country's debt and entitlement spending problem - a first step toward restoring the value of the dollar.

3

SDI ‘08 Elections

OBAMA WIN OBAMA WILL WIN Economy FAUCHER 6/28/08

[Augustine, director of macroeconomics at Moody's Economy.com in West Chester, Pa, Boston Globe, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/28/economy_bodes_ill_wind_for_mccain/] HISTORICALLY, ECONOMIC conditions have played an enormous role in presidential elections, even as other factors come into play. Economic downturns are bad news for the incumbent, while expansions tend to lead to reelection. Franklin D. Roosevelt unseated Herbert Hoover in the depth of the Great Depression in 1932. Boom times helped reelect Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1996. For all the money and time

and effort that go into campaigning, the results of presidential elections often seem to track basic economic conditions. My employer, Moody's Economy.com, has developed a model to predict the outcome of the vote in each state, based on economic conditions at the time of the election. The results forecast the Electoral College vote. And as of June, the model is predicting a big victory for the Democrat, Senator Barack Obama.

All Electoral indicators MONTOPOLI 6/25/06 [BRIAN political correspondent, CBS NEWS http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/25/politics/horserace/entry4207063.shtml]

Does Barack Obama already have the presidency locked up? For Democrats, it might be tempting to think so. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll out yesterday shows Obama with a 12 point edge – an advantage that stretches to 15 points when Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are included.

The poll also suggests that more voters are identifying as Democrats than Republicans, and that John McCain is suffering from a “passion gap” – while just 58 percent of conservatives said they would vote for McCain, 79 percent of liberals vowed to vote for Obama. In addition, almost every metric in the race favors the Democratic candidate – among them the candidate’s fundraising ability, trends in party identification, and disenchantment with the current (Republican) president. McCain seems to realize that he faces an uphill battle: At a fundraiser yesterday, the presumptive GOP nominee said, “We are behind, we are the underdog. That’s what I like to be.”

4

SDI ‘08 Elections

OBAMA WIN McCain Imploding Jenkins, 6/30/08 [Paul, staff writer, Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/the-mccainbush-effecton_b_109881.html] When a Republican spokesperson recently said that "there are no safe Republican seats in this election," she was talking about Congressional races, but she may as well as have been describing the presidential election. It is increasingly clear that the Arizona Senator can rely on very few safe havens (perhaps even including his own state.) At this point, McCain can only count on 56 (!) electoral votes as being solidly in his camp (ie, those where he leads in most recent polling by more than 10 points). By contrast, Obama can count on close

to 200 (270 are needed.) It is hard to exaggerate the difficulty of the task ahead for McCain, even this long before the election. He is running 15 to 20% behind Bush in a whole series of red states where independents have not jumped back on his bandwagon, and where many of Bush's core supporters appear to be planning to sit it out (or vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate). McCain will not win by relying on reluctantly loyal GOP support in Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Kentucky, Kansas (barely), Nebraska, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Idaho, the only states where he is comfortably ahead. Meanwhile, Obama has basically already closed the deal in the entire Northeast and large swaths of Midwestern and Pacific ex-swing states. Much will happen over the next few months but there is nothing that McCain can do to rectify the situation. There is no reason for anyone to vote for a Republican in 2008, let alone for the party's current presidential candidate, except for those voters who hate abortion and gay people more than war and recession. They exist, sadly, but not likely in numbers large enough to make a difference. Bush has made a laughing stock of those who favored Republicans'

foreign and economic policies only to see a GOP administration get the US mired in nation-building and expanding deficits, and create a bigger, more powerful, more expensive and more intrusive Federal government. McCain is hardly the man to put the country back on the track where 78% thing it belongs: the Iraq war is as much his as it is Bush's, and he is equally as inept on economic issues.

Polls Angus Reid Global Monitor 6/29/08 [Angus Reid Global Monitor: Polls & Research “Obama has six point lead over mccain in US” http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31115/obama_has_six_point_lead_over_mccain_in_us]

Democrat Barack Obama is leading Republican John McCain, according to a poll by the Franklin and Marshall College’s Center for Opinion Research. 42 per cent of respondents would vote for the Illinois senator in this year’s United States presidential election, while 36 per cent would support the Arizona senator.

Multiple Reasons Barabak 6/29/08 [Mark, LA Times Staff writer, LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-namccain29-2008jun29,0,3957628.story] That campaign, not incidentally, was the last time the economy played such a large role in a presidential election.

In a worrisome sign for McCain, surveys show that economic issues again top the political agenda, with most voters saying Obama would do a better job addressing healthcare, record gas prices, even taxes -- usually a GOP strong suit -- than McCain. Part of Obama's advantage may be Democrats' image as the more compassionate party. Some of it may be McCain's clumsiness (or honesty); during the primary season he confessed to being less conversant on economic issues than on defense and national security matters, words that Democrats have gleefully thrown back at him. The biggest part may be guilt by association; many blame the current President Bush for the tough economic times and assume that McCain will continue his policies, with the same results, for another four years.

5

SDI ‘08 Elections

OBAMA WIN LATINO AND WOMEN VOTE AND SOLID BASE. Hogarth 7/1/08 [Paul, staff writer, Beyond Chron: San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5826]

But anyone who closely follows the election online knows that Obama has solidified the Democratic Party base – and is on a clear path to winning the presidency in November.

After Hillary Clinton suspended her primary campaign and endorsed Obama, pundits wrote (and still write) stories about disgruntled Hillary supporters who will vote for John McCain in the November election. Women are not supposed to vote for Obama because, according to Geraldine Ferraro, he’s run a “terribly sexist campaign.” Latinos are supposedly too racist to vote for a black candidate – and pundits say a sizable number will vote Republican (ignoring the party’s xenophobic jihad on immigration policy.) But the facts are getting into the way of that theory. A recent poll shows Latinos breaking 62-28

for Obama over McCain, with other polls showing similar results. When you consider that Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, it’s obvious that Latinos are deserting the G.O.P. in droves. Along with labor’s unprecedented get-out-the-vote effort to target that community in November, Obama is likely to pick up either Colorado, New Mexico or Nevada – and possibly all three states. And McCain has more to worry about Republican women deserting him than vice versa. Not only have Democratic women united behind Obama, but polling shows McCain’s anti-choice record (once women hear about it) is going to be a huge liability. “I'm sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election,” said Katha Pollitt in The Nation, “but I don't think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane.”

Obama will win the general because he has a solidified lead in all the states John Kerry won in 2004 – even swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. While the blue states won’t be enough to win the Presidency, it prevents Obama from having to play defense – giving him 252 electoral votes in the bag and shifting the battle into traditionally Republican states. OBAMA WILL WIN – HISPANIC VOTE Feierstein and Iparraguirre 6/28/08. [Mark, VP @ Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a Democratic polling firm, Ana, Sr, associate @ Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-feierstein-and-anaiparraguirre/obama-and-hispanics-anoth_b_109762.html]

6

SDI ‘08 Elections This is not some esoteric debate over a minor voting block.

To misread Hispanic voters is to miss a fundamental dynamic of the presidential race. For all the talk about race and gender, it is ethnicity that may determine the next president of the United States. Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic group in the country, and they turned out in the primaries in higher numbers relative to 2004 than any other segment of the population, except for voters under 30. As the presidential campaigns map out paths to 270 electoral votes, nearly every scenario involves winning a significant share of Hispanics, who will account for up to 1 in 10 voters in November. At the top of almost every list of swing states are four with sizeable Hispanic electorates - New Mexico (31 percent), Nevada (13 percent), Florida (11 percent) and Colorado (8 percent). George Bush won all four of these states in 2004 and all but New Mexico in 2000, but each one is likely to be competitive this year. Throughout the primaries, Hispanics were solidly behind Hillary Clinton, who benefited from positive memories of her husband's presidency and an opponent whose record and background were little known to many Latinos. Obama's relatively weak performance among Hispanics in the primary has helped fan the idea that he has a Latino problem or that Hispanics are disinclined to vote for black candidates. In fact, Obama is running well ahead of John McCain among Hispanics, and significantly

better than John Kerry did against George Bush in 2004. Obama's leads in national polls are due to his strong advantage (about 35 points) among Latinos. Take out Hispanics, and the race is effectively tied. The gains that Republicans made among Latino voters in 2000 and 2004 were erased in 2006, and there are few signs that McCain is in a position to win them back. The Republican brand name has been so severely damaged that it would be difficult for any Republican to retain much support among Hispanics this year. MCCAIN IS GOING TO LOSE – BUSH EFFECT. Jenkins, 6/30/08 [Paul, staff writer, Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/the-mccainbush-effecton_b_109881.html]

When John McCain clinched the GOP nomination, it was widely believed that his relative popularity among moderates and independents may well save the party from a Bush-caused bloodbath in November. Things, however, do not quite seem to be working out like that: Texas, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Alaska, Mississippi, and South Carolina are toss-ups or barely leaning to McCain, and dozens of House and Senate races in even the reddest of states are in play.

The horror of George W. Bush's presidency pushed away voters in the political center and now McCain is finishing the job, causing shrinkage at the far-right of the GOP while compounding the losses among independents. Rather than rallying disaffected Republicans and unaffiliated voters, McCain's candidacy is turning off the few remaining GOP loyalists. The result: a party with which only 25% of voters identify.

7

SDI ‘08 Elections

Energy Key Issue Energy policy determines election Staunton, 6/24 (Dennis, Irish Times EU Correspondent, lexis) BARACK OBAMA and John McCain have clashed over energy policy, accusing one another of pandering to voters as rising fuel prices have become a leading issue in the American election. Nine out of 10 Americans identify energy policy as very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, making it the top election issue, along with the economy.

Environment and energy are key issues – determine swing votes PR Newswire, 11/7/07 SYRACUSE, N.Y., Nov. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- With everyone paying attention to environmental issues -- even BP and WalMart are in the act -- it's no surprise that people plan to take the planet into consideration when choosing their president. Over 30,000 adults across the US were recently surveyed in the new Earthsense Eco-Insights Survey that profiles attitudes about global and national issues, candidates, green products, eco-friendly companies and purchase intent. Concern about energy prices and the environment resonates with more than half of all voters who indicate that it will have an extremely or strong impact on their vote in the upcoming presidential primaries. The issue is particularly salient among Democrats, especially likely John Edwards and Bill Richardson voters. More so than most other issues, the environment is politicized across party lines. Swing voters place a level of importance on the issue more similar to registered Democrats whose voting intentions are more firm; the importance of the issue for Republican voters lags by comparison.

Energy is the key issue – GOP must address NPR, 6/24/08 GOP Must Address Climate Change Energy policy has been fueling the debate between Barack Obama and John McCain this week. McCain has spent the past two days in California, promoting his proposals for greater energy independence. He faced protesters and chants of offshore no more today outside a town-hall-style appearance in Santa Barbara. Inside, McCain faced tough questions about his proposal to build more nuclear power plants and his call to end the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, a ban he once supported. Recognizing that energy is a key issue for voters, McCain has enlisted some top supporters to help sell his proposals. One of them is Republican governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. He's a national co-chair for McCain's campaign, and he's often mentioned as a possible running mate.

8

SDI ‘08 Elections

Alt Energy Link - General GOP must strengthen credentials on energy and environment to avoid election defeat National Journal, 10/20/07 As was indicated in the story on the energy bill in thatsame National Journal issue ["Fizzling Out?" p. 48], a GreenbergQuinlan poll for the League of Conservation Voters after the 2006 elections showed huge numbers of independents voting to change the leadership of Congress because they were dissatisfied with GOP leadership on the energy issues that are so critical in the debate over addressing global warming. This data and a follow-up survey suggest that this tendency will be even more pronounced in the 2008 elections.

Supporting Alternate energy steals key issue from democrats Raum, 6/24/08 (Tom, Writer, associate press, Lewiston morning tribune, lexis) If you pull into the Obama station, he'll promise you cash back from the windfall-profits tax he plans to slap on Big Oil. Check the tires? How about promises to go after oil-market speculators who help drive up prices as well as big subsidies for solar, wind, ethanol and other alternative-energy projects? The Illinois senator likens his energy package to the Kennedy-era space program. Oil and gas prices that have doubled in the past year have squeezed aside the war in Iraq as the No. 1 issue this election year and both parties are blaming each other for the price spike - and for apparent congressional paralysis. Obama and McCain have made high gas prices a top issue in their campaigns and have offered dueling remedies aimed at easing them. Their positions are being echoed daily by their surrogates on Capitol Hill. And both make it sound as if only their proposals would chart the path to lower fuel prices and a final cure for what President Bush once labeled the nation's addiction to foreign oil. This debate is certain to get louder as the November election approaches. In a USA Today-Gallup Poll released Monday, nine in 10 people said energy, including gas prices, would be very or extremely important in deciding their presidential vote in November, tying it with the economy as the top issue. People said Obama would do a better job than McCain on energy issues by 19 percentage points.

Alternate energy incentives cause GOP win – coopts criticism, steals a key issue and inaction hurts incumbent party Staunton, 6/24 (Dennis, Irish Times EU Correspondent, lexis) WASHINGTON - With consumers fuming over the high cost of gasoline, Republicans and Democrats each want to prove they alone offer the path to lower pump prices. Republicans argue that drilling in coastal waters, Alaska and the Rocky Mountain West will boost oil supplies. Democrats counter that alternative-energy development will free consumers from fossil-fuel captivity. The problem, energy analysts say, is that neither solution will cut prices right now. Even over the long term, only a marriage of the two approaches will work. And neither party will agree to a wedding in an election year with the Oval Office at stake. "The parties have a lot of incentive not to solve the problem and blame the other side," said Julian Zelizer, political-science professor at Princeton University and author of several books on Congress. "Unhappy voters are the voters people think can be swayed." In the last month, Democratic Reps. Mark Udall of Eldorado Springs and Ed Perlmutter of Golden and Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Fort Morgan have held news conferences at gas stations. Lawmakers know they must offer fixes, with pollsters for both sides saying voters list fuel costs as a top concern. There are no clear-cut solutions, however. High gas prices have started to prompt less driving, but they're still too low to force rapid change. Oil would need to hit $150 to $200 a barrel and stay there before private investment moves heavily into alternative fuels and transportation, said John Kilduff, energy analyst at MF Global in New York. Repealing Environmental Protection Agency limits on the sulfur content in diesel fuel would increase fuel supplies, said Philip Verleger, an Aspen-based energy economist. But that's politically difficult. Voters want anything that might work. In a Zogby International poll this month asking what government actions people favored to lower fuel costs, 60 percent backed encouraging domestic drilling. Almost as many, 59 percent, supported cutting demand by boosting fuel-efficiency standards, and 54 percent endorsed the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. The survey did not ask people to pick one option over another. Political advisers are coaching Republicans to talk about more drilling and renewable energy. Democratic strategists suggest giving solutions that include cracking down on oil speculators and pushing gas alternatives. They also advise blaming President Bush. Playing both ends against middle Presidential candidates are aiming for pleasing the political middle, analysts said. "There is a choice that is before folks," said Hari Sevugan, a spokesman in Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign. "Do we want leadership that's been tied to the folks making money from (high gas prices), or do we want leadership that's fighting for us on this?"

9

SDI ‘08 Elections

Alternate Energy Link – General Massive public support for alternate energy – new polls prove Marshall E. Purnell President, American Institute of Architects, CQ Testimony, 6/11/08 The American public believes the time is now to reduce energy usage and reduce the impacts of climate change. The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners recently conducted a nationwide poll of voters and found that 74 percent of those polled agreed that "the government should take the lead in promoting real estate development that conserves our natural resources." In addition, 71 percent of voters agreed that "the government should immediately put into effect new energy policies that drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions." The American public supports conserving our precious resources, and believes that it is in the best interests of our nation and the world to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel produced energy and move towards a sustainable future. Reducing energy use in our nation's homes would be a major step towards that goal.

Overwhelming public support for alternate energy – perceive inaction now Kull, 4/17/08 (Stephen, Director, World Public Opinion.org, http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr08/WPO_Oil_Apr08_pr.pdf) Of all countries polled, Americans are the most negative about their government’s performance in making efforts to replace oil as a primary energy source. More than three in four (76%) believe that their government should make long term plans to replace oil as a primary source of energy, while just 23% feel that enough new oil will be found. A majority (57%) says that the US government is acting based on the assumption that enough new oil will be found, while just 41% believe it is making plans on the assumption that oil will need to replaced as a primary energy source. Nearly nine in 10 (88%) feel that in 10 years, the cost of oil will be much (63%) or somewhat higher (25%) than it is now.

10

SDI ‘08 Elections

Alt Energy Link - Independents Must Reverse stance on energy and environment to win crucial swing voters National Journal, 4/23/08 When it comes to the White House, environmental issues could matter more in the general election than they have in the primaries, some political analysts say. Daniel Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, noted that the Energy Department is predicting that gasoline prices will rise to $3.40 a gallon this summer as campaigns heat up. He argued that high energy prices could hurt McCain because of his opposition to rolling back tax benefits for the oil companies and requiring electric companies to use more renewable sources of energy. McCain has, however, frequently supported legislation to require auto companies to produce more-fuel-efficient vehicles. If the environmental community decides to campaign against McCain, he won't feel much pain in the deep-red conservative states, where he has already been downplaying his green record. But green issues could be key to winning the purple-state moderates and independent voters who could decide the general election. "Linking clean energy and global-warming solutions to future economic growth is essential to appeal to swing voters in November," Weiss said.

Independent voters key Chusid, 6/17/08 (Ron, physician internal medicine, liberal values, lexis) The Washington Post shows the new conventional wisdom in writing that, "McCain needs support from independents because in recent elections, partisans have overwhelmingly supported their own party's candidates, and self-identified Democrats now outnumber Republicans." Suddenly elections are no longer decided by mobilizing the extremes but once again are decided by which direction the independents go. This story comes in a report of their recent poll which shows that Obama and McCain are even among independents. This might be accurate in terms of people who at this moment in time consider themselves independents, but it can be misleading if taking a long term view of politics. I'm less interested in those who say they are independents right now as opposed to a larger group of voters who shift party allegiance over the years. Many of the people I would consider independents currently label themselves as Democrats. Such voters considered themselves Republicans or independents in past elections but are no longer included in polls of independents. If these independent voters could be accurately polled, I'm confident that Obama would have a large lead among independents. McCain also gets a boost in a poll of self-identified independents as many people who now call themselves independents are people who were Republicans before George Bush. While we have only had one election since 1980 without a Bush on the ticket, this election remains heavily influenced by George Bush. It is largely due to the extremism and failed policies of George Bush that many former independents now consider themselves Democrats and that many former Republicans are now independents or Democrats. Bush approval has reached a new low at 29% in this poll, with views on Bush influencing views on McCain. While 80% of those who approve of George Bush are backing McCain only 26% of those who disapprove of Bush are supporting him. Newstex ID: LIBV-0001-26048891

11

SDI ‘08 Elections

Ext – Independent Links Reducing emissions and oil dependence are crucial issue for swing voters Christian Science Monitor, 11/27/07 Environmental issues are typically low on the list of public concerns when choosing candidates and presidents. But independent voters - a key to winning the open primaries and general election - view energy independence and climate change as very important, according to a survey cited in The New York Times."After immigration, reducing oil dependence and global warming is the second-most-important issue among independent voters, said Daniel J. Weiss, the director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.... Mr. Weiss cited a Democracy Corps poll released last month, which also found that among Democrats, it is the fourth-most-important issue."

Alternate Energy key issue for swing voters – extremely popular National Journal, 10/6/07 Democratic pollsters disagree. "Energy is a huge issue,"said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners. "The war is top, but then energy is part of the next level of issues that also includes the economy and health care," she said. "Energy Is a very, very big umbrella because it speaks to national security, it speaks to the environment, it's green jobs, it's the future." The environment and energy are particularly important issues for independent voters, Lake noted. "They're among the top issues for Democrats to talk to independent men about," shesaid. "They believe new energy technology will create good-paying American jobs. They like energy independence. They don't like oil companies."

Pro environmental policies swing independent voters Murray, 6/3/08 (Ian, DNC Member, States News Service, lexis) "I am now, after much thought and consideration, supporting Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States and will be voting for him at the convention in Denver. I have been a strong supporter of Hillary and Bill Clinton since 1991, having chaired and run Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 campaigns in Erie County. I have continued until this time to endorse with all my heart the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. She has been a true champion of the Democratic ideals that are so important to voters of Northwestern Pennsylvania. It is clear to me though that Barack Obama has the required votes for nomination at the convention in Denver. Barack Obama's message of change and his positions on health care, the Iraq war, the environment, the economy, and other issues vital to the Democratic Party have resonated with record numbers of voters including young voters, independents, and like-minded Republicans. I have been involved in running campaigns in Northwestern Pennsylvania since 1972, this epic contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has fortified in me the vitality of the Democratic Party and its hopes and vision for our future. I pledge all my support, my heart, and my passion for Barack Obama and will be working night and day in the coming days and weeks to bring the Obama and Clinton camps together and unify in Northwestern Pennsylvania as we begin our quest for that which all our futures and health depend, the election of Barack Obama."

Environmental issues key to swing voters PR Newswire, 10/17/07 "As voters weigh the cost and benefit of each candidate, it is important to note the lasting effect and cultural importance the environment has on the average voter. Across all political affiliations, the environment is seen as a major cultural issue of our time. Interestingly, a large majority (68%) of Americans agree with Al Gore's environmental views, despite the fact that 80 percent of those polled have not seen his film or read his book. "As a network focused on showcasing independent thought, we believe the independent voters will be the difference in the upcoming election. While this poll was meant to determine how significant an impact Al Gore's Nobel Prize had on the American political culture, where the environment fit into the grander political landscape and how his film and his recognition will effect the coming presidential race, it is our hope that this survey not only provides insightful understanding of our nation, but also a strong voice to those voters who are passionate about the issues, but have not yet found their candidate."

12

SDI ‘08 Elections

Ext – Independents Links Pro Environment stance key to win swing voters Star Ledger, 3/2/07 "The importance of the endorsement is that people who care most about the environment tend to be swing voters, including liberal Republicans and women," he said. "That helps a lot in close races." Tittel said past questionnaires have played a role in the enactment of important environmental legislation. "This questionnaire helps to focus not only on the work we do, but the work of the Legislature as well," Tittel said. "Over the past five election cycles, at least two-thirds of the bills (the Sierra Club backed) have become law, such as the Highlands Act, the Clean Car Act, dedicated funding for open space, clean diesel legislation, (and) restoring the public advocate's office." Tittel said global warming is the Sierra Club's top priority and environmentalists want to know the candidates' positions on a series of bills that work together to address the issue, including capping greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency and conservation.

Pro Environment popular with swing voters Straits Times, 5/20/08 With his image of being a maverick, Mr McCain has long irked the party's core conservative base with his pro-abortion, pro-immigration and pro-environment stances. But these positions are popular with Hispanics, independents and women - the swing voters that the party needs to hold onto.

13

SDI ‘08 Elections

Independents key SWING VOTERS ARE KEY – 2004 PROVES FOURNIER, STAFF WRITER FOR AP POLITICS FOR 20 YEARS,’07 [RON, “DEMOCRATIC HOPEFULS SNUB MODERATES”, AP ONLINE, JULY 25, LEXIS]

During the 2004 presidential campaign, political operatives convinced themselves that there were a dwindling few of these so-called swing voters, and that the only way to win elections was playing to "the base" the most dedicated Republicans and Democrats. They were wrong. The political middle is as significant as ever, with voters in a mood to swing due to their frustration with both major parties. SWING VOTERS KEY – THEY’RE A THIRD OF THE ELECTORATE

New York Times, 10/2/07 The fight for independent voters could be important not just in determining the nominees, but also as a preview of the general election battle. The percent of Americans who call themselves independents has increased, to 32 percent from 28 percent in 2000, according to polls by The New York Times and CBS News.

( ) These swing voters are key to the election– GOP is guaranteed nearly 45% of the vote. Goldberg ’07

(Jonah Goldberg’s column, syndicated by Tribune Media Services, and he is the 2001 winner of the prestigious Lowell Thomas Award. – LA Times – October 23rd -http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-goldberg23oct23,0,5528341.column?coll=la-utilopinion-sunday)

Besides,

Bush is leaving no matter what. And unlike every other election since the 1920s, there's no White Houseapproved candidate in the race. Any Republican will start with 40% to 45% of the vote in his pocket once he gets the nomination. The question that remains is whether the critical 5% to 10% of swing voters will think Hillary Clinton represents the sort of change they want.

14

SDI ‘08 Elections

Alt Energy Link – Colorado Plan swings Colorado – steals the most important democrat issue Kaplun, 6/3/08 (Alex, Environment and Energy Daily Reporter, Lexis) The back-and-forth on energy policy has become a staple of recent statewide political campaigns, as voters view the development of renewable energy as a potentially major economic engine for Colorado and as voters in some corners of the state have expressed concern about the impact of drilling on the environment. Pundits say that with voters worried about high gas prices in general and the economy as a whole, the candidates' ability to win the energy debate could prove to be particularly critical this time around. "As a candidate, you've got to have an economic policy and something about Iraq, but a very good way to frame it, whether you're talking about foreign and domestic issues, is through energy policy and in particular a renewable energy policy," said Republican Colorado pollster Floyd Ciruli. "It's become a very popular sort of framework for discussing everything else." Experts say that while swing voters will likely never view the former Republican congressman as being particularly strong on the environment, the campaign could find success if it can simply eliminate from the voters' minds that he is an "Big Oil" candidate. "I think he's going to try to make the case, but I really don't know if he's going to be able to make it successfully," Ciruli said. "The general rule for Republicans is while they don't need to be known as environmentalists, they need to have some environmental credentials." Ciruli pointed out that while Allard is not typically viewed as a strong environmentalist, he has been able to blunt attacks in past campaigns by highlighting his push for the creation of Great Sand Dunes National Park and a few other environmental initiatives. But officials from environmental groups say that one of their goals in the contest is to ensure that Republicans are not able to eliminate what they describe as the stark differences between the candidates on energy policy.

Colorado is the vital swing state USA Today, Political Wire and Western Democat, 5/28 (quoted in coyote Gulch, lexis) May 28, 2008 (Coyote Gulch delivered by Newstex) -- Politics West: "'The new must-have state could be Colorado, a state that's voted Republican in the last three presidential elections but has been moving toward the Democrats,' according to USA Today. 'Tell me (who wins) Colorado and I will tell you the winner,' says Bernadette Budde, a political analyst at BIPAC, a business-oriented political action committee. Evidence to support this idea has been readily apparent in Colorado this week with appearances by Sen. John McCain, Sen. Barack Obama, and President Bush - all within the last 36 hours." Political Wire: "Gallup Poll: 'In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.'" Western Democrat: "As we recently posted, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada are shaping up as key battleground states for the 2008 election. Not surprisingly, and as Kari just noted, both Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are already campaigning in these three states." Category: 2008 Presidential ElectionNewstex ID: COY-0001-25601850

15

SDI ‘08 Elections

Ext – Colorado Link Supporting alternate energy massively popular in Colorado – its the key issue Kaplun, 6/3/08 (Alex, Environment and Energy Daily Reporter, Lexis) With the Colorado Senate race heating up, both candidates and their supporters are moving quickly to stake out a positive image on renewable energy development -- an issue that is poised to play a central role in the November election. The two parties have for months eyed the contest between Rep. Mark Udall (D) and former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) as one of the pivotal Senate contests of the 2008 cycle. But the race has started to heat up over the last few weeks as the candidates formally seized their party's nomination and both camps quickly moved to establish the high ground -- or at least not fall too far behind -- in the debate over addressing the country's energy needs. Udall and Schaffer are expected to mount a highly competative battle for the seat being vacated by GOP Sen. Wayne Allard, who is stepping down after two terms. Recent polls show Udall in the lead, though the margin varies from a virtual dead heat to the Democrat leading by high single digits. Energy policy -- and in particular the development of renewable energy -- has been a major campaign topic in Colorado for several campaign cycles. And while it figures to be in play once again this time around, Democrats and their allies in particular see an opening to score major electoral points by highlighting what they describe as the Republican candidate's oil-friendly record in an era when such an image can prove to be highly damaging to a campaign.

16

SDI ‘08 Elections

Colorado Key Colorado Key Denver Post, 5/28 The mountain West has become a key political battleground for the 2008 presidential election. Strategists are talking about how winning Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico could pave the way to an Electoral College win. Republican presidential candidate John McCain came to Denver Tuesday, and today Democrat Barack Obama pays a visit. It's a heady moment for a part of the country that has flown under the radar in recent presidential campaigns. But it's also an opportunity to engage in the issues and challenge the candidates. As Coloradans, we have some particular regional concerns, such as water, public lands and energy development. But candidates can no longer stroll in, put on a cowboy hat and boots as part of some "Western strategy" and expect to hit it off with Coloradans. We're a more diverse lot than that. We also have deep concerns about the war in Iraq, foreign affairs, the economy and immigration. And like the rest of the country, we want better schools and an affordable health care system that works. But a Western strategy to win the White House is an opportunity for residents here to have their voices heard, a chance to influence the political discourse something along the lines of the way Iowa does by having the first political caucus. We hope Coloradans take advantage of the opportunity by reading up on the issues that move them and forming opinions. As the presidential campaign moves into its final six months, the mountain West can play a key role in defining the candidates and tightening up the race. Polls done by Rasmussen Reports show Obama with a modest lead over McCain in Colorado, 48 to 42 percent. In New Mexico, the numbers are 50 to 41 for Obama. In Nevada, McCain was leading Obama 46 to 40 percent. One of the reasons the candidates have targeted the region is the very same reason their strategists will find it particularly difficult to get a clear bead on the place: unaffiliated voters. Colorado is loaded with them, and they're notoriously difficult to poll. McCain has traditionally done well with them. But Obama showed this week that he gets it when he said Western voters are "independent minded" and would look at the last eight years before deciding whether the country is better off under Republican rule. A key challenge for Obama will be to make inroads with Hispanics and overcome the geographic advantage that McCain, who is from Arizona, brings to the table. McCain will have to differentiate himself from the Republican brand, which hasn't played all that well in Colorado in recent years. It's lining up to be a fascinating final few months of the presidential campaign. The Western strategy, along with the Democratic National Convention taking place in Denver in August, means there will be no shortage of politicking as the road to the White House cuts through the mountain West. For Westerners, considered under a ``Republican lock'' during the Reagan years, being in play politically not only gives us the opportunity to size up the candidates firsthand but to shape the course of the presidential debate.

Colorado Key Radelat, 6/18/08 (Ana, writer @ gannett news service, lexis) Political analyst Charlie Cook said Obama also is hampered by an image problem. "He is a very sophisticated and exotic candidate who is not necessarily the face of all Democratic voters," Cook said. Cook said the Obama campaign probably has discounted the Deep South as it seeks to capture the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election. The race likely will be decided by key swing states elsewhere in the country, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and Missouri. "The bad news for Obama is he's going to win very few Southern white males," Cook said. "The good news is it doesn't matter. This election isn't about Southern white Democrats. "

Colorado swings election Madden, 6/13/08 (Kevin, GOP Strategist, CNN) So look, I think Mitt Romney is the strongest candidate in the field out there, because he has a regional -- a broad regional appeal beyond just Massachusetts. And he has his home state roots in Michigan. He also did very well in places like Colorado and Nevada, which are going to be crucial battleground states in the general election.

17

SDI ‘08 Elections

Alt Energy Link - Florida Energy key issue in florida – alternate energy massively popular Business Wire, 6/12/08 A recent nonpartisan opinion poll crystallizes Floridians' concerns about the economy with energy and oil prices as top concerns. The poll shows that an overwhelming majority - 72 percent - of voters support moving forward on projects that would provide Florida with more energy at less cost. Four of every five persons (81%) polled wanted to see a proposed deep water natural gas port slated for 8 to 10 miles off the coast of Fort Lauderdale completed. "The reality of higher fuel and energy costs are hitting home for Florida residents," said Gene Ulm, professional pollster and primary researcher on the project. "Climbing fuel costs combined with worries about the economy have converged to reshape priorities for Floridians. In these times, Floridians strongly welcome any solution to short energy supplies and high costs." Key findings of the survey include: When asked which issues should be the top priorities for Florida's elected officials, 46 percent chose as their top answer either "cutting the cost of oil and energy" or "improving the job and economic situation" 64 percent of voters strongly support expanding Florida's use of natural gas for electricity generation and other forms of environmentally clean energy that are less expensive than oil When initially asked about the project, about six in 10 voters favor the building of the deepwater Liquefied Natural Gas port. After learning some basic facts about the project, support increased to a full 81 percent, with 52 percent expressing "strong support." In Broward County, the closest county to the proposed off-shore site, 47 percent of residents strongly favor the building of the Calypso Deepwater Port.

Florida Key Tallahassee Democrat, 7/1/08 As an indication of how important Florida figures in this year's presidential race, Republican John McCain has put his southeastern regional campaign headquarters in Tallahassee. Campaign spokesman Mario Diaz said the GOP presidential contender has 17 staff members working out of the Republican Party of Florida headquarters. They will be handling operations for Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and the Carolinas. Florida decided the 2000 presidential race, with 25 electoral votes at the time, and it was an important "red" state in President Bush's reelection four years ago. This year, campaign strategists consider Florida a key battleground state - and Democrat Barack Obama has mounted a serious effort in the state, too.

18

SDI ‘08 Elections

19

SDI ‘08 Elections

Ext – Florida Link Warming is a key issue in florida National Journal, 10/6/07 Global warming could also have a high profile in California, Florida, and Minnesota, where Republican governors are aggressively backing action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Speaking at the state Republican convention earlylast month, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urged th eparty faithful to embrace more-moderate policies on climate change and other domestic issues.

Pro Environmental Policies Swing Important votes in florida Grand Rapids Press, ’04 (10/8) While the top four issues to voters, according to polls, are the economy, terrorism and security, the war in Iraq and health care, the environment may be an important factor among swing voters in Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, said Mark Baldassare, research director at the institute. "Moderate and independent voters are looking for candidates whose views reflect their own on a variety of issues," he said. "Many are swing voters in the key battleground states, and they tend to have a pro-environment stances."

Alternate Energy popular in florida Florida times union, 12/30/05 Harnessing the power of the sun has long been popular in Florida, but rising fuel costs and new tax credits have many in the area looking to the alternative energy resource with increased interest. Cont… With oil still hovering near $60 per barrel, renewed interest in alternative energy sources has been on the rise. American Solar Energy has been busy trying to meet new customer demands, said Bryan Wilson, an installer for the company. Wilson recently traipsed across the roof of a Julington Creek Plantation home to attach solar panels and cut pipes while installing a pool heating system.

20

SDI ‘08 Elections

Emission Cap Link Emission cap massively popular – supporters more likely to swing votes than opponents Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) A very large majority of Americans (8 in 10) say that they support the targets of the McCain-Lieberman legislation (Climate Stewardship Act) that call for large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. Two-thirds say they favor the legislation even if it costs $15 a month for an average household. A modest majority says that if a candidate favors legislation requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, this will increase the likelihood they will vote for that candidate; only a very small minority says that it would decrease the likelihood. Those in favor of taking steps are more likely to have their vote influenced by a candidate’s position than those opposed

Its popular across the political spectrum Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) A very large majority of Americans say that they support the targets of the McCain-Lieberman legislation (Climate Stewardship Act). Respondents were introduced to the legislation and told about the targets for greenhouse gas emissions called for in one of the key drafts, for large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. An overwhelming 81% said they favored the legislation, with just 16% opposed. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans, 85% of Democrats, and 79% of independents favored the legislation.

It’s more salient election issue for supporters than opponents Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) Politics of Climate Change Legislation If a candidate for political office were to favor a law requiring large companies to gradually reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, would that make you more or less likely to vote for that candidate? Increase likelihood 52% No effect either way 32% Decrease likelihood 13% Mean 1.12 Perhaps more significant, the more a person believes that the problem is real and pressing, the more likely it is to affect their vote. Among those who think global warming does not require taking steps right now, 48% say that a candidate’s position on climate change will affect their position, with 31% saying that if a candidate favors emission-reducing legislation this will decrease the likelihood they will vote for the candidate and 17% saying that it will increase the likelihood—a net effect of minus 14%. Among those who think that gradual steps are required, 60% percent say that it will affect their vote, with 53% saying that favoring such legislation will make them more likely to vote for the candidate and just 7% saying it will make them less likely—a net effect of plus 46%. Among those who say that the problem requires serious action, a remarkable 85% say that it will affect their vote, with support for such legislation producing a net effect of plus 67%.

Its politically beneficial in an election Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) Apparently it would be advantageous for a political candidate to show support for such legislation. Respondents were asked how it would affect their likelihood to vote for a candidate for political office if he or she “were to favor a law requiring large companies to gradually reduce their greenhouse gas emissions” and asked to answer “on a scale of +5 to -5, with +5 meaning that it will greatly increase the likelihood you will vote for the candidate, -5 meaning that it will greatly decrease the likelihood you will vote for the candidate, and 0 meaning that it will have no effect either way.” A modest majority of 52% gave a score above zero; much more than the 12% which gave a score below zero, while 33% gave a score of zero. Overall the mean score was 1.12.

21

SDI ‘08 Elections

Emission Cap Link Massive public support for emission cuts – including mandatory controls, cap and trade and Lieberman legislation Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm A variety of poll questions finds strong majority support for taking action to address global warming. As will be discussed below large majorities favor US participation in the Kyoto Treaty and support the McCain Lieberman legislation. When respondents were simply asked in April 2005, Ipsos-Reid whether “our government needs to do something about global warming right now” a strong majority of 70% agreed (very much 42%). Only 26% said they disagreed (very much 13%). [23] Gallup has found 75% favoring “imposing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.” Only 22% were opposed. [24] In a June 2004 PIPA poll, a strong 79% of all respondents said that the President should "develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming." Only 19% said the President should not develop a plan. This was up significantly from a March 2001 Time/CNN poll in which 67% agreed and a slightly higher 26% disagreed.[25].

Widespread majority favors mandatory emission controls Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm A strong majority of Americans favors the US abiding by and ratifying the Kyoto Treaty even when presented with the key arguments for and against the treaty. Only a minority is aware that President Bush opposes participation in the Kyoto Treaty. When respondents are told that that President Bush has decided to not abide by the Treaty approximately half oppose the decision while a fairly small minority supports it. A strong majority opposes his decision to not pursue reductions of carbon dioxide emissions and thinks he should propose develop some plan for reducing emissions. When the Kyoto Treaty was being negotiated in 1998 a strong majority supported the level of emissions cuts proposed, even when informed that the US had originally sought less-deep cuts, and a plurality leaned toward deeper cuts. A strong majority of Americans have indicated their support for the Kyoto Treaty. In June 2005, PIPA simply asked “based on what you know, do you think the U.S. should or should not participate in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming.” A strong majority of 73% favored participation. This was up a bit from September 2004, when only 65% favored it. Only 16% in June 2005 and September 2004 opposed participation. In July 2004 the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations asked the same question in the context of a battery and found 71% in favor and 19% opposed. This was up from CCFR’s 2002 poll when 64% favored it and 21% were opposed.

Emission requirements are widely popular Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm Related to President Bush's decision to not support the Kyoto Treaty was his decision to not require reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, despite his campaign promise to do so. This decision was opposed by a strong majority. In an April 2001 Pew poll 67% disapproved. [9] An April 2001 Los Angeles Times poll elaborated on Bush's reasons--adding, "He said that requiring carbon dioxide controls at this time would add too much to the cost of power production and that the nation instead needs an overall national energy strategy"—and found a more modest majority of 54% opposed, while 34% supported Bush's decision.[10] Asked why Bush made this decision on carbon dioxide emissions, a plurality to a majority attributed it to pressure from, or his connections to, the energy industry. The April 2001 Los Angeles Times poll found 45% saying that it was because "Bush and some of his key advisors are closely allied with the energy industry," while 36% said it was because "Bush now believes that there is not enough proof that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming to justify the costs." [11] A Newsweek poll taken the same month found 53% saying that it was because of "special interest pressures from coal producers and others in the energy industry," while just 29% said it was because of "doubts about whether there is enough hard scientific evidence for such regulation and concerns about its effect on consumer energy prices." [12] Finally, it appears that even among those who are sympathetic to Bush's opposition to the Kyoto Treaty, many feel that he should come up with some plan for addressing global warming. In a June 2004 PIPA poll, a strong 79% of all respondents said that the President should "develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming." Only 19% said the President should not develop a plan. This was up significantly from a March 2001 Time/CNN poll in which 67% agreed and a slightly higher 26% disagreed. [13]

22

SDI ‘08 Elections

Emission Cap Link Massive public support for mandatory emission reductions Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm A key controversy is over whether the US should rely on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or if the US should legislate requirements for reductions. The most prominent legislation requiring such reductions of the Climate Stewardship Act, also known as the McCain-Lieberman bill named after the Senators that have sponsored it. A very large majority of Americans say that they support US legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. PIPA introduced respondents to the Climate Stewardship Act, and told them about the targets for greenhouse gas emissions called for in one of the key drafts, which requires large companies to reduce their emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020. In June 2005, PIPA asked "based on what you know, do you favor or oppose having such limits on how much greenhouse gases large companies can emit" An overwhelming majority of 83% favored it with just 13% opposed. In June 2004 81% said they favored such limits with 16% opposed. [1] Americans also appear to be ready to accept significant costs in support of the legislation. First, respondents were told that "According to an estimate done by MIT, cutting greenhouse gas emissions as much as this draft of the new bill would require will increase various costs to the average American household by about $15 a month." (See Appendix A) They were then asked how they felt about this estimate. The response was neutral overall, with a plurality of 38% assuming that it is "approximately correct" and nearly as many saying that it seems on the high side (28%) as saying it seems on the low side (27%). [2] They were then asked if they would favor the bill "If in fact it appears that it would likely cost $15 a month for an average household." Two out of three (68%) said they would, while 28% said they would not. Democrats were just slightly more willing to accept the $15 cost (72%) than Republicans (67%). This support was virtually unchanged from June 2004, when 67% said they would accept costs of $15 a month. Only 28% said they would oppose it. [3]

Emission cap boosts electoral chances Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm A modest majority says that if a candidate favors legislation requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, this will increase the likelihood they will vote for that candidate, while only a very small minority says that it would decrease the likelihood. In June 2004, PIPA also asked how it would affect the likelihood that they would vote for a candidate for political office if he or she "were to favor a law requiring large companies to gradually reduce their greenhouse gas emissions" and asked to answer "on a scale of +5 to -5, with +5 meaning that it will greatly increase the likelihood you will vote for the candidate, -5 meaning that it will greatly decrease the likelihood you will vote for the candidate, and 0 meaning that it will have no effect either way." A modest majority of 52% gave a score above zero; much more than the 12% which gave a score below zero, while 33% gave a score of zero. Overall the mean score was 1.12. [5] It is worth noting that Americans were more willing to support a candidate that favors the Climate Stewardship Act regardless of party affiliation, though as one might expect, Republicans were less likely to support such a candidate than Democrats and Independents. Perhaps more significant, the more a person believes that the problem is real and pressing, the more likely it is to affect their vote. Among those who think global warming does not require taking steps right now, 48% say that a candidate's position on climate change will affect their position, with 31% saying that if a candidate favors emission-reducing legislation this will decrease the likelihood they will vote for the candidate and 17% saying that it will increase the likelihood-a net effect of minus 14%. Among those who think that gradual steps are required, 60% percent say that it will affect their vote, with 53% saying that favoring such legislation will make them more likely to vote for the candidate and just 7% saying it will make them less likely-a net effect of plus 46%. Among those who say that the problem requires serious action, a remarkable 85% say that it will affect their vote, with support for such legislation producing a net effect of plus 67%. When asked about hypothetical candidates Americans also show support for those who express concern and seek action on global warming. In the Mellman Group's September 1998 poll, 58% said they would view "a candidate for political office" who "spoke out in support of reducing the threat of global warming" as "forward-looking and speaking to a real problem," while only 23% said they would view such a candidate as "too interested in environmental issues and ignoring bigger problems." [6] However, it does not appear that most voters regard this issue as decisive. When asked to assume that "you agreed with a particular candidate on most issues and were of the same political party, however, that candidate voted against efforts to reduce the threat of global warming," a plurality of 41% said they would still be likely to vote for that candidate, while 38% said they would not. Nonetheless, the fact that 38% said they would change their vote over this issue is still quite high. [7]

23

SDI ‘08 Elections

Permits/Lieberman Warner Link Warming legislation/Lieberman Warner boosts election chances Environmental policy alert, 6/18/08 The 48-to-36 vote to invoke cloture -- short of the 60 votes needed to end debate and move on to the amendment process -- also provides evidence of steadily growing support for climate legislation in Congress, according to the bill's sponsors. Six senators who were absent for the cloture vote, including Obama and McCain, issued statements in favor of the bill, indicating support for the bill totaled 54 senators, supporters said. "Today's vote is a landmark moment in the fight against global warming," Boxer said in a June 6 statement. "We had 54 Senators come down on the side of tackling this crucial issue now -- because it is one of the greatest challenges of our generation. This strong vote is up from 38 votes in 2005, and proves that our nation is ready to assume the mantle of leadership on global warming." A Senate source close to one of the bill's Republican backers called the June 6 vote "a moral victory" that would be "a stepping stone for what will be a bigger thing next year." The source argued that the decision by Republican leaders to force each amendment to the bill to be read aloud -- including the 492-page substitute amendment submitted by Boxer June 4 -- over an unrelated dispute related to President Bush's judicial nominees was evidence they felt a debate on climate change was politically risky. "They could have picked any bill to make an example of, and yet they picked the climate bill," which the source described as "telling." Of those voting for cloture, seven were Republicans, four of whom -- Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Elizabeth Dole (NC), Gordon Smith (OR), and John Sununu (NH) -- are up for reelection this year, signifying that some lawmakers may feel that failing to support climate legislation could prove to be a political liability come November. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), who is also up for reelection, was one of the lawmakers who did not vote on the cloture motion but issued a statement in favor of the bill.

Tradable Permits and Emission Reductions have growing public support JAMES I. STEWART AND M. SAMI KHAWAJA; M. Sami Khawaja is an economist and president of The Cadmus Group, an environmental and energy consulting firm based in Portland, Ore. James I. Stewart is an economist and associate at The Cadmus Group, Utilities Fortnightly, June, ‘08 Comprehensive GHG regulation likely will emerge before 2010 because of growing public support for emissions reductions and probable Democratic and independent gains in the U.S. Senate in 2008. If GHG regulation occurs, it likely will originate in the U.S. Congress--and not the executive branch--and almost surely will take the form of a cap-and-trade system. However, the costs to carbon producers probably will be modest initially because compromise legislation will result in small and partially-binding targeted emissions reductions and the grandfathering of permits. Cont…. Growing Pressure Recent developments favor the passage of federal legislation regulating GHG emissions soon. Global warming and its economic and environmental costs are becoming increasingly self-evident. There is growing public awareness of global warming and rising concern about its effects on the environment and the economy. Concern is much greater among Democratic than Republican voters. According to a recent Economist/YouGov poll, 53 percent of Democrats cite global warming as the greatest environmental problem, whereas just eight percent of Republicans do the same. Many more Democrats are willing to impose taxes to curb GHG emissions as well. n6 Nevertheless, both parties' presumptive nominees for president support a cap-and-trade system. Many businesses now see profit opportunities in controlling GHGs, whereas before they saw only burdensome regulation. n7 Also, initiatives by the states to limit GHG emissions and recent federal court rulings that GHG emissions from automobiles can be regulated under the Clean Air Act have increased regulatory uncertainty, putting pressure on the federal government to harmonize state and federal policies. The other major industrialized nations of the world, all of which have limits on GHG emissions, are lobbying the United States to bring its emissions under control as well. Finally, the American Climate Security Act (S 2191)--generally known as Lieberman-Warner--which would limit GHG emissions through a cap-and-trade system, recently passed the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) recently promised the bill would be considered in the full Senate this summer. Any federal legislation regulating GHG emissions likely will resemble the 2007 version of Lieberman-Warner or one of the close variants under consideration in the U.S. Senate (see Table 1). Sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), the bill would cover electric power, transportation, and manufacturing carbon sources, which account for about 75 percent of GHG emissions in the United States. The cap would decline over time and require emissions to be four percent below their 2005 levels in 2012, 20 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 71 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. Permits sold at auction would rise gradually from 26 percent in 2012 to 70 percent after 2030. The remaining permits would be allocated between states and sectors of the economy according to a formula in the bill. To avoid price uncertainty and variability, the Lieberman-Warner bill would allow firms to increase their emissions in the short run by borrowing against future allocations of permits. The bill also would allow firms to purchase a limited number of carbon offsets in lieu of purchasing permits or reducing their emissions.

24

SDI ‘08 Elections

Permits/Lieberman Warner Links Plan is overwhelmingly popular Chemical Business, 3/3/08 Also known as the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill, named after its sponsors, Senator Joseph Lieberman (Independent, Connecticut) and Senator John Warner (Republican, Virginia) - the measure would cap emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other GHGs, and auction allowance permits to individual companies. Those companies with plants that emit less GHGs than their purchased permits allow could trade their excess emission credits to firms with facilities that exceed allotted maximums. After first capping the amount of GHGs allowed to industry, the bill would then mandate a schedule of reductions to cut overall US emissions by 63% come 2050. Similar legislation is being contemplated in at least seven US states, including Maryland, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan and Kansas. In part, climate change legislation has appeal to federal legislators and is popular among states because such mandatory cap-and-trade systems would add billions of dollars to government treasuries through emission permit auctions. The apparent inevitability of climate change legislation - and the prospect of having multiple state-level emissions mandates in addition to a federal plan - has even convinced some industry leaders to argue in favor of immediate passage of a federal program. "Many of us expect that there will be more Democrats in the US Senate next year than there are now, so it might be better for us to work with this Congress this year in the hope of getting a climate control bill we can live with," said David Parker, president of the American Gas Association (AGA). Although Democrats control both the US House of Representatives and the Senate, their majority margin in the Senate is only one vote. Parker and many others expect that in the US national elections this November, Democrats will perhaps win several more seats in the Senate, retain or expand their majority margin in the House and perhaps win the White House as well. There is a growing sense of panic. The stampede to climate control legislation is happening despite growing skepticism among an increasing number of scientists about the human role in global warming - including some scientists who previously supported human causation. Even so, the legislative momentum for climate change mandates continues to build. As is so often the case in matters political, what matters is perception and popularity rather than fact and reality.

25

SDI ‘08 Elections

Warming Link Massive Public Support for action to prevent warming Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm Virtually all polls taken have found a very strong majority believes that global warming is a real problem. Only a very small minority -less than a quarter of the public -- doubts the reality and significance of global warming. However, since the beginning of the Bush administration, the percentage showing doubts may have increased. --In May 2005, 79% said global warming represented an “extremely important” (41%) or an “important” (38%) threat to the US in the next ten years. Only 18% said it was “not an important threat.” (German Marshall Fund) [1] --In August 2004, Greenberg-Quinlin-Rosner found 68% saying global warming is “a very serious” (36%) or “important” (32%) problem, with another 18% saying that was a small problem. Only 10% said global warming was not a problem. These numbers are not significantly different from when the question was asked in April 2004. [2] --In July 2004, 84% said global warming represented a “critical threat” (37%) or an “important but not critical threat” (47%) to the US in the next ten years, while only 14% said it was “not an important threat at all.” This was up slightly from 79% in June 2002. Those saying global warming is a “critical threat” was down from 46% though this was counter-balanced by a sharp upward movement among those saying “important but not critical threat” (33%). Those saying it was “not an important threat at all” was down from 18%. (CCFR) [3] --In July 2004, when Princeton Survey Research asked how much of a priority global warming should be to the US long-range foreign policy

goals, only 12% who thought global warming had “no priority,” while 82% said it had at least “some priority” (46%) or was a “top priority” (36%). [4] -- In September 2002, 74% said they "believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures"; 19% said they did not believe this (Harris Interactive). [5] --In March 2001, 64% said they "believe that emissions of gases like carbon dioxide are causing global temperature increases"; 23% did not (Time/CNN). In the same poll 75% thought global warming a very serious (43%) or fairly serious (32%) problem; 21% thought it a not very serious (14%) or not at all serious (7%) problem. [6] --In an August 2000 Harris poll, 72% said they "believe[d] the theory" of global warming, while 20% said they did not--up from December 1997 when in response to the same question 67% said they believed it and 21% said they did not. In the same poll 85% thought global warming was a "very serious" (46%) or "somewhat serious" (39%) threat; only 13% said it was "not serious at all." [7] --In a July 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, only 11% took the position that "concern about global climate change is unwarranted." [8] --In a September 1998 Wirthlin poll, 74% embraced the belief that "global warming is real" even when the belief was defined in terms of global warming having "catastrophic consequences," while just 22% said they did not believe in it.[9] --An October 1997 Ohio State University survey asked about "the idea that the world's temperature may have been going up slowly over the last 100 years" and found that 77% thought "this has probably been happening," while 20% thought "it probably hasn't been happening." Likewise, 74% thought the world's average temperature would go up in the future, while 22% thought it would not. [10] When PIPA in 2004 and 2005 offered respondents three possible positions on global warming, with one of the options being that global warming is real but does not require high cost steps, more than three quarters chose an option that endorsed the reality of global warming (see below). This is down slightly from 1998 and 2000 when more than 80% made such assessments. The finding that most lends itself to a contrary interpretation is a September 2005 ABC/Washington Post poll that asked how convinced respondents were that global warming or the greenhouse effect is actually happening. A majority of 56% said they were either “completely convinced” (23%) or “mostly convinced” (33%). An additional 22% said they were “not so convinced” and 17% said they were not at all convinced that global warming or the greenhouse effect is actually happening. Similar results were obtained in June 2005. It is possible to combine the 22% saying “not so convinced” with the 17% saying “not at all convinced” to say that 39% are not convinced. However in light of the abundance of other evidence suggesting a much smaller number, it is more likely that those answering not so convinced were trying to characterize the level of their knowledge. Many respondents may indeed be quite uncertain about their knowledge. However, as we have seen above, and will see even more below, when asked on what basis they favor making policy, a large

majority—much larger than 56%--advocate taking action on the basis that global warming is a problem that requires a significant response. [11]

Plan massively popular Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) Three in four Americans embrace the idea that global warming is a real problem that requires action. However, this majority divides on the question of whether the problem is pressing and should include steps with significant costs, or whether the problem can be dealt with more gradually through low- cost steps. A majority is optimistic that steps taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will actually benefit the US economy. The public is split on whether or not there is a consensus in the scientific community about the reality of global warming. Nonetheless, nearly eight in ten say that President Bush should develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming

Action to prevent warming overwhelmingly popular Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) It is, of course, interesting that even though there is lack of clarity about the scientific consensus, almost eight in ten favor taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, 79% say that President Bush should “develop a plan to reduce the emission of gases that may contribute to global warming.” This is up a bit from March 2001, when CNN asked the same question and 67% said that he should.

26

SDI ‘08 Elections

A2: GOP Opposes – Emissions Cap Studies prove support for emission cap causes net gain in voters in every political party Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) On the McCain-Lieberman legislation, strong majorities supported the legislation regardless of party preference. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans, 85% of Democrats, and 79% of independents favored the legislation—differences that are statistically significant, though minor. When people were told the bill may raise costs by $15 per month, 63% of Republicans, 72% of Democrats and 64% of independents still supported the legislation. Candidates who support such legislation benefit from a net positive effect on people’s vote, regardless of political preference, though the effect is mildest among Republicans. Democrats give strong support to environmental candidates with a 54% net positive, as do independents with a 45% net positive. Republicans, though, also gave a 19% net positive for candidates that support such legislation.

Strong Majority of GOP Voters support emissions cap Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) Republicans, Democrats and independents all favor, by majorities, the taking of steps to deal with climate change—even though majorities of Republicans and independents believe that the scientific community is divided on global warming. Strong majorities across the political spectrum support the McCain-Lieberman legislation to require reduced emissions

27

SDI ‘08 Elections

A2: GOP Opposes - General GOP supports action on emissions – even considering economic costs Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) Though Americans’ beliefs about climate change do differ by party preference, majorities in both parties support taking active steps—65% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats. Only a third--34%--of Republicans said no steps should be taken on global warming that would involve costs. Even fewer Democrats and independents (16% each) took this view. Forty-eight percent of Republicans and a majority of independents (53%) said global warming is a problem that can be dealt with gradually, but only 39% of Democrats agreed. A plurality of Democrats (44%) said global warming is a pressing problem that requires immediate action, while only 17% of Republicans and 29% of independents agree. In general, differences between Bush supporters and Kerry supporters closely mirrored the differences between Republicans and Democrats.

GOP voters support environmental regulations on energy and emissions Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) Sixty-nine percent of Republicans, 87% of Democrats and 78% of independents also say President Bush should develop a plan to deal with climate change. On regulatory initiatives--such as higher fuel economy--Democrats are more likely to support such initiatives than Republicans, but the differences are not substantial. For instance, 76% of Republicans supported higher fuel efficiency standards on cars, as did 89% of Democrats and 79% of Independents. When asked if they would still support a measure if this meant the cost of cars would rise, 58% of Republicans still supported such policies, as did 67% of Democrats and 63% of independents. PROGRAM

28

SDI ‘08 Elections

A2: Base Key Attempting to appeal to base on environmental issues alienates swing voters – costs GOP election Gerstein, 5/18/07 (Dan, Democratic political strategist and contributor to Politico.com, politico.com, lexis) This is how the GOP won before, and the latest red-meat regression may be enough to deliver a nominating margin for one of the contenders next year. But is it the right formula for rebuilding a sustainable majority in the increasingly globally complex, environmentally conscious and socially progressive America of 2008? That's the devilish dilemma Republicans face going into this critical election - their roadmap for romancing the base may well lead them over the cliff with the swing voters who abandoned them in droves last year and who they have to win back in 2008 to hold onto the White House.

Attempting to appeal to base dooms mccain US News and World Report, 7/7/08 Whatever he does, says Ed Rogers, a GOP lobbyist who worked in the White House for former President George H. W. Bush, McCain can't be seen as part of the business-as-usual party establishment. "He has to protect his image as an independent, quasi-GOP heretic," Rogers says. "That is more important than making any sliver of the base happy."

McCain can’t win over base – its the wrong strategy for him MacLeans, 6/30/08 "John McCain is the one Republican who consistently outpolls the Republican brand," says Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who was a spokesman for McCain's former rival, Mitt Romney. "And in this environment it's to our advantage." But McCain's task is daunting. He can't rely, as Bush did, on simply mobilizing - conservative supporters that make up the base of the Republican party because, frankly, they don't support him. McCain won the GOP primary contest with only 47 per cent of the vote (by contrast, in 2000, Bush had 63 per cent). He lost most of the South to preacher-turned-governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee, and the southwest to Romney. His relationship with the Christian conservative wing of the party, a reliable get-out-the-vote machine, has been tepid. Back in 2000 he called some evangelical leaders "agents of intolerance," and declared he would never "pander" to them. "If John McCain ran the 2004 base strategy, they know they would lose. They have to run a campaign that goes beyond base politics, and reach out to disaffected Democrats and Independents," says Madden.

We Control Uniqueness – McCain losing base now Gannett News, 7/1/08 John McCain hasn't sealed the deal yet with many evangelical voters, a group that may make up about one-third of the Republican Party's activist base. "It's not that evangelicals are abandoning McCain," said Corwin Smidt, director of the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. "It's just that the evangelicals haven't really become as enthusiastic for McCain at this point as they were for (George W.) Bush in the previous two elections." The Arizona senator met privately Sunday with evangelist Billy Graham and his son, the Rev. Franklin Graham, at McCain's request. But he has yet to meet with James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family who said last year he would not vote for McCain under any circumstances. McCain also angered some by rejecting the support of two conservative preachers because of anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim views they expressed. And McCain doesn't appear comfortable talking about his faith in public the way President Bush or Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, do. "He has a tin ear for the evangelical community," Michael Gerson, a former top Bush aide, said at a May conference on religion and politics sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. McCain was not the choice of social conservatives during the GOP presidential primary and faces the additional challenge of energizing a discouraged GOP base. "It's very important to develop strong grass-roots support which can help deliver on Election Day," said former Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., who is using his credentials and connections with conservative groups to get them fully on board. "And I think we have a ways to go on this. This is no secret." Among social conservatives, McCain faces questions about his record on some social issues as well as his advocacy over changes to campaign finance rules. Coats said many people are surprised when he tells them the National Right to Life Committee praises McCain's "strong pro-life voting record." McCain has mostly voted with the group's positions on abortion, although he has not been particularly outspoken about it. In addition, McCain voted to allow federally funded embryonic stem cell research, which the National Right to Life Committee opposes. He also angered the influential group with his campaign finance legislation that placed restrictions on political ads funded by interest groups.

29

SDI ‘08 Elections

A2: Oppose Economic Costs – General Support for alternate energy overwhelms opposition to cost increases Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm Other polls also have found a significant willingness to incur costs toward reducing global warming even when the cost is quantified in concrete terms. In a September 1998 Mellman Group poll, majorities were willing to pay an extra $5 (73%), $10 (75%) or $20 (64%) monthly "to buy environmentally clean energy such as solar and wind power from your electric utility company in order to cut down on emissions of carbon dioxide and reduce the threat of global warming." [5] Similarly, a September 1997 Ohio State University National Survey found 68% said they were willing to pay more for energy to reduce pollution, with 51% volunteering an amount of $10 or more per month. [6] A September 1998 Wirthlin poll even found that a strong majority did not back away from a possible increase in costs of $1,000 a year per household. Presented a description of the attitudes of two hypothetical individuals, only 39% said they were more like the one described as "worried" that compliance with the Kyoto Treaty "would add up to more than $1,000 a year for the average American household." Sixty percent said they were, instead, more like an individual who "believes that some increases in the cost of gas, energy and consumer products are expected and worth the price if it can reduce the threat of global warming." [7]

30

SDI ‘08 Elections

A2: Oppose Economic Costs – Emission Cuts Public supports action to cut emissions – willing to accept costs and perceive long term benefits in competitiveness Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm Most Americans are not persuaded by the argument that taking action to reduce global warming will incur unacceptable economic costs. In fact a majority of Americans is inclined to believe that reducing greenhouse gasses will be economically beneficial in the long run. In a June 2005 PIPA poll Americans were asked which position was closest to theirs. Only 23% said “efforts in the United States to reduce the release of greenhouse gases will cost too much money and hurt the US economy.” Instead, 71% said that “the US economy will become more competitive because these efforts will result in more efficient energy use, saving money in the long run.” These results are relatively unchanged from June 2004 when 67% chose the efficiency of these efforts over aggregate costs (29%). [30] This helps explain Americans resistance to taking high cost steps: most are not convinced that reducing greenhouse gasses requires high costs. When poll questions require respondents to assume that this is the case they resist taking action based on that assumption. A June 2005 poll by the Winston Group asked whether “global warming is a significant enough problem such that America should be willing to limit job growth to address it.” A slight majority of 55% said “No,” while only 35% said “Yes.” [31] Americans have also rejected arguments against participation in global warming treaties based on economic arguments. Asked to choose between two statements in a January 1999 Zogby poll of likely voters, only 24% opted for the one that said, "The US (United States) should avoid any Global Warming treaties that put the US at a competitive disadvantage. Taking drastic steps to reduce fossil-fuel emissions could be bad for our economy and way of life." Rather, 63% opted for the strongly stated argument that "Global warming is a serious threat. We should take all necessary actions to cut down on fossil-fuel emissions and cooperate with other nations to make that happen." [32]

Asked about accepting economic costs to address environmental issues Americans will sometime express readiness to accept very high costs. In August 2005 Harris Interactive asked respondents whether they agreed with a rather extreme general statement that “protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost.” A strong majority of 74% agreed with this statement while only 24% disagreed. [33] But here again some of this readiness may be rooted in optimism that the economic costs of environmental protection do not have to be severe. An overwhelming 83% said it is "possible to have both a growing economy and a healthy environment" in an April 1999 Rasmussen poll. [34]

Support for Emission cuts swamps fears of economic cost Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw2.cfm Americans show a readiness to accept a moderate increase in their energy costs to deal with the problem of global warming and to comply with the Kyoto Treaty. At the same time Americans show an optimism that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved without a harmful economic impact and that technological innovations will be effective. In general, Americans show a readiness to accept some increased costs to deal with environmental problems. In August 2005, Harris Interactive found almost three-quarters (74%) of Americans agreeing that “protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high and continuing environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost.” This is up substantially from when it was previously asked in March 2001, January 2002 and November 2002 by CBS/New York Times, though in all cases clear majorities agreed ranging from 56% to 61%. [1] More specifically Americans also show a readiness to accept increases in energy costs to support the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed above, two-thirds said they favored the McCain-Lieberman legislation (Climate Stewardship Act) even if it costs $15 a month for an average household. [1a] (See Appendix A for MIT study used to calculate costs) Support for accepting costs to abide by the Kyoto Protocol was fairly strong even before President Bush’s decision to withdraw. Shortly before the 1992 Rio conference—at the time the Rio Treaty was under consideration—58% said then-President Bush should "sign the treaty if it harms our economy now, but helps the environment in the long run" (26% opposed; USA Today). [2] The same number expressed support even if it "would increase the cost of gasoline and electricity" (33% opposed). [3] In a March 2002 poll (that did not specifically mention global warming) an overwhelming majority showed a readiness to accept the economic

hardships that would come from requiring older power plants to meet current pollution standards, though offered the argument that these plants would be "forced to close down, which would reduce our energy supplies at a time when we desperately need and would put people out of work." Imposing the requirements was favored by 78%; only 13% were opposed. [3a]

Majority supports emission cuts despite increased costs Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) Americans also appear to be ready to accept significant costs in support of the legislation. First, respondents were told that “According to an estimate done by MIT, cutting greenhouse gas emissions as much as this draft of the new bill would require will increase various costs to the average American household by about $15 a month.” They were then asked how they felt about this estimate. The response was neutral overall, with a plurality of 34% assuming that it is “approximately correct” and nearly as many saying that it seems on the high side (29%) as saying it seems on the low side (31%). They were then asked if they would favor the bill “If in fact it appears that it would likely cost $15 a month for an average household.” Two out of three (67%) said they would, while 30% said they would not.

31

SDI ‘08 Elections

A2: Opposes Economic Costs – Permits Specific Cap and trade means increased energy costs won’t be perceived Carbon Control News, 6/16/08 Most economists agree that a carbon tax is the most effective and efficient policy to reduce GHG emissions; however, it is not considered as politically popular as a cap-and-trade program because the costs imposed on carbon-intensive energy sources are directly applied, and thus are more transparent and visible to consumers. In contrast, a cap-and-trade program imposes costs on carbon-intensive energy in a less direct manner, through the use of allowance auctioning and trading, meaning the ultimate cost to consumers is less readily apparent.

Cap and trade avoids political backlash JAMES I. STEWART AND M. SAMI KHAWAJA; M. Sami Khawaja is an economist and president of The Cadmus Group, an environmental and energy consulting firm based in Portland, Ore. James I. Stewart is an economist and associate at The Cadmus Group, Utilities Fortnightly, June, ‘08 Although a carbon tax has many economic virtues, a tax-based system of controlling GHG emissions is unlikely to be instituted in the United States. Two characteristics of a cap-and-trade system give it an advantage over a tax in national politics. First, a cap-and-trade system avoids direct taxation while still relying on market principles. This makes it attractive to politicians wanting to avoid the stigma of raising taxes. Second, the cap-and-trade system gives supporters of GHG legislation a valuable bargaining chip during legislative negotiations with powerful special interest groups opposed to limits on emissions. The support of these interests and that of reluctant lawmakers may be won with agreements to distribute permits to certain industries for free on the basis of past production--i.e., grandfathering--at least on a temporary basis. This will shift more of the burden of the costs of reducing GHGs to consumers (as the government will lose tax revenues from the sale of permits that could be used to offset the higher costs of carbon-intensive goods or reduce other taxes) but it will not undermine the integrity of the caps or the price of carbon.

32

SDI ‘08 Elections

Bush Key Bush Approval rating is McCains Biggest Liability Washington Post, 5/21/08 "With an approval rating of 28 per cent -- close to record lows for a US president -- Mr Bush is considered an electoral liability for the Republican party in November. "'The easiest way for McCain to lose the election is to allow the Democrats to tie him to Bush,' says Larry Sabato, political scientist at the University of Virginia."

Bush Key to McCain Election hopes – they get tied Rowland, 6/29/08 (Darrel, Columnist @ Columbus Dispatch, lexis) Last week, Bush bottomed out at a new Ohio low of 22 percent in the Quinnipiac Poll. And in the Ohio Poll, which has been conducting surveys since the early 1980s, Bush established an all-time low in May -- although earlier this month, he rebounded a couple of points. But the real question emerging from this blizzard of bad numbers concerns Bush's would-be GOP successor, Sen. John McCain, who was in Ohio last week. How can the Arizona senator win in such a toxic environment for Republicans? "That's the big question," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's polling institute. "It is hard to see how this won't be significant in the November election. The real question for Sen. McCain isn't whether he will be hurt by George Bush's unpopularity; the question is how much he'll be hurt by President Bush's unpopularity." Certainly Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is doing its best to make Bush an albatross for McCain. "I think Ohioans identify John McCain with the failed policies of the Bush administration, and they're going to hold him accountable in the fall," said Isaac Baker, Obama's Ohio campaign spokesman. "John McCain has taken many of the same positions George Bush has, and I think Ohioans and Americans are looking for a different direction in Washington."

GOP cannot retain the White House in a world where Bush’s popularity remains low. Frontrunner ’07 (quoting Goldberg of the National Review Online – Sept 4th – lexis) Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online says, "A key challenge for" President George W. Bush is "that a president's legacy is often heavily influenced by the partisan affiliation of his successor. Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush are all largely seen as failed presidents in no small part because their party lost the White House in their wake, which is a crucial tool for shaping popular and historical perceptions." The "problem for Bush and the GOP is that it seems very unlikely a Republican candidate will have any chance of winning in 2008 so long as Bush's approval ratings are in the freezing range."

Bush’s popularity is key to the GOP’s chances in ‘08 Hugick ’07 (Larry Hugick is chair of Princeton Survey Research Associates International in Princeton, New Jersey. Public Opinion Pros – September -- http://www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2007/sep/hugick.asp) George W. Bush is barred from seeking a third term, and his vice president is also not a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. But the impact of growing public discontent with the situation in Iraq and Bush’s record low approval ratings casts a long shadow over the Republicans’ ability to keep the White House in 2008, after having already lost control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. In all three previous cases where a president scored an approval rating below 30 percent on more than one occasion, his party was soundly defeated in the next major election. Jimmy Carter, who had first to fend off a challenge by Ted Kennedy for his party’s 1980 presidential nomination, ultimately got only 41 percent of the popular vote in losing his bid for reelection to Ronald Reagan. After Richard Nixon’s resignation in the summer of 1974 removed him from the national stage, the GOP nonetheless lost forty-eight house seats in the fall congressional elections, allowing the Democrats to control two-thirds of house seats. In the 1952 presidential election, with the Korean conflict in a stalemate and Truman’s ratings consistently below 30 percent, Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson was defeated in a landslide, winning just 89 electoral votes to Republican Dwight Eisenhower’s 442. An incumbent president is always viewed as the leader of his party and has a major influence on the way it is perceived. People’s party identification tends to be relatively stable, but when a president is highly unpopular for an extended period of time, his party’s image can suffer as well. As seen in Table 2, based on Newsweek poll party ID averages, the proportion of Americans who call themselves Republicans dropped significantly between George W. Bush’s first year in office and the current year. In 2001, 30 percent of Americans identified as Republican. Preliminary figures for 2007 put the number of self-identified Republicans at 25 percent, a drop of five percentage points. Since Princeton Survey Research Associates began conducting the Newsweek poll in 1993, there have been fifty-seven quarters for which sufficient data were available to compute a party ID average. The first two quarters of 2007 are the only two in which GOP identification has averaged below 26 percent.

33

SDI ‘08 Elections

Bush Key Bush’s popularity is key to the success of GOP candidates DeFrank ’07 (THOMAS M. DeFRANK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF – Daily News – October 14th – lexis) President Bush may be the lamest duck of all as the race to succeed him heats up, and that's bad news for Republicans desperately fighting to hold onto the White House next year. Thirteen months before the 2008 election, GOP officials and contenders face not only the albatross of Bush's unpopularity, but a surprising lack of interest from the party's leader in their fate. Some Republicans believe the White House is too consumed with the Iraq war and its legislative agenda to pay enough attention to the battle for the presidency. "The White House political machine is very different without Karl [Rove]," a prominent GOP powerbroker said. "They're somewhat disconnected from the campaign for the first time I can remember." "They don't realize Bush's legacy in large measure is tied up in whether a Republican succeeds him or not," a Republican mandarin told the Daily News. "If a Democrat wins, the conclusion will be that eight years of George W. Bush have been repudiated by the American people. There's no coordination, no togetherness

It is reversible – if Bush enacted popular policies it would boost GOP election hopes. Irish Times ’07 (September 17, 2007 – lexis) And there is a downside for Republican candidates seeking re-election in that Mr Bush himself is unpopular and a lame duck in domestic policy - facts that will tell against his party's candidates unless his fortunes change substantially. War politics are local too.

34

SDI ‘08 Elections

Bush Key Bush popularity key to the GOP’s election chances – Dems will campaign on Bush shortcomings. LA Times ’07 (Los Angeles Times -- October 26, 2007 – lexis) As Bush tried to exorcise ghosts of disasters past, Democrats have been signaling their intention to try to pin those failures on next year's Republican presidential nominee. Many strategists in both parties believe Bush's unpopularity could be a drag for the GOP.

Bush approval ratings key to McCain election Chusid, 6/17/08 (Ron, physician internal medicine, liberal values, lexis) The Washington Post shows the new conventional wisdom in writing that, "McCain needs support from independents because in recent elections, partisans have overwhelmingly supported their own party's candidates, and self-identified Democrats now outnumber Republicans." Suddenly elections are no longer decided by mobilizing the extremes but once again are decided by which direction the independents go. This story comes in a report of their recent poll which shows that Obama and McCain are even among independents. This might be accurate in terms of people who at this moment in time consider themselves independents, but it can be misleading if taking a long term view of politics. I'm less interested in those who say they are independents right now as opposed to a larger group of voters who shift party allegiance over the years. Many of the people I would consider independents currently label themselves as Democrats. Such voters considered themselves Republicans or independents in past elections but are no longer included in polls of independents. If these independent voters could be accurately polled, I'm confident that Obama would have a large lead among independents. McCain also gets a boost in a poll of self-identified independents as many people who now call themselves independents are people who were Republicans before George Bush. While we have only had one election since 1980 without a Bush on the ticket, this election remains heavily influenced by George Bush. It is largely due to the extremism and failed policies of George Bush that many former independents now consider themselves Democrats and that many former Republicans are now independents or Democrats. Bush approval has reached a new low at 29% in this poll, with views on Bush influencing views on McCain. While 80% of those who approve of George Bush are backing McCain only 26% of those who disapprove of Bush are supporting him. Newstex ID: LIBV-0001-26048891

35

SDI ‘08 Elections

A2: McCain Distances Himself McCain Can’t distance himself from bush – its the most important factor Schneider, 6/17/08 (Bill, Political Analyst @ CNN, CNN, lexis) But after eight years of the Bush presidency, Republicans are demoralized -- and McCain is trying to deal with it. "This is indeed a change election. No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically," McCain told a crowd in Kenner, Louisiana, on June 3. But the change argument is hard to make for McCain, who shares the same party affiliation and policy positions as Bush. It's an argument that Obama needs to play on, according to CNN political analyst Donna Brazile. "I think it's important, especially at this stage of the game, to define himself, but also to define his opponent, John McCain, as being part of George Bush's legacy. ... 'If you want more of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, vote for McCain.' That's what Barack Obama is trying to do," she said. Terry Jeffrey, editor in chief of Cybercast News Service, says the Bush factor is the "main reason the Democrats have an advantage this year. ..." "The country is tired of President Bush. He's not popular. He is definitely a problem for John McCain," he said.

McCain Can’t Distance himself from Bush – polls prove Jones, 7/1/08 (Jeffrey, Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/108490/Americans-Worry-McCain-WouldToo-Similar-Bush.aspx) A recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds about two in three Americans concerned that John McCain would pursue policies as president that are too similar to what George W. Bush has pursued. Nearly half -- 49% -- say they are "very concerned" about this. McCain faces a challenge in trying to convince voters to allow him to follow an unpopular president of the same party. Democratic candidate Barack Obama has attempted to link McCain to Bush by saying that electing McCain would effectively lead to a "third Bush term." Although McCain remains competitive in head-to-head matchups with Obama, the poll suggests that McCain may have more work to do to distance himself from Bush.

McCain Can’t Successfully distance himself from Bush DiRito, 7/1/08 (Daniel, All Spin Zone, newstex, lexis) If one can believe the latest Gallup poll, the ideological distance between John McCain and George W. Bush is way too small for a large number of voters. In fact, nearly fifty percent of voters are very concerned that John McCain would pursue the same policies as his predecessor.

Obama will tie McCain to bush – McCain won’t be able to sell independent image Simendinger 6/28/08 (Alexis, National Journal National Correspondent, National Journal, lexis) Despite the GOP's optimism that McCain might be Reagan's heir in Michigan--a flag-waving maverick who can attract independents as well as conservative or centrist Democrats--plenty of political observers believe that Obama can win a "change" election in the state, pitted against a 71-year-old longtime GOP senator who wants to follow the unpopular two-term Bush. Indeed, ever since Obama ended his wrestling match with Clinton and began showering attention on Michigan, he has inched ahead of McCain, some polls indicate.

36

SDI ‘08 Elections

Obama Solves – Alt Energy Obama solves the aff – multiple reasons – including cellulistic ethanol Energy Outlook, 1/11/08 (http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2008/01/candidates-energy-obama.html) Continuing my look at the energy proposals of this year's presidential candidates, let's turn to the other winner of the Iowa Caucuses, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL.) Where Governor Huckabee's proposals for energy and the environment appeared broad and somewhat generic, Senator Obama's are quite detailed, including specific targets for emissions, fuel economy, renewable energy and vehicle technology and performance. Despite this contrast, however, the Senator's views reflect a very similar concern about the security and environmental implications of our energy use. Although I'm skeptical about some of Mr. Obama's energy goals, such as eliminating oil imports by 2030, he has clearly devoted much thought and attention to these issues. Energy and the environment have been consistent themes of the Obama campaign from the start. Youtube has numerous clips of his comments on energy from speeches in many different venues, along with this historical primer on energy independence, highlighting the consistent, bi-partisan failure to deliver on this goal since the 1970s. It suggests that Mr. Obama knows how to achieve it, where others before him--including two Democratic administrations--didn't. Could politics and an absence of plain speaking really be the only reasons this goal hasn't been met? The main pathways that Mr. Obama promotes for improving energy security and reducing emissions are clean energy and efficiency. He advocates much greater use of solar, wind and geothermal power--measured against a 25% renewable electricity standard for 2025--and more biofuels, including conventional ethanol, biodiesel, and cellulosic ethanol. He would expand the Renewable Fuel Standard in the 2007 Energy Bill from 36 billion gallons in 2022 to 60 billion gallons per year by 2030. And recognizing that none of this will spring from thin air, he proposes an Apollo Program-like R&D effort to advance a broad range of energy technologies, along with capacity-building measures such as cleantech job training and manufacturing conversion. Cont… As with his other positions, Senator Obama articulates his views on energy in a forceful and compelling fashion. He conveys a sense that he understands the challenges, has a comprehensive plan for addressing them, and knows how to create the bi-partisan political and public momentum to get it done. But although he doesn't suggest this will be cheap--citing billions of dollars for his new Apollo Program--he does imply that it will be easier than Americans ought to expect. For example, when he talks about advancing automobile fuel efficiency to 43 miles per gallon, 8 mpg above the new CAFE standard for 2020 that emerged from the arduous negotiations for the 2007 Energy Bill, he says, "That is something that we can do, right now." Perhaps, if every car were a Prius-sized hybrid. Even Toyota's Camry hybrid--a model more similar to what most Americans actually purchase--only averages 34 mpg, and all but the smallest SUV hybrids are still in the 20s. Attaining 43 mpg across the whole fleet would be tough, and it would require significant changes in vehicle technology and in the kind of vehicles we drive. As I've noted before, even plug-in hybrids aren't quite the silver bullet they appear to be, in total energy terms. That's even more true for flexible-fuel vehicles.

Obama solves alternate energy – multiple reasons Biofuels Digest, 4/23 In endorsing cap-and-trade, Clinton is in agreement with Senators Obama and McCain, although implementation details may differ. Senators Clinton and Obama agree on a 10-year, $150 billion fund for alternative energy research. Senator Clinton calls for 55 MPG Cafe standards by 2030, compared to "doubling by 2026" for Senator Obama. The National Energy Council is unique to the Clinton campaign, but the Obama campaign is more agressive on a global front, calling for a Global Energy Forum including the G-8, China, Mexico, India, Brazil and South Africa. The Obama campaign calls for the increase in the Renewable Fuel Standard to 60 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2030, a mandatory 10 percent reduction in low-carbon petroleum fuels, and increased incentives for local investment in biofuels plants.

Obama solves the aff – will give huge subsidies to alternate energy Irish Times, 6/24 Mr Obama's campaign yesterday accused Mr McCain of flip-flopping on energy policy, pointing out that the Republican used to oppose offshore oil drilling. "The question is whether we are going to offer the American people real answers and genuine relief or the same, tired Washington gimmicks and special interest favours that have failed our families and country for too long," the Obama campaign said in a memo. Mr Obama wants to crack down on oil market speculators and to introduce big subsidies for solar, wind, ethanol and other alternative-energy projects.

37

SDI ‘08 Elections

Obama Solves – Emissions/Cap and Trade Obama solves the aff better a) cap and trade with deeper cuts and auctioned permits Energy Outlook, 1/11/08 (http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2008/01/candidates-energy-obama.html) With regard to climate change, the Senator calls for a stricter version of the Warner-Lieberman greenhouse gas cap-and-trade legislation currently working its way through the Congress, referencing the earlier Sanders-Boxer Bill (S.309,) which he co-sponsored. His plan differs from Warner-Lieberman in requiring deeper cuts by mid-century and auctioning 100% of the emission allowances, rather than allocating a portion to various industries and organizations. It's a simpler approach, though when MIT compared Sanders-Boxer to, among others, the McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill that was the precursor of Warner-Lieberman, they concluded that the former would result in a significantly higher CO2 cost, equivalent to adding about $1.00 per gallon onto then-current gasoline prices by 2030 and $2.00/gal. by 2050.

b) GRANDFATHERING INCREASES THE ABILITY FOR FIRMS TO SKIRT THE REGULATIONS, AVOID EMISSION REDUCTIONS, AND REDUCE INNOVATION Cramton and Kerr, Professors of Economics, 1998 (Peter and Suzi, Tradable Carbon Allowance Auctions: How and When To Auction, March, Center For Clean Air Policy, p. 16) In addition, the enormous rents would mean that interest groups would continue to seek changes in the allocation over time. Firms might end up putting as much effort into rent capture as into finding efficient ways to reduce carbon usage. Investments might be delayed in the hope that high observed marginal costs would lead to more generous allowance allocations as compensation. The increased complexity of the program, which grandfathering would tend to create, might lead some groups to seek exemptions, or bonus allowances in particular circumstances. In the SO2 case the negotiation process was costly and lengthy and the ultimate allocation formula reflects many special interests and exemptions (Joskow and Schmalensee 1997). Additional allowances were allocated to reward behavior such as investment in scrubbers.

38

SDI ‘08 Elections

Ext – Normal Means = Grandfater Normal Means for the aff is grandfathering – hurts the economy Carraro, ’00 (Carlo, Professor @ Venice, Efficiency and Equity of Climate Change) Fourth, the choice of the design of a TP system is flexible also in the sense that the permits can be auctioned off by the government to the permit liable units and/or those who want to buy permits for other reasons or be allocated for free as is the standard procedure in the US. There are two important differences between these two allocation principles. Still, as a result of making some firms richer than others by giving them a large volume of permits, the favoured firms get deeper pockets which on an imperfect capital market enables them 1) to remain in business for some non economic reason 2) to have more funds for risky investments like R&D for which borrowed funds are less likely to be available, and 3) to have cheaper access to bank loans and capital markets by simply being richer, making loans less risky for the lenders. Firms that are not favoured in this fashion are definitely the new firms that want to enter the market. Since these firms tend to be more efficient than existing firms, giving away permits for free can be expected to slow down productivity growth.

( ) NORMAL MEANS IS A GIVE AWAY – NOT AN AUCTION Driesen, Professor of Law, Syracuse, 2003 (Dan, ELR: News and Analysis, 1-2003, p. 10094) In theory, government can require all polluters to purchase allowances from a limited supply at an auction.6 Whether or not polluters can trade allowances, this requirement that all polluters purchase allowances for each ton of pollution can create incentives to innovate and reduce pollution. This Article, however,

focuses on emissions trading programs that give away limited allowances for free, and then authorize trades to redistribute them. I choose this approach because all existing U.S. pollution trading programs give away, rather than sell, the overwhelming majority of allowances, 7 and because this focus sharpens analysis of trading’s effect on innovation. ( ) NORMAL MEANS IS TO GRANDFATHER PERMITS – HOW OTHER AUCTIONS HAVE BEEN DONE Evans, et al, Redefining Progress, 2002 (Matt, Watching Our Assets, Climate Change Brief, July, p.1) The “Economists’ Statement on Climate Change” (www.RedefiningProgress.org/publications/econstatement.html) argues that “the United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as the auction of emissions permits.” Unfortunately, history suggests that the government is more likely to give away emissions permits instead of auctioning them to emitters.

39

SDI ‘08 Elections

Ext – Grandfathering Bad ( ) AUCTION IS THE BEST ALLOCATION METHOD – MINIMIZES MARKET DISTORTIONS AND ENSURES INNOVATION Cramton and Kerr, Professors of Economics, 1998 (Peter and Suzi, Tradable Carbon Allowance Auctions: How and When To Auction, March, Center For Clean Air Policy, p. 2) This paper argues that an auction is the best way to allocate allowances in a carbon cap-and-trade system. To minimize administrative costs, allowances would be required primarily at the level of oil refineries, natural gas pipelines, natural gas liquid sellers, and coal processing plants. To maximize liquidity in secondary markets, allowances would be fully tradable and bankable. The government would conduct quarterly auctions. A standard ascending-clock auction in which price is gradually raised until there is no excess demand would provide reliable price discovery. An auction is preferred to grandfathering (giving polluters allowances in proportion to past pollution), because it would allow reduced tax distortions, provide more flexibility in distribution of costs, provide greater incentives for innovation, and reduce the need for politically contentious arguments over the allocation of rents. GRANDFATHERING OF PERMITS CREATES DISTORTIONS AND DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTATION DUE TO POLITICAL INFIGHTING Cramton and Kerr, Professors of Economics, 1998 (Peter and Suzi, Tradable Carbon Allowance Auctions: How and When To Auction, March, Center For Clean Air Policy, p. 16) If allowances were grandfathered, interest groups would fight bitterly for a share of annual rents. This fight would lead to direct costs during the design of the policy. Groups would invest in lawyers, government lobbying, and public relations campaigns. Government officials would spend enormous amounts of time preparing and analyzing options and in negotiations. This would lead to high administrative costs and probably considerable delays in implementation. Problems of this nature in the allocation of the telecommunications spectrum ultimately led to industry support for the recent FCC auctions.

Auctioning key to revenue recycling – key to prevent permits from undermining economy Parry, ’96 (William, Resources for Future, When can carbon abatement policies increase welfare, december) In this paper we have used analytical and numberical general equilibrium models to examine the efficiency impacts of revenue-neutral carbon taxes and quotas (or grandfathered carbon permits) in a second best setting with pre-existing labor taxes. For each of these policies, the efficiency costs are considerably higher than would be the case in the absence of prior taxes. These higher costs reflect the taxinteraction effect: the efficiency cost stemming from the regulations impact on labor supply as a result of higher output prices and a reduction in the real wage. Preexisting taxes imply especially high costs in the case of carbon quotas or grandfathered carbon permits. While emissions taxes and auctioned permits enjoy a revenue-recycling effect that offsets much ot the tax interaction effect, quotas and grandfathered permits policies suffer a cost disadvantage because they cannot exploit the revenue recycling effect. The disadvantage can be very large; our central estimate is that, in the presence of prior labor taxes, achieving a 5 percent reduction in carbon emissions is seven times more costly under a carbon quota than under a carbon tax; a 15 percent reuction is three times more costly.

40

SDI ‘08 Elections

Obama Solves – Biofuels/Cellulistic Ethanol Obama solves biofuels and cellulistic ethanol Biofuels Digest, 4/23 The Obama campaign calls for the increase in the Renewable Fuel Standard to 60 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2030, a mandatory 10 percent reduction in low-carbon petroleum fuels, and increased incentives for local investment in biofuels plants.

41

SDI ‘08 Elections

42