This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share
it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA
report form. Report DMCA
INCREASE WW(J)D TOPICALITY 2.0.............................................................................................................................................................1 WW(J)D ..................................................................................................................................................................1 INCREASE = NOT A DISINCENTIVE.........................................................................................................................................3 v. intr.....................................................................................................................................................................................3 2. To multiply; reproduce....................................................................................................................................................3 INCREASE = NOT REMOVE A BARRIER..................................................................................................................................4 v. intr.....................................................................................................................................................................................4 2. To multiply; reproduce....................................................................................................................................................4 INCENTIVES = ONLY POSITIVE ...............................................................................................................................................5 Garcia 08. (Nicolas, with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Greenhouse Gas Mitiation Options for Washington State, pg. 39-40, http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/uniqueKeyLookup/MSTY5Q4LPY? OpenDocument)...........................................................................................................................................................................5 2NC OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................................................................6 2NC AT: CINTERP -- CAN BE BOTH..........................................................................................................................................7 Driesen 98. [David, Assistant Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law; J.D., Yale University, "Is Emissions Trading an Economic Incentive Program" Washington & Lee Law Review -- lexis]................................................................7 AT: CAP AND TRADE IS THE CORE OF THE TOPIC..............................................................................................................8 AT: ITS BETTER FOR THE NEG TO ANSWER REGULATIONS ...........................................................................................9 AT: BUT NEGATIVE INCENTIVES ARE TOPICAL…............................................................................................................10 AT: REASONABILITY ................................................................................................................................................................11 SDI 08...............................................................................................................................................................................................1 NEGATIVE INCENTIVES NOT TOPICAL ..............................................................................................................................12 NEG INCENTIVES = REGULATIONS.......................................................................................................................................13 COMMAND AND CONTROL NOT TOPICAL .........................................................................................................................14 INCENTIVES = FINANCIAL 1NC..............................................................................................................................................15 D. Topicality is a voting issue—it tells the Negative what to and what not to prepare for in debates.....................................15 INCENTIVES = FINANCIAL EXTENSIONS.............................................................................................................................16 INCENTIVES MUST BE EXTERNAL 1NC................................................................................................................................17 INCENTIVES MUST BE EXTERNAL EXTENSIONS..............................................................................................................18 INCENTIVES = SPECIFIC NEW POLICIES 1NC......................................................................................................................19 INCENTIVES CAN BE IMMEDIATE OR LONG-TERM..........................................................................................................20 INCENTIVES CAN BE INTERNAL/A2 MUST BE EXTERNAL..............................................................................................21 INCENTIVES CAN BE INTERNAL/A2 MUST BE EXTERNAL..............................................................................................23 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES = ELECTRICITY SECTOR 1NC............................................................................24 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES = ELECTRICITY SECTOR EXTENSIONS..........................................................25 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY = NOT NUCLEAR/OIL/COAL/NAT GAS 1NC............................................................................26 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY = NOT OIL/NAT GAS (ALLOWS FOR COAL) 1NC...................................................................27 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY = NOT OIL/NAT GAS/NUKE POWER.........................................................................................28 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY = DERIVED FROM NONTRADITIONAL SOURCES 1NC........................................................29 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY = SOURCES NOT HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT................................................................30 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY = RENEWABLES/FUEL CELLS/CONSERVATION TECH........................................................31 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY = REDUCE OIL/COAL DEPENDENCE. ......................................................................................32 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCLUDES OCEAN THERMAL...................................................................................................33 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY LAUNDRY LIST ............................................................................................................................34 INCREASE (ALGAE SPECIFIC).................................................................................................................................................35 v. intr...................................................................................................................................................................................35 2. To multiply; reproduce..................................................................................................................................................35 CTL AIN’T T.................................................................................................................................................................................36 CAP AND TRADE UNTOPICAL ................................................................................................................................................37 FLEX FUEL NOT TOPICAL .......................................................................................................................................................39 FEEBATES NOT T........................................................................................................................................................................40 Green Car Congress 07. (“Canadian Auto Feebate Program a “First Step”, But Needs Improvement”, November 23, http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/study-canadian.html)......................................................................................40 INCENTIVES CAN BE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE...............................................................................................................41 1
SDI 08 WW(J)D NEGATIVE INCENTIVES ARE TOPICAL ...............................................................................................................................42 C&T TOPICAL .............................................................................................................................................................................43 NON TRADITIONAL USES OF TRADITIONAL FUELS = T..................................................................................................44 Alternative Transportation Fuels .........................................................................................................................................44 BIOFUELS = T..............................................................................................................................................................................45 CARBON TAX = POSITIVE INCENTIVE .................................................................................................................................46
2
SDI 08 WW(J)D
INCREASE = NOT A DISINCENTIVE
A. INCREASE MEANS TO BECOME GREATER OR LARGER. American Heritage Dictionary 6. [Fourth edition, accessed via http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/increase] v. intr.
1. To become greater or larger. 2. To multiply; reproduce.
B. VIOLATION – THE AFF PLACES DISINCENTIVES FOR THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS – THEY DON’T INCREASE THE NUMBER OF INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. C. REASONS TO PREFER -1. 2. 3.
LIMITS – THE AFF MAKES THE TOPIC BIDIRECTIONAL BY ALLOWING BOTH INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND DISINCENTIVES FOR FOSSIL FUELS – THIS EXPLODES THE TOPIC KILLING TOPIC SPECIFIC EDUCATION AND CLASH. GROUND – ONLY OUR INTERPRETATION PRESERVES CORE NEG GROUND – I.E. INCREASING INCENTIVES WHICH IS CRUCIAL TO OUR LINKS TO DISADS AND COUNTEPRLAN GROUND. BRIGHTLINE – YOU EITHER INCREASE INCENTIVES OR YOU DON’T – PREFER THE SPECIFICTY OF OUR INTERPRETATION.
D. VOTER FOR FAIRNESS ABUSE AND JURISDICTION.
3
SDI 08 WW(J)D
INCREASE = NOT REMOVE A BARRIER
A. INTERPRETATION - INCREASE MEANS TO BECOME GREATER OR LARGER. American Heritage Dictionary 6. [Fourth edition, accessed via http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/increase] v. intr.
1. To become greater or larger. 2. To multiply; reproduce.
B. VIOLATION – THE AFF REMOVES A CURRENT BARRIER TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT – IT DOESN’T PROVIDE ACTIVE INCENTIVES. C. REASONS TO PREFER -1.
LIMITS – their interpretation allows affs that actually increase incentives and also those that merely remove a current barrier – this explodes the topic forcing the neg to rely on generics which hurt clash and education.
2.
GROUND – forcing the aff to defend an actual increase in alternative energy incentives is crucial to stable negative link and counterplan ground.
3.
EFFECTS IS A VOTER – the plan can only claim to solve for renewables by eventually leading to investment in alternative energy – this removes any limit on the topic, makes the aff conditional and skews neg strategy.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTER FOR FAIRNESS ABUSE AND JURISDICTION.
4
SDI 08 WW(J)D
INCENTIVES = ONLY POSITIVE
A. INTERPRETATION – INCENTIVES ARE POSITIVE AND NOT REGULATIONS – OUR EVIDENCE IS COMPARATIVE Garcia 08. (Nicolas, with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Greenhouse Gas Mitiation Options for Washington State, pg. 39-40, http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/uniqueKeyLookup/MSTY5Q4LPY? OpenDocument)
A variety of policy instruments could be used to implement this greenhouse gas mitigation program. The state indicates that choosing the appropriate policy instrument is extremely important. Generally, policy instruments fall into three areas: 1. Economic Incentives—direct taxes granting or eliminating tax breaks, subsidies, granting of regulatory exemptions, making pricing more efficient; 2. Public Investment—research and development, education, new infrastructure, maintenance of existing infrastructure, also withholding investment in greenhouse gas generating activities; and 3. Regulation—efficiency standards, zoning, building codes, fuel use requirements, speed limits, and travel restrictions. B. VIOLATION – THE AFF IS A NEGATIVE INCENTIVE OR REGULATION – THIS IS NOT AN INCENTIVE. C. REASONS TO PREFER LIMITS AND GROUND – THE AFF MAKES THE TOPIC BIDIRECTIONAL BY JUSTIFYING BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE INCENTIVES – THERE IS NO STABLE CORE GROUND AND EXPLODES THE RESEARCH BURDEN. DEFINITIONAL PRECISION – INCENTIVES ARE DISTINCT FROM COERCION. 12Manage 8 (6/4 "Incentives," http://www.12manage.com/description_incentives.html) DEFINITION INCENTIVES. DESCRIPTION. An Incentive is any extrinsic reward factor that motivates
an employee or manager or team to achieve an important business goal on top of his/her/their intrinsic motivation. It is a factor aiming to shape or direct behavior. In an optimal form, executives and employees should be remunerated well (but cost-effectively) where they deserve it, and not where they do not. Pay-offs for failure should be kept at a minimum. Furthermore, to be effective, a layered or gradual approach is better than an all-ornothing incentive. A smart executive reward scheme is one of the pillars to ensure entrepeneurial behavior and maximizing shareholder value (Compare: Value Based Management). An incentive is
unlike coercion, in that coerced work is motivated by the threat or use of violence, punishment or negative action, which an incentive is a positive stimulation. Incentives can also be used as Anti Hostile Takeover Mechanisms.
EFFECTS IS ILLEGIT – at best the aff can claim to incentivize the development of alternative energy post regulation. This isn’t a direct incentive which explodes the topic killing topic specific education and all neg ground. Voter for fairness. D. Topicality is a voter for fairness, jurisdiction, and abuse.
5
SDI 08 WW(J)D
2NC OVERVIEW
EXTEND THE 1NC GARCIA EVIDENCE – INCENTIVES REFER TO POSTIVE ACTIONS SUCH AS TAX BREAKS, SUBSIDIES OR REGULATORY EXEMPTIONS. THIS IS A DISTINCT AND OPPOSING CATEGORY TO A NEGATIVE INCENTIVE WHICH IS A REGULATION LIKE THE AFF. IF YOU ALLOW THE AFF TO BE A REGULATION IT MAKES THE TOPIC BIDIRECTIONAL – THE NEG IS FORCED TO BE READY TO DEBATE THE MANDATE COUNTERPLAN ONE ROUND AND THE VOLUNTARY COUNTERPLAN THE NEXT. THIS LOSS OF STABLE NEG GROUND MEANS WE’RE FORCED TO GO FOR GENERICS LIKE CONSULT AND ASPEC JUST TO GET BACK TO GROUND ZERO KILLING TOPIC SPECIFIC EDUCATION. THE AFF JUSTIFIES CASES LIKE CARBON TAX, RAISING CAFÉ STANDARDS, FEEBATES, MANDATED GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT AND ANY FUEL EFFICIENCY AFF. NONE OF THESE ARE PREDICTABLE AND DESTROY CLASH AND NEGATIVE STRATEGY. EVEN IF THE AFF INTERPRETATION GIVES US MORE GROUND ITS NOT PREDICTABLE – THE KEY TEST ON THIS T DEBATE IS FAIR LIMITS AND PREDICTABLE GROUND AND WE’LL ALWAYS WIN THAT DEBATE. FINALLY TOPICALITY IS A VOTR FOR FAIRNESS ABUSE AND JURISDICTION – YOU HAVE TO VOTE NEG ON T SINCE IT’S THE BEGINNING OF THE SEASON AND NOW IS THE TIME TO SET A PRECEDENT.
6
SDI 08 WW(J)D
2NC AT: CINTERP -- CAN BE BOTH
This interpretation ruins debate. Ruins it. They explode the topic by functionally making it bidirectional. The impact of the explosion of the topic outweighs any sort of aff flex whine arguments they make. Forcing the negative to prepare both the mandate and voluntary counterplans for one topic and eliminating any stable negative ground outweighs the cost of not debating cap and trade on the affirmative. Additionally, DEFINING INCENTIVES TO INCLUDE BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE EXPAND THE TOPIC TO INCLUDE ANY REGULATORY PROGRAM – PREFER OUR EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT’S THE MOST CONCLUSIVE. Driesen 98. [David, Assistant Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law; J.D., Yale University, “Is Emissions Trading an Economic Incentive Program” Washington & Lee Law Review -- lexis]
An economic incentive program can be defined as any program that provides an economic benefit for pollution reductions or an economic penalty for pollution. Defining economic incentives to include both positive and negative incentives includes pollution taxes in the definition. 155 Does command and control regulation qualify as an economic incentive program under this definition? Imagine a pure command and control law. The law commands polluters to perform specific pollution reducing acts, but provides no penalties for noncompliance. This law would probably motivate little or no pollution reduction, because polluters could violate the commands without consequence. 156 Command and control regulation only works when an enforcement mechanism exists. 157
Traditional regulation relies upon a negative economic incentive a monetary penalty for non-compliance as the principle inducement to comply with regulatory requirements, true command and control requirements, such as work practice standards, and the more common performance standards. 158 Indeed, a traditional regulation's success depends heavily upon the adequacy of these monetary penalties. 159
A formal definition of an economic incentive program as any program relying on positive or negative economic inducements to secure pollution reductions plausibly applies to just about any regulatory program. To evaluate possible explanations for the dichotomy's assumption that emissions trading relies on economic incentives, but traditional regulation does not, a functional analysis is helpful. Parties to this debate need to analyze whether emissions trading overcomes traditional regulation's weaknesses in spurring innovation and providing continuous incentives. This will require examination of the sources of economic inducements, the financing mechanisms, the likely responses of regulated polluters (both strategic and desired), and the governmental [*324] role in emissions trading. These questions provide the tools to develop a functional theory of economic incentives.
AND ALLOWING REGULATIONS TO BE TOPICAL JUSTIFIES ANYTHING BEING TOPICAL INCLUDING EVERY REGULATION CAP AND TRADE, THE CARBON TAX CP, AND EVERYTHING ELSE – IT ELIMINATES THE MEANING OF AN INCENTIVE. Driesen 98. [David, Assistant Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law; J.D., Yale University, "Is Emissions Trading an Economic Incentive Program" Washington & Lee Law Review -- lexis]
The emissions trading example reveals that the term "economic incentive" has very little meaning if defined to include everything that relies on some kind of monetary penalty or benefit. Indeed, to the extent the term "economic incentive" should not apply to traditional regulation, it also should not apply to emissions trading. Both types of programs rely on monetary penalties to induce compliance with government set limits. Neither creates incentives for sources to continuously realize net reductions substantially surpassing the specifically mandated reductions.
7
SDI 08 WW(J)D
AT: CAP AND TRADE IS THE CORE OF THE TOPIC
FIRST, the negative research burden presented by allowing negative incentives clearly outweighs the loss of education from not debating cap and trade on the aff. Making the topic bidirectional forces the neg to resort to bad consultation or condition counterplans diverting focus from the topic where debating would be educational. Second, cap and trade will still be debated under our interpretation it will just become a negative counterplan instead of an affirmative. Its better to debate it as a counterplan because we subsume all their core of the topic education arguments but preserves negative ground by only forcing the aff to defend positive incentives.
8
SDI 08 WW(J)D
AT: ITS BETTER FOR THE NEG TO ANSWER REGULATIONS
Yes there might be awesome disads to regulation affs but the college energy topic proves that there’s just as good negative evidence the other direction. Its better to have to do a little bit more work on reasons why incentives fail rather than having to do all the work why incentives fail AND cut all those disads why regulations suck. Even if they give us more ground, its unpredictable ground which makes it worthless. The crucial thing on this topic is fair limits which only the negative interpretation provides.
9
SDI 08 WW(J)D
AT: BUT NEGATIVE INCENTIVES ARE TOPICAL…
WRONG – extend the 1NC Garcia evidence – incentives are defined in the literature as a positive actions such as subsidies, granting regulatory incentives, tax breaks etc. However regulation or negative incentives are punishments towards an industry for not complying or mandates like efficiency standards, carbon taxes and fuel use requirements. Additionally, here’s more evidence that delineates between incentives as positive motivational influences and disincentives as the opposite. Collins Essential Thesaurus 2006 (Second Edition, "Incentive," http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incentive) Noun 1. incentive - a positive motivational influence inducement, motivator rational motive - a motive that can be defended by reasoning or logical argument dynamic, moral force - an efficient incentive; "they hoped it would act as a spiritual dynamic on all churches"
deterrence, disincentive - a negative motivational influence
And, here’s contextual evidence which draws the clear dichotomy between an incentive and a disincentive or a regulation. Malloy 2. [Tim, Acting Professor of Law, University of California at Los Angeles.Texas Law Review “Regulating by Incentives” -- lexis] Environmental regulation is all about using incentives to control behavior.
Under direct "command and control" regulation, 1 the government creates specific obligations and generally relies upon the negative incentives of civil and criminal penalties to motivate individuals or organizations to comply with those obligations. 2 Alternatively, the new generation of "market-based" or "incentive-based" regulations typically create an op-portunity rather than (or in addition to) an obligation, offering the positive [*532] incentive of increased profits (or reduced costs) in the hope of eliciting the desired behavior. 3 A regulator using either of these two regulatory approaches must identify the appropriate type and level of incentive - be it positive or negative - needed to produce the "correct" response from the target. In crafting and evaluating regulatory incentives, a regulator necessarily relies upon some basic model of how the target makes decisions. 4 If that model is flawed, then the incentive will miss the mark, and the desired behavior may never occur.
Prefer the specificity of our contextual evidence – it actually has the intent to define both a regulation and an incentive individual and to define the distinctions between the two.
10
SDI 08 WW(J)D
AT: REASONABILITY
Competing interpretations is the better way to adjudicate T debates. Reasonability is inherently vague and forces judge intervention because there’s no way to objectively evaluate what is ‘reasonably’ topical. Competing interpretations asks you to decide who wins net benefits to their interpretation i.e. ground and limits. Whoever wins that debate wins the round. You should vote on T right now because this is the time that shapes the way the community decides what is topical. Voting negative on T is crucial to setting the precedent of regulation affs not being topical.
11
SDI 08 WW(J)D
NEGATIVE INCENTIVES NOT TOPICAL
NEGATIVE INCENTIVES FALL UNDER REGULATIONS NOT INCENTIVES. Malloy 2. [Tim, Acting Professor of Law, University of California at Los Angeles.Texas Law Review “Regulating by Incentives” -- lexis] Environmental regulation is all about using incentives to control behavior.
Under direct "command and control" regulation, 1 the government creates specific obligations and generally relies upon the negative incentives of civil and criminal penalties to motivate individuals or organizations to comply with those obligations. 2 Alternatively, the new generation of "market-based" or "incentive-based" regulations typically create an op-portunity rather than (or in addition to) an obligation, offering the positive [*532] incentive of increased profits (or reduced costs) in the hope of eliciting the desired behavior. 3 A regulator using either of these two regulatory approaches must identify the appropriate type and level of incentive - be it positive or negative - needed to produce the "correct" response from the target. In crafting and evaluating regulatory incentives, a regulator necessarily relies upon some basic model of how the target makes decisions. 4 If that model is flawed, then the incentive will miss the mark, and the desired behavior may never occur.
REGULATIONS ARE NOT TOPICAL. Stavins 1. [Robert N., Albert Pratt Prof of Business and Government, Harvard University – JFK School of Government, “Lessons from American Experiment with Market-Based Environmental Policies” SSRN, April http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=285998] Environmental policies typically combine the identification of a goal with some means to achieve that goal. Although these two components are often linked within the political process, I focus in this chapter exclusively on the second component, the means — the “instruments” — of environmental policy.
Market-based instruments are regulations that encourage behavior through market signals rather than through explicit directives regarding pollution control levels or methods. These policy instruments, such as tradable permits or pollution charges, can reasonably be described as “harnessing market forces,”3 because if they are well designed and implemented, they encourage firms or individuals to undertake pollution control efforts that are in their own interests and that collectively meet policy goals.
12
SDI 08 WW(J)D
NEG INCENTIVES = REGULATIONS
NEGATIVE INCENTIVES ARE DIRECT REGULATION WHICH AREN’T TOPICAL. Freeman 6. [Myrick, Research Professor of Economis @ Bowdoin College, former Sr Fellow @ Resources for the Future, Visiting College Prof @ U of Washington, and Robert M La Follette Visiting Distinguished Prof @ U of Wisconsin-Madison, “Economics, Incentives, and Environmental Policy”Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century p200]
The major provisions of the federal laws controlling air and water pollution embody what is often termed a direct regulation (or command-and-control) approach to achieving the established targets. This direct regulation approach involves placing limits on the allowable discharges of polluting substances from each source, coupled with an administrative and legal system to monitor compliance with these limits and to impose sanctions or penalties for violations. In this approach the pollution control authority must carry out a series of four steps:
1.
2. 3. 4.
Determine the rules and regulations for each source that will achieve the given pollution targets. The regulations typically establish maximum allowable discharges of polluting substances from each source. They also could require the installation of certain types of pollution control equipment, restrict certain activities, or limit such things as the sulfur content of fuels. Establish penalties or sanctions for non compliance Monitor sources so that incidents of noncompliance can be detected. Alternatively the authorities might establish a system of self reporting with periodic checks and audits of performance. Punish violations. If violations of the regulations are detected, the authorities must use the administrative and legal mechanisms spelled out in the relevant laws to impose penalties or to require changes in the behavior of the sources.
13
SDI 08 WW(J)D
COMMAND AND CONTROL NOT TOPICAL
COMMAND AND CONTROL ISN’T TOPICAL – THE LITERATURE DEFINES IT AS OPPOSITE TO AN INCENTIVE. Driesen 98. [David, Assistant Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law; J.D., Yale University, “Is Emissions Trading an Economic Incentive Program” Washington & Lee Law Review -- lexis] Rather than define economic incentives, scholars employ a conventional dichotomy that contrasts "command and control" regulations (rules that dictate [*291] precisely how a polluter must clean-up) with economic incentives. 5 They claim that command and control regulations work inefficiently, discourage innovation, and fail to provide continuous incentives to reduce pollution, but that emissions trading and other economic incentive programs overcome these problems. 6
The dichotomy between command and control regulations and economic incentives has had a powerful influence upon policy. 7 On October 22, 1997, President
Clinton outlined his plans to address global climate change, an increase in global mean surface temperatures that emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" cause. 8 The President's speech stressed the issue's importance by referring to some possible consequences of climate change including "disruptive weather events" (such as droughts and floods), the spread of "disease bearing insects," and receding glaciers (which might cause inundation of coastal areas). 9 President Clinton did not mention a single new traditional regulatory program or propose any specific cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, below 1990 levels to combat this potential menace. Instead, he announced a "package of strong market incentives, [*292] tax cuts and cooperative efforts with industry." 10 The President's package included emissions trading, which is the "economic incentive program" most often implemented. His proposal would allow polluters in one country to avoid greenhouse gas reductions at home in exchange for pollution reductions abroad. 11 Not surprisingly, emissions trading became an important element of the subsequently negotiated Kyoto Protocol on climate change, in which the developed countries apparently agreed to modest cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. 12
14
SDI 08 WW(J)D
INCENTIVES = FINANCIAL 1NC
A. Definition—Incentives are financial forms of encouragement for customers to make sure of a particular product or service Taylor, Kipp, and Ruppert 8 (Nicholas, Jennison, and Kathleen, Research Associate, Research Economist, and associate extension scientists @ Program for Resource Efficient Communities @ University of Florida, "Energy Efficient Homes: Incentive Programs for Energy Efficiency," http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FY1033#FOOTNOTE_2)
Incentive Encouragement, often financial, for customers to make use of a particular product, type of product, or service. B. Violation—the Affirmative doesn’t increase financial incentives for alternative energy C. Standards 1. Predictable limits—financial incentives are a clear, predictable mechanism for what constitutes an incentive. Allowing for non-financial incentives justifies Affirmatives dealing with public service announcements or changes in corporate leadership that open the floodgates for potential Affirmatives, destroying clash and creating research burdens 2. Ground—defining incentives as financial ensures Negatives disad ground in the form of spending, budget tradeoff, and politics and counterplan ground in the form of punitive measures/regulations or non-financial incentives D. Topicality is a voting issue—it tells the Negative what to and what not to prepare for in debates
15
SDI 08 WW(J)D
INCENTIVES = FINANCIAL EXTENSIONS
“Alternative energy incentives” must require the expenditure of governmental funding Arens 03 (Birgit, Advisor @ Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry, "Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment," May 28, http://www.duurzaamwonen.com/media/Bauke_de_vries_02_2.doc.) Incentives to use renewable sources of energy: Incentives usually cost money, which is rarely available at present unless governments make it a clear priority. Furthermore, most incentives are national programmes and the influence of local authorities is limited.