1AC – Inherency

Renewables currently barred from forming MLPs—this stifles renewable energy projects

Blodgett and Gawell 12

(Leslie and Karl, Geothermal Energy Weekly, “New MLP Parity Act Could Give a Boost to Geothermal/Renewable Energy Investors,” 2012, http://geo-energy.org/Newsletter/2012/Geothermal%20Energy%20Weekly%20July%2019%202012.pdf//wyo-mm)

An MLP is a business structure that is taxed as a partnership, but whose ownership interests are traded like corporate stock on a market. By statute, MLPs have only been available to investors in energy portfolios for oil, natural gas, coal extraction, and pipeline projects. These projects get access to capital at a lower cost and are more liquid than traditional financing approaches to energy projects, making them highly effective at attracting private investment. Investors in renewable energy projects, however, have been explicitly prevented from forming MLPs, starving a growing portion of America’s domestic energy sector of the capital it needs to build and grow. See also a white paper on the MLP Parity Act. Original cosponsors: Senators Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).

1AC – Plan

The United States federal government should allow the use of Master Limited Partnerships for the production of wind power.

1AC- Method

Policymaking is critical to address the overwhelming risks we face if we do not alter our energy production strategy-even if the science is uncertain, we must act to prevent the misery that will occur if we’re wrong

Schreyer 2005

[The Right Honourable Edward R. Schreyer was elected to the Manitoba Legislature in 1958, elected Leader of the Manitoba N.D.P. party in June 1969 and subsequently elected Premier of Manitoba from 1969-77. In 1979, Schreyer became Canada's 22nd Governor General, serving until 1984. He was awarded the Lester B. Pearson Peace Award in 1997. Mr. Schreyer currently serves on the Board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development and is the Chancellor of Brandon University. The Politics of Energy and the Environment, http://www.ecclectica.ca/issues/2005/3/index.asp?Article=13, uwyo//amp]

The politics of energy production, the politics of supply prospects and the politics of environmental protection seem to serve (or fail to serve) entirely different interest groups. Yet, the challenge is largely all of one piece. To be sure, if there were truly widespread acceptance of the contention that fossil fuel combustion with its resultant 25 billion tonnes of annual CO2 were the principal cause of global climate change and that such change was upon us, then some action would become a moral imperative in the public forum. Slowly that consensus appears to be evolving but until the politicians see a clear public trend, most will not have the stomach for earlier action. It may then become action-just-in-time (if we are lucky). There is a great deal of evidence and logic to suggest that Planet Earth's oceans and forests, are vast enough to act as an absolute sink for great tonnages of CO2 as they have in the past. Planet Earth's resources and resiliency factors are indeed—vast. But they are not infinite. The rational politics of all this suggests that there is a prudent and practical course of action. It is to adopt the precautionary principle that in the face of growing evidence, but lacking absolute certainty, the most justifiable course is to conserve and attenuate the use of nonrenewables while working hard to develop the renewables. It becomes essential to slow the rate of depletion of fossil fuels and hasten the rate of harnessing the renewables, i.e., wind and hydro. Only those who have the most unlimited greed for profit by fast track depletion should have cause to object. No one realistically wishes for a disruption in the stability of the oil and gas industry, but their product would serve better if it were extracted at half the present pace rate and therefore remain available for twice as long into the future. On that basis, Earth's natural CO2 sinks would then have a somewhat better chance in the odds of absorbing the tonnages of CO2 that would still be emitted, but at greatly reduced levels each year. However, as matters now stand, and with the prevailing attitudes, there isn't a chance that we will come through this without major disruption and consequential misery. I also hold this view as regards the political and technological problem of getting alternative energy systems in place before supply shortfalls in oil and gas drive prices even further into erratic haywire extremes. The 2004/05 price examples are merely the leading edge. In other words, we are leaving the task of redirecting our energy future dreadfully late—dangerously late. I mean this from the point of view of supply shortages that both explode price and disrupt production capacity of food, fibre and finished goods. By then, we may or may not yet, have the ultimate proof of impending climate change bringing environmental and ecological disaster. If these two prospects are linked, however, does it really matter which comes first? Ironically, the linkage of these two transcending problems extends to the political world. There is infighting, even among groups who are genuine supporters of conservation policies. There are some who are environmental activists, because of visible impacts on the landscape and others who urgently support renewable energy initiatives because of sustainability concerns. Each of these groups have, within them, numbers who are impatient; who seek urgent measures in support of one or another policy initiative sometimes to the exclusion of all other options. In this context, one can meet those who favour the solar option and downplay wind energy and/or those who favour wind energy options as capable of meeting future energy needs without any need for development of hydroelectric sites, even of the most favorable kind. All this is rather remindful of the old adage—"every duck praises its own slough". The reality is that the very scale and nature of the problem is so great that it requires the adoption of all practical efforts and renewable, sustainable alternatives. This includes promotion of the conservation ethic—use less, waste less. It includes promotion of all efforts toward greater efficiency in energy and resource use; building better, smaller and with more insulation, more allowance for solar gain, etc. These are some examples that come mind. Acceptance of new technologies that have passed tests of feasibility must be encouraged. The slow rate at which geothermal heat pumps are being installed as an alternative to gas heating is a disappointing case in point. The technology is known. The capacity to install must be encouraged and ramped up but who will do this? One potential stakeholder awaits the other and governments remain passive bystanders. So it proceeds at a snail's pace. We perceive the political problem of breaking out of inertia. We appear, these past 20 years, to be living in a time when the dominant political philosophy guiding democratic governments is one of subordination to market forces. The path followed appears to be the opposite to that followed, e.g., by President Franklin Roosevelt in formulating the New Deal as a major struggle to reduce the poverty and despair of the 1930s. It was not left to chance then. Government was used as a useful tool—as an instrument to initiate certain programs and actions to seek certain objectives. At present, however, we drift without any guiding path or principles. The Kyoto Accord to reduce CO2 emissions has, for political reasons, been signed by most countries but not by others, including the US. It is important to note that there is, in fact, very little difference in the actual deeds thus far in either set of countries (except for a few in Europe). The quantum of fossil fuel depleted each year, and the resulting CO2 emissions keep moving in the direction opposite to the Accord. If this is progress, we must be using an inverted mirror. There has been no shortage of government press releases (implying action and progress) issued since the Kyoto Accord was negotiated eight years ago, but precious little has been done. As such, all these press communiques have been used rather like Weapons of Mass Deception. Only Alice in Wonderland, who learned how to use the Mock Turtle's calculator can explain how we manage to imply we have made progress when, in fact, oil and gas depletion has accelerated in Canada as much as anywhere else and so have greenhouse gas emissions. The political climate needed for any real and concerted action is apparently not yet at hand. Wildly contradictory statements by opposing camps of experts confuse and perplex those citizens who try to make sense of it all. But wait! The most recent events of the autumn of 2005 are beginning to show an unintended consensus, but a consensus nonetheless. We have, in recent years, begun to hear more and more from those who describe oil depletion as a global problem; global in scope and disastrous in its consequence, if not urgently addressed. These "peak oil" geologists (and others of the same view) were, until about 1995, few in number and viewed with derision by the conventional wisdom, and of course, by those hyping stock market shares and grinding other axes of self-interest. But these past two years they have been and are receiving respectful attention and are being joined in their efforts to explain, inform and educate, by some numbers at least, of economists, bankers and public policy analysts. They are no longer dismissed as doomsayers except perhaps by those who engage in the conventional wishful thinking that oil and gas will be available forever. In early November 2005 the International Energy Agency, which is the agency owned by the 22 or so major oil consuming industrial nations, released an astonishing statement indicating that the world's energy consumption patterns and practices were unsustainable and urged major changes. One must pause here to have that resonate and register. Particularly so, because the IEA has, until now, always tried to put an optimistic face on global energy future prospects. One can be sure that there has been, these past six years or so, much internal stress in deciding how best to maintain the façade of a business-as-usual energy strategy. It is the IEA's own annual publication "World Energy Outlook" that each year shows projected global oil consumption and depletion fast tracking upward to 100 million barrels per day and another 60 million barrels per day of gas in oil equivalent by 2020. The consequent CO2 emissions, therefore, are shown to rise to just under 40 billion tonnes per year. Business as usual indeed. The whole notion is absurd! Moreover, in the last 30 days, after 30 years, they have changed direction. Better late than never! In other words, the IEA has done a volte-face in November 2005. But again, wait for the final note: as though to contradict the "peal oil" geologists, the IEA states "there is still enough oil—enough to last another 30 years—all it will need is $17 trillion dollars of investment in production and plant infrastructure". Yes: 17,000 billion dollars over 30 years or 500 billion dollars per year. Oh! I forgot. The IEA also said that most (almost all) of this onus for production increase would have to come from OPEC. It didn't explain why there is apparently little hope or expectation that investment, no matter how massive, in North America, Europe or in deep sea drilling will make any meaningful difference. Therefore, the "lots of oil" is "lots of oil" except in a few places. One should not expect politicians to exhort more and more spending on oil exploration in old producing territories. Few things are as nonproductive as a once depleted oil field. Who will invest in the Brooklyn Bridge? The most telling point I leave toward the end. It is that if you carefully read the statements made by those wishing to put an optimistic spin; oftentimes they confirm rather than contradict the statements made by "peak oil" analysts. For example, the IEA statement "there is oil to last for another 30 years" is hardly different from the peak oil thesis that oil will be extractable for at least another 30 to 40 years but it will not increase, but rather only decrease in relation to demand, falling short each year in meeting that demand. The shortfall will create a psychology that will drive prices into a cocked hat of spiral and uncertainty. We will either ramp up in time with tar sands, shale and nonrenewables or we will face a sharp increase in the "index of misery" as food, fibre and mobility prices escalate wildly. Concurrently, if renewables lose out in development priority to tar sands, Arctic pipelines and more and more coal, you can expect the projected 40 billion tonnes of CO2 to surge upward by a commensurate greater amount. There are other negative possibilities, of course. One example is the case where governments use renewable energy cash flow where it is working well to subsidize continued use of one or another of the fossil fuels, etc. Yes, there is the tantalizing prospect of "clean coal". But, what does it mean? Coal can be cleaned, of course. It can be washed, scrubbed of its particulates and reduced in its sulfur emissions, etc., but to hype "clean coal" as being rid of its necessity to emit carbon dioxide in the burning of it, is to return to the nonsense alchemy of the high Middle Ages. To burn coal in a modern power plant is to combine carbon and oxygen in prodigious amounts. A coal plant of 1000MW producing electricity, let's say, at 80% capacity factor, will discharge about 7 million tonnes per year of CO2 into the atmosphere. To suggest that this CO2 can somehow be all sequestered, avoided or stored away somewhere at that grand scale month after month, year after year, is to hype the most outrageous nonsense. Without oxygen meeting carbon—no combustion and no steam. And, of course, natural gas combustion discharges carbon dioxide as well—at about 60 percent the rate of coal. That is not the only point. Natural gas is in much shorter supply, especially in North America, and its depletion rate on this continent is already making itself felt! Natural gas prices have tripled (+300%) in the past three years! The effect on home heating costs and industrial processing is drastic in its impact. The implications for fertilizer production and costs are severe enough to cause 100% price increases to western farmers. The politics of natural gas can be summarized as follows. All local clean air lobbies, and many environmental lobbies, favour natural gas over coal. However, those who are concerned with "sustainability" over the long run, favor coal over gas. Many lobbied for natural gas, not only for home heating where it was obviously to be favoured but also as a preference over hydro for electricity generation. In the latter case, it is not at all to be preferred, except for peak hour relief. Yet, repeatedly, in the 1990s to 2003, gas was promoted and installed in more than 90% of all new electricity-generating plants in North America. As a direct result, in at least three provinces in Canada, hydro development was poor mouthed and postponed, while we celebrated "an environmental victory" of gas installation. It was a mass phenomenon, like lemmings moving to the sea and their own demise. The shortsightedness and irresponsibility when shown in pictorial graph(a) is stunning. But, who will be called to account?? These events were a direct "defeat" for sustainability, if truth be known. The decade is only half over and already we are looking rather nervously at multi-billion dollar Arctic gas pipelines and multi-hundred billion dollar LNG terminals and ships to bring Mideastern, North African and Russian gas to North American shores because the decision makers have been so careless. That is where the politics of the 21st Century energy provenance seems to have taken us these past five short years. Ironic this is too, because 48 years ago the Diefenbaker government enacted policy that established a National Energy Board. It was empowered to grant or withhold licences for natural gas export, unless it could be demonstrated that the depletion for export purposes was not to be allowed except in amounts that were surplus to domestic requirements of the next 20 years. That was all changed in 1990 after 30 years of successful stewardship. It was replaced by the current system, now 15 years old. That is by the politics that have recently dictated that gas production and exports shall be ratcheted up without regard for domestic needs. The cynic will be excused for noting the energy clauses of the Free Trade Agreement do not force Canada to increase exports of oil and gas to the US. What they require is that those exports cannot be reduced from the levels of preceding year(s). There is a difference. The onus is entirely ours. It is simply not right to blame Americans for decisions in Canada and the aimless policy drift that allows ratcheting. It is made-in-Canada policy. It was not made during the administrations of Messrs. Diefenbaker, Pearson or Trudeau. So two guesses as to when the National Energy Board process on gas exports was abolished. To those who argue that without those energy resource clauses, the US would not have signed the Trade Agreement, I point out that Mexico very specifically declined from signing that Agreement until those energy clauses were removed. They were removed—they then signed on—and so did the US. (If they had softwood lumber and Mad Cows, would they be treated differently than we were last year?) After all, the notion that a nation must be obliged to buy products or resources it doesn't want or need is absurd. It is equally absurd that a nation must sell off resources at a rate any faster than it wishes to extract or deplete. Almost half of the American population would like very much to build up their own energy options and preferably base their energy policy more on sustainable modalities; and reduce, at long last, their perceived over dependency on foreign oil, especially Middle East oil. This is a growing consensus among many members of Congress today. They must wonder when they see the other half of the population supporting those who appear to demand that OPEC and other countries spend and invest heavily to increase production in order to deplete more rapidly that very resource they feel they are already exploiting too heavily and too quickly. And what would be the result of increasing production—to sell 20% more volume at 20% lower price? Better to leave it in the ground an extra few years. It might appreciate in value. So goes, and so will continue to revolve, the politics of fossil fuel energy during the first two decades of the 21st Century. The essence of the energy and environmental policy dilemma is not whether we must change policy direction but rather how soon can we start. We must put practical renewable energy capacity in place. There are two reasons why we must insist that no more time should be wasted as has been wasted this entire past decade. Some may argue that almost half of world oil reserves are now depleted while optimists (forced or otherwise) may insist that almost half of ultimate reserves remain to be exploited. They both happen to be right. That is not the point. Does it really matter so much if the cup is half full or half empty? The far, far more important thing we must do is to accept the real possibility that beyond a certain point, global capacity to produce will decline and fail to meet demand. Prices will soar as supply becomes erratic and undependable month to month. We will either be ready with a rational plan of practical alternatives (that are also non-greenhouse gas emitting) or we will witness a deterioration in environmental balances and sustainability, even while misery escalates in the face of decline in the production of the necessities of life. Is it rational to ration and conserve energy or is it "merely a personal virtue but of no relevance to public policy?" (as was recently uttered by senior White House official). Or was it the Mad Hatter or the March Hare who said this? No matter. Perhaps it is up to us if these next two decades are to become the best of times instead of the very worst of times. Possibly that is oversimplifying the possible scenarios. It may be that resource constraints, limits and realities in the face of a global population growing eventually to 8 billion and beyond, will outpace the best of human ingenuity and technological innovation and defeat the best of human rational impulses and decent determination to do ultimately the right thing. However, I like many others, choose in spite of the foregoing, to be optimistic. The ethical teachings of Greco-Roman civilization and the Judeo-Christian tradition lead us to the guiding principle of moderation in all things: moderation as being the basis of right action. This may motivate us, even if late in the day, to finally do the right thing. The consequence of doing otherwise does not bear thinking about. The very scale of human consumption and impact has, in the 21st Century, caught up with the vastness of the scale of Planet Earth and her "vast resources". Now what?

Specific policy proposals are key to activism and deliberative democracy.

Walt 1991

(Stephen, Professor at the University of Chicago, International Studies Quarterly 35)

A second norm is relevance, a belief that even highly abstract lines of inquiry should be guided by the goal of solving real-world problems. Because the value of a given approach may not be apparent at the beginning–game theory is an obvious example–we cannot insist that a new approach be immediately applicable to a specific research puzzle. On the whole, however, the belief that scholarship in security affairs should be linked to real-world issues has prevented the field from degenerating into self-indulgent intellectualizing. And from the Golden Age to the present, security studies has probably had more real-world impact, for good or ill, than most areas of social science. Finally, the renaissance of security studies has been guided by a commitment to democratic discourse. Rather than confining discussion of security issues to an elite group of the best and brightest, scholars in the renaissance have generally welcomed a more fully informed debate. To paraphrase Clemenceau, issues of war and peace are too important to be left solely to insiders with a vested interest in the outcome. The growth of security studies within universities is one sign of broader participation, along with increased availability of information and more accessible publications for interested citizens. Although this view is by no means universal, the renaissance of security studies has been shaped by the belief that a well-informed debate is the best way to avoid the disasters that are likely when national policy is monopolized by a few self-interested parties.

You should evaluate ALL epistemology claims through the lens of specificity—you should not grant one epistemological commitment a privileged position because the conditions for knowing are ALWAYS contingent on the specific claim that is made. Drawing inferences from empirical reality is possible EVEN IF there is no possibility for pure certainty.

Wight 7

[Colin, Department of Politics, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, The University of Exeter, Journal of International Relations and Development, “Inside the epistemological cave all bets are off”, p. asp//wyo-tjc]

Kratochwil’s attempt to push beyond the epistemological wars by remaining inside the epistemological cave is not as puzzling as it might seem given that he assumes all meta-theoretical debate to be epistemological. Thus, for example, he argues that he aims to ‘review some of the issues that meta-theorizing was supposed to address and show how this project of securing knowledge through hierarchization and finding absolute foundations failed’(Kr atochwil 2007: 2). Likewise, he suggests that issues such as incommensurability, reductionism and materialism vs idealism are arcane epistemological concerns (Kratochwil 2007: 2). But in what sense, for example, is the materialism vs idealism question epistemological? As it has developed in IR, this is a debate about whether social outcomes are best explained in terms of material factors or ideational ones.8 A related debate within philosophy attempts to grasp whether being or ideas ultimately matter. In either debate, no epistemological issues are involved until a specific claim is made.9 We can certainly ask any theorist who takes a position of either side of this debate how they know (the epistemological question) their chosen factor is determinate in the last instance. But their epistemological response to this question is not the same as the claim itself, but rather defends the claim on one or other basis. And we assess these claims on a number of grounds. Given that we do not know in advance what the epistemological support for any given claim may be, then it also follows that scientists cannot afford to be epistemological dogmatists, pinning their colours to only one epistemological mast. Philosophers can trouble themselves with convoluted debates about the relative merits of one particular epistemological stance over another— empiricism vs rationalism, for example—after all it is their job, but scientists need to be epistemological opportunists (Einstein 1949) using a wide range of epistemological supports and never knowing in advance which one, or which mix of them, is relevant until a specific claim is made. In some respects, this might seem to place me close to the position that Kratochwil suggests is absurd. For is not my position a form of ‘anything goes’? Well, again agreeing with Kratochwil that we should reject traditional logic and its associated yes or no answers, I will reply both yes and no.10 Yes, it is an ‘anything goes’ position insofar as I reject outright that we need to commit ourselves to any particular epistemological position in advance of making or judging particular knowledge claims. I can see no good reason for giving any specific epistemological standpoint a position of a priori privilege. But I can also answer no because this position does not mean that we are unable to make informed judgements on the basis of the evidence for the claim. The fact that philosophers have been unable to provide secure foundations for one or other epistemological stance does not alter the fact that we continue to use these positions to get along in the world. In this respect, I agree completely with Kratochwil’s claim (2007: 11) that both absolute certainty and absolute doubt are impossible positions to hold, and that we ‘go on’in a situation located somewhere in between. It may be philosophically naıve of me to claim that if I wish to know how many cars are parked in my drive, then the easiest way is to probably go and look. But I can do this without needing philosophy to prove empiricism infallible. Equally, in certain circumstances I might be able to ascertain how many cars are in my drive without looking; if, for example, I know that at time T1 that there were three cars and that one went away at time T2, then, if asked at time T3 (assuming these events are sequential), I have a legitimate case to say ‘two’. Of course, in either case, I could still be wrong but the point is that the claim about the existence of a certain number of cars can justifiably be supported on various epistemological grounds and we do not know in advance which will be the most appropriate. Hence the context in which the claim emerges is also an important aspect of its validity. In both cases, there is no doubt that observation or the process of rational deduction is theoretically laden, but to say that our concepts help carve up the world in certain ways is not to accept that they either determine the physicality of what exists or can, in all cases, stop an object from existing.

1AC- Drought

Massive drought coming now

Andrew Freedman, 7/21

Senior Science Writer, “Causes Of Midwest Drought: La Nina And Global Warming Thought To Contribute To Dry Weather” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/21/causes-of-midwest-drought-2012_n_1690717.html, accessed 10/20/12,WYO/JF

Driven by a combination of natural climate variability, manmade global warming, and plain old bad luck, drought conditions are so widespread in the U.S. that it’s possible to take a cross-country flight from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco — a distance of approximately 2,400 miles — without once overflying an unaffected area. With about 81 percent of the lower 48 states experiencing at least abnormally dry conditions, and 63 percent mired in moderate-to-exceptional drought, it’s becoming harder and harder to find an oasis. And the dog days of August are yet to come. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) already ranks this drought as one of the worst on record, comparable to the drought events of the 1950s. The last time there were such widespread drought conditions in the corn-growing region of the country was in 1988, and that drought cost at least $40 billion. Given this summer’s punishing 1-2 punch of dry weather and heat, this drought is also being compared to the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. According to Richard Seager, a professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University and a prominent drought researcher, this drought has one key thing in common with the Dust Bowl and the 1988 drought events: its origins can be traced to the tropical Pacific Ocean, where a periodic cooling of sea surface temperatures — a phenomenon known as La Niña — helped reconfigure global weather patterns during the past two years. Seager’s research has shown that La Niña is closely tied to many historical drought events in the U.S., since it shifts weather patterns in a way that favors a northern storm track, bypassing the southern tier of the country and depriving the already arid Southwest of much-needed moisture. Even though La Niña conditions are no longer present in the tropical Pacific — in fact, there is talk of a coming El Niño, with warmer sea surface temperatures — the weather pattern in the tropical Pacific is still behaving in a manner that is more consistent with La Niña. This may be giving the 2011-12 La Niña an extended lifespan in the U.S., Seager and other climate scientists said. “La Niña conditions are perfect for getting drought in the southern parts of the U.S. There is absolutely no doubt that that has been a large part of what’s been going on here,” Seager said. Seager and other experts noted that factors besides La Nina are also playing a part in this drought, however. Unlike the droughts of the 1930s, this one is occurring in a much warmer climate, a byproduct of manmade global warming. Seager said that although it most likely didn’t trigger the drought, it’s possible that global warming is making this drought worse than it would otherwise be. “I think what we’re seeing is largely a naturally occurring event, but it’s occurring against the background of a warming environment,” Seager said. Global warming may be affecting the feedbacks that take place between dry soils and the atmosphere. When soils dry, very little evaporation occurs and very little moisture is released from vegetation to the air. This can accelerate warming, making droughts hotter, and therefore even drier. Mark Svoboda, a climatologist at the National Drought Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Neb., said this phenomenon is known as drought “feeding on itself.” Such feedbacks have helped the current drought rapidly balloon in size, overtaking some regions so quickly that it’s referred to as a “flash drought.” At the start of the year, just 28 percent of the contiguous U.S. — mainly the southern tier — was in at least moderate drought. Between mid-April and mid-July, the moderate to exceptional drought area went from 37 percent to 63 percent, a clear indication of the toll that the hot, dry spring and summer have taken. Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said global warming helps make droughts hotter, and therefore drier, than they would be without a human influence. Manmade global warming, he said via email, “. . . means more energy that has to go somewhere. In dry conditions it amplifies drying and goes into heating, creating heat waves. It is small on a day-to-day basis, but is always in one direction and it creates stronger, more intense, and longer-lasting drought. No doubt about it.” Seager pointed to the lack of snow cover from the 2011-12 winter as another key factor in the drought’s expansion. In Colorado, for example, there was an unusually thin snowpack that melted earlier than average. This primed the state for destructive wildfires and record warm temperatures during June. The thin snow cover and early melt across the High Plains also may have helped dry soils in that region, and may have affected larger-scale weather patterns. According to Svoboda, the below-average snowpack was one of the factors, along with a dry and warm spring, that made the U.S. more vulnerable to drought come early summer. “We had two strikes against us before even getting to the summer or the heat wave that would follow,” he said in an email conversation. “I don’t attribute this drought to global warming, but we do see what increased temperatures can do to exacerbate droughts, and if higher temperatures become a more persistent feature in some regions not used to it, then this isn’t a good combination,” Svoboda said. There is some evidence that this is already happening. A recent study found thatglobal warming made the Texas drought and heatwave 20 times more likely to occurthan under similar large-scale climate conditions 50 years ago. Other research shows that warming driven by human activities made the same heat wave and drought more severe than it otherwise would have been. As for whether global warming made the current drought more likely to occur, such "climate attribution" studies can take several months to complete, and the drought is still underway. If indeed we’re already seeing more intense droughts as a result of global warming, it doesn’t bode well for the future, judging from what climate studies show. For example, climate research consistently shows the Southwest U.S. will become much drier as the climate continues to warm. Seager’s own research has revealed a disturbing history of North American “megadroughts” that have lasted for decades, making the current event look quaint by comparison. And one study published in 2011 found evidence for a global warming-induced increase in aridity over global land areas since the 1970s, and noted that climate models project a huge expansion of drought areas in the coming decades, depending on whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions are reined in. In other words, if you think this drought is bad . . . just wait.

Current rates of water consumption for electricity production are too great, leading to massive droughts

Sovacool, 09

Benjamin K.Sovacool a, _, KellyE.Sovacool ba Energy GovernanceProgram,CentreonAsiaandGlobalisation,LeeKuanYewSchoolofPublicPolicy,NationalUniversityofSingapore,Singapore b Department ofGeography,VirginiaPolytechnicInstitute&StateUniversity,Blacksburg,VA,USA “Identifying future electricity–water tradeoffs in the United States”, Science Direct, accesed 10/12/12,WYO/JF

Current rates of population growth, expected thermoelectric capacity additions by electric utilities, and an increasing pre valence of droughts could induce possible water shortages in some areas of the United States. These shortages could be brought about or exacerbated by increased rates of water consumption and withdraws from new thermoelectric power plants in some regions along with forced power plant shutdowns due to lack of water in others. The US Census Bureau (2004) projects that the national population will balloon from 282 million people in 2000 to 364 million by 2030 and 420 million by 2050. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that total electricity consumption will grow at an annual rate or 1.3% per year, or from 3821 billion kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2006 to 5149 billion kWh by 2030 (DOE, 2008, p. 6). If the projection is accurate it means that nationwide electricity demand will actually double before 2050. The US Department of Interior (2005, p. 1) calculates that due to an increasing frequency and duration of droughts throughout the country, demands for water in many basins will exceed available supply even in normal years, especially for those living on the West Coast (water shortages nationwide can also result from low water quality due to toxic contamination, lack of availability due to saltwater intrusion of aquifers, and low quality and lack of availability due to malfunctioning water pumping, purification, and treatment systems). However, many electric utilities have virtually ignored water concerns and continue to propose new, water-intensive nuclear and fossil fueled plants as the best way to produce electricity (Southern Alliance for Clean Energy ( 2007), and water use and consumption have not been significant factors in decisions related to the permitting and siting of power plants (Clean Air Task Force, 2003). Those within the electricity industry often downplay the importance of water management techniques for minimizing thermoelectric water consumption, and those in water management rarely promote electricity conservation as a water resource tool.

Water crisis is inevitable- scaling up wind power capacity is crucial to achieve massive water savings across the economy

Snyder 8

[Brian, LSU Center for Energy Studies, “Ecological and economic cost-benefit analysis of offshore wind energy”, Renewable Energy, p. asp//wyo-tjc]

In many parts of the U.S. water resources are stressed. The six world climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) generally predict that the U.S. will become drier by 2050. One of the models predicts that precipitation over virtually the entire U.S. will decline by over 30% while the other five models show more modest declines [57]. Forty-eight percent of total water withdraws and nine percent of total water consumption (68 billion liters per day) is used by thermoelectric power plants (powered by coal, natural gas, nuclear, oil and biomass; [9]). Ethanol production also uses large quantities of water, from 3.5 to 6 l of water for every liter of ethanol produced [58]. Wind power directly uses no water. Per kW h, the amount of water used in fossil-fueled plants ranges from about 0.2 to 0.6 gallons depending on the technology employed [59]. Assuming a 40% capacity factor, 1 MW of offshore wind power can offset the use of between 0.7 and 2.1 million gallons of freshwater per year.

Long-term drought conditions would devastate America’s key agricultural regions, destroying our economy and sending food prices soaring

Hansen 12

[James, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor in the department of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University, “NASA’s James Hansen Slams Obama’s Lack Of Climate Leadership And Our ‘Immoral’ Inaction”, 5.10, p. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/10/481636/must-read-hansen-slams-obamas-lack-of-climate-leadership-and-our-immoral-inaction/ //wyo-tjc]

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels. If this sounds apocalyptic, it is.Again, this is all from the recent scientific literature.

U.S. Efforts spill over globally

Sovacool, 09

Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool is an Assistant Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, “RUNNING ON EMPTY: THE ELECTRICITY-WATER NEXUS AND THE U.S. ELECTRIC UTILITY SECTOR” , accessed 10/12/12,WYO/JF

Third and finally, the challenges related to water scarcity and electricity are not confined to the United States. The Central Intelligence Agency believes that more than three billion people will be living in water-stressed regions around the world by 2015 (with a majority concentrated in North Africa and China). Water tables for major grain producing areas in northern China are dropping at a rate of five feet per year, and per capita water availability in India expected to drop fifty to seventy-five percent over the next decade.45 The American Museum of Natural History reports that about 900 million people spread across twenty-seven developing countries already lack adequate access to water.46 Thus, an exploration of how utilities in the United States may respond to electricity-water crises can offer policymakers insight into how the industry can address what is sure to become a pressing global dilemma.

Stretched water systems coming now leads to extinction and accesses every major impact

Walton 12 (Brett, worked on a NASA-affiliated research project on water data and as a member of a State Department project on climate change and water management in Central Asia, “National Security Assessment: Water Scarcity Disrupting U.S. and Three Continents” 4/3/12 http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2012/world/national-security-assessment-water-scarcity-disrupting-u-s-and-three-continents/)

The world â€™s demand for fresh water is growing so fast that, by 2030, agriculture, industry, and expanding cities on three continents will face such scarce supplies that the confrontation could disrupt economic development and cause ruinous political instability, according to the first U.S. cabinet-level report on the global water crisis.¶ The report, â€œ Global Water Security, â€ prepared for the State Department by the National Intelligence Council, found that, unless there are serious changes in conservation and water use practices, global water demand will reach 6,900 billion cubic meters (1,800 trillion gallons) annually by 2030, a figure that is about 2,400 billion cubic meters (634 trillion gallons) higher than today. The authors of the report concluded that level of consumption is â€œ40 percent above current sustainable water supplies, â€ and will â€œ hinder the ability of key countries to produce food and generate energy, posing a risk to global food markets and hobbling economic growth. â€¶ In other words, this would be the equivalent of adding four Chinas over the next 18 years, since China currently uses around 600 billion cubic meters (158 trillion gallons) of water annually.¶ These and other findings about global water supply were made public on World Water Day, March 22, by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who called the study â€ œa landmark document that puts water security in its rightful place as part of national security. â€¶ â€œIt â€™s not only about water,â€ she added. â€œIt is about security, peace, and prosperity. â€¶ But those goals are imperiled, according to the report, by the collision of two powerful global trends. The first is what the report called â€œ key drivers of rising freshwater demand â€ â€” population growth, expanding cities, rising energy demand and production. The second is declining supply caused by deforestation; pollution; leaks and waste; and climate change that is melting glaciers, speeding evaporation, deepening droughts, and increasing the number of extreme weather events.¶ In remarks at the World Water Day event in Washington, D.C., Clinton introduced a new government initiative to improve global water management and conservation, steps that the reportâ€™s authors repeatedly called for in the study. The U.S. Water Partnership, she said, brings together 28 organizations â€” including government agencies, philanthropic foundations, environmental groups, corporations, and universities â€” and their body of water knowledge, which will be spread globally through training sessions, web-based data libraries, and collaborations with any organization looking for solutions.¶ â€œ You can â€™t work on water as a health concern independently from water as an agricultural concern, â€ Clinton said. â€œ And water that is needed for agriculture may also be water that is needed for energy production. So we need to be looking for interventions that work on multiple levels simultaneously and help us focus on systemic responses. â€¶ What The Report Says¶ The Global Water Security report confirms much of the data about the severity of the world water crisis, as well as many of the conclusions about how to solve it that have been developed by research groups, by other lower level U.S. government offices, and by news organizations â€” among them Circle of Blue, whose photographs of the crisis from around the world were featured at the State Department event.¶ But, in conducting the first cabinet-level assessment and in personally announcing the results, Secretary Clinton continued the work she has undertaken since joining the Obama administration to elevate the threats to the water supply to an urgent national and diplomatic priority.¶ The United States itself is certain to be buffeted by the water crisis, according to the report, which cites extensive research on food and energy production, groundwater abuse, and trade economics, as well as studies on international conflict and water management practices. For instance, achieving U.S. foreign policy goals could be more difficult, since nations may be too â€ œ distracted â€ by domestic problems to work with other nations. Additionally, there are risks of instability, increased regional tensions, and perhaps even state failure in nations that are important to U.S. national security interests. Water shortages could inflame pre-existing social and political tensions; they could cause disease outbreaks; and they could threaten food security, energy production, and the stability of local economies.¶ â€œ Water shortages, poor water quality, and floods by themselves are unlikely to result in state failure, â€ the report says. â€œ However, water problems â€” when combined with poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions â€” contribute to social disruptions that can result in state failure. â€¶ Strategically Important Basins¶ In a companion classified report for the State Department, the National Intelligence Council assessed the national security implications from these river basins: Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Mekong, Jordan, Indus, Brahmaputra, and Amu Darya.¶ The report names Southern Africa, northeastern Brazil, eastern Australia, the Mediterranean Basin, and the Western U.S. as places where climate change will decrease the amount of freshwater. North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia face the most difficult water challenges due to demographic and economic development pressures.¶ Such conditions will likely not be the direct cause of violent conflicts during the next 10 years, the authors argue, because, â€œ historically, water tensions have led to more water-sharing agreements than violent conflicts. â€ Still, the authors of the report state that, beyond the next 10 years, they expect water to be used increasingly as leverage between countries that share a river basin, or even used as a weapon. Further, the report notes that water delivery systems â€” dams, desalination plants, pipelines, and canals â€” are a potential target for terrorists.¶ Ever since the disintegration of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, these concerns about government instability, or even collapse, have formed a significant chunk of the academic research on environmental security. The new National Intelligence Council report â€” and related government programs begun in the last few years â€” shows that leaders in the nation â€™s capital have grown more comfortable with the need to address non-traditional, more oblique security threats.¶ The report gives good news, as well, stating that there are preventative actions that can be taken, with many of the technologies available now.¶ â€œ From now through 2040, improved water management (e.g. pricing, allocations, and â€œ virtual water â€ trade) and investments in water-related sectors (e.g. agriculture, power, and water treatment) will afford the best solutions for water problems, â€ the report says. â€œ Because agriculture uses approximately 70 percent of the global freshwater supply, the greatest potential for relief from water scarcity will be through technology that reduces the amount of water needed for agriculture. â€¶ A Short History of Water in U.S. Government Reports ¶ One of the first U.S. government reports to address water in relation to national security was in 2000, with the National Intelligence Council â€™s â€œ Global Trends 2015 Survey, € which sought to identify the strategic undercurrents that would shape U.S. policy.¶ A more rigorous assessment came five years later, with a 134-page report on water from the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Sandia National Laboratories. The â€œ Global Water Futures report â€ argued that water was a blanket force: â€œ Virtually every major U.S. foreign policy objective â€” promoting stability and security, reducing extremist violence, democracy building, post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, poverty reduction, meeting the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, combating HIV/AIDS, promoting bilateral and multilateral relationships â€” will be contingent to some extent on how well the challenge of global water can be addressed. â€

High food prices will collapse civilization

Brown 10

[Lester R. Brown, environmental analyst, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, “How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse”, EARTH POLICY INSTITUTE, Pg 88-89, google scholar downloaded PDF, \\wyo-bb]

Judging by the archeological records of earlier civilizations, more often than not food shortages appear to have precipitated their decline and collapse. Given the advances of modern agriculture, I had long rejected the idea that food could be the weak link in our twenty-first century civilization. Today I think not only that it could be the weak link but that it is the weak link.28 The reality of our situation may soon become clearer for mainstream economists as we begin to see some of the early economic effects of overconsuming the earth’s resources, such as rising world food prices. We got a preview when, as world grain demand raced ahead and as supplies tightened in early 2007, the prices of wheat, rice, corn, and soybeans began to climb, tripling historical levels by the spring of 2008. Only the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression, combined with a record world grain harvest in 2008, managed to check the rise in grain prices, at least for the time being. Since 2008, world market prices have receded somewhat, but as of October 2010, following the disastrous Russian grain harvest, they were still nearly double historical levels and rising.29 On the social front, the most disturbing trend is spreading hunger. For the last century’s closing decades, the number of chronically hungry and malnourished people worldwide was shrinking, dropping to a low of 788 million by 1996. Then it began to rise—slowly at first, and then more rapidly—as the massive diversion of grain to produce fuel for cars doubled the annual growth in grain consumption. In 2008, it passed 900 million. By 2009, there were more than a billion hungry and malnourished people. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization anticipated a decline in the number of hungry people in 2010, but the Russian heat wave and the subsequent climb in grain prices may have ended that hope.30 This expansion in the ranks of the hungry is disturbing not only in humanitarian terms but also because spreading hunger preceded collapse for so many of the earlier civilizations whose archeological sites we now study. If we use spreading hunger as an indicator of the decline that precedes social collapse for our global civilization, then it began more than a decade ago.31 As environmental degradation and economic and social stresses mount, the more fragile governments are having difficulty managing them. And as rapid population growth continues, cropland becomes scarce, wells go dry, forests disappear, soils erode, unemployment rises, and hunger spreads. In this situation, weaker governments are losing their credibility and their capacity to govern. They become failing states—countries whose governments can no longer provide personal security, food security, or basic social services, such as education and health care. For example, Somalia is now only a place on the map, not a nation state in any meaningful sense of the term.32 The term “failing state” has only recently become part of our working vocabulary. Among the many weaker governments breaking down under the mounting stresses are those in Afghanistan, Haiti, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Yemen. As the list of failing states grows longer each year, it raises a disturbing question: How many states must fail before our global civilization begins to unravel?33

Increasing wind power is key to solve for water consumption, studies prove

Sovacool, 09

Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool is a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization. “Preventing National Electricity-Water Crisis Areas in the United States”, accessed 10/12/12,WYO/JF

Researchers at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA, recently estimated that 3,000 to 6,000 gallons of water are required to burn one 60-watt incandescent light bulb for twelve hours a day over the course of one year. By contrast, using a compact fluorescent bulb for the same amount of time saves about 2,000 to 4,000 gallons of water per year.266 In a 2006 report, the DOE acknowledged wind power and solar photovoltaics could play a key role in averting a “business-as-usual scenario” where “consumption of water in the electric sector could grow substantially.”267 Another recent DOE report noted that “greater additions of wind to offset fossil, hydropower, and nuclear assets in a generation portfolio will result in a technology that uses no water, offsetting water-dependent technologies.”268 And Ed Brown, director of Environmental Programs at the University of Northern Iowa, concluded that “billions of gallons of water can be saved every day” through the greater use of renewable energy technologies.269 The DOE has confirmed that every 4,000 MW of wind turbines in the Interior West displace the need to withdraw about 10.51 billion gallons of water and consume 6.31 billion gallons of water every year.270 The American Wind Energy Association conducted one of the most comprehensive assessments of renewable energy and water consumption. Looking purely at water consumption and not withdrawal, its study estimated that wind power uses less than 1/600 as much water per unit of electricity produced as does nuclear, 1/500 as much as coal, and 1/250 as much as natural gas (small amounts of water are used to clean wind and solar systems).271 The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy conducted a similar analysis in the Southeast and found that nuclear plants consume about 620 times the water a comparable amount of electricity produced by a wind farm would require, and that coal plants consume 490 times more water than wind energy.272 In short, the use of wind, solar PV, and energy efficiency conserves substantial amounts of water that would otherwise be withdrawn and consumed for the production of electricity. Consider the case of Colorado, where Xcel Energy was forced to close its 505 MW power plant in Brush, Colorado, because it relied on two billion gallons of water each year from the South Platte River.273 Utilities in the region had to immediately consider abandoning their plants to install 39,000 MW of new thermoelectric generation that would have increased overall water demand by 116 million gallons of water per day (an increase of 20 percent).274 Instead, they found that every 1,800 MW of wind energy capacity saved 6.8 million gallons of water per year.275 The lesson is simple, indicated Matt Baker of Environment Colorado: “The more we use renewables, the more we can conserve water.”27

1AC – Warming Advantage

American clean energy markets are on the verge of collapse- a perfect storm of expiring financial incentives and declining export opportunities will gut renewables absent fast policy action

Jenkins et al 12

[Jesse, Director of Energy and Climate Policy, Breakthrough Institute, Mark Muro, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Cofounders, Breakthrough Institute, Letha Tawney, Senior Associate, World Resources Institute, Alex Trembath, Policy Associate, Breakthrough Institute, Beyond Boom and Bust: Putting Clean Tech on a Path to Subsidy Independence, April 2012, p. online//wyo-tjc]

In the absence of significant and timely energy policy reform, the recent boom in US clean tech sectors could falter. Driven by private innovation and entrepreneurship as well as critical public sector support in the form of tax credits, grants, and loan guarantees, several clean energy technology (or “clean tech”) segments have grown robustly in recent years while making progress on cost and performance. Renewable electricity generation doubled from 2006 to 2011, construction is under way on the nation's first new nuclear power plants in decades, and American manufacturers have regained market share in advanced batteries and vehicles. Prices for solar, wind, and other clean energy technologies fell, while employment in clean tech sectors expanded by almost 12 percent from 2007 to 2010, adding more than 70,000 jobs even during the height of the recession.1 Despite this recent success, however, nearly all clean tech segments in the United States remain reliant on production and deployment subsidies or other supportive policies to gain an expanding foothold in today’s energy markets. Now, many of these subsidies and policies are poised to expire—with substantial implications for the clean tech industry. This report aims to take stock of the coming changes to federal clean tech subsidies and programs (Part 1); examine their likely impact on key clean tech market segments (Part 2); and chart a course of policy reform that can advance the US clean tech industry beyond today’s policy-induced cycle of boom and bust (Part 3). Along the way, this report provides a comprehensive analysis of the spending trajectory of 92 distinct federal policies and programs supporting clean tech sectors over the 2009 to 2014 period. As this analysis illustrates, an era of heightened clean energy spending supported by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is now coming to an end, coinciding with the expiration of several additional time-delimited tax credits and programs. As a result, key portions of the clean tech industry can now anticipate substantially reduced federal support (see Figure ES1). At the same time, market subsidies are being cut in several European markets,2 reducing export oppor tunities for US clean tech manufacturers and leading to oversupply and declining margins,3 even as pressure mounts from both low-cost natural gas at home4 and foreign clean tech manufacturers abroad.5 US clean tech sectors therefore face a combination of new challenges, despite the growth and progress achieved in recent years. The specific market impacts will vary by sector (see Part 2). But without timely and targeted policy reform, several sectors are likely to experience more bankruptcies, consolidations, and market contraction ahead.

Inevitable gas-price contraction will trigger coal-switching and further emissions from gas production—now is the crucial time to lock-in renewable energy deployments to avoid the worst impacts of warming

Rotman 12

[David, editor of Technology Review, Technology Review, “King Natural Gas”, October, p. asp//wyo-tjc]

But optimism about the environmental benefits should be tempered. For one thing, utilities might return to using more coal as increased demand makes natural gas more expensive. Another concern is that extracting and transporting natural gas itself generates greenhouse gases. Dueling studies have published varied and sometimes contradictory estimates of the total emissions associated with natural-gas production, but the contributing factors include the energy used in the extraction process and the fact that methane -- an extremely potent greenhouse gas-is released during drilling and leaks from pipelines during transport. In fact, there are no reliable measurements of how much energy drilling for shale gas consumes or how much methane actually escapes.

In any case, it's clear that switching from coal to natural gas will not come close to delivering the huge reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions that most scientists contend are needed by midcentury to ward off the worst effects of climate change. According to estimates by economist Henry Jacoby and his colleagues at MIT, the increased use of shale gas might lower carbon emissions somewhat in the next five to 10 years, but at best it will keep them flat through 2050. In other words, there is a short window of opportunity to begin inventing and deploying cleaner technologies. Jacoby predicts that natural-gas prices will stay relatively low over the next decade, climbing slowly to around $5 to $6 per million BTUs -- still making it hard for renewables to compete.

Warming is real; human caused and rapid: there are four key signals carbon dioxide increase, melting of polar ice caps, melting glaciers, and rapid sea level rise

Prothero 12

(Donald R. Prothero is a Professor of Geology at Occidental College and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology. “How we know global warming is real and human caused” Winter 2012. Academic OneFile//wyoccd)

Converging Lines of Evidence How do we know that global warming is real and primarily human caused? There are numerous lines of evidence that converge toward this conclusion. 1. Carbon Dioxide Increase. Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased at an un-precedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of time shows otherwise. Mann et al. (1999) compiled the past 900 years' worth of temperature data from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out like a sore thumb. This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show that climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the past 1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s and 1800s. But the magnitude and rapidity of the warming represented by the last 200 years is simply unmatched in all of human history. More revealing, the timing of this warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an unprecedented amount of coal, gas, and oil. 2. Melting Polar Ice Caps. The polar icecaps are thinning and breaking up at an alarming rate. In 2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen solid for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer), (4) but now the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less than half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer. (5) As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives up there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people whose world is melting beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In February-March 2002, the Larsen B ice shelf--over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick--broke up in just a few months, a story typical of nearly all the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial warming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last l0,000 years--yet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a rate never before seen in geologic history. 3. Melting Glaciers. Glaciers are all retreating at the highest rates ever documented. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend upon--yet this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of world's population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their flesh water. The implications are staggering. The permafrost that once remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now thawed, damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to the North Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, the permafrost releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases which are one of the major contributors to global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated all over the globe as their environments change. (6) Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that once did not have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north.. 4. Sea Level Rise. All that melted ice eventually ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise, as it has many times in the geologic past At present, the sea level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more than ten times the rate of 0.1-0.2 mm/year that has occurred over the past 3000 years. Geological data show that the sea level was virtually unchanged over the past 10,000 years since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider that the rate is accelerating and that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities, such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else. (7) Even a small sea level rise might not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of the world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the world's river deltas) would be drowned.

Studies prove these emissions are a primary cause of global warming

IPCC, 2007

[Compiled by a working group of scientists studying climate change, Lenny Bernstein, Peter Bosch, Osvaldo Canziani, Zhenlin Chen, Renate Christ, Ogunlade Davidson, William Hare, Saleemul¶ Huq, David Karoly, Vladimir Kattsov, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Jian Liu, Ulrike Lohmann, Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno,¶ Bettina Menne, Bert Metz, Monirul Mirza, Neville Nicholls, Leonard Nurse, Rajendra Pachauri, Jean Palutikof, Martin¶ Parry, Dahe Qin, Nijavalli Ravindranath, Andy Reisinger, Jiawen Ren, Keywan Riahi, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Matilde¶ Rusticucci, Stephen Schneider, Youba Sokona, Susan Solomon, Peter Stott, Ronald Stouffer, Taishi Sugiyama, Rob Swart,¶ Dennis Tirpak, Coleen Vogel, Gary Yohe, “Climate change 2007: Synthesis report.” Online, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf] /Wyo-MB

Changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse¶ gases (GHGs) and aerosols, land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system. {2.2}¶ Global GHG emissions due to human activities have¶ grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of¶ 70% between 1970 and 2004 (Figure SPM.3).¶ 5¶ {2.1}¶ Carbon dioxide (CO2¶ ) is the most important anthropogenic¶ GHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970¶ and 2004. The long-term trend of declining CO2¶ emissions¶ per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000. {2.1}¶ Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2¶ , methane¶ (CH4¶ ) and nitrous oxide (N2¶ O) have increased markedly¶ as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far¶ exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores¶ spanning many thousands of years. {2.2}¶ Atmospheric concentrations of CO2¶ (379ppm) and CH4¶ (1774ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the¶ last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2¶ concentrations¶ are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very¶ likely that the observed increase in CH4¶ concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. CH4¶ growth¶ rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. The increase in N2¶ O¶ concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {2.2}¶ There is very high confidence that the net effect of human¶ activities since 1750 has been one of warming.¶ 6¶ {2.2}

Now is key to curbing climate change – wind power sends an international signal

Global Wind Energy Council ’12

(“Wind Energy Must be Key Climate Change Solution,” http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=136, accessed 9/30/12,WYO/JF

Climate change is now generally accepted to be the greatest environmental threat facing the world, and keeping our planet’s temperature at sustainable levels has become one of the major concerns of policy makers. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that average temperatures around the world will increase by up to 5.8°C over the coming century. This is predicted to result in a wide range of climate shifts, including melting ice caps, flooding of low-lying land, storms, droughts and violent changes in weather patterns. One of the main messages from the Nobel Prize winning IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report released in 2007 was that in order to avoid the worst ravages of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak and begin to decline before 2020. While the power sector is far from being the only culprit when it comes to climate change, it is the largest single source of emissions, accounting for about 40% of CO2 emissions, and about 25% of overall emissions. The options for making major emissions reductions in the power sector between now and 2020 are basically three: energy efficiency and conservation; fuel switching from coal to gas; and renewable energy, primarily wind power. Wind power does not emit any climate change inducing carbon dioxide nor other air pollutants which are polluting the major cities of the world and costing billions in additional health costs and infrastructure damage. Within three to six months of operation, a wind turbine has offset all emissions caused by its construction, to run virtually carbon free for the remainder of its 20 year life. Further, in an increasingly carbon-constrained world, wind power is risk-free insurance against the long term downside of carbon intense investments. Given the crucial timeframe up to 2020 during which global emission must start to decline, the speed of deployment of wind farms is of key importance in combating climate change. Building a conventional power plant can take 10 or 12 years or more, and until it is completed, no power is being generated. Wind power deployment is measured in months, and a half completed wind farm is just a smaller power plant, starting to generate power and income as soon as the first turbines are connected to the grid. The global wind industry has set itself a target of saving 1.5 billion tons of CO2 per year by 2020, which would amount to a total of 10 billion tons saved in this period. See Global Wind 2008 Outlook for GWEC's scenarios of wind energy development up to 2050. While developments in 2008 show that the sector is well on track to meeting this target, a strong global signal from governments is needed to show that they are serious about moving away from fossil fuels and protecting the climate. As positive outcome to the climate negotiations throughout this year, resulting in a new global agreement in Copenhagen in December, is of fundamental importance and will send the kind of signal that the industry, investors and the finance sector need for wind power to reach its full potential.

Studies show warming is human caused and will cause extinction

Ahmed 2010

(Nafeez Ahmed, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development, professor of International Relations and globalization at Brunel University and the University of Sussex, Spring/Summer 2010, “Globalizing Insecurity: The Convergence of Interdependent Ecological, Energy, and Economic Crises,” Spotlight on Security, Volume 5, Issue 2, online)

Perhaps the most notorious indicator is anthropogenic global warming. The landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which warned that at then-current rates of increase of fossil fuel emissions, the earth’s global average temperature would likely rise by 6°C by the end of the 21st century creating a largely uninhabitable planet – was a wake-up call to the international community.[v] Despite the pretensions of ‘climate sceptics,’ the peer-reviewed scientific literature has continued to produce evidence that the IPCC’s original scenarios were wrong – not because they were too alarmist, but on the contrary, because they were far too conservative. According to a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, current CO2 emissions are worse than all six scenarios contemplated by the IPCC. This implies that the IPCC’s worst-case six-degree scenario severely underestimates the most probable climate trajectory under current rates of emissions.[vi] It is often presumed that a 2°C rise in global average temperatures under an atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses at 400 parts per million (ppm) constitutes a safe upper limit – beyond which further global warming could trigger rapid and abrupt climate changes that, in turn, could tip the whole earth climate system into a process of irreversible, runaway warming.[vii] Unfortunately, we are already well past this limit, with the level of greenhouse gasses as of mid-2005 constituting 445 ppm.[viii] Worse still, cutting-edge scientific data suggests that the safe upper limit is in fact far lower. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argues that the absolute upper limit for CO2 emissions is 350 ppm: “If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.”[ix] A wealth of scientific studies has attempted to explore the role of positive-feedback mechanisms between different climate sub-systems, the operation of which could intensify the warming process. Emissions beyond 350 ppm over decades are likely to lead to the total loss of Arctic sea-ice in the summer triggering magnified absorption of sun radiation, accelerating warming; the melting of Arctic permafrost triggering massive methane injections into the atmosphere, accelerating warming; the loss of half the Amazon rainforest triggering the momentous release of billions of tonnes of stored carbon, accelerating warming; and increased microbial activity in the earth’s soil leading to further huge releases of stored carbon, accelerating warming; to name just a few. Each of these feedback sub-systems alone is sufficient by itself to lead to irreversible, catastrophic effects that could tip the whole earth climate system over the edge.[x] Recent studies now estimate that the continuation of business-as-usual would lead to global warming of three to four degrees Celsius before 2060 with multiple irreversible, catastrophic impacts; and six, even as high as eight, degrees by the end of the century – a situation endangering the survival of all life on earth.[xi]

Try or die- the environment is at the tipping point- Collapse will be fast and catastrophic

AFP, 12

(Agence France-Presse, citing UN study, “Environmental collapse now a serious threat: scientists,” Raw Story, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/environmental-collapse-now-a-serious-threat-scientists/)

The paper by 22 top researchers said a “tipping point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents, compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶ The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ The team determined that once 50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by species extinctions.¶ Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.

1AC – Solvency

Plan solves—expanding MLP’s to renewable energy is key to spur investment and development of wind and solar technology

Mormann and Reicher, 6-2-12

[Felix and Dan, NYT editorial staff, “How to Make Renewable Energy Competitive.” The New York Times. (June 2, 2012): News: pNA(L), Accessed online via academic onefile] /Wyo-MB

Two financial mechanisms that have driven investment in traditional energy projects -- real estate investment trusts and master limited partnerships -- could, with some help from Washington, be extended to renewable energy projects to lower their cost and make America's energy future cleaner, cheaper -- and more democratic.¶ Federal support for renewable energy today consists primarily of two tax breaks: tax credits and accelerated depreciation rates. But both tools have a very limited reach. Only investors with hefty tax bills, typically big banks or corporations, can exploit them to reduce their tax burden. Most potential investors, including tax-exempt pension funds and, importantly, retail investors trading stocks, don't have big enough tax bills to exploit the break. As a result, the few remaining players whose considerable tax bills place them in the market for tax breaks are able to demand returns of up to 30 percent for investing in renewable energy projects -- an investment known as ''tax equity.''¶ There are better options. They may sound wonky, but they could prove revolutionary.¶ Real estate investment trusts, or REITs, which are traded publicly like stocks, could tap far broader pools of capital to vastly lower the cost of financing renewable energy. REITs have a market capitalization of over $440 billion while paying shareholders average dividends below 10 percent -- roughly a third of the cost of tax equity investments for renewable energy.¶ Master limited partnerships carry the fund-raising advantages of a corporation: ownership interests are publicly traded and offer investors the liquidity, limited liability and dividends of classic corporations. Their market capitalization exceeds $350 billion. With average dividends of just 6 percent, these investment vehicles could substantially reduce the cost of financing renewables.¶ But current law makes using both of these investment vehicles for renewable energy difficult if not impossible. Washington could help in two ways. First, the Internal Revenue Service needs to clarify the eligibility of renewable power generation for REIT financing. Second, Congress needs to fix a bizarre distinction in the tax code that bars master limited partnerships from investing in ''inexhaustible'' natural resources like the sun and wind, while allowing investments in exhaustible resources like coal and natural gas. In 2008, as surging gasoline prices were infuriating American voters, Congress amended the tax code to enable master limited partnerships to invest in alternative transportation fuels like ethanol. We should treat power sources, like wind and solar farms, similarly.¶ There is hope. Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, plans to introduce a bill to allow master limited partnership investment in renewable energy. This approach is preferable to a recent proposal by Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, and Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, to eliminate this investment option for fossil-fuel projects. Both moves would level the playing field between conventional and renewable energy, but the Coons bill does so by promoting, rather than limiting, economic growth across the energy industry.¶ These approaches could help renewable energy projects reduce their financing costs up to fivefold. These cost improvements could significantly reduce the price of renewable electricity and, over time, erase the need for costlier subsidies. Of course, making renewable energy eligible for master limited partnership and REIT financing would amount to a new kind of subsidy, because both are exempt from income tax. Indeed, some members of Congress fear that expanding master limited partnerships will erode the federal tax base. We don't think so. Investors in master limited partnerships and REITs still pay taxes on dividends. Moreover, these investments would most likely bring many more renewable energy projects online, actually raising overall tax revenue.

And the federal government is key, changing MLP structure creates a stable regulatory environment

Freed and Stevens 11

(Josh and Mae, Freed is the Vice President of the Third Way Clean Energy Program and served for more than a decade as a political strategist for national, federal and local campaigns and was a senior staffer on Capitol Hill, Stevens is a Policy Advisor for the Third Way Clean Energy Program, Third Way, “A Small Tax Change, Big Clean Energy Results,” December 2011, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/475/Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_A_Small_Tax_Change_Big_Clean_Energy_Results.pdf//wyo-mm)

Moreover, the economic downturn that began in 2008 has made it difficult for companies to find tax equity. First, the tax equity market itself has been decimated. The banks and financial institutions that typically provided these funds are themselves in financial straits and no longer need or seek tax equity. A report by the U.S. Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance estimated that, while the tax equity market is beginning to rebound, it is still barely half the size it was in 2007. 12 Second, the lack of consistent federal government policy is making it almost impossible for investors to anticipate what the tax and regulatory environment for tax equity funded projects will be. Understandably, they are reluctant to commit funds that will be illiquid for a long period. As a result, developers must look to commercial banks and other commercial lenders for “commercial debt.” Commercial lenders don’t require an equity stake in a project and generally seek lower returns on their funds, but they are willing to take these lower returns because these projects are much less risky. Typically, debt providers want all the permitting, equity raises, construction plans, intellectual property resolutions, and other legal issues completed and pledged as collateral before they will make their loan. This is, understandably, difficult for innovative energy companies to provide.