T

First, we meet: And the restriction is explicit and spelled out in law

Koski & Silverman 12

[Ian and Garrette, press staff for Sens. Chris Coons and Jerry Moran, Press Release, p. http://www.coons.senate.gov/newsroom/releases/release/senators-coons-moran-introduce-bill-to-spark-investment-in-renewable-energy-projects //wyo-tjc]

A master limited partnership (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.

Second, counter-interp: Restriction is a legal barrier

Free Legal Dictionary, accessed 12

[http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/restriction //wyo-tjc]

restriction n. any limitation on activity, by statute, regulation or contract provision. In multi-unit real estate developments, condominium and cooperative housing projects, managed by homeowners' associations or similar organizations are usually required by state law to impose restrictions on use. Thus, the restrictions are part of the "covenants, conditions and restrictions," intended to enhance the use of common facilities and property, recorded and incorporated into the title of each owner.

Third, we meet: Wind/Solar producers are banned from organizing as MLPs by law- it is a restriction

Holshouser 12

[Paul, Finance Policy Manager at AWEA, “SMU study: Expanded partnership access could unlock $6 billion in wind energy investment”, p. http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=16735 //wyo-tjc]

An MLP is a publicly-traded limited partnership in which regular investors can purchase shares in the partnership (called MLP units) just like stock shares. These investments have long been utilized by the oil and gas industry, but renewable projects have been excluded by federal tax law from using them. The SMU team shows that $5 billion to $6 billion is currently sidelined by arbitrary restrictions in the tax code, and also details other strengths of an MLP-based policy:

Fourth, irrelevant- plan is also an increase in financial incentives:

financial incentives include tax-incentives

Clean and Secure Energy Action Report 10

[staff, 2010 update, “Financial Incentives - Loans, Rebates, Taxes, Bonds, Etc.”, p. http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1008CLEANENERGYELECTRICITYINCENTIVES.PDF //wyo-tjc]

Financial incentives can help states address market barriers and leverage private sector resources for greater investment in energy efficiency or renewable energy systems. Types of financial incentives state governments offer include: tax incentives, grants, loans, rebates, industry recruitment/support, bond programs, green building incentives, leasing/lease purchase programs, and production incentives.

MLPs are a tax incentive

Bradford 7.30

[Travis, staff writer, New MLP Parity Act Could Give a Boost to Geothermal/Renewable Energy Investors, p. http://prometheus.org/2012/07/30/new-mlp-parity-act-could-give-a-boost-to-geothermalrenewable-energy-investors/ //wyo-tjc]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) have introduced legislation, S. 3275, or Master Limited Partnerships (MLP) Parity Act, which gives renewable energy projects access to a tax incentive available now only to oil, gas, and coal projects.

The act could “level the energy playing field by giving investors in renewable-energy projects access to a decades-old tax advantage now available only to investors in fossil fuel-based energy projects,” they noted in their press release. ”The Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act is a straightforward, powerful tweak to the federal tax code that could unleash significant private capital by helping additional energy-generation and renewable fuels companies form master limited partnerships, which combine the funding advantages of corporations and the tax advantages of partnerships.”

Senator Coons said: “Despite all the political rhetoric about the need for an all-of-the-above energy strategy, our current tax code clearly picks winners and losers in the energy space.” He told press, “The MLP Parity Act helps level the playing field by giving investors in renewables and non-renewables access to the same highly attractive master limited partnership business structure. Congress should be setting a realistic and stable policy pathway to sustain innovations in domestic energy development, and help the market work to its fullest potential. That starts with leveling the playing field and giving renewable energy the same shot at market success as fossil fuels.”

Fifth, prefer our interpretation:

The topic says and/or- they have to prove we are neither a restriction NOR an incentive

Sufficient ground- it is a restriction grounded in law, requiring congressional action to remove it, ensures sufficient ground.

Sixth, we also meet reduce:

Reduce is to diminish in size, amount or extent and to consolidate

Merriam Webster, no date

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reduce]

transitive verb

1 a : to draw together or cause to converge : consolidate <reduce all the questions to one>

b (1) : to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number <reduce taxes> <reduce the likelihood of war> (2) : to decrease the volume and concentrate the flavor of by boiling <add the wine and reduce the sauce for two minutes>

c : to narrow down : restrict <the Indians were reduced to small reservations>

d : to make shorter : abridge

The Plan would put an end to a restricted state and consolidate the tax code

Chambers 10

[Letitia Chambers, Coalition of Publicly Traded Partnerships, and Chambers Associates Incorporated, Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, Committee on Ways and Means, House Testimony, 6.13, p. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg74229/html/CHRG-107hhrg74229.htm //wyo-tjc]

In practical terms, this means that when existing PTPs [publicly traded partnerships, also referred to as master limited partnerships or MLPs] want to issue equity, or energy businesses want to create new PTPs, in order to finance their plans for acquisition of new assets, broadening their infrastructure, and more efficiently meeting the country's energy needs, they can do so only to the extent that individual investors are willing and able to buy them. As a result, PTP managers wishing to raise a certain amount of capital must do it in several smaller offerings instead of one large one, increasing the cost of capital, or must assume more debt than they would prefer. They must even check to be sure that none of the other PTPs are planning an offering that is near in time to theirs, because the retail market can only absorb so many PTP units at a time. Needless to say, this hampers, delays, and increases the cost of every major project or acquisition that these companies wish to undertake.

Conclusion. There is no reason for PTP managers to be limited in this way when there is such a need for the energy infrastructure that they could be financing. The Publicly Traded Partnership Equity Act (H.R. 1463) would put an end to this restrictive situation and modernize this bit of the tax code by simply adding income derived from PTPs to the qualifying income list in the RIC rules. H.R. 1463, which has been sponsored in past years by Chairman Thomas, has been introduced this year by Rep. Wally Herger and a bipartisan group of cosponsors. It has been approved by Congress already, as part of the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, which was vetoed by President Clinton.

Seventh, their interpretation is bad:

Over limits- there are no explicit production restrictions for solar or wind outside of transmission and generation- they moot those two fuels from the topic

[insert specific attacks]

Eight, Err affirmative—the topic is massively neg-biased because of a lack of fed-key warrants and the states counterplan, and huge backfile generics because of past energy policies

Ninth, Competing interpretations is bad—comparisons are just as subjective as reasonability and their frame encourages a race to the bottom. We shouldn’t lose if our aff makes debate harder as long as it is still possible and educational.

Warming

CO2 good arguments ignore atmospheric science because it’s about a balance of CO2, not just high CO2 levels in general being good

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)

* "Carbon dioxide is good for plants, so the world will be better off." Who do they think they're kidding? The Competitive Enterprise Institute (funded by oil and coal companies and conservative foundations (17)) has run a series of shockingly stupid ads concluding with the tag line "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life." Anyone who knows the basic science of earth's atmosphere can spot the gross inaccuracies in this ad. (18) True, plants take in carbon dioxide that animals exhale, as they have for millions of years. But the whole point of the global warming evidence (as shown from ice cores) is that the delicate natural balance of carbon dioxide has been thrown off balance by our production of too much of it, way in excess of what plants or the oceans can handle. As a consequence, the oceans are warming (19,20) and absorbing excess carbon dioxide making them more acidic. Already we are seeing a shocking decline in coral reefs ("bleaching") and extinctions in many marine ecosystems that can't handle too much of a good thing. Meanwhile, humans are busy cutting down huge areas of temperate and tropical forests, which not only means there are fewer plants to absorb the gas, but the slash and burn practices are releasing more carbon dioxide than plants can keep up with. There is much debate as to whether increased carbon dioxide might help agriculture in some parts of the world, but that has to be measured against the fact that other traditional "breadbasket" regions (such as the American Great Plains) are expected to get too hot to be as productive as they are today. The latest research (21) actually shows that increased carbon dioxide inhibits the absorption of nitrogen into plants, so plants (at least those that we depend upon today) are not going to flourish in a greenhouse world. It is difficult to know if those who tell the public otherwise are ignorant of basic atmospheric science and global geochemistry, or if they are being cynically disingenuous.

Warming Is Already Collapsing The North Atlantic Ocean Current By Causing Large Scale Induction Of Freshwater Into The Oceans. This Will Collapse The Global Ocean Circulation Patterns And Devastate The Global Climate

Mcguire ‘03

(Bill, Benfield Professor of Geophysical Hazards and director of the Benfield Hazard Research Centre at University College London, “Will global warming trigger a new ice age?” Guardian 11/13/03 pg. Lexis //wyo-ef)

Is this really true, or could the rapidly accelerating warming that we are experiencing actually hasten the onset of a new ice age? A growing body of evidence suggests that, at least for the UK and western Europe, there is a serious risk of this happening - and soon. The problem lies with the ocean current known as the Gulf Stream, which bathes the UK and north-west Europe in warm water carried northwards from the Caribbean. It is the Gulf Stream, and associated currents, that allow strawberries to thrive along the Norwegian coast, while at comparable latitudes in Greenland glaciers wind their way right down to sea level. The same currents permit palms to flourish in Cornwall and the Hebrides, whereas across the ocean in Labrador, even temperate vegetation struggles to survive. Without the Gulf Stream, temperatures in the UK and north-west Europe would be five degrees centigrade or so cooler, with bitter winters at least as fierce as those of the so-called Little Ice Age in the 17th to 19th centuries. The Gulf Stream is part of a more complex system of currents known by a number of different names, of which the rather cumbersome North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Namoc) is probably the most apt. This incorporates not only the Gulf Stream but also the cold return currents that convey water south wards again. As it approaches the Arctic, the Gulf Stream loses heat and part of it heads back to warmer climes along the coast of Greenland and eastern Canada in the form of the cold, iceberg-laden current responsible for the loss of the Titanic. Much, however, overturns - cooling and sinking beneath the Nordic seas between Norway and Greenland, before heading south again deep below the surface. In the past, the slowing of the Gulf Stream has been intimately linked with dramatic regional cooling. Just 10,000 years ago, during a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas, the current was severely weakened, causing northern European temperatures to fall by as much as 10 degrees. Ten thousand years before that, at the height of the last ice age, when most of the UK was reduced to a frozen wasteland, the Gulf Stream had just two-thirds of the strength it has now. What's worrying is that for some years now, global climate models have been predicting a future weakening of the Gulf Stream as a consequence of global warming. Such models visualise the disruption of the Namoc, including the Gulf Stream, as a result of large-scale melting of Arctic ice and the consequent pouring of huge volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic, in a century or two. New data suggest, however, that we may not have to wait centuries, and in fact the whole process may be happening already. So that the warm, saline surface waters of the Gulf Stream can continue to push northwards, there must be a comparable, deep return current of cold, dense water from the Nordic seas. Disturbingly, this return current seems to have been slowing since the middle of the last century. Bogi Hansen at the Faroese fisheries laboratory, and colleagues in Scotland and Norway, have been monitoring the deep outflow of cold water from the Nordic seas as it passes over the submarine Greenland-Scotland ridge that straddles the North Atlantic at this point. Their results show that the outflow has fallen by 20% since 1950, which suggests a comparable reduced inflow from the Gulf Stream. Although there is as yet no direct substantiation of this, and his colleagues point to reports of the cooling and freshening of the Norwegian Sea and to temperatures that are already falling in parts of the region as possible evidence of contemporary Gulf Stream weakening. It also seems that it is not only the intensity of the outflow of cold water that is changing. Bob Dickson of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science at Lowestoft, and colleagues, have reported a sustained and widespread freshening of returning deep waters south of the Greenland-Scotland ridge, which appears to have been going on for the past three or four decades. Already the freshening is extending along the North American eastern seaboard towards the equator, in the so-called Deep Western Boundary current. One of the scariest aspects of the current dramatic changes occurring in the system of North Atlantic currents is that the deep, southward-flowing limb of the Namoc can be thought of as representing the headwaters of the worldwide system of ocean currents known as the Global Thermohaline Circulation. The possibility exists, therefore, that a disruption of the Atlantic currents might have implications far beyond a colder UK and north-west Europe, perhaps bringing dramatic climatic changes to the entire planet.

Warming risks an economically catastrophic Atlantic ice age within a decade

Gagosian 03

[Dr. Robert B. (Pres. & Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried, Prepared for a Panel at the World Economic Forum, 1/27/03 www.whoi.edu/home/about/whatsnew_abruptclimate.html //wndi03]

Global warming could actually lead to a big chill in some parts of the world. If the atmosphere continues to warm, it could soon trigger a dramatic and abrupt cooling throughout the North Atlantic region -- where, not incidentally, some 60 percent of the world's economy is based. When I say "dramatic," I mean: Average winter temperatures could drop by 5 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States, and by 10 degrees in the northeastern United States and in Europe. That's enough to send mountain glaciers advancing down from the Alps. To freeze rivers and harbors and bind North Atlantic shipping lanes in ice. To disrupt the operation of ground and air transportation. To cause energy needs to soar exponentially. To force wholesale changes in agricultural practices and fisheries. To change the way we feed our populations. In short, the world, and the world economy, would be drastically different. And when I say "abrupt," I mean: These changes could happen within a decade, and they could persist for hundreds of years. You could see the changes in your lifetime, and your grandchildren's grandchildren will still be confronting them. And when I say "soon," I mean: In just the past year, we have seen ominous signs that we may be headed toward a potentially dangerous threshold. If we cross it, Earth's climate could switch gears and jump very rapidly -- not gradually -- into a completely different mode of operation.

Economy

[___] Extend Royal – economic decline causes war – 3 reasons

--Redistribution of power causes miscalculation as global economic trends shift. Their defense doesn’t assume shifting global power or miscalculation means we should win full risk of impact

--Hampers trade expectations and encourages protectionism that most recent studies show increases the likelihood to trigger conflict because it undermines cooperative economic interdependency

--Diversionary theory indicates that governments have incentive to create military conflict during hard economic times to increase popularity and create a ‘rally around the flag’ effect.

[___] Outweighs

[Magnitude]

Economic collapse causes escalating nuclear exchange that destroys civilization and the biosphere.

Bearden, 2k (T.E., Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How To Solve It Quickly”, Space Energy Access Systems, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea { } launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

.

[Probability] There is a strong historical correlation between economic decline and war.

Mead 9 — Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the CFR, Professor at Yale (Walter Russel, "What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger," The New Republic)

So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Manufacturing is Key to the US Economy

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 2011

“Innovations in New Technology” http://www.ornl.gov/adm/partnerships/industrial/ManufactBrochureSml.pdf, accessed 9/30/12,WYO/JF

The US manufacturing industry is a cornerstone of the American ¶ economy and embodies the innovation and productivity that have ¶ allowed the United States to be the dominant leader in advanced ¶ manufacturing technologies since the early 20th century. A strong ¶ manufacturing base is vital for a balanced economy and critical to our nation’s energy security and defense. Advances in manufacturing technology are imperative to avoid further erosion of our manufacturing base and maintain a competitive edge in the global market.¶ Innovation drives economic growth. New, cutting edge technologies with real-world applications can both revitalize existing manufacturing industries and support the development of new products in emerging ones. ¶ The development and commercial deployment of advanced manufacturing technologies remain essential to America’s long-term economic competitiveness. Manufacturing and materials ¶ research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is focused on reducing ¶ the energy intensity of US industry, supporting development of new ¶ products, and strengthening our nation’s vitality. ORNL, through its ¶ on going collaborative relationships with more than 1,000 companies ¶ and distinction as the leading Department of Energy Laboratory ¶ for R&D 100 Awards, has demonstrated the ability to work with US ¶ manufacturers to transition technologies that will drive manufacturing ¶ innovations in the coming decades.

Sustaining US Job Growth is Key to the US Economy – Collapse Would Go Global

AP, 7-24

(“Another global recession on the horizon?”) http://www.thonline.com/news/business/article_fb02ea23-ccba-5ab3-b49f-09d509b58ca5.html, accessed 9/30/12,WYO/JF

Reinvigorating the US economy prevents global economic meltdown¶ One growing concern about the global economy is there's little margin for error: Unemployment is already at recession levels in Europe and the United States.¶ The United States, by far the world's biggest economy, has long pulled the global economy out of slumps. Now it needs help. Three years after the Great Recession officially ended, the American economy can't maintain momentum. For the third straight year, growth has stalled at mid-year after getting off to a promising start.¶ Unemployment stood at 8.2 percent in June -- the 41st straight month it's been above 8 percent.¶ Americans spent less at retail businesses for a third straight month in June, the longest losing streak since the recession. Economists are downgrading their estimates of economic growth in the April-June quarter. When the government releases its first estimate on Friday, many think it won't even match the first quarter's sluggish 1.9 percent annual pace.¶ The global slowdown is squeezing U.S. exports, which have accounted for an unusually large 43 percent share of U.S. growth since the recession officially ended in June 2009.¶ Consumer confidence has fallen four straight months in the face of scant hiring and weak economic growth. U.S. companies are nervous about the threat of tax increases and spending cuts that are scheduled to kick in at year's end unless Congress breaks a deadlock. The IMF has warned of a spillover to the rest of the world if the U.S. economy falls off the so-called fiscal cliff.

Wind drives manufacturing competitiveness on the global market and employs thousands.

Burger 12

(Andrew, graduate of the University of Colorado, reports on news and events at the nexus of environment, technology, political economy and society, Triple Pundit, “Growth in U.S. Wind Power Requires Federal Support,” August 15, 2012, http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/08/growth-wind-power-requires-federal-support///wyo-mm)

Examining the effects on employment, the U.S. wind energy sector employs 75,000 Americans across its supply chain, according to industry estimates. The total includes workers at manufacturing facilities up and down the supply chain, as well as engineers and construction workers who build and operate wind farms. Ongoing technological advances and manufacturing innovations continue to result in more efficient wind turbines, blades and power equipment, the DoE notes in its report. Gains are also being made in wind project capital and maintenance costs, which continue to decline. These, along with support from the federal and state governments is “driving US manufacturing competitiveness on the global market,” the report authors state. Indicative of the sharp and rapid decline in wind power cost, the price of wind power under long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with electric utilities was an average 40 percent lower last year than it was in 2010 and some 50 percent lower than in 2009. That’s resulted in wind power becoming “competitive with a range of wholesale power prices seen in 2011,” according to the report.

Elections

Obama’s already seen as pushing wind, it’s just a question of how effective the policies are.

Belsie 10/4

(Laurent, Christian Science Monitor, “Romney zinger: Obama backs 'green' energy losers. Is he right? (+video),” October 4, 2012, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1004/Romney-zinger-Obama-backs-green-energy-losers.-Is-he-right-video//wyo-mm)

One of the clearest dividing lines in the 2012 presidential campaign is 'green' energy subsidies. President Obama has pushed them in his four years in office. Challenger Mitt Romney wants to eliminate them, under the theory that government should avoid tinkering with the private sector. At Wednesday night's presidential debate, GOP candidate Romney summarized the difference with this zinger: "You put $90 billion — like 50 years worth of tax breaks — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1," he told the president. "I had a friend who said: 'You don't just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers.' " He has a point. In pushing green energy, Mr. Obama has pursued a high-risk strategy of handing out loan guarantees and other federal subsidies to green energy companies, a strategy most of his predecessors have avoided. The results have not always been pretty.

Obama is winning now- average of polls and electoral college map math

Downie Oct. 4th

[James Downie, October 4th, 2012, Obama lost the first debate, but he will still win the election, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obama-lost-the-first-debate-but-he-will-still-win-the-election/2012/10/04/9c3b7eb8-0deb-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_blog.html, uwyo//amp]

Consider the task facing Romney going into Wednesday’s debate: Nationally, RealClearPolitics’s poll average had him down three points; Nate Silver’s model had him down four. He had held a lead in a major poll exactly once since the end of August. The electoral college looked even worse for him: RealClear’s map gave Obama 269 electoral votes safe or leaning to Romney’s 181 (with 88 in toss-up states); HuffPost Pollster gave Obama a 290-191 lead; and Nate Silver’s model had Obama winning an average of 319 electoral votes to Romney’s 218, a comfortable margin. Even Karl Rove had 277 votes safe or leaning to Obama, with another 70 as toss-ups.

Obama winning Ohio now

Mclaughlin Sept. 26th

["Romney, Obama locked in a duel for Ohio’s working-class voters" Seth McLaughlin, The Washington Times, September 26, 2012,http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/26/trailing-polls-romney-deploys-celebrity-friends/?page=1]

“I mean, there’s got to be a better way to be happy and successful in your career than simply assuming a massive amount of debt and exiting an educational program that gives you a degree without training,” he said. The flash of star power could be just what the doctor ordered for the Romney campaign, as the appearances coincided with a new CBS/New York Times/ Quinnipiac University poll that held ominous signs for the Republican nominee in Ohio, as well as in Florida and Pennsylvania. The survey found Mr. Obama holds a 53 percent to 43 percent edge over Mr. Romney among likely Ohio voters. Those surveyed also gave Mr. Obama a 6-point advantage when it comes to the economy — a month after the two candidates were even on the issue. The poll came on the heels of a Washington Post survey released Tuesday that gave Mr. Obama an 8-point lead here. It also showed that more likely voters in Ohio trust the Democrat more when it comes to handling the economy and think he has a better understanding of the problems people are facing on the economic front. Part of the problem for the Romney camp is that the improving employment picture in Ohio muddies the Republican candidate’s argument that Mr. Obama’s policies are suffocating job creation. That attack has put Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, in the tricky position of explaining the state’s success without undercutting Mr. Romney’s message

Blue collar, working class whites will decide the election due to their swing state locations- Obama will alienate them and send them to Romney should he reject traditional FF expansion

Mead 2012

[Walter Russell Mead, James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College and Editor-at-Large of The American Interest magazine, and is recognized as one of the country's leading students of American foreign policy. June 6, 2012, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/06/green-politics-hurting-obama-in-swing-states/, Uwyo//amp]

Since the beginning of the recession, America’s “brown jobs” revolution has been one of the few bright spots in an otherwise shaky recovery. States like North Dakota and Texas have led the country in growth due to their strong energy sectors, and the discovery of vast quantities of shale gas in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Colorado are now providing new jobs. These states have more than shale gas in common: all of them are also on the short list of swing states that decide this year’s presidential election. Republicans are seizing the opportunity to make energy politics a centerpiece of their campaign. As the FT reports: “Blue-collar voters were never that sold on environmental issues, and if some Democrats come across as not keen on economic development, it could lose them support here in Ohio,” he said. Republicans, from Mitt Romney, the party’s presidential candidate, to the congressional leadership, have made Barack Obama’s alleged stifling of the energy industry a centrepiece of their campaigns this year. . . . Mr Romney has said he will approve the Keystone XL pipeline as soon as he wins office and curb the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency. Only time will tell whether this is a winning strategy, but there is reason to think it could work. As we’ve mentioned before, energy politics is an area where Obama is particularly vulnerable. His decision to nix the popular Keystone pipeline earlier this year signaled antipathy toward one of America’s strongest industries while doing nothing to help the environment; it was lambasted as a pointless blunder by observers on both sides of the aisle. Meanwhile, his pet projects in alternative energy have fallen flat, as debacles like Solyndra have received far more attention than the program’s few successes. This should be seriously worrying to the Obama campaign. Brown jobs may be unpopular in Obama’s white-collar, urban, coastal base, but it is blue collar voters in swing states that are likely to decide the election, and many of these voters stand to reap significant benefits from an expansion of America’s energy sector. From a political perspective, Obama has placed himself on the wrong side of this issue. It may come back to bite him come November.

Energy won’t overwhelm a host of other voter priorities-health care, education, the deficit and the economy

Farnam 2012

[T.W. Farnam, Washington Post Journalist, June 29, 2012, Energy issue gets jolt of ads, Washington Post, Lexis Nexis, uwyo//amp]

Energy issues don't spark much excitement among voters, ranking below health care, education and the federal budget deficit - not to mention jobs and the economy. And yet those same voters are being flooded this year with campaign ads about energy policy. Particularly in presidential swing states, the airwaves are laden with messages boosting oil drilling and natural gas and hammering President Obama for his support of green energy. The Cleveland area alone has seen $2.7 million worth of energy-related ads. The disconnect between what voters say they care about and what they're seeing on TV lies in the money behind the ads, much of it coming from oil and gas interests. Those funders get the double benefit of attacking Obama at the same time they are promoting their industry. Democrats also have spent millions on the subject, defending the president's record and linking Republican candidate Mitt Romney to Big Oil. Overall, more than $41 million, about one in four of the dollars spent on broadcast advertising in the presidential campaign, has gone to ads mentioning energy, more than a host of other subjects and just as much as health care, according to ad-tracking firm Kantar Media/Cmag. Much to gain or lose In a campaign focused heavily on jobs and the economy, all of this focus on energy seems a bit off topic. But the stakes are high for energy producers and environmentalists, who are squared off over how much the government should regulate the industry. And attention has been heightened by a recent boom in production using new technologies such as fracking and horizontal drilling, as well as a spike in gas prices this spring just as the general-election campaign got underway. When asked whether energy is important, more than half of voters say yes, according to recent polls. But asked to rank their top issues, fewer than 1 percent mention energy. Still, so much spending focused on a topic low on the public agenda should not be a surprise, given the interest of the ad sponsors, said Bob Biersack, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. "It's always been true that people's financial involvement in politics tends to reinforce their self-interest," he said.

MLP legislation strengthens US as a leader in clean energy

D'Alessandro 12

(Laura, Energy Reporter at SNL Financial and working on a Masters in Interactive Journalism at American University, SNL Energy Power Week Canada, “Senators introduce bill to change definition of MLPs to include renewables,” June 11, 2012, accessed via ProQuest//wyo-mm)

Since the legislation is seeking a more cost-effective way to finance clean energy, it will cross party lines, said Felix Mormann, a fellow at Stanford University's Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance. "It's no coincidence that the act has bipartisan co-sponsorship from Sens. Coons and Moran," he said in a June 7 email. "The act has the potential to give taxpayers more bang for their buck when it comes to renewables. I think it's got legs." In addition to the support of a handful of senators, the bill is backed by AWEA, the Solar Energy Industries Association, the Biomass Power Association, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the Ocean Renewable Power Energy Coalition, the American Council on Renewable Energy and other trade and environmental groups. Mormann said that besides bringing renewable energy to parity with conventional generation, which is the main thrust of the bill, it stands to provide incentives to promote growth across the entire energy sector and strengthen the nation's position as a global clean energy leader.

That’s key to primacy, preventing extinction from warming and great power wars

Klarevas, 9

NYU Center for Global Affairs professor 12-15-2009

[Louis, Ph.D. in International Relations from the School of International Service at American University, NYU coordinator of graduate Transnational Security studies, former Defense Analysis Research Fellow at the London School of Economics, former research associate at the United States Institute of Peace, "Securing American Primacy While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony," www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-klarevas/securing-american-primacy_b_393223.html, accessed 4-13-11, mss]

As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference, the time is ripe to re-assess America's current energy policies - but within the larger framework of how a new approach on the environment will stave off global warming and shore up American primacy. By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the United States is squandering an opportunity to secure its global primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S. must rely on innovation to help the world escape the coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that will save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to outmaneuver potential great power rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But the greening of American strategy must occur soon. The U.S., however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action. This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats. The real divide is instead one between realists and liberals. Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as they are not seen as advancing national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis-à-vis the other major powers in the system: Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union. Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote American national interests. What both sides need to understand is that by becoming a lean, mean, green fighting machine, the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to advance a collective interest which benefits every nation, while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the future. To do so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but as history's first ever green hegemon. Hegemons are countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries in times of global crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important international institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding and cheating global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States. Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed. The U.S., emerging the least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and established the postwar (and current) liberal order. But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S. With the U.S. becoming bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar, the future of American hegemony now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a variety of fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace. Not all hope is lost however. With the impending systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds itself in a position to address a transnational problem in a way that will benefit both the international community collectively and the U.S. selfishly. The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil is fueling animosities between the major powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a limited natural resource, a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its major power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy and global stability. Second, converting fossil fuels like oil to run national economies is producing irreversible harm in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. So long as the global economy remains oil-dependent, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are predicting as much as a 60% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the next twenty-five years. That likely means more devastating water shortages, droughts, forest fires, floods, and storms. In other words, if global competition for access to energy resources does not undermine international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit for the instability. Oil arguably has been the most precious energy resource of the last half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key resource for this century will be green gold - clean, environmentally-friendly energy like wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change leaves no alternative. And the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of petropolitics is to convert the U.S. into the world's first-ever green hegemon. For starters, the federal government must drastically increase investment in energy and environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a serious sacrifice, committing upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently being spent. By promoting a new national project, the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure it does not drown in a pool of oil. Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel standards for automobiles; improving public transportation networks; and expanding nuclear and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing board: batteries that can store massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, crop-fuels, and hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion. Such innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil, they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for hegemony. If the U.S. is able to produce technologies that allow modern, globalized societies to escape the oil trap, those nations will eventually have no choice but to adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous economic boom, while simultaneously providing it with means of leverage that can be employed to keep potential foes in check.

Hegemony doesn’t deter

Kober 10

Stanley, research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, The Deterrence Illusion, 6/13/10, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11898

The world at the beginning of the 21st century bears an eerie — and disquieting — resemblance to Europe at the beginning of the last century. That was also an era of globalisation. New technologies for transportation and communication were transforming the world. Europeans had lived so long in peace that war seemed irrational. And they were right, up to a point. The first world war was the product of a mode of rational thinking that went badly off course. The peace of Europe was based on security assurances. Germany was the protector of Austria-Hungary, and Russia was the protector of Serbia. The prospect of escalation was supposed to prevent war, and it did — until, finally, it didn't. The Russians, who should have been deterred — they had suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of Japan just a few years before — decided they had to come to the support of their fellow Slavs. As countries honoured their commitments, a system that was designed to prevent war instead widened it. We have also been living in an age of globalisation, especially since the end of the cold war, but it too is increasingly being challenged. And just like the situation at the beginning of the last century, deterrence is not working. Much is made, for example, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) invoking Article V — the famous "three musketeers" pledge that an attack on one member is to be considered as an attack on all — following the terrorist attacks of September 11. But the United States is the most powerful member of NATO by far. Indeed, in 2001, it was widely considered to be a hegemon, a hyperpower. Other countries wanted to be in NATO because they felt an American guarantee would provide security. And yet it was the US that was attacked. This failure of deterrence has not received the attention it deserves. It is, after all, not unique. The North Vietnamese were not deterred by the American guarantee to South Vietnam. Similarly, Hezbollah was not deterred in Lebanon in the 1980s, and American forces were assaulted in Somalia. What has been going wrong? The successful deterrence of the superpowers during the cold war led to the belief that if such powerful countries could be deterred, then lesser powers should fall into line when confronted with an overwhelmingly powerful adversary. It is plausible, but it may be too rational. For all their ideological differences, the US and the Soviet Union observed red lines during the cold war. There were crises — Berlin, Cuba, to name a couple — but these did not touch on emotional issues or vital interests, so that compromise and retreat were possible. Indeed, what we may have missed in the west is the importance of retreat in Soviet ideology. "Victory is impossible unless [the revolutionary parties] have learned both how to attack and how to retreat properly," Lenin wrote in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. When the Soviets retreated, the US took the credit. Deterrence worked. But what if retreat was part of the plan all along? What if, in other words, the Soviet Union was the exception rather than the rule? That question is more urgent because, in the post-cold war world, the US has expanded its security guarantees, even as its enemies show they are not impressed. The Iraqi insurgents were not intimidated by President Bush's challenge to "bring 'em on". The Taliban have made an extraordinary comeback from oblivion and show no respect for American power. North Korea is demonstrating increasing belligerence. And yet the US keeps emphasising security through alliances. "We believe that there are certain commitments, as we saw in a bipartisan basis to NATO, that need to be embedded in the DNA of American foreign policy," secretary of state Hillary Clinton affirmed in introducing the new National Security Strategy. But that was the reason the US was in Vietnam. It had a bipartisan commitment to South Vietnam under the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation, reaffirmed through the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which passed Congress with only two dissenting votes. It didn't work, and found its commitments were not embedded in its DNA. Americans turned against the war, Secretary Clinton among them. The great powers could not guarantee peace in Europe a century ago, and the US could not guarantee it in Asia a half-century ago.

Oil

Oil prices low now- Angola, Nigeria and Iran.

Lawler 9/29

(Alex, Reuters, Senior Correspondent, “OPEC oil output hits lowest since January: survey,” September 29, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/us-opec-oil-survey-idUSBRE88R15220120928//wyo-mm)

(Reuters) - OPEC crude oil output has fallen in September because of reduced exports from Angola and Nigeria, a Reuters survey showed on Friday, and as Iranian output slipped back to its lowest in more than two decades. The drop in output from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries may worry consumer countries, already concerned that oil prices near $112 a barrel for Brent crude are weighing on economic growth. Supply from the 12-member OPEC has averaged 31.09 million barrels per day (bpd), down from 31.53 million bpd in August, the Reuters survey of sources at oil companies, OPEC officials and analysts found. The total is the lowest since January 2012 when the group pumped 30.95 million bpd, according to Reuters surveys. Still, production remains just over 1 million bpd more than OPEC's output target of 30 million bpd. "It's mostly Nigeria and Angola, just loading variations," said Paul Tossetti, senior energy adviser at PFC Energy. "I think Iranian output has bottomed out, but I would guess it's going to fall steadily due to lack of investment and sanctions."

Oil prices low now

Smith 10/3

(Grant, Bloomberg, “Oil Falls to Four-Day Low as U.S. Supply Increases, China Slows,” October 3, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/oil-drops-a-second-day-as-crude-stockpiles-advance-a-fourth-week.html//wyo-mm)

Oil fell to its lowest in four days after U.S. crude stockpiles climbed for a fourth week and a measure of China’s economy declined, signaling fuel demand may be faltering in the world’s biggest users of the commodity. Futures fell as much as 1 percent in New York after the industry-funded American Petroleum Institute said yesterday inventories rose 462,000 barrels last week in the longest run of gains since May. An Energy Department report today may show supplies increased 1.5 million barrels, according to a Bloomberg News survey. China’s purchasing managers’ index for non- manufacturing industries expanded at the weakest pace since at least March 2011, data from the National Bureau of Statistics and China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing showed.

Tons of investment in wind energy now.

Styles,12

The Energy Collective, [Geoffrey, “Last Hurrah for the Wind Power Tax Credit?” http://theenergycollective.com/geoffrey-styles/99336/last-hurrah-wind-power-tax-credit, accessed 8-22-12, WYO/JF

The US wind industry has received substantial government support in recent years. When the long-standing tax credit against corporate profits proved to be much less beneficial during the financial crisis, the administration gave wind developers a better option within the stimulus: a 30% investment tax credit that could be claimed as up-front cash grants, instead of having to wait until power was generated and sold over the normal 10 year period of the PTC. From 2009-11 the wind industry received acumulative $7.7 B, in addition to ongoing tax credits on older projects, manufacturing tax credits for new wind turbine factories, and loan guarantees for selected wind farms. And even with new turbine installations in 2012 running well below their record rate of 10,000 MW in 2009, the wind projects that qualify for the PTC this year could receive a total of $4.5 B over the next decade.

No tradeoff

Palmer et al,10

Resources for the Future,10 [Karen, Richard Sweeney, and Maura Allaire, Oct 2010, “Modeling Policies to Promote Renewable and Low-Carbon Sources of Electricity” http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-BCK-Palmeretal%20-LowCarbonElectricity-REV.pdf, p.2, accessed 9-21-12, WYO/JF

A greater reliance on domestic renewable sources of electricity may also be associated with energy security benefits, although the fact that very little electricity comes from oil means that the benefits from reduced oil consumption are likely to be small.

Foreign oil doesn’t affect US- only contingent on global market

Nordhaus 11

(William D., Sterling Professor of Economics; Cowles Foundation, Yale University, The New York Review of Books, “Energy: Friend or Enemy?,” October 27, 2011, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/oct/27/energy-friend-or-enemy/?pagination=false//wyo-mm)

The implication of the bathtub view is profound. It means that virtually no important oil issue involves US dependency on foreign oil. Whether we consider pollution, macroeconomic impacts, price volatility, supply interruptions, or Middle East politics, our vulnerability depends upon the global market. It does not depend upon the fraction of our consumption that is imported. I will use two examples to illustrate this point. A first hardy perennial is the idea that we should limit our consumption to oil from “secure sources.” This might mean concentrating on Canada and Mexico, or perhaps relying only on our own output, or we might even exclude Alaska lest it someday decide to secede. These policies make no sense in an integrated world oil market. Suppose that the United States limited its imports to completely reliable sources—ones that would never, ever cut off supplies—and specifically prohibited imports from unreliable country A. This would lead country A to send its oil to other countries. In an integrated world market, the result would be simply to reallocate production from non-A countries to the United States to make up the shortfall here and eliminate the excess there. Unless a country actually changes its flow into the world bathtub, there will be no impact on the United States of sourcing imports from secure regions only. Another useful example is sanctions and embargoes. These are often launched as ways of putting economic pressures on countries. The US imposed oil sanctions on Libya from 1986 to 2004 and then again this year; and on Iran from 1979 to the present. The rationale of these policies was to reduce demand for oil from offending countries and decrease their export prices and revenues. But these were only partial in that they did not cover the entire world, including smugglers. The bathtub theory of the world oil market would predict that there would be no effect for the same reason that reducing dependency has no effect: production would simply be reallocated among other countries. What actually happened during the embargoes? The data indicate that prices in Iran and Libya were virtually unchanged. This is exactly what the bathtub model predicts because, to a first approximation, such embargoes should be expected to have no effect on world prices or production, no impact on the target countries, and no impact on the United States or other consuming countries. They are purely symbolic measures. The conclusion is that oil policy should focus on world production and consumption and not on the portion we import, and should focus as well on the externalities from our consumption in the form of pollution and global warming. This means primarily that oil consumption should face its full social cost. The major external cost that remains to be addressed is climate change. Until countries put an appropriate price on carbon emissions for oil and other fossil fuels, energy policy will be incoherent, and energy and environmental policies will be working at cross-purposes. The National Research Council estimates cited above used a damage cost of $30 per ton of CO2 emissions. This is somewhat higher than estimates from my own work but is a reasonable target for a US carbon price over the next decade or so. If phased in gradually through a cap-and-trade or carbon tax, such a price would help promote both fiscal and environmental goals.

Russian economy resilient- high consumer sector, stronger than it was in 2008 and low debt levels.

SG Alpha 12

(SG Alpha is an equity investment boutique with the sole focus on Emerging Europe and lead by Steffen Gruschka, a veteran investor in the region with an excellent 14-year track record, strategies, validated by many awards and nominations, “Russia: Overlooked – Misunderstood,” August 2012, http://www.investmenteurope.net/digital_assets/5765/Russia_overlooked_SG_Alpha.pdf//wyo-mm)

The Russian economy is now more resilient to external shocks than in 2008. Russian companies and banks have been actively deleveraging since then and as a result leverage ratios of Russian companies have halved since the 2008 crisis and Russian banks went from being heavily dependent on foreign wholesale funding to being net foreign creditors now. After the 2008 crisis the CB of Russia changed its official goal from exchange rate stability to gradually moving towards inflation targeting and switching to an almost floating exchange rate regime. A more flexible exchange rate approach is beneficial to the Russian economy in the current global volatility as it can act as a shock absorber limiting the damage from the lower commodity prices and hence lower USD export revenues on the balance of payments, fiscal balance and domestic liquidity. It also protects the country's FX reserves from excessive spending to support the exchange rate (Russia's FX reserves of USD 510bn are the world's third largest). The consumer sector is increasingly becoming one of the major drivers of Russia's economic growth on the back of rising middle class, increasing birth rates and spending-oriented society. Russian inflation is now the lowest since the fall of the Soviet Union, standing at 4% in June and the unemployment rate of 5.4% is one of the lowest in the world. This, coupled with double-digit real wages and retail lending growth, strongly supports the consumer spending. Russia has already become the 11thlargest consumer market in the world and the second or third largest in Europe and by 2018 Russia is expected to become the largest consumer market in Europe. Russia is substantially underleveraged, with one of the world's lowest levels of government debt (10% of GDP) and household debt including mortgages (10% of GDP) so the credit cycle is still in its early days, providing for a steady economic growth going forward.

Oil price collapse inevitable

Zach Paiken, 12

“Coping in an increasingly competitive global economy” http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/04/11/zach-paikin-coping-with-less-revenues-in-an-increasingly-competitive-global-economy/ accessed 9/22/12,WYO/JF

It gets worse. The price of oil is about to collapse due to the increasing extraction of unconventional oil. Roughly 250 billion barrels of oil shale — and possibly as much as twice that figure — have been discovered in Israel and will begin to flow into the global market in about a decade at an estimated $30-40 per barrel, merely one third of the current price of oil. This gives Israel the third largest oil shale reserves in the world after the United States and China. The U.S. has already become a net exporter of gasoline and could surpass both Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest supplier of oil in the near future thanks to its unconventional oil reserves. The upcoming decline in the price of oil will result in the near-total collapse of non-diversified economies, such as the Middle East’s oil-exporting countries. For instance, roughly 75 per cent of Saudi Arabia’s governmental revenue and 90 per cent of its export earnings come from the oil industry. Natural gas doesn’t provide these Mid-East states with much solace: Canadian exports of natural gas to the United States last year alone accounted for half the rate of all natural gas exports from the Middle East and North Africa.

No impact- Russia’s stable now and empirically hasn’t been affected by economic fluctuations.

Blackwill 09

(Robert, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Planning, Former Associate dean of the Kennedy School of Government, RAND, “The Geopolitical Consequences of the World Economic Recession – A Caution”, 2009,

http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2009/RAND_OP275.pdf]

Now on to Russia. Again, five years from today. Did the global recession and Russia’s present serious economic problems substantially modify Russian foreign policy? No. (President Obama is beginning his early July visit to Moscow as this paper goes to press; nothing fundamental will result from that visit). Did it produce a serious weakening of Vladimir Putin’s power and authority in Russia? No, as recent polls in Russia make clear. Did it reduce Russian worries and capacities to oppose NATO enlargement and defense measures eastward? No. Did it affect Russia’s willingness to accept much tougher sanctions against Iran? No. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has said there is no evidence that Iran intends to make a nuclear weapon.25 In sum, Russian foreign policy is today on a steady, consistent path that can be characterized as follows: to resurrect Russia’s standing as a great power; to reestablish Russian primary influence over the space of the former Soviet Union; to resist Western eff orts to encroach on the space of the former Soviet Union; to revive Russia’s military might and power projection; to extend the reach of Russian diplomacy in Europe, Asia, and beyond; and to oppose American global primacy. For Moscow, these foreign policy first principles are here to stay, as they have existed in Russia for centuries. 26 None of these enduring objectives of Russian foreign policy are likely to be changed in any serious way by the economic crisis.

CP

Perm – do the CP. Doesn’t sever because the federal government reduces restrictions on mlp’s.

Reject CP’s competition –

A. Topic education – instead of debate over the merits of master limited partnerships, we debate over the minute link differential to their celections d/a.

B. Logic- No test case on the docket proves uncertainty because the Courts just look like they’re making random rulings about energy policy.

Voter For fairness and education.

Congressional action is necessary- MLPs for renewables is illegal otherwise, courts can’t change rule of law they can just eliminate current mlp’s

Bullock 8.10

[Bruce, director of the Maguire Energy Institute SNL Electric Utility Report, “MLP structure for renewables could mobilize capital, lead to consolidation”, p. ln//wyo-tjc]

What needs to happen at the federal level to make MLPs for renewables a reality? Clearly, it'll take a change of law. Is there a revenue impact to this to the federal government? Our own thought is that this will bring capital into the industry and it will create some economic activity, so there will be benefits in that regard. The biggest hurdle, in fact, is to apply it to the renewable industry just like it's been applied to biodiesel and ethanol and other areas as the law evolved through the years.

Congress will circumvent the court.

NTT, no date

[National Timber Tax Website, no date. “Judicial Sources- Supreme Court”, http://www.timbertax.org/research/process/judicial/supreme_court///wyokb]

If the Supreme Court agrees to review a decision, its interpretation and application of the law are the final authority, and all lower courts, taxpayers, and the IRS must follow its decision. If Congress is unhappy with the Court's interpretation and application of the law Congress might repeal the challenged statute, or the federal administration might refuse to fund or enforce the underlying law and related activities. Neither a citizen nor the government can appeal a Supreme Court decision.

Perm Do both: Shields the link to politics, the courts would take the blame.

Supreme Court decisions are perceived by the electorate- plays a POWERFUL role in this election especially.

Winkler, 11

Adam, constitutional law professor at UCAL. “Supreme Court's 2012 Decisions Could Sway Presidential Election”, Dec 16, 2011 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/16/supreme-court-s-2012-decisions-could-sway-presidential-election.html//wyokb]

In 1962, Justice Felix Frankfurter cautioned against the Supreme Court entering what he called the “political thicket.” The justices never heeded Frankfurter’s warning. Indeed, with seemingly every political issue ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, Frankfurter’s belief that the court could stay above the electoral fray seems quaint and outdated. Heading into the 2012 election, it looks like the Supreme Court is once again set to play a powerful role in deciding who wins and who loses come Election Day.

Solvency Deficit - Courts can’t implement their decisions

Rosenburg in 8

(Gerald N., University of Chicago political science and Law professor, “The Hollow Hope, Can Courts Bring About Social Change”, p. 15-16)

For courts, or any other institution, to effectively produce significant social reform, they must have the ability to develop appropriate polices and the power to implement them. This, in turn, requires a host of tools that courts according to proponents of the Constrained Court view, lack. In particular, successful implementation requires enforcement powers. Court decisions, requiring people to act, are not self-executing. But as Hamilton pointed out two centuries ago in The Federalist Papers (1787-88), courts lack suck powers. Indeed, it is for this reason more than any other Hamilton emphasized the courts’ character as the least dangerous branch. Assuaging fears that the federal courts would be a political threat, Hamilton argued in federalist 78 that the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (The Federalist Papers 1961, 465). Unlike congress and executive branch, Hamilton argued, the federal courts were utterly dependent on the support of the other branches and elite actors. In other words, for Court orders to be carried out, political elites, electorally accountable, must support them and act to implement them. Proponents of the Constrained Court view point to historical recognition of this structural “fact” of American political life by early Chief Justices John Jay and John Marshall, both of whom were acutely awar of the Court’s limits. 12President Jackson recognized these limits, too, when he reputedly remarked about a decision with which he did not agree, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” 13 More recently, the unwillingness of state authorities to follow court orders, and need to send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to carry them out, makes the same point. Without elite support (the federal government in the case), the Court’s orders would have been frustrated. While it is clear that courts can stymie change (Paul 1960), though Ultimately not prevent it (Dahl 1957; Nagel 1965; Rosenberg 1985), the constitution, in the eyes of the Constrained Court view, appears to leave court few tools to insure that their decisions are carried out.

Perm do both – shields the links to politics

Heise in 2k

(Michael, Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University, “Education and the Constitution: Shaping each other and the nextcentury: Preliminary Thoughts on the Virtues of Passive Dialogue”, Akron Law Review, 34 Akron L. Rev. 73)

Second, active judicial participation in the school finance area might indirectly exacerbate one problem that it seeks to solve. One problem that arises in the school finance context involves legislative inertia. The question is how courts should approach and respond to instances of legislative inertia, assuming that such a condition is easily recognizable. By seeking to address an issue by actively and directly [*106] engaging lawmakers, courts may ultimately "solve" one inertia problem, but they will do so in a manner that will fuel additional inertia problems in the future. Specifically, active judicial participation often provides political "cover" for lawmakers eager to avoid tough -- and possibly divisive -- political questions that sometimes occupy the center of the political process. Once lawmakers see that judges are willing to inject themselves into political debates, some lawmakers might be induced to become more, rather than less, complacent. Moreover, once the judiciary becomes engaged with a political problem, it becomes part of that problem. To the extent that such problems might not go away anytime soon or, for that matter, worsen, the judiciary's institutional credibility could become an issue.

Court Legitimacy

Roberts’ decision saved court legitimacy

Milbank 2012

(Dana, Washington Post Staff, July 1, "Supreme Court: The umpire strikes back", http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/01/2875050/supreme-court-the-umpire-strikes.html )

Whatever one thinks of the healthcare ruling, Roberts’ opinion was extraordinarily brave. It was the biggest case yet for the Roberts court, and expectations on both sides were that the chief justice and the four other conservatives would deliver a majority opinion consistent with their political preferences — much as the Rehnquist Court did in Bush v. Gore. But Roberts chose a different path. He forged a middle ground that spared the nation the political crisis that would have come from striking down the president’s signature legislative achievement. Thus, Roberts went a long way toward reestablishing the legitimacy of the court, which could have importance far beyond healthcare. In his confirmation hearing seven years ago, Roberts famously described himself as an umpire calling balls and strikes, employing humility and confronting“every case with an open mind.” Since then, many on the left have come to view Roberts as just a more affable version of Scalia, Thomas and Sam Alito. But in the case that counted most, the umpire struck back. Because the individual mandate in the healthcare law qualifies as a tax, Roberts concluded, and “the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” This stunned liberals. Rep. Laura Richardson, a California Democrat, spoke on the steps of the court, thanking “Chief Justice Roberts for showing, for the first time in a long time, that government can work if we focus on the facts.” And it enraged the conservatives who once adored Roberts. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who had been in the court, railed: “Clearly this is an activist court. . . . America will never be the same.” On the sidewalk, the fury and insanity of American politics were on display: tea party activists waving flags and ungrammatical protest banners, evangelicals prostrating themselves on the pavement to pray, proponents of government-run healthcare dressed as belly dancers and the two sides shouting taunts at each other. Roberts got a taste of that inside the chamber. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in dissent, accused the Roberts majority of “judicial legislation,” “vast judicial overreaching” and trying to “force on the nation a new act.” Roberts pursed his lips and stared at the desk in front of him. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her partial dissent, objected to parts of Roberts’ reasoning but embraced the conclusion because Obamacare “survives largely unscathed.” Roberts turned a pained gaze toward the florets on the ceiling. Surely, the chief justice did not want to uphold the healthcare law. But in doing so, he upheld his integrity, and that of the Roberts court.

AN ABRUPT OVERTURN OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW INVITES THE PERCEPTION THAT THE COURT HAS TURNED POLITICAL CRUSHING LEGITIMACY AND RULE OF LAW

Tyler and Mitchell 94

(Tom, prof. of psych. @ Berkley, AND Gregory, M.A. in Psychology @ Berkley, Duke Law Journal, 2/94 p. l/n)

Essentially, the Court advances the proposition that unless its outcomes are viewed as principled, and not simply as the result of changes in Court personnel, its decisions will be viewed with skepticism by the public and will lose much of their obligatory force. n13 Although the “underlying substance” of the Court’s legitimacy lies “in the Constitution and the lesser sources of legal principle on which the Court draws$ (,$)…a decision without principled justification is no judicial act at all.” n14 Thus, the perception of principled decision making – and the avoidance of the perception of Court politics or political compromise – is the sine qua non of legitimate constitutional adjudication. The maintenance of such legitimacy is curricula because legitimacy is deemed necessary to the voluntary acceptance of Court decisions, voluntary acceptance being the only type of public acceptance of the decision on which the Court formally can rely. n15 The justices further argue that the [*709] legitimacy of the Court is especially at stake when confronting an “intensely divers controversy” in which attention is great and stakes are high. n16 A prior decision in this controversial area should be overruled, the joint opinion argues, only for “the most compelling reason.” n17 A basic change in the law upon a ground no firmer than a change in our membership invited the popular misconception that this institution is little different from the two political branches of the Government. No misconception could do more lasting injury to this Court and to the system of law, which it is our abiding mission to serve.

Loss of judicial legitimacy crushes U.S. Soft power

Harold Koh, 03

Professor or Law at Yale. 10-3-03.http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Koh/koh-con4.html Yes.

Yes. Again, this is an idea of a legal exoskeleton that is not just a restraint, but it's also a source of power. If you stay within the legal exoskeleton, you're exercising legal power; when you step outside, you're sacrificing your legitimacy. The big challenge of this administration: can they fight outlaws while staying within the law? There has been too much of a tendency to say "fight fire with fire, legal niceties don't count"; and then find that we are viewed as as big of an outlaw as some of the countries that we're criticizing. That weakens our cooperative power, our soft power. Joe Nye,* the political scientist, distinguishes America's hard power -- military and economic power -- from its soft, cooperative, persuasive power. I see the rule of law and our reputation for promoting the rule of law, human rights, as core to our soft power. We have been squandering that reputation and relying on our hard power. It turns out that hard power is good for defeating Iraq. It turns out it's not good for rebuilding Iraq; for that we need soft power, and we are sacrificing that soft power. We're squandering it at a time when we need it the most.

Soft power solves 30 wars

Nye 96 Joseph, Washington Quarterly, Winter, Lexis

While generally less threatening to U.S. interests than global or regional balance of power conflicts, communal conflicts are the most likely kind of post-cold war conflict and have thus far proved the most frequent. Less than 10 percent of the 170 states in today's world are ethnically homogenous. Only half have one ethnic group that accounts for as much as 75 percent of their population. Africa, in particular, is a continent of a thousand ethnic and linguistic groups squeezed into some 50-odd states, many of them with borders determined by colonial powers in the last century with little regard to traditional ethnic boundaries. The former Yugoslavia was a country with five nationalities, four languages, three religions, and two alphabets. As a result of such disjunctions between borders and peoples, there have been some 30 communal conflicts since the end of the Cold War, many of them still ongoing. Communal conflicts, particularly those involving wars of secession, are very difficult to manage through the UN and other institutions built to address interstate conflicts. The UN, regional organizations, alliances, and individual states cannot provide a universal answer to the dilemma of self-determination versus the inviolability of established borders, particularly when so many states face potential communal conflicts of their own. In a world of identity crises on many levels of analysis, it is not clear which selves deserve sovereignty: nationalities, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, or religious groups. Similarly, uses of force for deterrence, compellence, and reassurance are much harder to carry out when both those using force and those on the receiving end are disparate coalitions of international organizations, states, and subnational groups. Moreover, although few communal conflicts by themselves threaten security beyond their regions, some impose risks of "horizontal" escalation, or the spread to other states within their respective regions. This can happen through the involvement of affiliated ethnic groups that spread across borders, the sudden flood of refugees into neighboring states, or the use of neighboring territories to ship weapons to combatants. The use of ethnic propaganda also raises the risk of "vertical" escalation to more intense violence, more sophisticated and destructive weapons, and harsher attacks on civilian populations as well as military personnel. There is also the danger that communal conflicts could become more numerous if the UN and regional security organizations lose the credibility, willingness, and capabilities necessary to deal with such conflicts. Preventing and Addressing Conflicts: The Pivotal U.S. Role Leadership by the United States, as the world's leading economy, its most powerful military force, and a leading democracy, is a key factor in limiting the frequency and destructiveness of great power, regional, and communal conflicts. The paradox of the post-cold war role of the United States is that it is the most powerful state in terms of both "hard" power resources (its economy and military forces) and "soft" ones (the appeal of its political system and culture), yet it is not so powerful that it can achieve all its international goals by acting alone. The United States lacks both the international and domestic prerequisites to resolve every conflict, and in each case its role must be proportionate to its interests at stake and the costs of pursuing them. Yet the United States can continue to enable and mobilize international coalitions to pursue shared security interests, whether or not the United States itself supplies large military forces. The U.S. role will thus not be that of a lone global policeman; rather, the United States can frequently serve as the sheriff of the posse, leading shifting coalitions of friends and allies to address shared security concerns within the legitimizing framework of international organizations. This requires sustained attention to the infrastructure and institutional mechanisms that make U.S. leadership effective and joint action possible: forward stationing and preventive deployments of U.S. and allied forces, prepositioning of U.S. and allied equipment, advance planning and joint training to ensure interoperability with allied forces, and steady improvement in the conflict.