T

First, we meet: plan in a vacuum is for wind power production- their definition only operationalizes words in the plan

Second, counter-interpretation: ‘for’ refers to ‘those things designed or meant for a specific purpose

Collins English Dictionary, no date [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/for#wordorgtop]

for (fɔː, ( unstressed ) fə)

— prep

1.	intended to reach; directed or belonging to: there's a phone call for you

2.	to the advantage of: I only did it for you

3.	in the direction of: heading for the border

4.	over a span of (time or distance): working for six days ; the river ran for six miles

5.	in favour of; in support of: those for the proposal ; vote for me

6.	in order to get or achieve: I do it for money ; he does it for pleasure ; what did you do that for?

7.	appropriate to; designed to meet the needs of; meant to be used in: these kennels are for puppies

Third, we meet: MLPs are ‘for energy production’- production MLPs have it as their primary purpose

Nelson 12

[Gabriel Nelson, E&E reporter, Greenwire, “Senate Bill Offers New Tax Option for Wind, Solar”, 6.7.12, p. ln //wyo-tjc]

Congress first authorized companies to use the master limited partnership model in the 1980s as part of a plan to spur domestic energy production with gasoline and electricity prices still soaring from the energy crisis of the previous decade. It was limited to resources that can be depleted, such as fossil fuels and timber operations. Since then, it has proved particularly popular with the "midstream" companies that run pipelines, natural gas processing plants and storage facilities. The number of publicly traded companies that are structured this way has grown from a dozen in 1996 to about 75 today, and most of them are involved in the distribution of fossil fuels. When another wave of high energy prices arrived in 2008, lawmakers opened the door to ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels. They also decided to let companies use the partnership model if they are producing, transporting or storing carbon dioxide gas for an industrial use, such as coaxing oil out of soon-to-be-depleted wells. Some policymakers want to get rid of these special business structures, arguing that they skew the tax code. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), two fervent supporters of renewables, have proposed that master limited partnerships be scrapped altogether in the energy industry with the reasoning being that under current law they give an unfair advantage to fossil fuels. Still, in the past few months, support has grown among clean energy advocates for the master limited partnership model. Among them are the clean energy research group at the moderate Democratic group Third Way and the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, which put out a report this week in favor of the idea.

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.

Warming

Emissions are reversible but the window is closing.

Harvey, 11

Fiona Harvey 11 is an environmental correspondent for Guardian, “World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns,” 11/9, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure. Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous. "The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever." If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing. If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available "carbon budget" will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA's calculations. Birol's warning comes at a crucial moment in international negotiations on climate change, as governments gear up for the next fortnight of talks in Durban, South Africa, from late November. "If we do not have an international agreement, whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to [holding temperatures to 2C of warming] will be closed forever," said Birol.

Electricity sector is key polluter

Mormann 11

(Felix, German JD and JSD from University of Passau School of law, as well as an LMM from UC BerkeleySchool of Law and is a research Fellow at Stanford’s Steyer Center for Energy Policy and Finance, writing for Economic Law Quarterly, “Requirements for a Renewables Revolution.” 05/02/11. http://www.boalt.org/elq/documents/elq38_4_03_2012_0808.pdf)

Renewable sources of energy are relevant not only to electricity generation but also to other sectors of the energy market, such as heat and transport. The latter especially features prominently in the public debate over ever stricter fuel-economy standards mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).29 Notwithstanding the importance of renewable energy sources for heat and transport, this Article focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions as necessary to mitigate climate change through the timely transition to renewables in the electricity sector. From 1990 to 2008, electricity generation accounted for 32 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, placing the electricity sector at the top of the emitters’ list, ahead of the transport sector, which is responsible for 27 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.30 Globally, the energy sector accounts for 73 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, with the agricultural sector assuming a distant second place responsible for 16 percent.31 With U.S. and global electricity generation expected to increase by 22 percent and 74 percent respectively until 2030,32 any effort to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions must include major reforms in the electricity sector. A timely shift to renewable sources is the only long-term sustainable solution presently available.33 Moreover, the projected growth in electricity generation will easily be surpassed if the current trend towards electric vehicles (e.g., plug-in hybrids) continues.34 The resulting large-scale electrification of the transport sector would further increase the need for a timely decarbonization of the electricity sector. Otherwise greenhouse gas emissions may merely move from one sector (transport) to another, only slightly less carbon-intensive sector (electricity). While improvements in energy efficiency will also be important,35 the timely shift to renewables is essential if current efforts in climate change mitigation are to be successful.36 Fortunately, the case for rapid large-scale deployment of renewables in the electricity sector is not one of necessity only but of potential, too. In comparison to the fragmented structure of the heat-relevant building sector, for instance, the electricity sector is relatively centralized and, hence, easier to regulate and reform.37 Indeed, a recent study found that meeting the world’s entire demand with electricity generated from water, wind, and sunlight is technologically feasible as early as twenty years from today.38 Accordingly, this Article focuses on the use of renewables for the generation of electricity.

Oil prices low – expiration of the October contract and declining stock market.

CNN Money, 9-18

[“Oil prices remain lower after a stunning drop”, RSR]

Oil prices remained under pressure Tuesday, less than a day after a sharp, sudden drop that had traders scrambling and economists scratching their heads. The October contract for U.S. crude was down 48 cents to $96.14 a barrel. On Monday, the price of light crude dropped $2.38, or 2.4%, with the contract tumbling more than $3 in less than a minute late in the session. "Energy prices were extremely volatile yesterday," wrote commodities analyst Stephen Schork, editor of The Schork Report. "The crude oil contract took a swan dive in the late afternoon despite a dearth of fundamental or economic news releases -- did another fund just explode?" Schork theorized that the plunge in oil prices might have been caused several factors, including the pending expiration of the October contract, and Monday's drop in stock prices.

Oil prices low - Iran exports down.

Smith, Contributor, 9-17

[Grant, “Oil Trades Near Four-Month High on Signs of Improving Economy”, Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/oil-trades-near-four-month-high-on-signs-of-improving-economy.html, RSR]

South Korea stopped buying crude from Iran in August after its refiners lost insurance coverage on ships carrying supplies from the Persian Gulf nation. The tanker Freedom, owned by Tehran-based NITC, signaled it’s going to Ulsan in South Korea, IHS Inc. (IHS) ship-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg today show. The vessel, able to carry about 2 million barrels of crude, is scheduled to arrive Oct. 4. Purchases fell to zero last month, reducing imports from Iran for the first eight months of this year by 34 percent from a year earlier to 5.39 million metric tons, according to data posted on the Customs Service’s website Sept. 15. South Korea bought 1.14 million tons of crude oil, or about 270,000 barrels a day, in August 2011.

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.

High oil prices don’t cause a transition to renewables

DR. KENT MOORS, 8/23

Global Energy Strategist, Money Morning “Oil Prices are Higher, But It Won't Be Much Help for Alternative Energy” http://moneymorning.com/2012/08/23/oil-prices-are-higher-but-it-wont-be-much-help-for-alternative-energy/, accessed 9-12-12,WYO/JF

With the movement to exploiting unconventional domestic sources of oil and gas, one of the primary arguments in favor of alternative energy is undercut. Absent any major breakthrough in technology (inverters for example, that would dramatically decrease the loss of electricity from solar and wind generation), the cost differential will remain. Despite the rise in oil and gas prices, alternatives will still be more expensive to utilize, even before considering the infrastructure expenses for delivery and support that would have to be introduced. The rise of shale gas and oil, along with the large volumes of other unconventional reserves present, make a move to alternatives less likely. Concerns about the economic recovery remain paramount, given the major position held by energy - both its availability and its cost. Once concerns about a double dip are over, Europe appears to have its house in order and financial cliffs are avoided, we may approach this differently. And genuine considerations about environmental stewardship may again become central to the discussion. But some of those concerns have come into focus with the recent announcement that carbon emissions have reached a 20-year low in the United States. This month, the U.S. Energy Information Agency cited "low-priced natural gas" as the primary driver of the steep emissions decline, as natural gas is replacing more-carbon intensive coal as a greater source of electricity generation. This does not bode well for the prospects of alternative energy.

Add-On

Drought will cause massive energy shut down, blackout’s

Michael Webber, 12

“Will Drought Cause the Next Blackout?” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/opinion/will-drought-cause-the-next-blackout.html?_r=0, accessed 10/12/12,WYO/JF

WE’RE now in the midst of the nation’s most widespread drought in 60 years, stretching across 29 states and threatening farmers, their crops and livestock. But there is another risk as water becomes more scarce. Power plants may be forced to shut down, and oil and gas production may be threatened. Our energy system depends on water. About half of the nation’s water withdrawals every day are just for cooling power plants. In addition, the oil and gas industries use tens of millions of gallons a day, injecting water into aging oil fields to improve production, and to free natural gas in shale formations through hydraulic fracturing. Those numbers are not large from a national perspective, but they can be significant locally. All told, we withdraw more water for the energy sector than for agriculture. Unfortunately, this relationship means that water problems become energy problems that are serious enough to warrant high-level attention. During the 2008 drought in the Southeast, power plants were within days or weeks of shutting down because of limited water supplies. In Texas today, some cities are forbidding the use of municipal water for hydraulic fracturing. The multiyear drought in the West has lowered the snowpack and water levels behind dams, reducing their power output. The United States Energy Information Administration recently issued an alert that the drought was likely to exacerbate challenges to California’s electric power market this summer, with higher risks of reliability problems and scarcity-driven price increases. And in the Midwest, power plants are competing for water that farmers want for their devastated corn crops. Unfortunately, trends suggest that this water vulnerability will become more important with time.

Blackouts cause nuclear meltdowns

Huffington Post, 11

“Long Blackouts Pose Risk To U.S. Nuclear Reactors” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/blackout-risk-us-nuclear-reactors_n_841869.html, accessed 10/12/12,WYO/JF

Long before the nuclear emergency in Japan, U.S. regulators knew that a power failure lasting for days at an American nuclear plant, whatever the cause, could lead to a radioactive leak. Even so, they have only required the nation's 104 nuclear reactors to develop plans for dealing with much shorter blackouts on the assumption that power would be restored quickly. In one nightmare simulation presented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2009, it would take less than a day for radiation to escape from a reactor at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant after an earthquake, flood or fire knocked out all electrical power and there was no way to keep the reactors cool after backup battery power ran out. That plant, the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station outside Lancaster, has reactors of the same older make and model as those releasing radiation at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, which is using other means to try to cool the reactors. And like Fukushima Dai-ichi, the Peach Bottom plant has enough battery power on site to power emergency cooling systems for eight hours. In Japan, that wasn't enough time for power to be restored. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Institute trade association, three of the six reactors at the plant still can't get power to operate the emergency cooling systems. Two were shut down at the time. In the sixth, the fuel was removed completely and put in the spent fuel pool when it was shut down for maintenance at the time of the disaster. A week after the March 11 earthquake, diesel generators started supplying power to two other two reactors, Units 5 and 6, the groups said. The risk of a blackout leading to core damage, while extremely remote, exists at all U.S. nuclear power plants, and some are more susceptible than others, according to an Associated Press investigation. While regulators say they have confidence that measures adopted in the U.S. will prevent or significantly delay a core from melting and threatening a radioactive release, the events in Japan raise questions about whether U.S. power plants are as prepared as they could and should be.

Meltdowns cause extinction

Lendman, 2011

(Stephen, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, 03/ 13, “Nuclear Meltdown in Japan,”, The People’s Voice http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/13/nuclear-meltdown-in-japan, accessed 10/12/12,WYO/JF

Reuters said the 1995 Kobe quake caused $100 billion in damage, up to then the most costly ever natural disaster. This time, from quake and tsunami damage alone, that figure will be dwarfed. Moreover, under a worst case core meltdown, all bets are off as the entire region and beyond will be threatened with permanent contamination, making the most affected areas unsafe to live in. On March 12, Stratfor Global Intelligence issued a "Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown at Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant," saying: Fukushima Daiichi "nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its seriousness, adding that such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may have happened - the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the (core's) breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can be....entombed within specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." "No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere." Stratfor explained that if Fukushima's floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its) containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before," at least not reported. If now occurring, "containment goes from being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives will be jeopardized. Japanese officials said Fukushima's reactor container wasn't breached. Stratfor and others said it was, making the potential calamity far worse than reported. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said the explosion at Fukushima's Saiichi No. 1 facility could only have been caused by a core meltdown. In fact, 3 or more reactors are affected or at risk. Events are fluid and developing, but remain very serious. The possibility of an extreme catastrophe can't be discounted. Moreover, independent nuclear safety analyst John Large told Al Jazeera that by venting radioactive steam from the inner reactor to the outer dome, a reaction may have occurred, causing the explosion. "When I look at the size of the explosion," he said, "it is my opinion that there could be a very large leak (because) fuel continues to generate heat." Already, Fukushima way exceeds Three Mile Island that experienced a partial core meltdown in Unit 2. Finally it was brought under control, but coverup and denial concealed full details until much later. According to anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, Japan's quake fallout may cause nuclear disaster, saying: "This is a very serious situation. If the cooling system fails (apparently it has at two or more plants), the super-heated radioactive fuel rods will melt, and (if so) you could conceivably have an explosion," that, in fact, occurred. As a result, massive radiation releases may follow, impacting the entire region. "It could be, literally, an apocalyptic event. The reactor could blow." If so, Russia, China, Korea and most parts of Western Asia will be affected. Many thousands will die, potentially millions under a worse case scenario, including far outside East Asia.

K

The Role of ballot is to say yes or no to the action and outcomes of the plan.

Second, is reasons to prefer:

(___) C. It is fair, Weigh Aff Impacts and the method of the Affirmative versus the Kritik, it’s the only way to test competition and determine the desirability of one strategy over another

Finally, It is a voter for competitive equity—prefer our interpretation, it allows both teams to compete, other roles of the ballot are arbitrary and self serving.

Risk management is inevitable and it’s our obligation to act upon those risks.

Coaffee 08

(Jon, School of Environment and Development, The University of Manchester, PhD in Urban Geography analysing at the impacts of risk, terrorism and security on urban development and planning, Energy Policy, “Risk, resilience, and environmentally sustainable cities,” October 18, 2008, Science Direct//wyo-mm)

Today, risk has evolved into a concept that goes well beyond the idea of financial loss. Douglas (1994), for example, argued that risk perceptions are related to a whole series of cultural factors reflecting a number of economic and political values. It is often associated with a set of newly defined ‘mega-scale’ risks, which “cannot be delimited spatially, temporally, or socially: they encompass nation-states, military alliances, and all social classes, and by their very nature, present wholly new kinds of challenge to the institutions designed for their control” (Beck, 1995, p. 1). As Giddens (1999, p. 34) further notes, risk is omnipresent in an interdependent world: “Whichever way you look at it we are caught up in risk management. With the spread of manufactured risk, governments can’t pretend such management isn’t their business. And they need to collaborate, since very few new-style risks have anything to do with the borders of nations.”

Our process of truth-seeking is good: using decision theory of comparing evidence of the best possible outcome is key to reducing dangers of unintended consequences.

Polasky et al 11

(Stephen, Stephen R. Carpenter, Carl Folke and Bonnie Keeler, Department of Applied Economics & Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, Beijer Institute, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, “Decision-making under great uncertainty: environmental management in an era of global change,” August 2011, http://www.urbaneco.washington.edu/sbs/docs/data/3313_PolaskyetalDecisionMakingTREE.pdf//wyo-mm)

We begin with a brief review of decision theory, which provides a systematic approach to decision-making under uncertainty. Decision theory is a powerful tool for providing advice on which management alternative is optimal given the available information. Decision theory, however, requires information about probabilities of various outcomes under alternative management options and the desirability of those outcomes. Such information is unlikely to be readily available in the context of global change issues. We next discuss threshold approaches that focus attention on critical values and try to limit the chance that these values will be exceeded. We then review scenario planning and resilience approaches. These approaches are well suited to scoping problems from broad perspectives and from multiple viewpoints and so can reduce the danger of unforeseen events or unintended consequences.

Alt fails, we need consumption policies established through the government because it’s the only effective mechanism to deal with the problems we’re enduring.

Power and Mont 10

(Kate and Oksana, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Copenhagen, Denmark, Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, “Dispelling the Myths about consumption behavior,” 2010, accessed via asp//wyo-mm)

The framing of behaviour change policy instruments is of crucial importance in promoting the values of society: reinforcing materialistic and self-interested values is unlikely to provide the longer-term acceptance of systemic policy interventions that is needed to tackle the many environmental issues we face today. We need the economic and infrastructural changes that reward “doing the right thing” and normalise sustainable lifestyles; and we also need a change in values and public opinion that makes sustainable levels and patterns of consumption desirable. We need consumption policies that are based on an understanding of consumption at the societal, rather than individual level.

If there’s a 1% risk that our scenario is correct you vote aff: scientific consensus indicates the planet doesn’t have time to come to an absolute understanding.

Coplan 12

(Karl S., Professor of Law at Pace Law School and Co-Director of its Environmental Litigation Clinic since 1994 and practiced land use and environmental litigation for eight years, “Climate Change, Political Truth, and the Marketplace of Ideas,” 2012, Social Science Research Network//wyo-mm)

These two foundational First Amendment ideas – free speech as truth-discovery and free speech as self-government – coalesce into the notion that in a representative democracy like the United States, the only truths worthy of government action are those that have prevailed in the political marketplace – “political truths.”22 There is no government orthodoxy, and decisions dependant on competing theories about the best social, economic, environmental, or foreign policy are to be decided according to the power of these competing ideas to prevail in the political marketplace. When it comes to global climate change, however, the scientific consensus, that catastrophic global warming is likely as long as current patterns of energy production and consumption continue, has not achieved popular acceptance.23 Scientific consensus holds that immediate global action to reduce fossil fuel consumption is necessary to avert this catastrophe.24 Assuming that the scientific consensus represents “truth” (or at least a sufficiently close approximation to truth), the planet does not have time for this truth to overcome the incorrect political consensus in “the long run.” If First Amendment marketplace of ideas principles and self-governance principles demand that the United States forego painful measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption until it is too late, does this indicate that our system of self-government is not up to the task of responding to a slow-motion global catastrophe like climate change?

IT’S A DOUBLE-BIND: EITHER THE ALTERNATIVE LINKS OR DOESN’T SOLVE. IN ISOLATION, ALTERNATIVES CAN’T INDIVIDUALLY DECONSTRUCT DOMINANT SECURITY DISCOURSE. THEY MUST ENGAGE WITH SECURITY, BUT IN DOING SO LEGITIMIZE THE PRACTICES BEING CRITIQUED.

Jeff Huysmans, Lecturer in politics at the department of government at Open University, Alternatives “Defining Social Constructivism in Security Studies: The Normative Dilemma of Writing Security” Feb 2002 p. 50-51.

Although the critical edge of this literature cannot be ignored, denaturalizing security fields is not necessarily successful in moderating the normative dilemma. The research continues to map the security discourses, therefore repeating, in an often highly systematic way, a security approach to, for example, migration or drugs. Demonstrating the contingent character of the politicization does question the foundational character of this contingent construction, but it does not necessarily undermine the real effects. It does this only when these discourses rely heavily for their effects on keeping the natural character of its foundations unquestioned. This points to a more general issue concerning this kind of analysis. Although it stresses that language makes a difference and that social relations are constructed, it leaves underdeveloped the concept of security formation that heavily prestructures the possibilities to “speak” differently through rarifying who can speak security, what security can be spoken about, how one should speak about security, and so on.27 Another related problem is that the approach assumes that in dictating the mere existence of alternative practices challenges the dominance of the dominant discourse. This is problematic since the alternative constructions do not exist in a vacuum or in a sheltered space. To be part of the game, they must, for example, Coy test political constructions of migration. Alternative practices are thus not isolated but engage with other, possibly dominant, constructions. This raises the question of how the “engagement” actually works. It involves relations of power, structuring and restructuring the social exchanges. Staging alternative practices does not necessarily challenge a dominant construction. The political game is more complex, as Foucault’s interpretation of the “sexual revolution”— the liberation from sexual repression—of the second half of the twentieth century showed.28 In a comment on human-rights approaches of migration, Didier Bigo raises a similar point—that opposing strategies do not necessarily radically challenge established politicizations: “It is often misleading to counterpose the ideology of security to human rights because they sometimes have more in common than their authors would like to admit. They often share the same concept of insecurity and diverge only in their solutions.”29 The main point is that alternative discourses should not be left in a vacuum. The way they function in the political struggle should be looked at. How are the alternative discourses entrenched in a specific political game? Are they possibly a constitutive part of the mastery of the dominant construction?

States

Third, 50 State Fiat is bad unless it contains a solvency advocate that assumes every level of fiat including uniformity.

No literature base kills education- No one advocates all 50 states making one action at the same time- means not real world

Steals all aff offense by fiat-ing all the plan- makes it impossible to be aff on domestic topics- kills fairness

Voter for fairness and education

California’s economy is slowly recovering [GREEN]

Levy 6/15 ( Steve Levy, Director and Senior Economist of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE) in Palo Alto, “California on path of recovery yet?”, California Economic Summit, 6/15/12, http://www.caeconomy.org/blog/entry/california-on-path-to-recovery-yet, 2012)

I haven’t written for a while but today’s jobs report caps a week of more positive news. Today’s jobs report is a positive and hopeful sign for the California economy. 33,900 jobs were added and the unemployment rate dropped again to a still high 10.8% statewide. For the past two months an average of 17,000 jobs per month were added. The monthly data bounce around and it is better to take a longer term perspective on these trends. Last week the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that California was one of the fastest growing states for GDP growth in 2011. Today’s jobs report confirms that California is now outpacing the nation in job growth while reminding us that the recovery is continuing but that unemployment rates will come down only slowly. California’s job recovery is led by Bay Area tech gains concentrated in Silicon Valley and San Francisco. But the May report shows signs of recovery in Southern California as well led by Orange County and including job growth, finally, of 1% or more in Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire. The strongest job growth is in Silicon Valley (the San Jose metro area) with a gain of 3.5% year over year or 31,100 jobs. San Francisco is next among the large metro areas with a gain of 2.8% or 26,800 jobs. The comparable state gain is 1.6% slightly above the 1.4% national gain. Both Southern California and the Bay Area are reporting higher homes sales and a firming of prices is another piece of hopeful news. The job gains reflect California’s strength in technology, trade and tourism led by professional, scientific and technical services, wholesale trade and hotels and amusements. Construction jobs

New spending destroys budget stability and wrecks the California economy

Robert Krol, is a professor of economics at California State University Northridge and author of a forthcoming Cato Journal paper on state budget institutions, 2012, “California Needs a Spending Limit”, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/california-needs-spending-limit

California's budget is once again in the red. The governor signed a balanced budget in August of last year, but before the ink was dry, a slowing economy, the real estate bust and a spate of unplanned spending resulted in a significant budget crunch. The Legislative Analyst's Office now projects a deficit of about $10 billion over the next 18 months, and Gov. Schwarzenegger says the shortfall may be as high as $14 billion. To be sure, the slowing economy has reduced revenues, but excessive spending remains the root cause of California's persistent financial troubles. The governor plans to declare a "fiscal emergency," requiring legislators in Sacramento to correct the deficit. The resulting legislation will likely include spending cuts, fee increases and borrowing. Details aside, Schwarzenegger must insist that any legislation contain an enforceable framework to help prevent future fiscal crises and allow for a voter referendum on a constitutional spending limit. The time is right. California's taxes are already high, so the solution is to control spending with a constitutional constraint limiting expenditure growth to inflation plus population growth. Schwarzenegger proposed a spending limit in 2005, but it was poorly designed, and voters had little incentive to support it. Now, the fiscal crunch is much worse. A new proposal should require legislators to get voter approval for any expenditures above the limit, and include a component allowing taxpayers to decide for themselves whether they want higher spending or a tax refund. Such a law would lessen the severity of budget shortfalls in economic downturns. Recent experience provides an example of how this would work. The state's revenues began to rise in the 2004-05 fiscal year. Since that time, pegging spending increases to inflation and population growth would have allowed spending to grow by 15 percent. Instead, expenditures increased by more than twice that much. If spending growth had been limited to 15 percent since 2004-05, we'd be facing a $7 billion surplus rather than a $2 billion deficit for the current fiscal year. Thirty states already have some form of a tax or government spending limit. Most of the limits link the growth of state expenditures to growth in personal income. California overwhelmingly passed a population growth plus inflation spending constraint in 1979, but it was amended by voters in 1990 to limit expenditure growth to increases in population plus growth in personal income. This more generous limit has never effectively constrained state spending. Linking spending growth to increases in population plus inflation is a more effective way to establish fiscal discipline in Sacramento. We know from other states that tax and spending limits can constrain the expansion of government. Research shows that the most effective limits are constitutional, written by voters and limit increases in spending rather than revenues. As an added bonus, financial markets reward states with expenditure limits by demanding lower interest rates on state borrowing. This offers significant savings over time. During economic booms, if revenues increase more than inflation plus population growth, the surplus should be refunded to taxpayers or used to shore up California's rainy-day fund. If state leaders wanted to spend some of the additional revenues, they should put their proposals up for a vote. California has little choice but to get its spending under control. Higher taxes are not an economically viable option. The Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., ranks California 46th in its 2007 State Business Climate Rankings. Our neighboring states – Arizona, Nevada and Oregon – rank considerably better. Despite healthy revenue growth over the last few years, the California budget has been mismanaged. Schwarzenegger has been unable to make good on his pledge to reform Sacramento and get state lawmakers off of what he called "autopilot" spending. In the 2003 recall election, he ran as a budget reformer, promising he would "tear up the credit cards" and rein in runaway spending. He has failed to live up to his promises. A spending limit would give California some much-needed budget stability, and allow the governor to salvage his legacy. With a new fiscal mess brewing, it's time for him to try again.

Spending causes state economic collapse—crushes the global economy

Navarro 08 (Peter Navarro, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University,“California nightmare for the world economy”, San Fransicso Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/California-nightmare-for-the-global-economy-3273234.php, 2008)

Will the California budget crisis tip the United States into recession? The California economy is certainly large enough to inflict such damage. It's the seventh-largest economy in the world and home to close to 38 million Americans. California's budget deficit is by any reasonable measure enormous. This budget deficit is estimated at $17.2 billion and represents more than 17 percent of the state's general fund expenditures (about $101 billion). In contrast, New York, which faces the second-worst budget gap in the nation for fiscal year 2009, has a gap of about $5 billion, which represents less than 10 percent of its budget. In closing its past budgetary gaps, California has acted more like the federal government rather than merely one of 50 states. Indeed, unlike the federal government (or sovereign nations), each state is required to balance its budget each year; and no state, at least in principle, has the authority to engage in the kind of discretionary deficit spending both the federal government and nations around the world routinely use to stimulate their economies. In the past, a profligate California has gotten around this balanced-budget requirement by using a technique that effectively allows the Golden State to administer its own fiscal stimulus. In particular, California - under both Democratic and Republican governors - has simply issued new bonds every time that it has spent far beyond its means. California's problem this time, however, is that its deficit is so big, its balance sheet is so bad, and world credit markets are so tight that issuing new bonds alone is no longer a viable option. Instead, California's politicians are inexorably being forced toward a solution that will prominently feature both a large tax increase and significant spending cuts. Indeed, this is not a partisan matter of choosing one's poison. The budget deficit is so large that it cannot be eliminated without raising taxes, anathema to the state's Republicans, and spending cuts, equally unpalatable to California Democrats. Of course, the faster the state Legislature accepts this harsh reality, the faster the deadlock can be broken. Viewed from a macroeconomic perspective, there is an even harsher reality. Increased taxes and reduced spending will send a very nasty contractionary shock through a California economy that is already reeling from a housing market meltdown and punishing gas prices. Should Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budgetary medicine - including firing many state employees - trigger a recession, this may well serve as a tipping point for a national recession and, in the worst case scenario, even a global recession. In considering these dangers, it is worth noting that California provides close to 13 percent of America's real GDP growth. In contrast, the second-largest contributor to U.S. gross domestic product is Texas, and it provides only half that stimulus. It also worth noting that California is an important destination for both U.S. manufactured goods and world imports, particularly from Asia. Already, California's unemployment rate is more than 6.8 percent and well above the national average of 5.7 percent. At least some economists believe California may already be experiencing negative growth. The economy is likely to get a lot worse before its gets better. If there is any one civics lesson to be learned from this fine mess, it is that the state's politicians must learn to resist overspending in good times so that the state won't face bankruptcy when bad times hit. It should be equally clear that any damn fool can issue bonds to balance a budget. However, it takes real political courage and economic foresight to put a state budget on an even keel through fiscally conservative tax-and-spend policies. At this juncture, California is nowhere close to that - and the rest of the country, and perhaps the world, may soon pay the Golden State's piper.

Businesses prefer federal policy over state policy—prefer uniformity over patchwork approaches

Mann, 2011

[Roberta, Professor and Dean’s Distinguished Faculty Fellow, University of Oregon School of Law, “FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAX POLICIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: COORDINATION OR CROSS-PURPOSE?” 4-25-11, Lewis and Clark Law Review, Online, http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/8326-lcb152art4mann] /Wyo-MB

¶ Several groups of researchers have examined the potential ¶ ¶ interactions between federal and state climate policies.¶ ¶ 54¶ ¶ Andrew Aulisi¶ and other researchers from the World Resources Institute examined case ¶ ¶ studies to determine when leading state policies would “vertical[ly] ¶ ¶ diffus[e]” and be adopted by the national government.¶ ¶ 55¶ ¶ The most ¶ ¶ significant factors for successful vertical policy diffusion were the push for ¶ ¶ diffusion by state champions, policy learning by example and innovation, ¶ ¶ and the spillover effect.¶ ¶ 56¶ ¶ State officials may press for federal adoption of ¶ ¶ their policies because those policies may fail without expansion to the ¶ ¶ national level, due to “competition with other states with conflicting ¶ ¶ policies or weaker commitments to the policy goal.”¶ ¶ 57¶ ¶ State policies may ¶ ¶ demonstrate that a policy can be implemented and be effective. The ¶ ¶ spillover effect is “the extent to which the perceived benefits and costs of ¶ ¶ state policies cross over state lines to other states” or the nation.¶ ¶ 58¶ ¶ The ¶ ¶ results of vertical diffusion may be full or partial preemption of the issue ¶ ¶ by the federal government, issuance of grants or incentives by the federal ¶ ¶ government to the states to perpetuate the activity, or federal mandates, ¶ ¶ with or without funding.¶ ¶ 59¶ ¶ The researchers concluded that the RGGI capand-trade program contained all the significant vertical diffusion factors, ¶ ¶ including the somewhat less significant factor of business support for ¶ ¶ federal action.¶ ¶ 60¶ ¶ The researchers predicted that the federal government is ¶ ¶ “likely to use partial preemption to respond to the RGGI . . . standards.”¶ ¶ 61¶ ¶ The House-passed climate change bill (ACES) would have fully ¶ ¶ preempted existing regional cap-and-trade programs.¶ ¶ 62¶ ¶ The choice of full ¶ ¶ preemption in the legislation may have been driven by the concerns of ¶ ¶ business constituents. Business interests have considerable influence on ¶ ¶ policymaking in the United States.¶ ¶ 63¶ ¶ Business support for federal action is ¶ ¶ motivated by the desire for uniform standards, which enables businesses ¶ ¶ to avoid a patchwork of varying state rules that would increase ¶ ¶ compliance costs and create competitive advantages.¶ ¶ 64¶

Elections

Romney is winning Virginia
John Cassidy, 10/8

“Cassidy’s Count: Romney Bounce Changes Electoral Map in His Favor”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/10/cassidys-count-romney-bounce-changes-map-in-his-favor.html#ixzz28uo6LMt7, accessed 10/10/12,WYO/JF

Virginia: Even before the debate, there was evidence that Obama’s lead in the Old Dominion, which had expanded to as much as six or eight points in some polls taken in mid-to-late September, was narrowing significantly. On Friday, a Rasmussen poll taken the day after the debate showed Romney leading by one point (49 to 48) and a second survey, from We Ask America, showed the G.O.P. candidate leading by three points (48 to 45). To be sure, both polls come with warning signs attached. They were based on automated calling, which tends to be less reliable than human questioning, and Rasmussen’s results often lean towards the G.O.P.. Still, in the middle of last month, both organizations carried out polls in Virginia that showed Obama ahead: in the Rasmussen survey, he was up by one point, and in the We Ask America poll, he was up by three points. The polls released on Friday both showed sizable swings in Romney’s favor, and it’s hard to ignore them. Allowing for some sampling error and the different methodologies of the various pollsters, I suspect that the race in Virginia is once again very close, with Obama perhaps narrowly in front. A new poll from Public Policy Polling, which tends to lean to the Democrats, supports that interpretation. Published on Sunday night, it shows the President with forty-nine per cent of the vote and Romney with forty-six per cent. As the firm noted in a press release, Obama’s three-point lead “is the closest we’ve found the race in Virginia (in) the entire cycle.” Based on this poll and the others, I have decided to switch Virginia from Obama to toss-up.

Plan happens after the election

Ramsey Cox (writer for The Hill) September 24, 2012 “Congress to hold pro forma sessions until November” http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/251313-congress-to-hold-pro-forma-sessions-until-november

Rather than being in recess for more than five weeks, both the Senate and the House decided to hold pro forma sessions until after the November elections. Both chambers will gavel in Tuesday morning for a brief session; typically, legislative business doesn't take place in pro forma sessions. At most members ask to be recognized for a speech, but rarely do. It is unclear if the legislative branch was afraid of recess appointments by the White House, yet both sides took a formal recess in August. The Senate will hold a pro forma session every Tuesday and Friday until Nov. 13 at 2 p.m. when they’ll continue work on S. 3525, the Sportsmen Act, which would increase access to federal land for hunters and fishers while also supporting conservation measures.

1. Bill is largely bipartisan now 2. Parity doesn’t limit fossil fuels 3. Will result in economic growth.

Brown 12

(Sam, SCS Renewables, “New legislation creates energy investment opportunity,” July 5, 2012, http://www.scsrenewables.com/2012/07/05/new-legislation-creates-energy-investment-opportunity/#more-961//wyo-mm)

With the recent introduction of the MLP Parity Act, a bipartisan bill that would amend the tax code to allow Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) to participate in renewable energy projects, we continue to see momentum towards the implementation of new investment vehicles needed to broaden the investor pool and lower the cost of capital for solar. In today’s partisan climate, targeting simple changes such as this is wise and difficult to argue against given the changes don’t seek to limit the growth of competing fossil fuel resources. In a time when economic growth is a primary concern for all parties, the promotion of structures that are solely intended to create market efficiencies and allow the greater public to invest represents the low-hanging fruit of legislation.

Romney is winning Colorado now, Colorado is key to Romney’s campaign

Molly Ball, 10-5

“Colorado: Romney's Comeback State?” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/colorado-romneys-comeback-state/263280/, accessed 10/10/12,WYO/JF

While Rust Belt states like Ohio and Wisconsin have lately seemed to be slipping from Romney's grasp, Colorado still looms as a tantalizing possibility for the Republican nominee. Polling has been inconsistent but tight; a recent We Ask America poll put President Obama up by 3 percentage points in the state, 49-46. "Colorado is a lot of farmers and cowboys -- and aging yuppies, like me," Dennis Dougherty, an affable, white-haired Republican financial adviser from the south suburbs, told me. "And hippies, I guess. But deep down, it's conservative. People vote their pocketbook." Strategists here aren't surprised to see Romney in better shape here than in other swing states or nationally. His pragmatic, moderate image, they say, is a good sell in the West. Secular, libertarian-leaning and skeptical of Washington, it's a region where neither religious issues nor class warfare get much traction, where voters of all political stripes generally like to see themselves as independent and pro-business. A common campaign tactic for both parties is to label opponents "extreme," an epithet that, research shows, makes voters here recoil. And with a sizable Mormon population, thanks to neighboring Utah, Romney's religion doesn't strike most Coloradans as foreign or exotic. Meanwhile, Romney's economic message resonates. (In Denver on Monday, he spoke in front of four 10-foot-tall blue signs reading "J," "O," "B" and "S.") Colorado's unemployment rate is above the national average, while Ohio, Iowa and Virginia all have rates below it. While Obama's popularity has declined by 2 points or less in the rest of the country since his election in 2008, the president has lost 12 points in the West, according to a recent New York Times analysis. Plus, as of this week, Romney has the endorsement of John Elway, the former Broncos quarterback and local demigod. On paper, this ought to be a ripe target for Romney -- and given his smashing success in Wednesday's debate in Denver, it would be fitting for Colorado to be the state where he stages his comeback.

Colorado will only reach voter enthusiasm if Obama takes further steps toward clean energy

Casey 2011

[Mike Casey, founder and president of Tigercomm. He uses his 27 years of communications experience to counsel cleantech company executives, pro-sustainability nonprofit leaders and elected officials on building and running their communications programs, Can Obama Go Back to Political base(ics)?, November 28, 2011, http://www.greatenergychallengeblog.com/2011/11/28/can-obama-go-back-to-political-baseics/, uwyo//amp]

President Obama made a smart move this month by putting the Keystone XL pipeline project into the deep freeze. It had been poor politics for him — and it would have been even worse policy for the country, especially when you consider the aggressive retooling of our world energy sources demanded by the International Energy Agency findings in its latest World Energy Outlook. But for the president’s staff, the question that lingers is whether it will relearn what it had mastered so well in 2008 — that while you have to campaign in the center, your base voters’ enthusiasm matters a lot. Based on articles like this one in Bloomberg Businessweek, about how environmentalists “matter less to Obama 2012,” it certainly doesn’t seem that way. For instance, the Businessweek article quotes Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt commenting that “[w]hen voters compare Obama’s record with [the Republican candidates for president], ‘there will be no question about who will continue our progress.’” The problem is, for ego-conscious millennials (the key, according to a new analysis by Center for American Progress political analysts Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin, to the 2012 election) like former Microsoft executive Jabe Blumenthal, who care deeply about environmental issues and who want to feel that their concerns are being heard at the highest levels, simply asserting that “I’m not Rick Perry” or “I’m not Mitt Romney” won’t work. To the contrary, Blumenthal says in the Businessweek piece, it’s “simply not true” that the specter of Romney, Perry or Gingrich will be sufficient cause for him to open his checkbook to the Obama campaign, as he did in 2008. Throughout the Keystone XL process, the message from Washington pundits and experts was that environmentalists “will not be happy, but they have nowhere else to go.” It’s hard to imagine such an arrogant statement being directed at African-American, gay or Latino voters, but the “nowhere else to go” sentiment directed at environmentalists seemed to have taught them it was time to chuck the tradition of patty-cake politics and “principled loserism” they’ve operated with for so long. The clincher in the Keystone fight was when committed Obama 2008 volunteers, donors and staffers started correcting the “nowhere else to go” idea. These Obama supporters recognized that they did indeed have somewhere else they could go: home, And not just on election day, but on all the days between now and then. In key states such as Colorado, where the green base is a lot of the base, these base voters realized that they could make themselves matter. In addition, environmental leaders such as 350.org’s Bill McKibben, Sierra Club’s Mike Brune, Friends of the Earth’s Erich Pica, and Greenpeace’s Phil Radford have shown they aren’t interested in the “nowhere to go” approach. I’m still not sure why the White House let things get to the point where supporters had to threaten to withhold their time, money and effort — all over a boondoggle that wouldn’t have dropped gas prices at all. To me, the politics around the Keystone XL pipeline were clear from the start. First there were the wildly inflated claims of jobs from an industry with a history of inflating them. And, of the jobs that would have been created, most would have been in states that were politically out of reach for Obama, and many of those would likely have been created after the election. Worse, the project had become a cafeteria line for TransCanada lobbyists, creating a paper trail of revolving door influence-peddling and inside dealing that the media would have acquired and used long into an Obama second term. On top of all that, the president’s approval of this project would have further depressed his base while benefiting an industry that is resolutely opposed to him — including his arch political enemies, the Koch brothers. It all leaves me scratching my head. But, hey, as a clean energy advocate, I’ll take the result. Going forward, there’s an opportunity for the Obama staff to stop confusing the critical task of courting the political center with the ill-advised practice of coddling lobbyists from a hostile oil industry. For the environmental community, there’s an opportunity to not resume the folded-hands, broken-hearted mode so much of its leadership has operated from over the last three decades. It will be interesting to see what the younger environmental.

Colorado is key to obama’s re-election

Sale 2012

[Anna Sale, politics journalist, July 08, 2012, Anna in the Swing States: Colorado's Swinging Suburbs and Untapped Latino Voters, http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2012/jul/08/colorados-swinging-suburbs-and-untapped-latino-voters/, uwyo//amp]

At the start of this summer, Mitt Romney was cutting into President Barack Obama's lead in the key swing state of Colorado, even as the president's advantage with Latino voters here was expanding. With the unemployment rate stuck above eight percent and immigration reform newly prominent on the president's priority list, we're asking Colorado's swing suburban voters if they're souring on the president they helped elect, and whether Latino voters here have been convinced enough by Obama's recent moves to make up that difference. Colorado’s swelling suburbs and the growing numbers of Latino voters are most often cited as the drivers behind recent Democratic gains in the western state. Latino voters made up just 13 percent of the electorate in 2008, but they proved decisive by overwhelming favoring Obama while white voters almost evenly split. Suburban voters were pivotal for another reason: their massive share of the vote in Colorado. They cast more than half of all votes here four years ago, and after supporting George W. Bush in 2004, they swung ten points to give Obama a slight edge over John McCain. Obama won Colorado by nine points in 2008, the first time a Democrat had a presidential race won here since 1992. This year, Colorado is in many ways the lynchpin in the Obama campaign’s strategy to remake the electoral map. As Obama campaign manager Jim Messina laid out last year, if the president repeats that win in Colorado, and captures Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico and the states John Kerry won in 2004, Obama wins another term. This western strategy diminishes the importance of Ohio and Florida, even though those perennial battlegrounds are much bigger electoral prizes compared to Colorado’s relatively modest nine electoral votes. The Colorado electorate is largely broken up in thirds among Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Since 2008, the ranks of the unaffiliated, independent voters have grown in Colorado, and Democrats and Republicans now make up a slightly smaller percentage of registered voters in Colorado than they did four years ago. Much of the registration gains for Democrats and independents has happened in congressional districts with urban areas, contributing to the Democrats' recent success there.

Economic collapse makes your impact inevitable- Russia, China, and Iran would try to fill the economic gap, causing imperialist wars

Sander 2

(“Why was there (so far) No Third World War,” Internationalist Perspective, March 12, http://users.skynet.be/ippi/3t15%20iptex.htm)

But let us now examine the consequences of a deep global economic crisis on the imperialist impulses of other countries. The worsening economic conditions would be felt most acutely in the periphery of the global order, where already now many capitals feel the knife of devalorization on their throats and many states are losing their authority over parts of their territories and their monopoly over the use of armies. Thus, the economic collapse will inevitably ignite more interimperialist fires, wars of states against states as well as so-called civil wars. Increasingly, the US and its main allies will face the dilemma whether to put them out or not. The line of what the sheriff of the global order permits will be constantly shifting. Given their own economic problems, the cost of intervening militarily will weigh increasingly heavily. The dispute over who should carry the burden will come on top of the other conflicts created by the economic crisis and further undermine the perception of commonality of interests between them. Furthermore the willingness of society and of the working class in particular to accept growing military intervention may throw up an impassable roadblock. What is and what is not in the vital national interest of the US and Europe will be constantly redefined. It seems very likely then, that an increasing number of conflicts will have to be allowed to go on without intervention of the major powers. Countries such as Russia, China, Iran and others would jump into the vacuum to advance their own imperialist interests. Alliances and connections between different conflicts would emerge. The deeper the economic crisis becomes and the more wars are permitted, the more the imperialist impulse would snowball. Even if the major powers would succeed in imposing a retrenched but hard line of defense of the global order, which is a very big ‘if’, and prevent war between the nuclear armed India and Pakistan, between China and Taiwan or Japan, an invasion of South-Korea by the North or wars that would endanger oil-production in the Middle East, the fire would burn wide and deep. To summarize: for many capitals, the cost-benefit analysis of imperialist undertakings would drastically change because the severity of their economic problems would increase the incentive to seek compensation through conquest and pillage, while the disincentive to do so would diminish because the global economy in crisis would offer them less benefits, especially if the developed capitals react to this crisis in a defensive, protectionist way. The military disincentive would progressively diminish by a growing reluctance and incapacity of the US and other powers to intervene and last but not least the social incentive would increase because through nationalist, racist and xenophobic war and ethnic/religious cleansing campaigns, capitalism would seek to channel the increasing unrest, anger and violence in society to protect its own rule and domestic order.

Obama will strike iran if he perceives them as a threat to national security

Alajazeera, 12

Obama 'in lockstep' with Israel on Iran issue, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/02/201225222448276649.html, accessed 2-18-2012,WYO/JF

US President Barack Obama has said he does not think Israel has made a decision on whether to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations, a threat that has rattled the region. Obama, seeking to reassure Americans over the alleged danger posed by Tehran's nuclear programme, said Washington was working "in lockstep" with Israel to bring Iran to heel. "I don't think Israel has made a decision" to strike Iranian facilities, Obama said in a pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC on Sunday. When asked if Washington would be consulted first should Israel move ahead with those plans, he said he could not go into specifics but added that the two allies had "closer intelligence and military consultations" than ever before. "My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States. But also, the security of Israel. And we're going to make sure that we work in lockstep, as we proceed to try to solve this - hopefully diplomatically." 'Feeling the pinch' Obama said the Islamic republic was "feeling the pinch" of ever tougher sanctions imposed by the international community, and dismissed concerns that Tehran could retaliate by striking US soil, saying such a strike was unlikely. "I've been very clear - we're going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and creating a nuclear arms race in a volatile region," he said. "We have mobilised the international community, in a way that is unprecedented. They are feeling the pinch. They are feeling the pressure," he said. Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is for strictly peaceful purposes. On whether Tehran could possibly strike US targets, Obama said: "We don't see any evidence they have those intentions or capabilities." He added: "Again, our goal is to resolve this diplomatically. That would be preferable. We're not going to take options off the table, though." Last week, a Washington Post opinion column said Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, believes there is a "strong likelihood" that Israel will strike Iran's nuclear installations this spring. When asked about the newspaper's article by reporters traveling with him to a NATO meeting in Brussels, Panetta brushed it aside. "I'm not going to comment on that. [...] Israel indicated they're considering this [a strike], we've indicated our concerns," he said. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was due in Washington on Monday, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will visit the US in early March, though a meeting between Netanyahu and Obama was not yet confirmed. In the interview with NBC, Obama cautioned that "any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive. And has a big effect on us. It can affect oil prices".

Israeli strike before October – ensures Obama gets re-elected

Farah, 8-19

[Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto," and his classic, "Taking America Back," now in its third edition and 14th printing. “WHEN ISRAEL STRIKES IRAN IN OCTOBER”, 8/19/12 http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/when-israel-strikes-iran-in-october/ wyo-kb]

But Israeli leaders also fear they will lose the window of opportunity to deal a devastating military blow to Iran’s nuclear development if such a strike is not conducted by October of this year. Why? Because they believe Barack Obama has a reasonable expectation of being re-elected to the White House – and, if he is, he is likely, unconstrained by concerns about a future election, to be a political liability in the wake of such an action. However, if the strike is made prior to the election, Obama is much more likely not to condemn Israel. It just wouldn’t be a popular political move for him. Even most Democrats in the U.S. Congress will support Israel’s right to defend itself. But here’s the quandary – not only for Israel but for Americans who want to see Obama defeated in 2012: Will that kind of “October surprise” indeed help Obama to win the election? Most Israeli leaders don’t want to see that. But what choice do they have when their nation’s survival is at stake? Historically speaking, sitting presidents have a distinct political advantage during worldwide military crises. Will that be the case for Obama in the wake of a major military strike on Iran in October, just weeks or days before the vote?

No GNW- neither Iran nor Israel has the capacity to sustain long-term conflicts, Netanyahu is just using rhetoric but doesn’t have the military power to strike and at best a few thousand would die and countries would call a cease fire

Kechichian 9/27

(Joseph A., renowned historian and political scientist specializing on the Persian Gulf region and adjunct Professor of U.S.-Middle East Relations, Pepperdine University, a senior researcher at the RAND Corporation in California and the Armenian Research Center, Gulf News, “No Third World War on horizon,” September 27, 2012, http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/no-third-world-war-on-horizon-1.1081395//wyo-mm)

This may come as a total surprise to both Iran and Israel but World War III is not scheduled to start anytime soon. Of course, Iran would respond to any Israeli strikes, through a three pronged retaliation: via Hizballah from Lebanon; through long-range missile launches on various Israeli military and civilian targets; as well as US installations in the Gulf region. Indeed, Tehran’s reactions could inflict heavy damage, though one doubts that such ripostes would “be a prelude to [Israel’s] obliteration” or to any international military coalition against Iran. Thousands might perish though most governments will call for a cease-fire and move on. Regrettably, Israeli and Iranian rhetoric have now reached peaks, with frequently leaked Israeli stories suggesting that military operations would begin with massive cyber-attacks against Iranian infrastructure, followed by a barrage of ballistic missiles launched at nuclear facilities, which would then be trailed by attacks on military command-and-control systems, research and development facilities, and the homes of senior political and military leaders. For his part Jafari claimed that Iran would annihilate Israel: “If they begin (aggression), it will spell their destruction and will be the end of the story,” words that mimicked his president’s oft repeated fare. Indeed, Mahmoud Ahmadinajad uttered incendiary remarks at the United Nations, where he asserted that he had no fear of an Israeli attack on his country’s nuclear facilities. He used colorful language and avowed that Israelis “had no roots in history,” and that “they did not even enter the equation for Iran,” which was contradicted by his commanders’ claims that war was imminent. Simply stated, one did not engage in battle with a non-entity, and time will tell whether Israel is an aberration in contemporary Middle Eastern history. Still, although Jafari’s deputy, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, boasted that Iran would “crush” its arch-foes by hitting “enemy bases in the region,” elementary military logic ought to consider that Israelis practice the Massada Complex—named after the location near the Dead Sea where 960 Jews committed suicide in the first century rather than surrender to the Romans and acquiesce to the loss of independent statehood—which nearly guarantees an Israeli use of nuclear weapons. This is all unsettling but we should not dismiss the option that Israel and Iran were allies under the Shah, cooperated under Ayatollah Khomeini, and might enjoy mutual coexistence in the future. Both loathed Arabs and the real danger in the future is an Israeli-Iranian alliance against Arabs in general and Gulf monarchies in particular. In the Middle East, the more one talks, the less likely one is ready to attack others and this truism is accurate for both Iran and Israel. Neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad are about to start wars, pre-emptive or otherwise, for both lack the power to sustain long-term conflicts.

Strikes don’t go nuclear.

Plesch and Butcher 07

Dr Dan Plesch, Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies'Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, and Martin Butcher, international consultant on security politics, September 2007, Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East, http://www.rawstory.com/images/other/IranStudy082807a.pdf

The US has strategic forces prepared to launch massive strikes on Iran with hours of the order being given. Although there is clear evidence that nuclear weapons use is being given serious political consideration, actual use is unlikely given the lack of effectiveness of nuclear weapons against concealed and buried targets and the negative political consequences of such use. The aim of the new Triad and the Global Strike capability developed under the Bush administration is stated to be making nuclear weapons use less likely.

No impact to a strike

Poor 2/16—quoting Charles Krauthammer (Jeff, 2/16/12, http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/16/krauthammer-israeli-strike-on-iran-will-not-cause-a-world-war-video/, RBatra)

On Wednesday’s “Special Report Online” segment on FoxNews.com, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said that if Israel decides to attack Iran in order to thwart its development of nuclear weapons, the collateral damage wouldn’t start a third world war. Krauthammer based that hypothesis on Iran not having allies that would be willing to intervene significantly on a military level. (RELATED: More analysis from Charles Krauthammer) “It could cause a regional war,” Krauthammer said. “It will not cause a world war by any means. It’s not August 1914, because Iran has no great power allies who will intervene militarily. Iran is going to be alone with its clients, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas — all of whom are on their heels right now.” He said it would require Iran acting out in an irrational way and luring the United States into engagement for any conflict to become more widespread. “If Iran is smart, it will not attack the United States in retaliation because that would involve us,” he said. “It would retaliate against Israel and it could remain a limited engagement. Now of course, irrationality is possible and you cannot predict. If the Iranians either close the Strait of Hormuz or attack Americans at the naval facility in Bahrain, that would be suicide because that would occasion American intervention, almost like Wilson in the First World War in the sinking of the Lusitania. You don’t do that if you’re rational, but who knows. The Iranians haven’t always been rational.”