T

First, we meet their interpretation [insert]

Second, counter-interpretation:

increase is to make available to previously excluded groups through expansion

Massengale, reporter for Illinois Statehouse News, 1-4-11

Mary, “Madigan’s Fiscal Restraints: Pension Increase Votes and Spending Caps.” http://www.foxillinois.com/news/illinois/Madigans-Fiscal-Restraints-Pension-Increase-Votes-and-Spending-Caps-112912169.html

Madigan on Tuesday actually touched on that exact philosophy when telling lawmakers of the need to change the state constitution to require a three-fifths vote from the Legislature or any local government or school district when considering a pension increase. An “increase” is defined as an increase in the amount of a current benefit, an addition of a new benefit or an expansion of the category of eligible individuals.

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.

Fourth, prefer our interp:

Limits double-bind- they either require affs to create NEW incentives, which has less of a predictable limit or they limit affs to only reauthorization of existing ones

Education- eligibility debates are key to understand the policy-making process for determining incentive structures and rules for energy production

Fifth- their interp is flawed [insert specifics]

Sixth, 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

Seventh, 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.

Clean Tech add on

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.

Drought

Specifically the crisis is threatening keystone species in California

Hanak et al 11 (Ellen Hanak, Jay Lund, Ariel Dinar, Brian Gray, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount, Peter Moyle, Barton “Buzz” Thompson, Public Policy Institute of California, “Managing California’s Water From Conflict to Reconciliation” 2011 http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/rb_211ehrb.pdf)

Major Crises Await¶ Without reform, current water policies and institutions ¶ virtually guarantee that California will experience five ¶ major, protracted water crises that will involve widespread ¶ environmental and economic losses. ¶ Extinction and Decline of Native Species¶ California is endowed with a diverse and unique natural ¶ environment, with 140 distinct aquatic ecosystems and ¶ many fish and other aquatic and riparian species that ¶ live nowhere else on the planet. Over the past 150 years, ¶ California’s native fishes—a broad indicator of aquatic ¶ ecosystem health—have lost almost every conflict with ¶ economic development. Among the state’s 129 native fish ¶ species, 7 have become extinct, 31 are listed as threatened ¶ or endangered under the federal and state Endangered ¶ Species Acts (ESAs), and another 69 are in decline and will ¶ likely qualify for listing in the future. Only 22 native fish ¶ species are reasonably secure (Figure 1). The condition of native fish populations has continued to deteriorate despite ¶ decades of well-intentioned but insufficient and poorly ¶ coordinated policies to protect them. Efforts to stop these ¶ declines now threaten the reliability of water supplies and ¶ flood management projects. Yet this deterioration in natural ¶ habitat is likely to accelerate with continuing influxes of ¶ invasive species and losses of both cold water habitat and ¶ stream flow from climate warming.¶ Catastrophic Floods¶ California’s flood management system has also failed to ¶ keep up with changing economic, environmental, and ¶ social conditions. The state has some of the most flood-prone ¶ land in the nation, much of which has been urbanized. In ¶ the Central Valley, growing urbanization in floodplains ¶ has rendered a formerly prized century-old flood control ¶ system inadequate. A major flood in the Sacramento region ¶ would endanger thousands of lives and cost tens of billions ¶ of dollars in lost property and economic activity. Unfortunately, recent state efforts to double the urban protection ¶ standard in the Central Valley suffer from the same basic ¶ weaknesses as federal flood policy. The new standard will ¶ promote some strengthening of existing flood defenses but ¶ ultimately will increase the economic losses from floods—¶ or flood risk—by continuing to encourage population ¶ growth and economic activity behind levees. The frequency ¶ of large floods is likely to increase with a warming climate, ¶ which is already accelerating the pace of winter and early ¶ spring runoff, challenging the capabilities of existing flood ¶ protection infrastructure. Moreover, the state’s new flood ¶ policy does not address high-risk flood areas in Southern ¶ California and the San Francisco Bay Area. ¶ Water Scarcity¶ In much of California, water must now be managed every ¶ year with an eye toward drought. California has run out ¶ of cheap sources of new water and will need to manage ¶ water more carefully and more flexibly to satisfy competing ¶ demands (Figure 2). In recent decades, progress has been ¶ made on several fronts: Water use efficiency has improved, urban wastewater reuse is expanding, a water market has ¶ developed to transfer water from economically lower-value ¶ uses to higher-value uses, and groundwater banking has ¶ expanded the ability to store water in underground aquifers ¶ for dry years. But several regions are relying on unsustainable mining of groundwater basins, and the state’s water ¶ system is still susceptible to prolonged droughts, which ¶ could become more frequent. Institutional rigidities and ¶ regulatory gaps are hindering the development of groundwater banking and the expansion of the water market—two major tools for better managing water in a semiarid ¶ climate with a growing population and dynamic economy. ¶ Deteriorating Water Quality¶ The passage of clean water legislation in the late 1960s ¶ and early 1970s led to a dramatic reduction in water pollution from wastewater and industrial plants. But other ¶ major sources of pollution, such as urban and agricultural ¶ stormwater runoff and drainage, remain a serious problem. ¶ Meanwhile, new chemical threats have emerged and, with ¶ few exceptions, have been largely neglected. Water quality ¶ problems compound water scarcity problems by increasing ¶ drinking water costs, particularly for small rural communities. Treating wastewater and runoff to meet increasingly ¶ high standards is also expensive and often insufficient to ¶ protect aquatic species from harm.¶ Decline of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta¶ All of these problems converge in the Sacramento–San ¶ Joaquin Delta—the poster child for California’s water woes. ¶ Disasters loom for ecosystems, Delta landowners, and agricultural and urban water users in much of the state. The ¶ Delta’s weak levees, which protect local farmland and the ¶ channels that convey freshwater to southern Delta export ¶ pumps, risk catastrophic failure from earthquakes and ¶ floods. Such a failure would draw saltwater into the Delta, ¶ cutting off water supplies for many months and costing the ¶ state’s economy billions of dollars. The Delta’s ecosystem—¶ stressed by loss of habitat, water diversions, contaminants, ¶ and a range of other causes—is witnessing a catastrophic ¶ decline in its native species, leading to substantial regulatory restrictions on water exports. Over the longer term, ¶ additional pressures on this system from sea level rise, ¶ warming temperatures, water pollution, and new invasive ¶ species will intensify this deterioration, permanently cutting ¶ off water supplies and leaving an impoverished ecosystem, ¶ with few traces of its original splendor. The economic costs ¶ of a permanent loss of Delta water exports will be especially ¶ severe if California’s climate becomes drier, as some climate ¶ models predict.

Keystone species loss leads to extinction

Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p 177

Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes.

K

First, Our Interpretation: The resolution asks the question of desirability of USFG action. The Role of ballot is to say yes or no to the action and outcomes of the plan.

Second, is reasons to prefer:

(___) A. Aff Choice, any other framework or role of the ballot moots 9 minutes of the 1ac

(___) B. It is predictable, the resolution demands USFG action

(___) 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.

We should compare different theoretical approaches to the environment using cost benefit analysis

Alonsob et al, 2008

[Enrique Alonsob, Biodiversity UNESCO Chair, ESCET-Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain, and Pablo Martínez de Anguitaa, Department of Environmental Technology, ESCET-Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain, and María Ángeles Martínc, Department of Natural Resources, University San Pablo CEU, Madrid, Spain, “Environmental economic, political and ethical integration in a common decision-making framework.” Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 88, Issue 1, July 2008, Pages 154–164, Accessed online via science direct] /Wyo-MB

A value is an enduring conception of the preferable which influences choice and action (Brown, 1984). Traditionally, neoclassical utility theory has assumed a value monism, i.e., all values are commensurable and ultimately reducible to a single measure: some form of implicit or explicit cost-benefit analysis or calculation lies behind almost every human action, object and behaviour (Frank, 1997). Based on this metric, we should be able to measure people's preferences and values for environmental goods.

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.

Rejection of securitization causes the state to become more interventionist—turns the K

Tara McCormack, ’10, is Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Leicester and has a PhD in International Relations from the University of Westminster. 2010, (Critique, Security and Power: The political limits to emancipatory approaches, page 127-129)

The following section will briefly raise some questions about the rejection of the old security framework as it has been taken up by the most powerful institutions and states. Here we can begin to see the political limits to critical and emancipatory frameworks. In an international system which is marked by great power inequalities between states, the rejection of the old narrow national interest-based security framework by major international institutions, and the adoption of ostensibly emancipatory policies and policy rhetoric, has the consequence of problematising weak or unstable states and allowing international institutions or major states a more interventionary role, yet without establishing mechanisms by which the citizens of states being intervened in might have any control over the agents or agencies of their emancipation. Whatever the problems associated with the pluralist security framework there were at least formal and clear demarcations. This has the consequence of entrenching international power inequalities and allowing for a shift towards a hierarchical international order in which the citizens in weak or unstable states may arguably have even less freedom or power than before. Radical critics of contemporary security policies, such as human security and humanitarian intervention, argue that we see an assertion of Western power and the creation of liberal subjectivities in the developing world. For example, see Mark Duffield’s important and insightful contribution to the ongoing debates about contemporary international security and development. Duffield attempts to provide a coherent empirical engagement with, and theoretical explanation of, these shifts. Whilst these shifts, away from a focus on state security, and the so-called merging of security and development are often portrayed as positive and progressive shifts that have come about because of the end of the Cold War, Duffield argues convincingly that these shifts are highly problematic and unprogressive. For example, the rejection of sovereignty as formal international equality and a presumption of nonintervention has eroded the division between the international and domestic spheres and led to an international environment in which Western NGOs and powerful states have a major role in the governance of third world states. Whilst for supporters of humanitarian intervention this is a good development, Duffield points out the depoliticising implications, drawing on examples in Mozambique and Afghanistan. Duffield also draws out the problems of the retreat from modernisation that is represented by sustainable development. The Western world has moved away from the development policies of the Cold War, which aimed to develop third world states industrially. Duffield describes this in terms of a new division of human life into uninsured and insured life. Whilst we in the West are ‘insured’ – that is we no longer have to be entirely self-reliant, we have welfare systems, a modern division of labour and so on – sustainable development aims to teach populations in poor states how to survive in the absence of any of this. Third world populations must be taught to be self-reliant, they will remain uninsured. Self-reliance of course means the condemnation of millions to a barbarous life of inhuman bare survival. Ironically, although sustainable development is celebrated by many on the left today, by leaving people to fend for themselves rather than developing a society wide system which can support people, sustainable development actually leads to a less human and humane system than that developed in modern capitalist states. Duffield also describes how many of these problematic shifts are embodied in the contemporary concept of human security. For Duffield, we can understand these shifts in terms of Foucauldian biopolitical framework, which can be understood as a regulatory power that seeks to support life through intervening in the biological, social and economic processes that constitute a human population (2007: 16). Sustainable development and human security are for Duffield technologies of security which aim to create self-managing and self-reliant subjectivities in the third world, which can then survive in a situation of serious underdevelopment (or being uninsured as Duffield terms it) without causing security problems for the developed world. For Duffield this is all driven by a neoliberal project which seeks to control and manage uninsured populations globally. Radical critic Costas Douzinas (2007) also criticises new forms of cosmopolitanism such as human rights and interventions for human rights as a triumph of American hegemony. Whilst we are in agreement with critics such as Douzinas and Duffield that these new security frameworks cannot be empowering, and ultimately lead to more power for powerful states, we need to understand why these frameworks have the effect that they do. We can understand that these frameworks have political limitations without having to look for a specific plan on the part of current powerful states. In new security frameworks such as human security we can see the political limits of the framework proposed by critical and emancipatory theoretical approaches.

Alternative fails—state coopts it. Only perm solves

Tara McCormack, 10, is Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Leicester and has a PhD in International Relations from the University of Westminster. 2010, (Critique, Security and Power: The political limits to emancipatory approaches, page 137-138)

In chapter 7 I engaged with the human security framework and some of the problematic implications of ‘emancipatory’ security policy frameworks. In this chapter I argued that the shift away from the pluralist security framework and the elevation of cosmopolitan and emancipatory goals has served to enforce international power inequalities rather than lessen them. Weak or unstable states are subjected to greater international scrutiny and international institutions and other states have greater freedom to intervene, but the citizens of these states have no way of controlling or influencing these international institutions or powerful states. This shift away from the pluralist security framework has not challenged the status quo, which may help to explain why major international institutions and states can easily adopt a more cosmopolitan rhetoric in their security policies. As we have seen, the shift away from the pluralist security framework has entailed a shift towards a more openly hierarchical international system, in which states are differentiated according to, for example, their ability to provide human security for their citizens or their supposed democratic commitments. In this shift, the old pluralist international norms of (formal) international sovereign equality, non-intervention and ‘blindness’ to the content of a state are overturned. Instead, international institutions and states have more freedom to intervene in weak or unstable states in order to ‘protect’ and emancipate individuals globally. Critical and emancipatory security theorists argue that the goal of the emancipation of the individual means that security must be reconceptualised away from the state. As the domestic sphere is understood to be the sphere of insecurity and disorder, the international sphere represents greater emancipatory possibilities, as Tickner argues, ‘if security is to start with the individual, its ties to state sovereignty must be severed’ (1995: 189). For critical and emancipatory theorists there must be a shift towards a ‘cosmopolitan’ legal framework, for example Mary Kaldor (2001: 10), Martin Shaw (2003: 104) and Andrew Linklater (2005). For critical theorists, one of the fundamental problems with Realism is that it is unrealistic. Because it prioritises order and the existing status quo, Realism attempts to impose a particular security framework onto a complex world, ignoring the myriad threats to people emerging from their own governments and societies. Moreover, traditional international theory serves to obscure power relations and omits a study of why the system is as it is: [O]mitting myriad strands of power amounts to exaggerating the simplicity of the entire political system. Today’s conventional portrait of international politics thus too often ends up looking like a Superman comic strip, whereas it probably should resemble a Jackson Pollock. (Enloe, 2002 [1996]: 189) Yet as I have argued, contemporary critical security theorists seem to show a marked lack of engagement with their problematic (whether the international security context, or the Yugoslav break-up and wars). Without concrete engagement and analysis, however, the critical project is undermined and critical theory becomes nothing more than a request that people behave in a nicer way to each other. Furthermore, whilst contemporary critical security theorists argue that they present a more realistic image of the world, through exposing power relations, for example, their lack of concrete analysis of the problematic considered renders them actually unable to engage with existing power structures and the way in which power is being exercised in the contemporary international system. For critical and emancipatory theorists the central place of the values of the theorist mean that it cannot fulfil its promise to critically engage with contemporary power relations and emancipatory possibilities. Values must be joined with engagement with the material circumstances of the time.

CP

Counterplan fails to make private capital available to the renewable investors, means that they will not try to build renewables

Sherlock, 11

Molly F. Sherlock, Analyst in Economics, and Mark P. Keightley, Analyst in Public Finance, 6-28-2011, “Master Limited Partnerships,” CRS, http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieeeusa.org%2Fpolicy%2Feyeonwashington%2F2011%2Fdocuments%2Fmasterlmtdpartnerships.pdf&images=yes, accessed 9/28/12,WYO/JF

The Obama Administration has also repeatedly emphasized the importance of investments in clean energy technologies and infrastructure. President Obama has noted that clean energy investments can enhance domestic energy security, promote environmental objectives, and create jobs. 1 One barrier to investments in renewable energy projects is that such projects are highly capital intensive. Capital intensive renewable energy projects continue to face a number of challenges with respect to financing. Policymakers have been exploring various options for increasing the availability and decreasing the cost of financing for the renewable energy sector. One option for attracting additional capital to the renewable energy sector that Congress may consider is allowing renewable energy activities access to the master limited partnership (MLP) business structure.

MLP’s are key to investment and access to private capital

Sherlock, 11

Molly F. Sherlock, Analyst in Economics, and Mark P. Keightley, Analyst in Public Finance, 6-28-2011, “Master Limited Partnerships,” CRS, http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ieeeusa.org%2Fpolicy%2Feyeonwashington%2F2011%2Fdocuments%2Fmasterlmtdpartnerships.pdf&images=yes, accessed 9/28/12,WYO/JF

Proponents of extending the MLP structure to renewable electricity generation facilities note that doing so might help attract additional capital to the sector. Additional capital would be attracted to the sector by the higher returns typically offered to investors by MLPs. Additionally, allowing renewable power facilities to structure as MLPs could provide easier access to equity. Being able to sell shares to raise equity is a benefit typically reserved for C-corporations. Given these advantages, MLPs might allow clean energy projects to produce energy at a lower cost, and thus be more competitive with fossil fuels, including coal and natural gas. The MLP structure might also help attract investors to the renewable energy sector, particularly if changes allowing renewables to structure as MLPs were enacted alongside changes to existing passive loss rules. Without accompanying changes to the passive loss rules, the benefits associated with the MLP structure are more limited. As noted above, renewable energy taxpayers have historically turned to the tax-equity market to monetize renewable energy tax incentives (especially prior to the enactment of the Section 1603 grant program in 2009). Under the MLP structure, tax losses pass through to investors. If passive loss rules are restructured to allow investors to use these tax losses to offset other income, renewable energy investments might become more attractive. 35 From this perspective, the renewable energy entity might be able to attract additional capital to the sector with the MLP structure since such a structure could be designed to allow investors to directly benefit from renewable energy tax incentives. While modifications to the passive loss rules would help maximize the benefits investors are able to realize from the MLP structure, extending the MLP structure to renewables without changing the passive loss rules may also provide some benefit, as MLPs are not subject to corporate level taxation and can raise capital by selling additional shares. Allowing renewables to structure as MLPs may help reduce the cost of capital, thereby increasing investment in renewable energy. While expanding the pool of investors and increasing access to capital may help promote investment in renewable energy, the overall value of the ability to structure as an MLP is likely small relative to existing tax benefits for renewable energy entities. Thus, this has led some to observe that "Because MLP s would only increase the eligible investor pool ... by themselves they would most likely not supplant the tax incentives currently in place."

British Econ D/A

Squo solves the DA – Malaysian mines breaks monopoly within 2 years

Rhodes 11

(Chris Rhodes, Forbes Contributor, 3/28/11, “Rare Earth Elements And Thorium Power” http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2011/03/28/rare-earth-elements-and-thorium-power/)

A controversial REE processing plant is to be built by the Australian mining company Lynas in Malaysia where it is argued that environmental protection laws are less rigorous than in Australia. The plant is predicted to produce one third of global demand for REEs in two years, hence breaking the Chinese monopoly. It is intended to bury the thorium in concrete, but a better option would be to use the material as a nuclear fuel in place of uranium, the price of which has recently risen above $100/pound, in coincidence with the price of crude oil, which is now also above $100/barrel.

Supply will exceed demand within 5 years

Yan Zhou, 11

(China Daily, "Rare earths output ratio to decrease," http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-06/16/content_12708457.htm)

BEIJING - The world's supply of rare-earth minerals will outstrip demand within five years, reversing global reliance on China's exports as more foreign players begin exploration of their own, industrial executives said. The soaring price of rare earths will also trigger global players to cash in on the valuable minerals. More countries with large rare-earth deposits will resume exploration after freezing it for years, which will lead to a global reallocation of the minerals, Wang Hongqian, general manager of China Nonferrous Metal Industry's Foreign Engineering and Construction Co Ltd (NFC), told China Daily. Consequently, "the current tight-supply situation will not last," Wang said. The State-owned NFC has tapped into Guangdong province, the mid-heavy rare-earth-rich region, by teaming up with local firms. NFC Southern Rare Earth (Xinfeng) Co, in which NFC owns 76 percent equity, received authorities' approval in May to build the world's biggest ion-type rare-earth separation project, with an annual capacity of 7,000 tons. Rare earth is the collective name for 17 metallic elements, of which the mid-heavy types are the most valuable because of their wide uses. The metals are needed for some advanced technologies, such as smart phones, hybrid cars and missiles. China, which supplies more than 90 percent of the minerals, adopted strict exploration and export regulations after rampant exploration caused heavy environmental pollution. Although it is the world's top rare-earth supplier, China controls only about 36 percent of the world's deposits. Countries with large reserves, such as the United States and Australia, have yet to unfreeze exploration of the minerals. "More countries participating in the exploration of their own supply of rare earths will help ease the tight-supply situation and ease demand," said Chen Zhanheng, director of academic department, the Chinese Society of Rare Earths (CSRE).

British economy low now

Chris Giles, 10/23

“UK economy: Stuck in low gear” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/acbb1b38-1d07-11e2-a17f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2BmiuqVxQ, accessed 11/9/12,WYO/JF

Just as Britain appears to be seeking some distance from the rest of Europe, its economic performance looks remarkably similar to that of its neighbours. Despite the freedom of having its own currency and the ability to set monetary policy, Britain is growing at about the same rate as a middling performer in the eurozone. Such a mediocre showing hides many superlatives – and a few sins. Although growth tallies almost exactly with the eurozone, proving Britain is far from an economic island, the country is at the mercy of a peculiarly British set of economic circumstances. Its banks are more important to its economy than those in the single European currency and are now better capitalised. Its labour market is stronger, with unemployment falling to 7.9 per cent instead of rising to 11.4 per cent. But the total UK debt burden is higher: public sector deficits at 8.2 per cent of national income compare unfavourably with the 3.3 per cent eurozone average and British inflation has stayed stubbornly high since 2008, eroding household and corporate incomes. The British economy slid into a double-dip recession this year, with output in the second quarter 1 per cent lower than last autumn. Government ministers, mired in midterm blues, hope that a turnround will start this week with much more positive gross domestic product for the third quarter expected on Thursday.

NATO collapse won’t cause war.

Conry 95 [Barbara, Foreign Policy Analyst at CATO, Sept 18, “The Western European Union as NATO’s Successor,” online]

It is inaccurate to suggest, as NATO partisans often do, that the only alternative to Atlanticism is a return to the dark ages of the interwar era: nationalized European defenses, American isolationism, xenophobia, demagoguery, and the other evils associated with the rise of Hitler and World War II. Former U.S. senator Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.) warns that weakening NATO will have dire consequences. "As we have thrice before in this dreadful century, [we will] set in motion an instability that can only lead to war, shed blood, and lost treasure. Pray that we are wiser."[4] Lawrence di Rita of the Heritage Foundation similarly defends NATO as an "insurance policy" against a future world war. "If keeping 65,000 young Americans in Europe will prevent 10 times that many new headstones in Arlington cemetery once the Europeans turn on themselves again--as they have twice this century--then it's a small price to pay."[5] Such alarmism underestimates the significance of 50 years of economic and political cooperation among the West European powers and the role of pan-European institution such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It also ignores the fact that a viable institutional alternative to NATO--the Western European Union--already exists. With the proper resources and recognition on the part of Washington and the Europeans that an independent European defense is essential in the post-Cold War era, the WEU is a promising alternative to Atlanticism. Far from being a lame second choice to NATO or defense on the cheap, a robust WEU would be superior to NATO in many ways, better suited in the long run to protecting European and, indirectly, American interests.

NATO resilient – Inertia.

Bruno Tertrais 04, Senior Research Fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research and associate researcher the Center for International Studies and Research in France [Washington Quarterly, Spring]

Overall, there are therefore good reasons to believe that the Atlantic Alliance will survive despite internal strains. NATO still serves important functions for its members.n18 It has proven successful at adapting and undertaking new missions of peace support. Threats to Europe have not disappeared, and although a resurgent Russian threat does not appear all that credible at the moment, the alliance still serves an important function by reassuring new members. NATO also remains a vehicle of U.S. influence on the European continent, particularly on the eastern part today. There is also inertia.n19 Contrary to other multilateral alliances of the Cold War, NATO created a large civilian and military bureaucracy, and history teaches us that large institutions do not die easily. One overall explanation for this resilience is simply the fact that, despite disagreements and misunderstandings, Americans and Europeans have much more in common from a political, economic, and cultural point of view than, say, the United States and its Asian allies. Such is the reason why NATO now is and will probably remain the only U.S.-led multilateral alliance standing.

Won’t escalate

Robert Manning, Former C.V. Starr Senior Fellow for Asia Studies, and Director, Asia Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, March 10, 2000, The Washington Post

We don't want to go any lower because we need these weapons for nuclear deterrence, according to State Department spokesman James Rubin. But how many nukes do we need for deterrence to be credible? China, which President Clinton has talked of as a "strategic partner," has a grand total of 20 - count them - strategic warheads that could hit the United States. Nuclear wannabes like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq would have only a handful if they did manage to succeed in joining the nuclear club. Russia, which has 6,000 strategic warheads, is no longer an adversary. During the Cold War, it was not hard to envision a conventional war in Europe escalating into nuclear conflict. But today it is difficult to spin a plausible scenario in which the United States and Russia escalate hostilities into a nuclear exchange. Russia has no Warsaw Pact, and not much of a conventional force to speak of. Yet U.S. nuclear planners still base their targeting plans on prospective Russian targets, though no one will say so.

Nat Gas

Low prices actually kill the renewable industry

Leggett 2012 (Martin Leggett, February 6, 2012, “Shale gas, the 'clean bridge' to nowhere?” Earth Times, http://www.earthtimes.org/energy/shale-gas-boom-clean-bridge-nowhere/1810/)

Renewables victims of hit-and-run: Shale gas has been a oft-touted 'clean bridge fuel to the future' recently, in recognition of its relatively low CO2 output, when burnt to produce energy. That claim hasn't just come from the shale gas industry. In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama said 'the development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy.' Whilst those clean credentials are debatable-in-the-extreme thanks to mainly the neglected impact of methane leakage, such thinking has helped fuel a boom in drilling and fracking in the US over the last decade. As shale gas companies have competed for investment money, to frack in ever more areas, reserve numbers have swelled. And 'home-grown' shale gas has been marketed as a fuel that would guarantee energy security for decades. 'We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years,' said President Obama. But the rush to pump out shale gas, as well as spilling problems into water courses across the country, has also left stocks of gas higher than ever, and the price drastically down. Whilst that is great news, short-term, for energy consumers, it is leaving the push to 'zero-carbon' renewables treading water. Rachel Cleetus, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, told the Washington Post last week that natural gas could 'take over the entire pie and crowd out renewables. Part of the reason this is happening is that there's a sense that natural gas resources will be around forever.' Which may be far from the case.

No link—LNG in the U.S. is inevitable

Weeks, 5 (Jennifer, E: The Environmental Magazine, “Highly combustible: debating the risks and benefits of LNG,” Nov-Dec 2005, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_6_16/ai_n15947809)

"Given the enormity of our energy needs, a segment of our supply has to come from LNG," says former U.S. Representative Philip Sharp, who served as Congressional chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy and is now president of Resources for the Future, an environmental think tank in Washington, D.C. "There's no way that cleaner sources add up to what we need, and gas is much cleaner than coal or oil. LNG should not become an excuse for failing to press forward on energy efficiency and renewable fuels, but we have to deal within the confines of our political and economic institutions, and changes in the energy system are incremental," says Sharp.

Gas prices high and increasing

HPM, 7/11

(Huffington Post Money, "Electricity Prices Rise Despite Cheaper Costs For Utility Companies", Jonathan Fahey, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/electric-prices-rise-despite-cheap-production_n_1665946.html ), accessed 9/28/12,WYO/JF

A plunge in the price of natural gas has made it cheaper for utilities to produce electricity. But the savings aren't translating to lower rates for customers. Instead, U.S. electricity prices are going up. Electricity prices are forecast to rise slightly this summer. But any increase is noteworthy because natural gas, which is used to produce nearly a third of the country's power, is 43 percent cheaper than a year ago. A long-term downward trend in power prices could be starting to reverse, analysts say. "It's caused us to scratch our heads," says Tyler Hodge, an analyst at the Energy Department who studies electricity prices. The recent heat wave that gripped much of the country increased demand for power as families cranked up their air conditioners. And that may boost some June utility bills. But the nationwide rise in electricity prices is attributable to other factors, analysts say: _ In many states, retail electricity rates are set by regulators every few years. As a result, lower power costs haven't yet made their way to customers. _ Utilities often lock in their costs for natural gas and other fuels years in advance. That helps protect customers when fuel prices spike, but it prevents customers from reaping the benefits of a price drop. _ The cost of actually delivering electricity, which accounts for 40 percent of a customer's bill on average, has been rising fast. That has eaten up any potential savings from the production of electricity.

Natural gas is a dirty bridge – it bought us time, but failure to transition ensures worse warming

Nordhause 12 [Ted Nordhaus, Chairman of the Breakthrough Institute, and Michael Shellenberger, President of the Breakthrough Institute, 2-27-2012, "Beyond Cap and Trade, A New Path to Clean Energy," Yale Environment 360]

A funny thing happened while environmentalists were trying and failing to cap carbon emissions in the U.S. Congress. U.S. carbon emissions started going down. The decline began in 2005 and accelerated after the financial crisis. The latest estimates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration now suggest that U.S. emissions will continue to decline for the next few years and remain flat for a decade or more after that.¶ The proximate cause of the decline in recent years has been the recession and slow economic recovery. But the reason that EIA is projecting a long-term decline over the next decade or more is the glut of cheap natural gas, mostly from unconventional sources like shale, that has profoundly changed America’s energy outlook over the next several decades.¶ Gas is no panacea. It still puts a lot of carbon into the atmosphere and has¶ created a range of new pollution problems at the local level. Methane leakage resulting from the extraction and burning of natural gas threatens to undo much of the carbon benefit that gas holds over coal. And even were we to make a full transition from coal to gas, we would then need to transition from gas to renewables and nuclear in order to reduce U.S. emissions deeply enough to achieve the reductions that climate scientists believe will be necessary to avoid dangerous global warming.