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.

Fourth, prefer our interpretation:

Contextually true for wind production

D’Alessandro 8.20

[Laura, staff writer, SNL Electric Utility Report, “MLP structure for renewables could mobilize capital, lead to consolidation”, p. ln//wyo-tjc]

According to the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, master limited partnerships could bring nearly $6 billion of capital to the industry between 2012 and 2021 if federal law is amended to expand the tax structure to include renewable energy production. In May, the Maguire Energy Institute released a report highlighting the potential benefits of extending the MLP status to renewable energy investments.

Education- they exclude cases that link tools across fuel sources, decreasing education about interlinkages between energy types

C-Arbitrary limit- The ‘direct’ interpretation is arbitrary and overlimiting because of the way the government organizes the tax code- they would exclude basic extraction cases

Sherlock 11

[Molly, CRS Analyst in Economics, “Energy Tax Incentives: Measuring Value Across Different Types of Energy Resources”, CRS Reports, Aug 10, p. http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/R41953.pdf //wyo-tjc]

A number of tax provisions that support energy are not energy specific The U.S. energy sector benefits from a number of tax provisions that are not targeted at energy. For example, the production activities deduction (§ 199) benefits all domestic manufacturers. For the purposes of the § 199 deduction, oil and gas extraction is considered a domestic manufacturing activity. Certain energy-related activities may also benefit from other tax incentives that are available to non-energy industries, such as the ability to issue tax-exempt debt, the ability to structure as a master limited partnership, or tax incentives designed to promote other activities, such as research and development.

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.

Solvency

Doesn’t cause spot warming—the researchers they cite say it’s just a redistribution of energy and a misinterpretation of the data

Marchetti 12

[Marchetti, Nino: editor-in-chief for EarthTechling. "Wind Farms, Global Warming Connection Lukewarm At Best." EarthTechling. EarthTechling, 30 Apr 2012. Web. 24 Sep 2012. <http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/04/wind-farms-global-warming-connection-luke-warm-at-best/>. //Wyo-BF]

A study released yesterday by researchers finds that large wind farms may impact local temperatures, noting a night warming effect in certain areas in Texas caused by “the turbulence in turbine wakes acting like fans to pull down warmer near surface air from higher altitudes at night.” As Natural Resources Defense Council already pointed out, select media outlets covering this study have generated bad headlines which conflate “small-scale, local impacts on nighttime land surface temperatures and global climate disruption.” To offer some clarity on the subject, the researchers behind the original study have released a detailed Q&A addressing concerns. As Media Matters points out in this Q&A, the scientists basically debunk what is termed “misleading” coverage of the study. Other media outlets, such as Christian Science Monitor and Washington Post, also call into question how the study is being characterized. To give you insight into the researchers’ own interpretation of their study, we’ve provided the entire Q&A below for your consideration. But here is the net take away: Very likely, the wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only redistribute the air’s heat from above to near the surface (that is, the turbine itself does not generate any heat). This is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. What is the major finding of this research? This study presents the first observational evidence of wind farm impacts on land surface temperature with spatial detail using satellite data. What is land surface temperature? Land surface temperature is how hot the “surface” of the Earth would feel to the touch in a particular location. From a satellite’s point of view, the “surface” is whatever it sees when it looks through the atmosphere to the ground. It could be snow and ice, the grass on a lawn, the roof of a building, or the leaves in the canopy of a forest. Thus, land surface temperature is not the same as the air temperature that is included in the daily weather report. Note that the land surface temperature has a larger day-night variation than the surface air temperature. Why do operating wind turbines enhance turbulence and vertical mixing? Turbulence is small-scale, chaotic almost-random air movement. The spinning rotors of the wind turbines generate turbulence in their wakes – just like the wake from a boat in the water. Wakes from wind turbines can spread a long distance downwind of the turbines. Due to the turbulent nature of the wakes, vertical mixing of lower and upper level air also increases in regions downwind of wind farms. Why do the operating wind turbines warm nighttime temperature? This warming effect is most likely caused by the turbulence in turbine wakes acting like fans to pull down warmer near surface air from higher altitudes at night. Typically nighttime has a stable atmosphere with a warm layer overlying a cool layer. Enhanced vertical mixing mixes warm air down and cold air up, leading to a warming near the surface at night. Daytime often has an unstable atmosphere with cool air lying over warmer air. Turbulent wakes mix cool air down and warm air up, producing a cooling near the surface during the day. However, daytime mixing is already very large due to solar heating. Hence, the turbine-enhanced turbulent mixing may play a smaller role during the daytime. Why do you attribute the warming primarily to wind farms? Because (a) the spatial pattern of the warming resembles the geographic distribution of wind 2 turbines and (b) the year-to-year land surface temperature over wind farms shows a persistent upward trend from 2003 to 2011, consistent with the increasing number of operational wind turbines with time. FAA data shows that the number of wind turbines over the study region has gone up from 111 in 2003 to 2358 in 2011. How to interpret the magnitude of the estimated warming effect? We found a nighttime warming effect over wind farms of up to 0.72 °C per decade relative to nearby non-wind farm regions for the nine-year period during which data was collected. It is important to keep the following points in mind when interpreting our results. First, the land surface temperature measures the temperature of the Earth’s surface, which has a stronger day-night variation than the surface air temperature from daily weather reports. Therefore, the impacts of wind farms on the surface air temperature should be within the nearsurface boundary layer and smaller than the land surface temperature signal presented in this paper. Second, as this analysis is from a short period over a region with rapid growth of wind farms, we expect our estimates to give higher values than those estimated in other locations and over longer periods. Third, we express the warming effect as a linear trend in degrees Celsius per decade units. This is just one simple way to quantify the wind farm impacts while reducing the year-to-year data noise. The estimated warming trend only applies to the study region and to the study period, and thus should not be extrapolated linearly into other regions (e.g., globally) or over longer periods (e.g., for another 20 years). For a given wind farm, the warming effect would likely reach a limit rather than continue to increase if no new wind turbines are added. Considering the complexity of the issue, our results should be interpreted as illustrative rather than definitive. Fourth, satellite data do contain errors and noise due to cloud contamination and imperfection of retrieval algorithms. Uncertainties also exist in locating wind turbines as well as their operating times. In addition, other factors may also modify local land surface temperature. Considering the complexity of the issue, our results should be interpreted as illustrative rather than definitive. Finally, compared to impacts of other human-made land use changes, the estimated warming over the wind farms is small. The “urban heat-island” effect, for example, in Austin TX or phoenix in AZ, could be several degrees °C warmer than the surrounding less developed areas. Overall, the warming effect reported in this study is local and is small compared to the strong background year-to-year land surface temperature changes. Very likely, the wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air’s heat near the surface (the turbine itself does not generate any heat), which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Possible impacts on weather and climate? Wind energy is among the world’s fastest growing sources of energy. The U.S. wind industry has experienced a remarkably rapid expansion of capacity in recent years. While converting wind’s kinetic energy into electricity, wind turbines modify surface-atmosphere exchanges and transfer of energy, momentum, mass and moisture within the atmosphere. These changes, if spatially large enough, might have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate. Given the present installed capacity and the projected growth in installation of wind farms across the world, this study draws attention to an important scientific issue that requires further investigation. We need to better understand the system with observations and better describe and model the complex processes involved to predict how wind farms may affect future weather and climate.

A2 Transmission- states will pay for transmission develop and can work around opposition by upgrading current lines

Galbraith 11

[Kate, staff writer, New York Times, “Lack of Transmission Lines Is Restricting Wind Power”, Jan 21, p. asp//wyo-tjc]

To encourage others, the state is moving forward on a contentious project to erect $5 billion worth of transmission wires to connect the turbines to the cities that need power. On Thursday, state regulators met in Austin and approved the route of a controversial line that will run about 140 miles through the Hill Country, one of the state's most scenic regions. Construction of the line -- a project of the Lower Colorado River Authority that will run from Schleicher County to a substation near Comfort -- should start next year. Last year, vigorous opposition, by landowners, wealthy newcomers and old-time families, succeeded in derailing plans for another line that the state had wanted to build through the area. Instead, the existing electric infrastructure will be upgraded to carry a greater load. The Public Utility Commission, which is overseeing the process, has also canceled plans for an additional segment of the Hill Country line discussed at the meeting Thursday.

Drought

The Gravest Risk to the CCP is Prolonged Economic Decline

Pei 11

[Minxin Pei, Senior Associate in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Will the Chinese Communist Party Survive the Crisis? : How Beijing's Shrinking Economy May Threaten One-Party Rule”, 3/11 http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:q_g56rUqwuIJ:scholar.google.com/+Economic+Growth+China++CCP+&hl=en&as_sdt=0,51&as_ylo=2008, \\wyo-bb]

Because of the global economic crisis, however, Beijing is in trouble. The problems are numerous: China's exports are plummeting, tens of millions of migrant laborers have lost their jobs, millions of college graduates cannot find employment, industrial overcapacity is threatening deflation, and the once red-hot real estate sector has nose-dived. The country's faltering growth is posing the hardest test yet to the CCP's resilience. To be sure, the Chinese economy has fared less badly than many others. The country's insulated banking sector remains largely unscathed. Indeed, the government's fiscal balance sheet is strong enough to fund a $580 billion stimulus package (although only about a quarter represents genuinely new fiscal spending). China's colossal $1.9 trillion in foreign exchange reserves provide a comfortable insurance policy against global financial turmoil, and the country should be able to avoid an outright recession. But a reduced annual growth rate -- now down to about seven percent from over 11 percent a couple of years ago -- will bring enough trouble. Every year, the Chinese labor market grows by more than ten million workers, the bulk of whom are leaving the countryside for urban areas in search of employment. Each percentage point of GDP growth translates into roughly one million new jobs a year, which means that China needs GDP to rise at least ten percent every year in order to absorb the influx of laborers. With no end to the global crisis in sight, many are wondering how long China's economic doldrums will last and what the political impact of stagnation will be. The conventional wisdom is that low growth will erode the party's political legitimacy and fuel social unrest as jobless migrants and college graduates vent their frustrations through riots and protests. Although this forecast is not necessarily wrong, it is incomplete. Strong economic performance has been the single most important source of legitimacy for the CCP, so prolonged economic stagnation carries the danger of disenchanting a growing middle class that was lulled into political apathy by the prosperity of the post-Tiananmen years. And economic policies that favor the rich have already alienated industrial workers and rural peasants, formerly the social base of the party. Even in recent boom years, grass-roots unrest has been high, with close to 90,000 riots, strikes, demonstrations, and collective protests reported annually. Such frustrations will only intensify in hard times.

CCP Collapse goes nuclear

Renxing, 5

(San, The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths proposed", 8/5, http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html), accessed 6-07-2011, WYO/JF)

Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches.

Econ

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt doesn’t solve, you only focuses on neo-lib not their capillaries, means that the problem will be re-created

Comaroff,11 (September, John, Harold H. Swift Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, "The End of Neoliberalism? "What Is Left of the Left," p. 142-146), accessed 10/19/12,WYO/JF

History has taught us repeatedly to be humble before it, a lesson as apposite today as it has ever been. If we are to seek out possible alternatives to the neoliberal tendency, if we are to fashion other futures, it is critical to grasp fully the nature of the beast and of its capillaries—and their effects not just on our lives but on our thought processes. After all, those forces covered by the adjective neoliberal, not to mention its adverbs of practice, are no less colonizing than the forms of empire to which the global South has been subjected before now. As Frantz Fanon might have insisted, decolonizing our habits of thinking—sometimes by a violent reconsideration of its most foundational assumptions—is the first step to decolonizing the world into which history has interpolated us.

Incentives-based environmental action key to policy effectiveness

Economist 5 (The Economist, April 21, “Rescuing environmentalism”, http://www.economist.com/node/3888006)

“THE environmental movement's foundational concepts, its method for framing legislative proposals, and its very institutions are outmoded. Today environmentalism is just another special interest.” Those damning words come not from any industry lobby or right-wing think-tank. They are drawn from “The Death of Environmentalism”, an influential essay published recently by two greens with impeccable credentials. They claim that environmental groups are politically adrift and dreadfully out of touch. They are right. In America, greens have suffered a string of defeats on high-profile issues. They are losing the battle to prevent oil drilling in Alaska's wild lands, and have failed to spark the public's imagination over global warming. Even the stridently ungreen George Bush has failed to galvanise the environmental movement. The solution, argue many elders of the sect, is to step back from day-to-day politics and policies and “energise” ordinary punters with talk of global-warming calamities and a radical “vision of the future commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis”. Europe's green groups, while politically stronger, are also starting to lose their way intellectually. Consider, for example, their invocation of the woolly “precautionary principle” to demonise any complex technology (next-generation nuclear plants, say, or genetically modified crops) that they do not like the look of. A more sensible green analysis of nuclear power would weigh its (very high) economic costs and (fairly low) safety risks against the important benefit of generating electricity with no greenhouse-gas emissions. Small victories and bigger defeats The coming into force of the UN's Kyoto protocol on climate change might seem a victory for Europe's greens, but it actually masks a larger failure. The most promising aspect of the treaty—its innovative use of market-based instruments such as carbon-emissions trading—was resisted tooth and nail by Europe's greens. With courageous exceptions, American green groups also remain deeply suspicious of market forces. If environmental groups continue to reject pragmatic solutions and instead drift toward Utopian (or dystopian) visions of the future, they will lose the battle of ideas. And that would be a pity, for the world would benefit from having a thoughtful green movement. It would also be ironic, because far-reaching advances are already under way in the management of the world's natural resources—changes that add up to a different kind of green revolution. This could yet save the greens (as well as doing the planet a world of good). “Mandate, regulate, litigate.” That has been the green mantra. And it explains the world's top-down, command-and-control approach to environmental policymaking. Slowly, this is changing. Yesterday's failed hopes, today's heavy costs and tomorrow's demanding ambitions have been driving public policy quietly towards market-based approaches. One example lies in the assignment of property rights over “commons”, such as fisheries, that are abused because they belong at once to everyone and no one. Where tradable fishing quotas have been issued, the result has been a drop in over-fishing. Emissions trading is also taking off. America led the way with its sulphur-dioxide trading scheme, and today the EU is pioneering carbon-dioxide trading with the (albeit still controversial) goal of slowing down climate change. These, however, are obvious targets. What is really intriguing are efforts to value previously ignored “ecological services”, both basic ones such as water filtration and flood prevention, and luxuries such as preserving wildlife. At the same time, advances in environmental science are making those valuation studies more accurate. Market mechanisms can then be employed to achieve these goals at the lowest cost. Today, countries from Panama to Papua New Guinea are investigating ways to price nature in this way (see article). Rachel Carson meets Adam Smith If this new green revolution is to succeed, however, three things must happen. The most important is that prices must be set correctly. The best way to do this is through liquid markets, as in the case of emissions trading. Here, politics merely sets the goal. How that goal is achieved is up to the traders. A proper price, however, requires proper information. So the second goal must be to provide it. The tendency to regard the environment as a “free good” must be tempered with an understanding of what it does for humanity and how. Thanks to the recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the World Bank's annual “Little Green Data Book” (released this week), that is happening. More work is needed, but thanks to technologies such as satellite observation, computing and the internet, green accounting is getting cheaper and easier. Which leads naturally to the third goal, the embrace of cost-benefit analysis. At this, greens roll their eyes, complaining that it reduces nature to dollars and cents. In one sense, they are right. Some things in nature are irreplaceable—literally priceless. Even so, it is essential to consider trade-offs when analysing almost all green problems. The marginal cost of removing the last 5% of a given pollutant is often far higher than removing the first 5% or even 50%: for public policy to ignore such facts would be inexcusable. If governments invest seriously in green data acquisition and co-ordination, they will no longer be flying blind. And by advocating data-based, analytically rigorous policies rather than pious appeals to “save the planet”, the green movement could overcome the scepticism of the ordinary voter. It might even move from the fringes of politics to the middle ground where most voters reside. Whether the big environmental groups join or not, the next green revolution is already under way. Rachel Carson, the crusading journalist who inspired greens in the 1950s and 60s, is joining hands with Adam Smith, the hero of free-marketeers. The world may yet leapfrog from the dark ages of clumsy, costly, command-and-control regulations to an enlightened age of informed, innovative, incentive-based greenery.

Disad

Wind can solve intermittency, and emissions no need for back up power

MTC, 04

In collaboration with the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative’s Renewable Energy Trust Fund, the Renewable Energy Research Laboratory “Wind Power: Capacity Factor, Intermittency, and what happens when the wind doesn’t blow?” http://www.umass.edu/windenergy/publications/published/communityWindFactSheets/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf, accessed 10/3/12,WYO/JF

The need for back-up generation Wind power plants have been installed in the United States for long enough that detailed studies have been completed on the impacts and costs of its intermittency. A recent study concluded that, “...the results to date also lay to rest one of the major concerns often expressed about wind power: that a wind plant would need to be backed up with and equal amount of dispatchable generation. It is now clear that, even at moderate wind penetrations, the need for additional generation to compensate for wind variations is substantially less than one-for-one and is often closer to zero.” - Utility Wind Interest Group (UWIG) “Wind Power Impacts on Electric-Power-System Operating Costs, Summary and Perspective on Work Done to Date, November 2003”

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

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.

No Link: Based on things such as fossil fuels no link to the plan.

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.

It isn’t enough to just be aware: empirically proven that awareness and consciousness fail to translate into urgency or action ensuring the alt fails.

Krakoff 11

(Sarah, Professor and Associate Dean for Research, University of Colorado Law School, Selected Works from Sarah Krakoff, “Planetarian Identity Formation and the Relocalization of Environmental Law,” January 2011, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=sarah_krakoff//wyo-mm)

For a brief period between 2005-2008, several factors seemed to heighten both awareness and concern about climate change. The fourth IPCC report 62 and increased media discussion of climate change in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, among other causes, seemed to increase public knowledge and concern. 63 Yet awareness and concern have failed to translate into a widespread sense of urgency. Even more troubling, public acceptance that climate change is occurring and is caused by human activity has again declined. A study by the Pew Center for Research and the Press found that public acceptance that climate change was occurring dropped from seventyone percent in April, 2008 to fifty-seven percent from in October, 2009. During the same period, public acceptance that any warming was caused by human activity dropped from forty-seven percent to thirty-six percent. 64

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.

Consumption-only focus fails, it ignores production-oriented environmental degradation

Holmes 7

(Dave, “A socialist view of global warming: change the system, not the climate!”, Google Books, accessed: 6/26/12)

Such views among genuine environmental activists reflect a well-meaning but ultimately utopian belief that if only enough of us decide to drastically reduce our demand on the world’s resources — via greatly reduced personal consumption, purchasing from firms with sustainable production techniques and non-polluting technologies — big business and governments will respond to “market signals” and accept and adapt to a slow-growth or no-growth economy. Of course, we should not dismiss the importance of environmental consciousness and radicalisation, which is often expressed in attempts to live in ways consistent with sustainability. It is a good thing if people try to organise their lives so that they live more ecologically. But we have to be clear that that alone will not be enough to halt the crisis. It certainly cannot be the main strategy of the mass environment movement, as it will let the real culprits off the hook and divert precious activist energy away from the underlying systemic dynamic that is driving ecological degradation. As Marxist ecologist John Bellamy Foster explained in a very useful and accessible article published in the Monthly Review magazine in February 1995,6 behind most appeals for individual “ecological morality”, “there lies the presumption that we live in a society where the morality of the individual is the key to the morality of society. If people as individuals could simply change their moral stance with respect to nature and alter their behaviour in areas such as propagation, consumption, and the conduct of business, all would be well.” However, Foster continues: “What is all too often overlooked in such calls for moral transformation is the central institutional fact of our [capitalist] society: what might be called the global ‘treadmill of production’.”

Alt fails—Individual approaches to environmentalism fail and trade of with institutional approaches

Maniates, 2002

[Michael, Professor of Political and Environmental Science at Allegheny College, Confronting Consumption, “Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world.” Pg. 43-66. Published by The MIT press] /Wyo-MB

For the lack of a better term, call this response the individualization of responsibility. When responsibility for environmental problems is individualized, there is little room to ponder institutions, the nature and exercise of political power, or ways of collectively changing the distribution of power and influence in society— to, in other words, ‘‘think institutionally,’’ as UC Berkeley sociologist Robert Bellah says. 4 Instead, the serious work of confronting the threatening socioenvironmental processes that The Lorax so ably illuminates falls to individuals, acting alone, usually as consumers. We are individualizing responsibility when we agonize over the ‘‘paper-or-plastic’’ choice at the checkout counter, knowing somehow that neither is right given larger institutions and social structures. We think aloud with the neighbor over the back fence about whether we should buy the new Honda or Toyota hybrid-engine automobile now or wait a few years until they work the kinks out. What we really wish for, though, is clean, efficient, and effective public transportation of the sort we read about in science fiction novels when we were young— but we cannot vote for it with our consumer dollars since, for reasons rooted in power and politics, it is not for sale. So we ponder the ‘‘energy stickers’’ on the ultraefficient appliances at Sears, we diligently compost our kitchen waste, we try to ignore the high initial cost and buy a few compact-fluorescent lightbulbs. We read spirited reports in the New York Times Magazine on the pros and cons of recycling while sipping our coffee, 5 carefully study the merits of this and that environmental group so as to properly decide on the destination of our small annual donation, and meticulously sort our recyclables. And now an increasing number of us are confronted by opportunistic greenpower providers who urge us to ‘‘save the planet’’ by buying their ‘‘green electricity’’—while doing little to actually increase the quantity of electricity generated from renewable resources.

Our Aff is not the type of consumption they criticize- Wind panels don’t consume anything rather are just a transfer energy into a different form

Cohen, 10

Dustin Cohen 2010 March 10 Some Notes on Heidegger’s Question Concerning Technology (Enframing, Standing Reserve and Virtual Technologies) http://cybject.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/some-notes-on-heidegger%E2%80%99s-question-concerning-technology-enframing-standing-reserve-and-virtual-technologies/

Martin Heidegger was concerned about the status of the human amidst modern technology. Tied to the changing status of the human is his assertion (and a major theme of Cybject) that modern technology displaces the “wordliness” of the world and puts a human-world in its place.¶ Heidegger uses the term “enframing” to explain the way humans, as users of modern technology, have come to relate to (and literally “frame”) the world. To demonstrate the characteristics of this modern technological “enframing” of the world he contrasts a windmill with a modern hydroelectric power plant. In describing how the windmill differs from the type of “revealing” that characterizes modern technology, he explains that the “old windmill’s…sails do indeed turn in the wind; [but are] … left entirely to the wind’s blowing. …the windmill does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it”.¶ In describing how the windmill differs from the type of revealing that characterizes modern technology, Heidegger explains: “But [do the the properties of contemporary technologies] not hold true for the old windmill as well? No. Its sails do indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the wind’s blowing. But the windmill does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it.” With the windmill, the wind turns the turbines, the wind-energy instantaneously powers the turbines. At no point is the wind’s energy manipulated or stored up as a different kind of energy. The windmill only transfers motion, it “reveals” wind energy, but does not commandeer nature’s energy or store it for future use (Mitcham).

Overemphasis on method destroys effectiveness of the discipline

Wendt, Handbook of IR, 2k2 p. 68

It should be stressed that in advocating a pragmatic view we are not endorsing method-driven social science. Too much research in international relations chooses problems or things to be explained with a view to whether the analysis will provide support for one or another methodological ‘ism’. But the point of IR scholarship should be to answer questions about international politics that are of great normative concern, not to validate methods. Methods are means, not ends in themselves. As a matter of personal scholarly choice it may be reasonable to stick with one method and see how far it takes us. But since we do not know how far that is, if the goal of the discipline is insight into world politics then it makes little sense to rule out one or the other approach on a priori grounds. In that case a method indeed becomes a tacit ontology, which may lead to neglect of whatever problems it is poorly suited to address. Being conscious about these choices is why it is important to distinguish between the ontological, empirical and pragmatic levels of the rationalist-constructivist debate. We favor the pragmatic approach on heuristic grounds, but we certainly believe a conversation should continue on all three levels.

We should act to generate the greatest good for the greatest number of people, this comes from the evaluation of specific consequences of an action, rather than its mindset or other issues

S.E.P. 2009

[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2009 Edition, “Consequentialism.” Online, http://www.illc.uva.nl/~seop/archives/spr2009/entries/consequentialism/] /Wyo-MB

The paradigm case of consequentialism is utilitarianism, whose classic proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1789), John Stuart Mill (1861), and Henry Sidgwick (1907). (For predecessors, see Schneewind 1990.) Classic utilitarians held hedonistic act consequentialism. Act consequentialism is the claim that an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes the good, that is, if and only if the total amount of good for all minus the total amount of bad for all is greater than this net amount for any incompatible act available to the agent on that occasion. (Cf. Moore 1912, chs. 1-2.) Hedonism then claims that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad. Together these claims imply that an act is morally right if and only if that act causes "the greatest happiness for the greatest number," as the common slogan says. Classic utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies. It denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act now. Of course, the fact that the agent promised to do the act might indirectly affect the act's consequences if breaking the promise will make other people unhappy. Nonetheless, according to classic utilitarianism, what makes it morally wrong to break the promise is its effects on those other people rather than the fact that the agent promised in the past. Since classic utilitarianism reduces all morally relevant factors (Kagan 1998, 17-22) to consequences, it might appear simple. However, classic utilitarianism is actually a complex combination of many distinct claims, including the following claims about the moral rightness of acts: Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences (as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act). Actual Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the actual consequences (as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences). Direct Consequentialism = whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act itself (as opposed to the consequences of the agent's motive, of a rule or practice that covers other acts of the same kind, and so on). Evaluative Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on the value of the consequences (as opposed to other features of the consequences). Hedonism = the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences (as opposed to other goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on). Maximizing Consequentialism = moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best (as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo).

Water wars are real and their K doesn’t apply

Dinar 2 Shlomi, Ph.D. candidate at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, SAIS Review 22.2 (2002) 229-253, Water, Security, Conflict, and Cooperation, "Negotiation and International Relations: A Framework for Hydropolitics”, International Negotiation 5, no. 2

The dichotomy of conflict and cooperation over water and its relationship to national and regional security reflects the reality of hydropolitics. While military clashes have been associated with water, the concept of security does not end with nor does it only imply armed conflict. Because the pursuit of peace, and thus conflict and cooperation, constitutes the flip side of security, water is indeed relevant to the concept of security. It is this phenomenon that traditionalists have cast off as irrelevant and other rejectionists of the environment-security link have ignored.¶ Linking security with the environment does not increase the possibility that nations will engage in more armed action against other states for the sake of natural resources such as water. Albeit minimal, evidence already exists as to the military skirmishes and military threats that have taken place over water. Nations will engage in armed conflict and political disputes over water whether or not scholars acknowledge the link between the environment and security. Similarly, the existence of more than 3,600 water treaties, the oldest dating to 805 AD, demonstrates a rich history of cooperation [End Page 239] over water regardless of scholarly debate on cooperation and the environment. The debate regarding the link between water, conflict, and cooperation is thus futile and has become a scholarly debate marred by polemics and semantics.¶ Given its geographical attributes, freshwater truly straddles the notion of sovereignty that traditionalists cherish so deeply and the international or regional conception that environmental globalists hold true. The problems that arise from shared water resources are both national and regional in nature. Similarly, the solutions that are needed to solve such problems are both national and regional. Most importantly for the debate on the environment and security, however, the impediments to cooperation and the instigation of conflict over water are both national and international in their sources. States in particular regions will continue to see water as a national security concern. Even though a regional agreement may be the best solution to states' water problems, they will continue to couch their need to access sufficient and clean freshwater in security and nationalist terms.