Rps Upgrade2

Miami Debate Institute RPS Upgrade
Greenstein/Lai Lab
File Title
RPS Wave 2
RPS Wave 2 1
Plan 3
***Europe Advantage*** 4
Europe 1AC 4
Europe 1AC 5
Europe 1AC 6
Europe 1AC 7
Ext: Energy Key 8
US-EU Down 9
US-EU Down 10
US-EU Down 11
US-EU Down 12
A/T: EU Retaliates 13
***Impacts*** 14
Economy Impact 14
Middle East Impact 15
Terrorism Impact 16
Democracy Impact 17
Heg Impact 18
Oil/Heg Impact 19
***Soft Power Add-On*** 20
2AC Add-On 20
Soft power Down 21
***A/T: States CP*** 22
More States Answers 22
More States Answers 23
USFG Key to Innovation 24
***Other Aff*** 25
RPS Solves LNG Security 25
RPS solves warming 26
Innovation key to Competitiveness 27
Renewables key to Competitiveness 28
A/T: Oil DA 29
A/T: Oil DA 30
A/T: Free Market CP 31
***Neg*** 32
***Europe Advantage*** 32
US-EU Up 32
US-EU Up 34
US-EU Up 35
US-EU Up 36
US-EU Up 37
US-EU Up 38
Renewables Hurt EU Relations 39
Alt Causes 42
RPS Can’t Solve 43
US-EU Turns Climate 44
***Other RPS Neg*** 45
A/T: Soft Power Add-On 45
States Solve Now 46
Not Feasible 47
1
Greenstein/Lai Lab
File Title
US Leader on Renewables Now 48
Spending Links 49
Consult EU 50
***Misc Neg*** 51
Biofuel Cards 51
2
Plan
The United States federal government should establish renewable energy certificates to implement a renewable
portfolio standard requiring that power providers meet at least 20 percent of electricity demand with sunlight, wind,
falling water, renewable plant or animal material, and/or natural geothermal sources by 2020.
***Europe Advantage***
Europe 1AC
US relations with the EU are on the mend right now—only further environmental
cooperation ensures the preservation of the transatlantic alliance
Steinberg 03 (James B. Brookings, “An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations”
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/steinberg20030601.pdf.)
Sustaining the global ecosystem

In recent years, few subjects have caused as much contention in the transatlantic relationship as disputes over
environmental policy. Even before the Bush administration announced that the Kyoto Protocol was ‘dead’, controversies over key provisions
of the agreement, such as emissions trading and credit for carbon sinks (for example, forests) stymied progress at successive conferences.
Moreover, deep opposition in the United States Senate made the prospect of US ratification unlikely at best without significant modification of
the agreement with respect to the level of reductions and the obligations of developing countries. The Kyoto controversy is but one of
many transatlantic environmental disputes, ranging from controversies over biodiversity, to the environmental consequences of
genetically modified organisms, to the broader question of the role of the ‘precautionary principle’ and the argued need for a multilateral
environmental organisation to complement the World Trade Organisation. Yet despite deep differences between governments,
popular sentiment again seems much closer than assumed by conventional wisdom. In the Chicago Council–GMF poll,
nearly identical percentages of Americans (49%) and Europeans (46%) describe global warming as ‘extremely important’ or critical. Although a
clear majority of Europeans oppose the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production (by 62% to 33%), American anxieties are much
higher than commonly supposed (especially by Europeans). Only a small plurality of Americans (48–45%) support agricultural biotechnology,
and a clear majority supports the right of Europe to impose a labelling requirement. Given the fundamental commonalities in European and
American attitudes to environmental issues, more effective mechanisms are needed to coordinate policy approaches. 30 The first step is to
try to achieve greater scientific consensus on the underlying issues. Such a consensus can be a powerful tool for policy coordination
– for example, the international community was driven to take dramatic actions on CFCs in the Montreal Protocol once they were determined to
be a clear source of ozone depletion. The efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have also had an impact on the United
States (at least in rhetoric; even the Bush administration has had to concede the role of human activities in global warming). 31 Given the
current standoff on key environmental issues, it is easy to be pessimistic about the prospects for transatlantic
cooperation. No amount of consultation will bridge fundamental differences over policy. Yet, the objective realities
of environmental risk inevitably will force both the United States and Europe to work more closely together – the
main question is whether this will be sooner rather than later. In the end, global environmental problems can only be addressed
through effective global action. But enhanced US–European cooperation is an essential precondition for the broader global
efforts to succeed. European efforts, may, for example, help to bring about the coming into force of the Kyoto Protocol, but it will have
marginal benefits if the United States stays outside. Conversely, continued US–European disputes can magnify international disagreements, as
each side seeks to line up supporters in both the developing and developed world.
Europe 1AC
Specifically, lack of action on global warming puts the US at risk of retaliatory measures
from the EU
Peter J. Fontaine, Esquire August 2004, “Global Warming: The Gathering Storm,” Public Utilities Reports Inc,
http://www.pur.com/pubs/4419.cfm
In the vacuum created by the administration's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, a number of states have stepped
forward with legislative and policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.16 Fourteen states have adopted
renewable portfolio standards that require electricity suppliers to derive an increasing percentage of supply from renewable energy
generation sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. State RPS legislation, however, will not create the necessary
market forces to effectuate the large-scale reductions in CO2 necessary for the United States to achieve a significant reduction
in its greenhouse gas emissions. National legislation is essential. In October 2003, the most comprehensive global warming legislation to
date was defeated by a surprisingly narrow margin of only seven votes. The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S. 139), as amended by S.A. 2028,
sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., would establish a system of tradable emission allowances and related
emissions reporting requirements to tackle global warming. The bill covers six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The bill would cover 75 percent of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the United
States and would reduce carbon emissions to year-2000 emission levels by 2015. Appliance rebates, transition assistance, and other transfer
payments that would be made by a newly created Climate Change Credit Corporation-a non-profit organization created to be funded by emission
allowance sales-would significantly mitigate the increase in average household energy expenses. EIA's May 2004 analysis of the bill found that
allowance costs will fall largely on the electricity sector and would be passed on to consumers. EIA predicts average electricity prices will
increase under the bill from 6.4 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6.8 in 2010 (about $33 per household per month), from 6.7 to 8.0 in 2020 (about $108),
and from 6.7 to 9.1 in 2025 (about $200). MIT also studied the bill but assumed-based on experience from the Acid Rain Program-that sources
would make substantial early reductions in non-CO2 emissions that would be banked for later sale. By changing this single assumption from
EIA's analysis MIT found that monthly costs to the average household would be only $15 to $20. Also, EIA assumed, unrealistically, no
significant fuel-shift to natural gas (despite this market's historic unpredictability), no market penetration of new low-emission technologies
(despite billions of federal R&D spending), and no continued federal and state emission reduction programs. Obviously, such programs are likely
to continue, and will further reduce the bill's costs by independently contributing toward the bill's modest goal of reducing CO2 emissions to year
2000 levels by 2015. By adopting some form of national legislation that begins to internalize the costs of global
warming, the United States would blunt any effort by the EU to impose trade sanctions on U.S. goods. The EIA analysis
points out one fundamental conclusion. The reduction of global warming gas emissions called for under the Kyoto Protocol will increase
electricity prices and therefore the cost of goods. Even under the relatively modest goals of the McCain Lieberman bill, electricity prices will
increase due to the internalization of the costs of the cap and trade system. The risk of trade sanctions by America's largest trading
partners due to the failure of the United States to control CO2 emissions should be a real concern to U.S. policy-
makers. If the United States continues to resist global pressure to reduce its CO2 emissions, it will largely cede control over how the rules
implementing Kyoto are written and risk trade sanctions by trading partners seeking to reduce the disparity in production costs. To avoid this
negative outcome, the United States should pursue a more pragmatic middle path that confronts the problem of global
warming by laying out the necessary domestic framework and economic incentives to create a domestic CO2 emissions market that produces
efficient CO2 reductions, much like the Acid Rain Trading Program. In this way, America can develop new technologies, regain its
credibility in the global deliberations over how to combat global warming, and avoid the risk of a damaging trade
war with the EU.
Europe 1AC
The U.S. can’t stop global threats to humanity without good relations with Europe.
Ivo H. Daalder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and James M. Goldgeier, associate professor of political
science at George Washington University, Spring 2001, Survival, vol. 43, no. 1
The Bush administration enters

office at a time when flash-points around the globe - from the Middle East to Colombia
and from the Persian Gulf to the Taiwan Straits - threaten to explode. This contrasts starkly with a Europe that today is relatively
quiescent. The violence that bloodied south-eastern Europe throughout much of the 1990s has ended. Slobodan Milosevic, the man most responsible for Europe's
recent instability, has been swept from office. Except for isolated pockets like Belarus, democracy is ascendant throughout the continent. America's oldest friends are
creating an ever-closer union amongst themselves based on a single currency and a common defence and security policy. And Russia, though still struggling to emerge
from decades of disastrous economic and political mismanagement, no longer threatens Europe's stability and security. As Europe remains quiet and increasingly
capable of taking care of itself, the new administration in Washington may be tempted to concentrate American efforts elsewhere around the globe. Bush's national
security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, suggested as much towards the end of last year's presidential campaign. She said that Bush favoured a 'new division of labour' that
would leave extended peacekeeping missions in Europe, such as those in the Balkans, to the Europeans so that the United States could focus its energies elsewhere.
'The United States is the only power that can handle a showdown in the Gulf, mount the kind of force that is needed to protect Saudi Arabia and deter a crisis in the
Taiwan Straits,' Rice stated.1 Rice's remarks caused quite a stir in Europe, and there were immediate efforts by the Bush campaign to downplay the suggestion of an
early withdrawal of US troops from the Balkans.2 Since then, Bush, Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell have reaffirmed the US commitment to the Balkans and
assured that an American troop withdrawal would be subject to extensive consultations and would not be precipitous.3 Largely missing from the public reactions to
Rice's call for a new division of labour was the other side of the proposed division: the idea that the United States alone should bear responsibility for dealing with
flash-points in the Middle East and Asia. Yet this idea has major drawbacks. Although America today enjoys unrivalled military, economic
and political power, it lacks the capacity to deal with many of the critical global challenges - ranging from weapons
proliferation and terrorism to environmental degradation and the rapid spread of infectious disease - without support
from allies. There are also fundamental political problems with such an approach. The unilateralism implied by assigning primary responsibility for global
security and stability to the United States without support from or regard for the perspective of regional allies and other countries is hardly consistent with the desire,
repeatedly emphasised by the incoming team, to exercise American power 'without arrogance and to pursue its interests without hectoring and bluster'.4 At a
time
when the United States is already regarded by much of the world as an overbearing 'hyperpower', insisting on a division of
labour that assigns Washington the main international security role to the exclusion of others is unlikely to be popular among its allies. Such a posture is also unlikely
to be popular at home. In recent years, it has become very clear that the American public will support the use of US military forces overseas only if other countries
share the burden. This is not only in the case of so-called humanitarian interventions, but also when it involves the defence of such vital national interests as the
world's supply of crude oil. In either case, international legitimacy of action and a commitment by other nations to share the costs will be a political prerequisite for
gaining public support. Despite Europe's internal weaknesses and divisions, no
part of the world offers the United States a better prospect
for becoming a strong partner in taking on global challenges and opportunities. Europe combines actual economic
strength with potential military and diplomatic capacity to be America's strategic partner, if not today, then tomorrow. And rather
than assigning Europe a limited, albeit still important role, of handling its own affairs in ways that do not require US participation, as the new division of labour
suggests, American interests are best served by developing a genuine partnership with a Europe that is both capable and willing to share the burdens of maintaining
and strengthening international security. Regardless of pressing developments in other parts of the world, the United States cannot afford to ignore Europe. The Bush
administration appears to recognise this, notwithstanding the rhetoric about a new division of labour. Candidate Bush and incoming policy-makers consistently
pointed to the need for strengthening US alliances as one of the first items of business, reflecting at least a concern for maintaining America's strong bonds within
NATO.5 Even more importantly, the many Europe-related issues requiring decisions in the near-future - including NATO enlargement, the future of Europe's defence
policy, national missile defence, US troops in the Balkans and relations with Russia - will make it impossible for the new administration to ignore Europe. The
question for the new administration, therefore, is not whether Europe still matters, but rather, what should be America's strategy for addressing the array of issues on
the European agenda. These issues, and the US approach to them, will determine the nature and depth of the US-European relationship. Some, including many in the
Bush administration, will argue that a strategy based on American leadership in NATO will be needed for the years ahead. They will contend that the main problems
facing US-European relations are the result of recent efforts to dilute NATO and thereby undermine the main vehicle for realising America's continued strategic
interests in Europe. Others are more concerned that developments in Russia will determine Europe's future, and they accordingly counsel a policy that gives Moscow's
interests and perspective a critical role in resolving the issues on the European agenda. Neither a NATO-first nor a Russia-first policy towards Europe will best serve
American interests, however. A strong NATO and amicable relations with Russia are, of course, important. But they are means to a desired end, not ends in
themselves. The end is a strong Europe that is capable of being a strategic partner of the United States in meeting the multitude of
global challenges. The means to that end is a Europe that is at peace, undivided and democratic; that is, a Europe that no longer requires intensive American
involvement to secure its future and, instead, is able and willing to involve itself in world affairs politically, economically, and, if necessary, militarily. Such
a
Europe requires that the new administration continue where the Clinton administration left off, which is by pursuing a strategy
towards the region that puts Europe - not NATO or Russia - first.
Europe 1AC
Fortunately, the issue of renewable energy is able to spill over and bolster the rest of the
transatlantic relationship
Rowlands, Assoc. Professor in Environment and Resource Studies @ U of Waterloo in Ontario, 03 (Ian, “Renewable Electricity and
Transatlantic Relations: Exploring the Issues” for the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute,
http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/WP-Texts/03_17.pdf)
The issue of renewable electricity could be yet another irritant in transatlantic relations. Like other such irritants- for
example, the presence of hormones in beef, the use of genetically-modified organisms or the deployment of leg-hold traps –
this single issues forms, even potentially, a relatively small part of the transatlantic economic picture. Nevertheless,
like these others (particularly when added to them), economic conflict on the issue of renewable electricity could lead to
retaliatory counter-measures and thus affect broader economic relations between the two continents- indeed, among all
countries of the world. Additionally, a deterioration in economic relations between the European Union and North America
(exacerbated by the issue of renewable electricity) could undermine much-needed bilateral cooperation on a range of
non-economic issues. Though somewhat clichéd, it is certainly the case that the world requires effective multilateral
action on a range of issues now- the Middle East, global climate change, development assistance and so on. A
strained transatlantic relationship can only hinder the prospect of such action.
Now is the key time—recent statements prove that they are looking towards US for
leadership on global warming
Kouchner 07 (Bernard, French Foreign Minister, Sept.. 20th, “CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES (CSIS) MEETING; SUBJECT: "THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, AND EUROPE IN AN UNCERTAIN WORLD"”, Federal
News Service- Lexis)
Ladies and gentlemen, after that brief overview of some of the crisis threatening our world and after those
thoughts on the European Union and our ties with the United States, in conclusion, I would like to talk to you
about global challenge affecting the world order because there are also factors that will determine the nature and
the scope of transatlantic relations. I will focus on the issue on which we want to engage the United States. As
you know, global warming is an issue that Europeans and many nations around the world feel very strongly
about. President Sarkozy referred to it on the very night he was elected. A great nation like United States has the
duty not to impede efforts to combat global warming, one of the major challenges of this century. On the
contrary, a great nation like the United States has a duty to take the lead in those efforts because the fate of
whole humankind depends on them. We therefore wish to remind you your responsibilities and stress the
reducing greenhouse gas emission, investing in renewable energy source will not happen without Washington.
The conference that my colleague Condi Rice will host next week in Washington is a welcome first step. The
entire international community is calling for your commitment in this struggle, which is one of the most crucial
of our times. The world needs you. As often in the past I have no doubt that you will come to realize this.
Ext: Energy Key
Global warming is a key issue to various major European powers.
International Herald Tribune 07 (May 30 , “Merkel to Push Bush on Warming,” Lexis)

th
Merkel, who has made climate change one of her main priorities as Germany holds both the G-
8 and the European Union presidencies, appealed Tuesday to the Bush administration to support a strong de-
claration on the issue. Washington, however, has already made clear its opposition to the draft de-
claration Germany plans to propose at the summit talks in the northern German resort town of Heiligendamm. <text removed>
Merkel, who was environment minister during the 1990s, has already received support from Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe of Japan and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Last week, Abe proposed much the same timetable for
curbing global warming as Merkel, and also called for a new framework to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Germany, Japan and Britain also want G-8 leaders to support a declaration in which the next
UN conference on climate change, scheduled to take place in Bali, Indonesia, in December, would start discussions on a
new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol and include more countries.
US-EU Down
E.U.-U.S. relations are strained.

Roy H. Ginsberg, December 5-6, 2002, Professor of Government, Skidmore College, United
States-European Union Political Relations in the Bush Administration,
http://www.ecsanet.org.
A careful reading of the state of U.S.-EU political relations is needed. There are two dimensions at play in
U.S. political relations with the EU. The first is the rhetoric and hubris of a hegemon acting unilaterally in certain areas of international politics
and security. The state of bilateral political relations is strained because the two sides—one militarily
dominant and the other a civilian association of states--are responding differently to new security threats from rogue or
collapsed states, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, and terrorism. There is more change than continuity.
The second is the practical day-to-day on the ground functioning, flow, and flowering of private and public transatlantic transactions and communications in the
world’s largest and most complex interdependent and special relationship. In conditions of complex interdependence, partners, societies and economies are closely
connected, multiple issues connecting the partners are not hierarchically arranged, military force is not used, and transgovernmental/international organizations and
bilateral processes matter. (Keohane and Nye: 1989) The state of bilateral political relations is good because those relations are mutually beneficial and cannot be
replicated in any other relationship either side has with a third partner. There is more continuity than change.
Currently, EU-US relations are strained.
Sir Brian Crowe, 2003, former Director-General for External and Politico-Military Affairs in the
European Union Council of Ministers., Eu US relations and the implication of the Iraq war,
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2004_01-03/crowe_euus/crowe_euus.html
Following the Iraq war the Atlantic has never been so stormy. Differences have of course always existed in transatlantic
relations, some quite serious at the time. But it is only since the end of the Cold War that the differences have swelled enough in
number and nature to raise seriously the question (in Europe) whether the United States is still a
force for good in the world and (in America) whether Europe is still relevant, or even a menace
to U.S. interests (though it is hard to see how it could be both). How did this come about? A number of factors on both sides of the Atlantic contributed
US-EU Down
US-EU relations are low due to the Iraq War and Gitmo
Kristin Archick and Vince L. Morelli, CRS Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, November 21,
2006 [CRS Report for Congress, “The United States and Europe: Current Issues”]
European countries and the EU have been active partners

with the United States in the fight against terrorism in the years since September 2001.
Washington has welcomed EU efforts to boost police and judicial cooperation among its
25 member states, stem terrorist financing, strengthen border controls, and improve
transport security. The EU and the United States have concluded several new agreements on police information-
sharing, extradition, mutual legal assistance, container security, and
exchanging airline passenger data. Nevertheless, some challenges remain. For example,
European opposition to the U.S. death penalty may still impede extradition of terrorist
suspects. Some differences also persist in U.S. and EU terrorist blacklists; most notably,
the EU does not recognize the Lebanese-based Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
Many Europeans also fear that the United States is losing the battle for Muslim “hearts
and minds” as a result of the war with Iraq, past prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, and the
detention center at Guantánamo Bay. The EU has expressed its strong desire to see that
facility closed as soon as possible because the Europeans believe it degrades shared values
regarding human rights and disregards international accords on the treatment of prisoners.
President Bush has acknowledged European concerns but stated that some of the
remaining prisoners cannot be released because they are considered too dangerous. U.S.
policymakers are working on forging agreements with foreign governments that would
receive some of the prisoners eventually released.
US-EU relations are low due to trade disputes

Raymond J. Ahearn, Specialist in International Trade and Finance; Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division, April 11, 2007 [“Trade Conflict and the U.S.-European Union Economic Relationship”]
Major U.S.-EU trade disputes have varied causes. Some disputes stem from demands from producer interests
for support or protection. Trade conflicts involving agriculture, aerospace, steel, and ‘contingency protection’
fit prominently into this grouping. These conflicts tend to be prompted by traditional trade barriers such as
subsidies, tariffs, or industrial policy instruments, where the economic dimensions of the conflict
predominate. Other conflicts arise when the U.S. or the EU initiate actions or measures to protect or promote
their political and economic interests, often in the absence of significant private sector pressures. The
underlying cause of these disputes over such issues as sanctions, unilateral trade actions, and preferential
trade agreements are different foreign policy goals and priorities of Brussels and Washington. Still other
conflicts stem from an array of domestic regulatory policies that reflect differing social and environmental
values and objectives. Conflicts over hormone-treated beef, bio-engineered food products, protection of the audio-
visual sector, and aircraft hushkits, for example, are rooted in different U.S.-EU regulatory approaches, as well as
social preferences
US-EU Down
US-EU trade disputes fuel anti-Americanism worldwide
In terms of political impacts, trade disputes likely have some effect on public opinion and attitudes, as well as
connect in some way to other transatlantic problems. Polls indicate that there is a great deal of fear in Europe
that the United States, due to the strength of its economy, has the ability to impose both economic and social
changes on the rest of the world. This fear and perhaps frustration may translate into antipathy to the United
States, often expressed as anti-Americanism. U.S. Retaliation against Europe for not accepting hormone-
enhanced beef, for example, may only fuel these generalized anti-American feelings that the United States is a
bully.
US-EU trade disputes hurt economic leadership of the WTO

Trade disputes may have discernible impacts on U.S.EU efforts to provide leadership of the world economy.
The disputes absorb a significant amount of time and energy of key policy makers at the expense of efforts to
pursue common interests and objectives, such as completing the Doha round of multilateral trade
negotiations. Moreover, the two powers need to set an example of cooperation and adherence to WTO rules if
the whole system is not to unravel.
The credibility of the WTO depends critically on a prompt, effective, and fair disputesettlement mechanism.
Unfortunately, the EU is seen by U.S. Policymakers and interest groups affected by the beef and banana cases as
having used every loophole to delay decisions and then refuse to comply with panel decisions. Similarly, U.S.
compliance efforts in FSC and Byrd Amendment disputes are found wanting by EU policymakers. While only a
handful of U.S.EU WTO disputes have ended in withdrawal of concessions (i.e. retaliation) since 1995, non
compliance by a key member arguably weakens the authority of the WTO and serves as a poor model for the
rest of the world. 50 Why should we comply with WTO panel decisions if the EU does not have to, many
countries ask. Noncompliance by one of the two leading economic powers is also said to diminish the
perceived value of negotiating new trade agreements.
US-EU Down
US-EU relations are low

Paolo Pontoniere, San Francisco-based correspondent of Focus, Italy's leading monthly magazine, March
21, 2005 [New America Media, “Are U.S.-EU Relations Warming? Don't Bet On It”]
Are relations between the United States and the European Unions warming up, thanks to the recent George W.
Bush-Condoleezza Rice "friendship offensive"? Are the critical Europeans really softening their view of Bush due to
the growing popular demand for democratization in the Middle East, which supposedly vindicates Bush's Iraq
invasion?
Not so fast. In fact, the rift between the United States and Europe hasn't healed a bit.
"It is a victory for the Party of war," read the recent front-page headline in La Repubblica, one of Italy's leading
daily newspapers, summarizing the widespread dismay in Europe about Bush's naming of his defense
undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative hawk, to head the World Bank.
The United States traditionally holds the World Bank presidency (the EU holds the reins of the International
Monetary Fund) and its appointments have never been questioned by the allies in the past. Although
surprisingly bitter, La Repubblica's reaction to the Wolfowitz appointment pales in comparison with Michael
Muller's, the parliamentary leader for Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's SPD, Germany's governing party. Mueller
called Washington's choice "horrendous." Muller has political clout in Berlin and his beliefs can deeply affect
U.S.-German relations.
"It is a negative decision but not a surprising one," declared Jose Villacis, professor of economics at San Pablo
University in Madrid. According to Villacis the appointment of two prominent neocons, Michael Bolton and
Wolfowitz, to two of the most influential global organizations -- the United Nations and World Bank -- shows the
U.S. resolve to impose its political vision and unilateral tactics on international diplomacy and the global
economy.
A/T: EU Retaliates
oUS-EU differences on energy can actually boost success of policy

Ian Rowlands, professor at the University of Waterloo, March 19, 2004 [Annual Convention of the
International Studies Association, “The Internationalisation of Renewable Electricity: A Transatlantic Case-
Study”
On the other hand, different ways of defining, supporting and promoting renewable electricity, across
countries, mean that a series of individual experiments are effectively being carried out around the world.
Coordinated reflection upon the relative levels of success and failure of these different approaches would
allow all those involved in the development of renewable electricity to learn from each other’s experiences.
Thus, pitfalls may be avoided and successes emulated.
***Impacts***
Economy Impact
The US-EU economic partnership is key to the global economy.
Drozdiak 05, (William, President, American Council on Germany, and Former Executive Director, German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic
Center, January/February (“The North Atlantic Drift” – Foreign Affairs) p. ebscohost)
Any reassessment of the transatlantic alliance must start with an important but often overlooked premise: the
United States and the EU are still the twin turbines of the global economy. Together, they account for
more than half of trade and investment flows in the world. Their business with each other exceeds $2.5
trillion a year and provides jobs for some 12 million workers. Over the past eight years, Americans invested twice as much in the
Netherlands as in Mexico and ten times as much as in China. During that time, Europeans invested more in Texas than Americans did in Japan.
And today, American business invests 60 percent more in eastern Europe than in China: $16.6 billion against $10.3
billion, according to the latest data from the U.S. Commerce Department. Conversely, Europe provides 75 percent of all investment in the United
States, and it is far and away the biggest foreign source of American jobs: the German industrial giant Siemens alone employs some 70,000
Americans. These transatlantic investments have proved very profitable. In 2003, while the media reported that Americans were pouring
Bordeaux wine down the drain to protest Paris' position on the war in Iraq, corporate America saw its investment inflows and profits from France
surge to the highest levels in nearly a decade: $2.4 billion and $l.7 billion, respectively. Profits earned by U.S. affiliates in Europe soared to a
record $77 billion, and U.S. investments in Europe jumped by 30 percent to $87 billion. Large U.S. technology firms, such as Microsoft and Intel,
predict that half of their global revenues will come from Europe in 2005. Thus, U.S. business leaders say that the EU's 450 million affluent
consumers still form the largest pool of purchasing power in the world. They also say that economic self-interest should be enough to persuade
both Democrats and Republicans in the United States to want to protect the Atlantic partnership--all the more so because the combined Economic
power of the United States and Europe would give them enormous leverage to deal with major global challenges. Despite the billions of
dollars already invested on both sides, the full potential of the U.S.-European economic relationship is not yet
realized
Nuclear war
Mead, 92 (Walter Russell, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28)
But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we
will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor.
Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear
weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in
the '30s.
Middle East Impact
US-EU relations are key to check WMD use in the Middle East
Daniel Hamilton, Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University, June 11, 2003
[Testimony to the House Committee on International Relations, “Renewing Transatlantic Partnership: Why and
How”]
If our efforts in these areas are ultimately to be successful, however, they must be part of more comprehensive
transatlantic strategies aimed at the modernization and transformation of the Greater Middle East itself. A
circle—with its center in Tehran—that has a diameter roughly matching the length of the continental United States
covers a region that encompasses 75 percent of the world’s population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent
of its energy resources. The Greater Middle East is the region of the world where unsettled relationships,
religious and territorial conflicts, fragile and failed regimes, and deadly combinations of technology and
terror brew and bubble on top of one vast, relatively contiguous energy field upon which Western prosperity
depends. Transformation of this region is the strategic challenge of our time and a key to winning the
campaign against terrorism. Choices made there could determine the shape of the 21st century—whether
weapons of mass destruction will be unleashed upon mass populations; whether the oil and gas fields of the
Caucasus and Central Asia will become reliable sources of energy; whether the Arab world will meet the
challenges of modernization and globalization; whether Russia’s borderlands will become stable and secure
democracies; whether Israel and its neighbors can live together in peace; and whether the great religions of
the world can work together.
This is a long term effort. We cannot hope to transform this turbulent region into an area of democratic
stability and prosperity soon. But we can act more successfully together to defend common interests, to
dampen the negative trends that are gaining momentum, and to work with those in the region who seek to
carve out areas of civil society where the state does not intrude. Such an effort is far more likely to succeed if
America and Europe were to pool our energies and resources and pursue it together.
Global nuclear war

Steinback, 2002 (John, Israeli Nuclear weapons: a threat to piece, 3/3 http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mat0036.htm)
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implica-
tions for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh
warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Is-
rael, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a
strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining
momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has
long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonath-
an Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating
to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy
secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negoti-
ations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabil-
izing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In
the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. com-
plicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a
world conflagration."
Terrorism Impact
US-EU relations are key to fighting terrorism

Kristin Archick
, Specialist in European Affairs
; Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
, January 24, 2006 [CRS Report for Congress, “U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism”]
As part of the EU’s efforts to combat terrorism since September 11, the EU has made
improving law enforcement cooperation with the United States a top priority. The Bush
Administration and Members of Congress have largely welcomed this EU initiative in the
hopes that it will help root out terrorist cells in Europe and beyond that could be planning
other attacks against the United States or its interests. This is in line with the 9/11
Commission’s recommendations that the United States should develop a “comprehensive
coalition strategy” against Islamist terrorism, “exchange terrorist information with trusted
allies,” and improve border security through better international cooperation. Some
measures in the resulting Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L.
108-458) mirror these sentiments and are consistent with U.S.-EU counterterrorism
efforts, especially those aimed at improving border controls and transport security.
U.S.-EU cooperation against terrorism has led to a new dynamic in U.S.-EU relations
by fostering dialogue on law enforcement and homeland security issues previously
reserved for bilateral discussions. Despite some frictions, most U.S. policymakers and
analysts view the developing partnership in these areas as positive, and one of the relative
bright spots in the recently much-strained transatlantic relationship. At the June 2005
U.S.-EU Summit in Washington, the two sides reaffirmed their commitment to work
together to combat terrorism.
Terrorism causes extinction

Alexander 2003 (Yonah, Director, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Jerusalem Post, 8-25, Lexis)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically the international
community's failure, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threat to
the survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than
as a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned to witness the unprecedented tragedy of 19
al-Qaida terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military centers. Likewise Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Accords of 1993 and
numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack. Why are the US and Israel, as well as scores of other
countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism, continually shocked by terrorist surprises? There are several reasons: * A misunderstanding of the manifold factors contributing
to the expansion of terrorism, such as the absence of a universal definition of terrorism; * The religionization of politics; * Double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and
exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of
The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism
conventional and unconventional threats and impact.
make it clear that we have entered an Age of Super-Terrorism - biological, chemical, radiological,
nuclear, and cyber - with its serious implications for national, regional, and global security concerns. Two myths in
particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism strategy can be developed; for example, strengthening international cooperation. THE FIRST illusion is that terrorism
can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social, and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism used by
"oppressed" people seeking to achieve their goals is justified. Consequently, the argument advanced by so-called freedom fighters - "give me liberty and I will give you death" - is tolerated, if not
glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals the fact that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of
fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinian religious movements, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and secular entities, such as Fatah's Tanzim
and the Aksa Martyrs Brigade, wish not only to resolve national grievances such as settlements, the right of return, and Jerusalem, but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin
Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq; its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that
follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that initiating strong action against the terrorist infrastructure - leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational
command and control - will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law enforcement efforts and military retaliation will inevitably fuel more brutal revenge acts of violence. Clearly, if
this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, the danger is that such thinking will paralyze governments into inaction, thereby encouraging further terrorist attacks.
Past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic strategy. The prudent application of force has demonstrated that it is an effective tool in deterring terrorism in the short and long terms. For
example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a ticking bomb. The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab, a top Hamas leader in the
Gaza Strip, directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem, disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the US military operation in Iraq
eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus
it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand
a cardinal message communicated by Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of
terror”.
Democracy Impact
US relations with Europe are key to promote democracy worldwide

Vince Crawley, USINFO staff writer, April 5, 2007 [The United States Mission
to the European Union, “Central Europeans Are Leaders in Promoting Democracy, U.S. Says”]
The former communist countries of Central Europe now provide global leadership in Afghanistan and the
western Balkans and elsewhere, helping nations transition to freemarket democracy, U.S. diplomats say.
Central European nations have such “profoundly shared values” with the United States that their European
Union (EU) membership strengthens their U.S. partnership, rather than being an either/or choice between the
EU and the United States, the State Department’s Mark Pekala said during a regional conference in Washington
April 23. “These countries understand the importance of democracy, the importance of throwing off tyranny,
the importance of doing what’s right for people in the construction of democracy and free enterprise,” said
Pekala, who is deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. In regional and global missions
to promote democracy, Central European countries “provide valueadded that the United States can’t provide,”
Pekala said a conference hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “These countries have made
the transition from tyranny to democracy. They have successfully navigated that path in a way that the United
States, of course, hasn’t. And [they] have overcome challenges that we have not had to face,” he said.
Extinction
Diamond, 1995 (Larry, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution – “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,”
wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm)
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist
aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful
international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous,
democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of
life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats
to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not
go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic
governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.
Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten
one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable
climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to
protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because
their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition,
civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international
security and prosperity can be built.
Heg Impact
US-EU relations are key to US power projection, global stability, and the base of US leadership
Zbigniew Brzezinski 03 , Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University,
(The Next American Century edited by Jeffrey T. Bergner) p. 69
The transatlantic alliance is America's most important global relationship. It is the springboard for U.S.
global involvement, enabling America to play the decisive role of arbiter in Eurasia-the world's central
arena of power-and it creates a coalition that is globally dominant in all the key dimensions of power and
influence. America and Europe together serve as the axis of global stability, the locomotive of the
world's economy, and the nexus of global intellectual capital as well as technological innovation. Just as important, they are
both home to the world's most successful democracies. How the U.S.-European relationship is managed, therefore, must be Washington's highest priority.
Collapse of leadership causes global nuclear war

Khalilzad, 1995 (Zalmay, Senior Analyst at RAND, Washington Quarterly, Spring, Lexis)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global
rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and
vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises
leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more recept-
ive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better
chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional
hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the
rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another
global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. lead-
ership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar bal-
ance of power system.
Oil/Heg Impact
Positive US-EU relations are key to stabilizing oil and nautral gas producing areas, which is
key to hegemony.
Brzezinski 04, (Zbigniew Former National Security Adviser to the President, Winter (“Hegemonic Quicksand” – National Interest) p. ebscohost )
More broadly, American-European cooperation in promoting a stable and democratic Iraq and in advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace--in effect, a
"regional roadmap"--would create more favorable political preconditions for addressing the unsatisfactory
strategic equation that prevails in the oil- and natural-gas-producing areas of the Persian Gulf, Iran and the Caspian
Basin. Unlike energy-rich Russia, the states of this zone--from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan all the way down to Saudi
Arabia--are almost entirely exporters, but not major consumers, of the energy that is extracted from their ground. They have by far the
world's largest reserves of oil and natural gas. Since reliable access to reasonably priced energy is vitally important to
the world's three economically most dynamic regions--North America, Europe and East Asia--strategic domination over
the area, even if cloaked by cooperative arrangements, would be a globally decisive hegemonic asset. From the standpoint
of American interests, the current geopolitical state of affairs in the world's principal energy-rich zone leaves much to be desired. Several of the
key exporting states--notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates--are weak and politically debilitated. Iraq faces a prolonged period of
stabilization, reconstruction and rehabilitation. Another major energy producer, Iran, has a regime hostile to the United States and opposes U.S.
efforts on behalf of a Middle Eastern peace. It may be seeking WMD and is suspected of terrorist links. The United States has sought to isolate
Iran internationally, but with limited success. Just to the north, in the southern Caucasus and Central Asia, the newly independent
energy-exporting states are still in the early stages of political consolidation. Their systems are fragile, their
political processes arbitrary and their statehood vulnerable.

***Soft Power Add-On***
2AC Add-On
US action on climate change is key to overall leadership
Norbert Walter, chief economist at Deutsche Bank Group, August 28, 2002, “An American Abdication,” New York
Times, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E7DE1F3CF93BA1575BC0A9649C8B63
At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very
moment the most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and
international good will by dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the
administration's apparent unwillingness to take a leadership role -- or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in
fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now
seem to assume will last forever. American authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush administration's decision to send a
low-level delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is, relative to America's share of both
the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks,
newspapers around the world have been dominated by environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of
thousands and caused billions of dollars in damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for
hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight penetration, thus
reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation, often related to the
warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast
becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is
doing. But when a country that emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes
hostile bystander in the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad. The
administration seems to believe it is merely an observer -- that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to
ignoring a key source of world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing
such a pivotal dimension of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict. In my view, there is a clear-cut price to be
paid for ignoring the views of just about every other country in the world today. The United States is jettisoning its hard-won moral and
intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic advantages that come with being a good steward of the international political order. The United
States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policymaking: necessary, perhaps inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for
decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global
environmental issues. No one can expect the United States to provide any quick fixes, but one would like to see America make a
credible and sustained effort, along with other countries, to address global environmental problems. This should happen on two fronts.
The first is at home in the United States, through more environmentally friendly policies, for example greater fuel-efficiency
standards for cars and light trucks and better insulation for buildings. The second is international, through a more cooperative approach to
multilateral attempts at safeguarding the environment. Simply rejecting international treaties (like the Kyoto Protocol) then failing to offer a
better proposal cannot be an acceptable option for American policymakers. Much of the world has come together to help the United States in the
fight against terrorism, out of the realization that a common threat can only be beaten through a cooperative effort. It is high time for the United
States, metaphorically speaking, to get out of its oversized, gas-guzzling S.U.V. -- and join the rest of the world in doing more to combat global
warming and protecting the planet.

Soft power Down
U.S. soft power has recently declined
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., is former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy
School of Government; June 2004; http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-
decline-of-america-s-soft-power.html
Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its ability to attract others by
the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result. According to Gallup
International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view
of the United States. A Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believes that Washington has
hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and maintain peace. Such attitudes undercut soft
power, reducing the ability of the United States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment.
***A/T: States CP***
More States Answers

States must cede control of RPS to the federal government to realize its ultimate benefits,
otherwise further development will be impeded.
Steven F. Greenwald and Jeffrey P. Gray, 2007, partner in the firm's Energy Practice Group.
States should cede control of renewable power to regional markets, Academic search complete
database.
State policy makers are characteristically reluctant to recognize that they have advanced a policy as far
as they can, and that they must cede some control to fully realize its ultimate benefits. Ceding control often
runs counter to policy makers' political instinct to serve their constituents. Doing so is even harder when a new policy has achieved some success. However, it is
time for the states to reduce the individual control they have exercised over renewable energy
development in deference to a national or regional approach.
The significant gains in renewable energy usage achieved so far this decade are a direct result of
the adoption of renewable energy mandates by individual states. Many states have responded to Washington's failure to
develop a coherent national policy that promotes renewable energy by establishing comprehensive renewable portfolio standard (RPS) programs. Using the oppor-
tunity afforded by our federalist system of government, states have served as "policy laboratories" for renewable energy support. Today, RPS programs in more
than half of the 50 states require local electric utilities to derive a certain percentage of their capacity portfolio from approved renewable energy
resources.
Although these state policies deserve credit for jump-starting the expansion of renewable energy
usage, the inevitable differences among them that have emerged now impede the further devel-
opment of renewable power.
State control of RPS creates inconsistencies and unproductive competition.
database.
The vagaries of state

and local politics have yielded a diverse set of state RPS programs with incon-
sistent eligibility requirements and complex rules for procuring renewable power. The net effect
has been the creation of several small, uncoordinated "markets" that force states to compete for
available renewable resources.
This competition is unproductive because it is not based on price or product quality, but rather on
political preferences. For instance, aggressive RPS targets are driving California utilities to look to neighboring states for renewable power.
However, imports of renewable capacity across a state's borders reduce, at least in the short run, the amount of capacity available to the utilities in the neighboring
states for satisfying their own RPS. If transmission losses are considered, the renewable capacity that California imports would be more efficiently used if used loc-
ally.
The economics of developing and selling renewable power should reflect its fundamental value.
Today, however, state RPS programs allow political differences to distort economics. For instance, to sat-
isfy RPS requirements for total megawatt-hour consumption, utilities may be tempted to dispatch out-of-state renewable power even during off-
peak times, when less-expensive local resources are available and when the imported power would be more economically used to serve load in its
state of origin.
More States Answers
State control complicates RPS policies, distorting prices; a federal RPS would prove effi-
cient and cost-effective.
database.
Differences in state accounting rules for RPS power also complicate the movement of power
among control areas and states. It is critical to prohibit any RPS-inspired variant of "megawatt laundering" (contracting for re-
newable power, but receiving "brown" power). Standardizing the RPS rules and criteria for the flow of renew-
able power among states in a region promises a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to
the complicated RPS accounting and "megawatt tracing" rules now in place.
Generators and utilities should be expected to respond to economic signals. But

it is imperative that the signals driving re-
newable energy markets are based on economics, not politics. Washington's willingness to leave
renewable energy policy making to the states has inevitably resulted in state programs that dis-
tort price signals with inconsistent and uncoordinated RPS mandates.
A federal RPS would allow fundamental economics to function without states’ political dis-
tortion and encourage the development of new, cost-effective renewables.
database.
The problems inherent in allowing individual states to establish distinct RPS programs can and should be ameliorated by transitioning to a re-
gional or national approach.
The benefits of renewable energy are not limited by geographical boundaries.
If one state increases its use of renewable energy, neighboring states will benefit from cleaner
air, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced fossil-fuel demand and prices.
The benefits of renewable power will be best achieved by allowing fundamental market econom-
ics to work without distortion by state political agendas. Creating a regional or national authority
to establish, implement, and account for consistent RPS criteria and rules will best encourage the
development and most cost-effective use of new renewable resources. State initiatives have driven a tangible
increase in renewable energy usage. But if its benefits are to be maximized, the states must let go.
USFG Key to Innovation
History proves- the USFG is an important driver of innovation.
The Bernard L. Schwartz Forum on Competitiveness 08 (July 2, Brookings backed, MIT scientists et al,
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2006/1005global-economics.aspx “The Future of U.S. Competitiveness: Is America Investing Enough in Sci-
ence and Technology to Compete?”)
If you look back at our history, the most important innovations that have occurred, the most important
developments and economic developments that have occurred were stimulated directly by the Federal Government,
starting with the Louisiana Purchase which was a purchase of a resource, the introduction of railroads during the Civil War by Lincoln, land grant
colleges which was a direct benefit of the Federal Government directly to education, the TVA and rural electrification. Throughout our
history, Government’s responsibility was never questioned as to whether or not it was good or bad and whether or
not it was affordable.
Today, both of those themes are being attacked. Is it good or bad for the Federal
Government to be involved in these things? I think we have to examine that as a society, and I think it will come
down resoundingly, yes, it is. More importantly, today, is can we afford it? It is in that connection that I believe our initiative can
examine whether or not affordability should be the issue or whether, in fact, we can afford these things and come up with ideas of how to
amortize the cost against the productive gain that society will have over a period of time.
***Othe r Aff***
RPS Solves LNG Security

A national RPS would reduce imports and increase security.
Alan Nogee and, Clean Energy Program Director with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Jeff
Deyette and, Energy Analyst with UCS, Steve Clemmer, Research Director for UCS’ Clean
Energy Program May, 2007, The projected impacts of a national RPS, Academic Search
Complete Database.
In response to high gas prices, and the declining productivity of North American gas wells, EIA projects imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
increase more than seven-fold over the next 20 years. 26 This trend threatens to push the U.S. down the same troubled road of rising dependence
on imported gas that has been followed for oil. By reducing the demand for natural gas, renewable energy can
reduce imports.
, renewable energy facilities are also not vulnerable to supply shortages or

Lacking long fuel supply chains
disruptions, price spikes, price increases, or price manipulation. And because they do not use volatile fuel or produce
dangerous wastes, renewable energy facilities (except large hydropower dams) do not present inviting targets for
sabotage or attack.
RPS solves warming
A national RPS will effectively reduce CO2 emissions.
Complete Database.
As discussed above, a national RPS would reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. And because a national RPS
save money for electricity and gas consumers, these are highly cost-effective carbon
would also
reductions. They represent insurance against the risk that electric providers—the largest source of CO 2
emissions in the U.S. economy—will have to eventually reduce those emissions.
A national RPS reduces harmful emissions and reduces environmental damage.
Complete Database.
Electricity use has a significant impact on the environment and public health. Electricity accounts for less than 3 percent of U.S. economic
activity, yet the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for power currently accounts for more than 26 percent of smog-producing nitrogen oxide
emissions, one-third of toxic mercury emissions, and 64 percent of acid rain-causing SO2 emissions. Increased
renewable energy
use can help reduce these harmful emissions, or reduce the cost of complying with pollutant
reduction requirements. And by reducing the need to extract, transport, and consume fossil fuels,
a national RPS would limit the damage done to our water and land and conserve natural
resources for future generations.
A national RPS would save money, diversify the electricity system, promote economic
development, improve security and reduce emissions.
Complete Database.
For several years EIA and UCS have been conducting analyses to project the costs and benefits of various RPS proposals. The analyses
demonstrate that
under a wide range of assumptions, a 20 percent national RPS is achievable, and would save consumers money by
reducing natural gas and electricity prices. The analyses also show that a national RPS would diversify the electricity
system, promote local economic development, improve the nation's energy security and reliability, and achieve
important reductions in global warming emissions. Even under a 10 percent RPS, both UCS and EIA analyses show Americans would see all of
these benefits, but at lower levels than what would occur under a 20 percent RPS.
Innovation key to Competitiveness
Innovation is key to economic competitiveness- without a welcoming business climate and investment in energy
research, the US will fall behind the rest of the world
The Bernard L. Schwartz Forum on Competitiveness 08 (July 2, Brookings backed, MIT scientists et al,
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2006/1005global-economics.aspx “The Future of U.S. Competitiveness: Is America Investing Enough in Sci-
ence and Technology to Compete?”)
In recent decades, our Nation has evolved a new model for economic comparative advantage in a global economy.
David Ricardo’s early 19th Century Theory of Comparative Advantage was resource-based. The model for the 21st Century is
innovation-based.
There is inherent risk. As MIT’s own professor, Paul Samuelson has noted, others can model your innovation system
and capture the innovation advantage. Our global competitors understand this well. Our comparative advantage
will depend increasingly on our national investments in R and D and in science talent.
I have to confess that I am worried about the outlook. Federal R and D spending, the basis of the university
contribution to the innovation system, has been falling when measured as a percentage of GDP, from 2 percent of GDP in the mid-
1960s to eight-tenths of 1 percent of GDP today. While Federal investments in the life sciences doubled between 1998 and 2003, Federal
investments in the physical sciences and engineering have stagnated over the same period and actually going back 30 years. Now, we are seeing
welcome public new attention to these issues, from the American Competitiveness Initiative that President Bush announced in his State of the
Union message to legislative activity in both houses of Congress. But, as you know, these kinds of proposals must make headway in a very
constrained budget environment. <text removed>
The good news is I think most folks know what needs to be done. We need to make investments in infrastructure, energy,
broadband, and transportation. We need to make sure our business climate is the most welcoming for entrepreneurship
through welcoming of global trade and intelligent about how taxes are applied, particularly to innovative activity. The U.S. R and D tax
credit is significantly lower than and not necessarily as flexible as many nations around the world, and we are seeing that is one of the main
reasons why so much corporate research is globalizing.
Renewables key to Competitiveness
The United States is the most powerful country to stop climate change
Jun 19th 2008, The Economist; Ian Whadcock;
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11565685
That, at least, is the view from the rich world. But poorer, rapidly developing countries are also taking more of an
interest in renewable energy sources, despite assertions to the contrary by some Western politicians and
businessmen. It is true that China is building coal-fired power stations at a blazing rate. But it also has a large wind-
generation capacity, which is expected to grow by two-thirds this year, and is the world’s second-largest
manufacturer of solar panels—not to mention having the largest number of solar-heated rooftop hot-water systems
in its buildings. Brazil, meanwhile, has the world’s second-largest (just behind America) and most economically
honest biofuel industry, which already provides 40% of the fuel consumed by its cars and should soon supply 15%
of its electricity, too (through the burning of sugarcane waste). South Africa is leading the effort to develop a new
class of safe and simple nuclear reactor—not renewable energy in the strict sense, but carbon-free and thus
increasingly welcome. These countries, and others like them, are prepared to look beyond fossil fuels. They will get
their energy where they can. So if renewables and other alternatives can compete on cost, the poor and the rich
world alike will adopt them. That, however, requires innovation. Such innovation is most likely to come out of the
laboratories of rich countries. At a recent debate at Columbia University, which The Economist helped to organise,
Mr Khosla defended the proposition, “The United States will solve the climate-change problem”. The Californian
venture capitalist argued that if cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels are developed, simple economics will ensure their
adoption throughout the world. He also insisted that the innovation which will create those alternatives will come
almost entirely out of America. As it happens, he lost. But that does not mean he is wrong. There are lots of
terawatts to play for and lots of money to be made. And if the planet happens to be saved on the way, that is all to
the good.
A/T: Oil DA
The United States does not rely on oil for electricity as much as it does on other sources
July 14, 2005; The National Energy Information center;

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.html
U.S. households rely primarily on three sources of energy: natural gas, electricity, and fuel oil. In the past several
decades, electricity’s share of household consumption has grown dramatically, and the shares of natural gas and fuel
oil have declined. Retail sales of electricity to U.S. households exceed sales of electricity to the commercial and
industrial sectors.
The U.S. barely uses oil for electricity

EPA; December 28th, 2007; http://www.epa.gov/solar/energy-and-you/affect/oil.html
In the United States, oil is used mostly for transportation or home heating purposes, although a small percentage is
used as a fuel for electricity generating plants. As with other fossil fuels, oil is found in underground reservoirs. It is
the end product of the decomposition of organic materials that have been subjected to geologic heat and pressure
over millions of years. Oil is considered a nonrenewable resource because it cannot be replenished on a human
timeframe.
Although oil may be used for other reasons, it is not used much for electricity uses
©2000 Pace University, White Plains, New York; Design ©2000 Baseline Institute, Lafayette, Colorado
Oil is the largest source of energy in the United States, providing close to 40 percent of all of the nation's entire
power needs. Though most oil is used for transportation or home heating purposes, a small percentage is still used as
a fuel for electricity generating plants. While oil continues to decline in popularity as an electricity fuel, in places
such as New York, oil still comprises about 8 percent of the state's electricity fuel mix. Oil sits in deep underground
reservoirs. Like other fossil fuels, this liquid is the end-product of millions of years of decomposition of organic
materials. Since the ultimate amount of oil is finite -- and cannot be replenished once it is extracted and burned - it
cannot be considered a renewable resource. Once extracted, oil can be refined into a number of fuel products --
gasoline, kerosene, liquefied petroleum gas (such as propane), distillates (diesel and jet fuels) and "residuals" that
include industrial and electricity fuels.
A/T: Oil DA
Oil is barely used to produce electricity

20-Jan-2004; Environmental Defense Fund. All Rights Reserved; 257 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010
Oil provides only about 2% of electricity in the U.S. Oil burns cleaner than coal, but still produces large quantities
of CO2, SO2, and NOx, per unit of energy produced. Most of the oil that is easiest to obtain in the United States has
already been extracted. Future dependence on oil will require an increase in imports or improved technology.
Increasing reliance on oil imports, especially from politically unstable regions, is economically unwise.
Oil is not a main source of electricity today

Seattle, Washington; August 9 & 10, 2007; Steve Marshall; Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute’s
By contrast, the electric power industry, which before the 1970’s relied on oil to generate nearly 30% of U.S.
electricity, uses oil to generate less than 3% today. The question has become, how can we replace foreign oil with
domestic power in transportation?
A/T: Free Market CP
The free market can’t solve the sustainable energy problem once markets reach the point where they start working
on it, it will be too late.
Lugar 06 (Sen. Richard, Brookings, Energy Security: CAUSE FOR COOPERATION OR COMPETITION?, March 13,
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20060313.pdf.)
The problem is that such investment cannot happen overnight and even if it did, it would take years, even decades to
build supporting infrastructure and to change behavior. In other words, by the time a sustained energy crisis fully
motivates the market, we are likely to be well past the point where we can save ourselves. Our motivation will come
too late, and the resulting investment will come too slowly to prevent the severe economic and security consequences
of our oil dependence. This is the very essence of a problem requiring government action
EU Relations Advantage
***Neg***
File Title
***Europe Advantage***
US-EU Up
US-European relations are on the rise because of cooperation on energy
Deb Riechmann, reporter for the Associated Press, June 14, 2008 [Associated Press, “Bush urges West to
work together”, http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/06/14/bush_urges_west_to_work_together/]
President Bush said yesterday that just as the United States helped Europe rebuild after World War II, the
two powers must now stand with newborn democracies like Afghanistan and Iraq and reach out to people
yearning for liberty, especially in the Middle East.
Bush delivered his speech, a progress report on transAtlantic relations, in France, a nation that was crucial to
America's quest for independence. Arriving in Paris from Rome, where he met with Pope Benedict XVI, Bush
took a motorcade ride to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and confidently
pronounced U.S.Europe relations the "broadest and most vibrant" ever.
A few short years ago that wasn't the case. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and former French
President Jacques Chirac clashed with Bush over the U.S.led invasion of Iraq. Two of Bush's allies, former
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and exSpanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, paid a political price for
backing him on the war, which fractured transAtlantic ties.
Bush has spent his second term successfully mending them. But while his administration has joined nations
across the globe to try to solve a host of international threats, including North Korea's and Iran's nuclear
programs, the president's initial, firstterm goitalone reputation set the tone for his presidency.
In his speech yesterday, Bush pushed European leaders not to work at cross purposes with the United States
or their neighbors, but to address global challenges of energy, security and trade. Ultimately, he said, the only
way for freedom and democracy to win out over terrorists is to defeat their ideology, especially in the Middle
East.
US-EU Relations are high.

European Union, 2006, Eu/US Relations, http://www.eurunion.org
As the two greatest powers on the world scene, the relationship between the EU and the US is
central and irreplaceable. It has a long, mutually beneficial history based on shared and strong fundamental beliefs in democratic
government, human rights and market economies.
Since its very inception, the process of European Integration has been strongly supported by the US. Without
US vision and
assistance, the European founding fathers would have had enormous difficulties. That support still exists.
During his visit to Europe in February 2005, President Bush stated:
“My government and the United States want the European project to succeed. It's in our interests that
Europe be strong (…). It's in our interests because the values that caused the European Union to
exist in the first place -- the values of human rights and human dignity and freedom -- are the
same values we share. And we have an opportunity to work together to spread those values.”
Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic believe that the relationship is valuable at all levels -- for
European and American business, civil societies and citizens -- and that it is the task of governments to promote the building of bridges across the Atlantic. Its
32
File Title
importance is reflected in trade relations, the fight against terrorism and the handling of crisis
and conflicts.
33
File Title
US-EU Up
The US and EU are working together on energy issues
Raymond Ahearn, Kristin Archick, and Paul Belkin, May 14 2007 [Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress, “U.S.-European Union Relations and the 2007 Summit ”]
Energy Security and Climate Change. European leaders have made curbing global climate change an integral
objective of EU energy security policy. In March 2007, EU members established binding targets for the use of
renewable energy and biofuels and committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to
1990 levels by 2020. Building on this agreement, European officials are reportedly seeking U.S. Support for an
international treaty regulating greenhouse gas emissions after 2012, when the U.N. Kyoto Protocol is set to
expire, and for an international market-based carbon emissions credit trading system. The United States is
not party to the Kyoto Protocol, and U.S. officials appear reluctant to commit to global regulation; instead,
they advocate transatlantic cooperation to promote alternative and clean energy technology.
In light of the differences on global climate change regulation, the United States and EU used the April
2007 summit to launch initiatives jointly promoting technological advances in clean coal and carbon capture
and storage, energy efficiency, biofuels, and methane recovery, among other areas. Although European officials
agree with the United States that these technologies should help improve transatlantic energy security and
mitigate the negative effects of climate change, they are reportedly disappointed by perceived U.S. reluctance to
pursue binding international emissions targets and a global carbon trading system. U.S. officials, pointing out that
from 2000-2004 carbon dioxide emissions increased at a faster rate in the EU than in the United States, argue that
the U.S. approach, based on fostering technological innovation as opposed to binding regulation, is proving more
effective in curbing global warming.4
At the April 2007 summit, U.S. and European leaders sought to downplay differences over carbon emissions
targets and carbon trading, expressing confidence that their decisions to promote clean and renewable energy
sources represent a step forward in transatlantic cooperation both to increase energy security and curb
climate change. However, analysts note that past efforts — such as a 2006 pledge creating an annual strategic
review of U.S.-EU energy cooperation, a U.S.-EU High Level Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and
Sustainable Development, and a U.S.-EU Energy CEO Forum — yielded little if any tangible progress.
34
File Title
US-EU Up
Despite minor differences in energy policy, the US and EU still have similar interests
DINOS STA SINOPOULOS, Principle Administrator of the European Commission, 2001 [Minerals and
Energy Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 33, “The United States New Energy Policy:
A European Perspective
”]
In conclusion, it can be argued that the European Union and the US have similar energy supply patterns being
the larges and the second largest importers of energy in the world and share similar concerns with regard
to external dependency. Both sides favour liberalised energy markets. The US plan downplays the importance of high
tech energy efficient solutions in favour of increased oil, gas, coal and nuclear production while the EU emphasizes renewables, energy
conservation and efficiency.
On the whole the US plan is a comprehensive piece of work whose objective seems to be the increase of
energy supplies either by easing environmental rules or by opening public lands for exploration. However, on
Green Paper
the positive side, like the European Commission's , it has already stimulated an open debate on the

country's energy future. The plan's proposal to strengthen the US international engagement in various
energy multilateral and bilateral fora is also welcome.
The US and EU are cooperating on energy and climate change

Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, March 8, 2006 [US Department of
State, “The U.S.-European Relationship: Opportunities and Challenges”]
Closely related to trade issues are matters of climate and energy security. We are working hard to engage the
Europeans on climate. We both share the same goal to promote economic growth while reducing negative
impacts on the environment. Our effort has been focused on addressing climate by stressing the need for new,
"clean" technologies which promote energy efficiency as well as the need to develop alternative sources and
supplies of fuel, thus linking climate, energy security and development challenges. In 2006 alone the President
proposed over $5 billion in funding for climate-related activities. Cooperation with the EU in this arena is
improving. The EU has joined U.S.-led partnerships in carbon dioxide capture and storage, nuclear power,
hydrogen, and Earth Observations. We are creating opportunities for dialogue with EU policy leaders to
establish the intellectual link between climate and energy, creating neutral space for future agreement.
35
File Title
US-EU Up
Relations between the US and EU are strong, and energy is a key issue
Paul Belkin, Analyst in European Affairs; Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division , January 30, 2008
[CRS report for Congress, “The European Union’s Energy Security Challenges ”]
Over the past 55 years, relations between the United States and the EU have steadily broadened and deepened
so that the two are inextricably linked. Nowhere has transatlantic integration manifested itself more than in
the economic sphere. The U.S-EU economic partnership has been described by many as the single most
important influence on global economic growth, prosperity and trade.64 Within the deepening transatlantic
economic relationship, energy security policy is becoming a higher priority for both the United States and the EU.
Together, the United States and the European Union represent the world’s largest energy market. The United States
and the EU produce approximately 23% of the world’s energy but combine for almost 40% of global energy
consumption.65 Combined, the United States and the EU account for almost 40% of the world’s total carbon
emissions.66 At the 2006 and 2007 U.S.-EU Summits, the parties agreed to increase cooperation on energy
security, climate change, and sustainable development issues. Three institutional mechanisms to facilitate this
cooperation were established: an annual strategic review of U.S.-EU energy cooperation; a U.S.-EU High
Level Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development; and a U.S.-EU Energy CEO
Forum. None of these forums has convened more than twice, however, and at the April 2007 U.S.-EU Summit in
Washington, D.C., the United States Administration reportedly rejected European calls for a commitment to pursue
Recent visits prove that the US and EU are working together on renewable energy
Business Wire, June 23, 2008 [“EU Visit To US To Strengthen CoOperation In NonNuclear Energy
Research Is A Success”, LexisNexis]
During the recent visit to the US by a delegation of European Commission officials led by Director for
the Energy Program at DG Research, Mr. Raffaele Liberali, the European Union and the United States
agreed to strengthen cooperation in the area of nonnuclear energy research on the basis of
common interest and mutual benefit under the EUUS Science and Technology Cooperation
Agreement.
Both sides have worked on the idea that the political energy and climate change dialogue should
include R&D aspects on a systematic basis. For the first time this was translated in the final
declaration of the EUUS Summit, where second generation biofuels, carbon capture and
storage, energy efficiency, promising renewable energy technologies, hydrogen and fuel cells were
mentioned as relevant topics for transatlantic R&D cooperation. Responding to a US invitation, the
European Commission representatives met R&D program officers of the US Department of
Energy (DoE) and made technical visits to the US DoE's National Laboratories (NREL and
NETL). This visit also allowed European officials to discuss with other interested US funding agencies
such as the Department of Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency. The very
comprehensive program of the visit allowed both sides to make substantial progress in the
development of transatlantic R&D cooperation in the areas of Renewable Energy, Carbon
Capture/ Storage and Hydrogen/Fuel cells.
36
File Title
US-EU Up
EU-US RELATIONS HIGH
EU BUSINESS 08[EU BUSINESS “EU-US Trade and Investment”10 June 2008

http://www.eubusiness.com/USA/eu-us-trade-investment]
The European Union and the United States form the largest bilateral trade partnership in the
world if you look at goods and services combined. Goods trade alone in 2007 amounted to over
EUR 440 billion. A trade surplus: The EU enjoys a surplus of €80 billion in goods trade with the US,
importing €181 billion while exporting €261 billion. While the US remains the first destination
for EU goods, the EU now imports more from China. EU trade with the USA is dominated by manufactured goods. In 2007, more than
two-fifths of trade with the USA were machinery and vehicles, with chemicals and other manufactured each accounting for more than a fifth of
trade. 1 Services trade: Trade in services continued to grow in both directions, with total trade estimated at more than €266 billion. Again the EU
recorded a surplus (€11 billion). Largest
investment partners: The European Union (EU) and United States
are each other’s largest foreign investor. In 2006, the stock of EU direct investment in the United States reached $1.11 trillion,
accounting for almost half of the total stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States. In 2007, EU investment represented 42
percent of global investment flows to the United States. The transatlantic investment relationship is also symmetrical: in 2006, the U.S. stock of
FDI in the EU totaled $1.12 trillion. In 2007, over half of all private direct investment outflows from the United States were directed to the EU. ??
Millions of jobs in the United States: Of
the more than 5 million Americans employed in the United States by
foreign companies in 2005, 3.5 million (58 percent) worked for EU companies. With a payroll of $194 billion, EU
companies on average paid U.S. workers 18 percent more than workers were paid at other U.S. firms. ?? Millions of jobs in Europe: Likewise, in
2005, majority-owned U.S. affiliates employed 3.9 million workers in the EU, and support a total payroll of
$203 billion.
RELATIONS ARE STABLE NOW AND WILL INCREASE
Economist 08 [The economist intelligence unit “Brighter future” June 25,

2008http://www.viewswire.com/index.asp?layout=VWArticleVW3&article_id=1333488118&rf=
0]
Relations with the US are as good as normalised following unprecedented strains five years ago
over the invasion of Iraq. The final EU-US summit of the US president, George W Bush, took place in mid-June. Economic issues
were a priority, with efforts to add momentum to the year-old Transatlantic Economic Council initiative at the top of the list. Although progress
has been slow in advancing this agenda, this has had more to do with its inherent complexity–relating to issues such as financial services
regulation and product standards harmonisation–than the state of relations among leaders at the highest level. Of the main security issues
discussed, long-running co-operation on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability was the most important. The
departure of Mr Bush from office in January 2009 will, for a number of reasons, improve
relations further. First, largely owing to the divisions over the invasion of Iraq in 2003, opinion polls show that Mr Bush remains highly
unpopular in most European countries. This has reduced the incentive for European governments to deepen co-operation and to actively pursue
initiatives with the US (the unwillingness of some European NATO countries to deploy more troops to Afghanistan, for instance, is partly
explained by Mr Bush's unpopularity). The
coming to power of a new president in January 2009 should see
European public opinion becoming less hostile to overtures from the US government. A second
reason to expect an improvement in relations is that both presidential candidates–Republican
John McCain and Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee–have committed to changing
direction on a number of policy issues that cause friction with Europeans, most notably in
reaching an agreement on climate change and on the use of torture and indefinite suspension of
terrorist suspects (including the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp). It would be wrong, however, to overstate the
possibilities for a sea change in relations during the coming years owing to the departure of Mr
Bush. This is not only because relations have already largely normalised, but also because the
two US presidential candidates have already set out policy agendas that guarantee disagreements
with the Europeans
37
File Title
US-EU Up
EU and US WORKING on pact together
Brand 08[ CONSTANT BRAND Associated Press Writer EU, US near deal on pact on protecting privacy, July
2 2008 http://news.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/ap/high_tech/1700/07-02-2008/20080
702102005_41.html]
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Privacy rights vs. terror fights: The EU and the United States are
close to agreeing on how to protect personal and private data while still letting law enforcement
officials share information to combat organized crime and terrorism.
Eighteen months of closed-door talks between European and American officials have already led
to agreement on key principles for data-sharing, according to Jonathan Faull, director of the
European Commission's justice and interior affairs department.
Faull told reporters Wednesday that formal talks could begin later this year with a final binding deal reached in
2009.The agreement aims to end criticism from privacy advocates and EU officials who have called for more
guarantees that European privacy rights are respected by U.S. authorities as they seek access to more data from
Europeans for security purposes.European privacy rules are generally stronger than those in the U.S., and authorities
have clashed in recent years over specific deals reached to transfer data taken from passengers flying to the United
States and on banking and financial data transfers.Faull said the pact would not give a blank check to U.S. or
European police authorities to snoop into e-mails, bank accounts, credit card details or telephone records across the
Atlantic.
"It is not the case ... that anything goes," he said.Privacy groups remained skeptical, characterizing the talks as an
attempt by the United States to weaken European privacy laws. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
wants to develop a common database of fingerprint and personal-data screening and wants access to EU visa
applicant data files."The European Union, having enacted strong legislation to protect the privacy of its citizens,
cannot be asked to render that legislation meaningless by allowing its citizens' data to be shared with a country that
is, in privacy terms, all but lawless," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's
Technology and Liberty Project.
Faull said the two sides agreed to broad guidelines that limit the time data can be used or stored;
provide oversight from privacy officers; and allow individuals to access and correct data
collected on them.
He said negotiators had also agreed that the most sensitive and personal data will not be used,
such as race or ethnic origins, political opinions, religious beliefs, trade union membership,
health or sexual details. That information is declared off-limits under EU human rights and
privacy rules.
38
File Title
Renewables Hurt EU Relations

Differences in opinion mean renewables hurt relations
Study”
3)Potential Conflicts
In this section, I lay out three potential transatlantic conflicts arising from the increasing
internationalisation of renewable electricity. All arise by virtue of transatlantic differences in
the way in which renewable electricity is defined. Such differences could begin to be exposed
once any or all of three different kinds of goods are traded internationally – namely,
‘electrons’ (or carriers of electrons), goods with ‘embedded electricity’ or renewable
electricity technologies.
First, conflicts could arise as a result of the trade in ‘electrons’ that are deemed ‘renewable’ by some, but
not by others. Electricity is not usually distinctly identified because of the characteristics of the ‘good’ itself
(that is, the physical attributes of the electrons). In other words, when the electrons arrive at the place of
use, they are all identical. Instead, particular kinds of electricity are demanded because of the manner in
which these same electrons were ‘created’. In our case, ‘renewable electricity’ comes from power plants that
are deemed to use ‘renewable resources’. Potential challenges arise, however, because not everyone defines
‘renewable’ (or, the related term, ‘green’) in the same manner. Consider the following hypothetical example.
Close economic ties make conflicts between the EU and US over energy likely
Study”
The purpose of this paper has been to investigate the issues arising from the increasing internationalisation of
renewable electricity, with specific reference to the transatlantic relationship. It appears that both costs and
benefits could arise. On the one hand, although international disputes are not necessarily ‘inevitable’, as a result of
closer economic ties and the desire for greater use of renewables in electricity systems, there are clear signals
that conflict could arise. More specifically, differing definitions of ‘renewable electricity’ and alternative
standards regarding renewable electricity technologies could spark annoyance and/or anger in one country
over the actions of partners in another.
39
File Title
The US and EU have different ideas about alternative energy

Study”
Moving from the hypothetical to the substantive, it is intriguing to note that transatlantic differences in the
definition of ‘renewable’ or ‘green’ are already evident. Here I consider each of the European Union and the
United States in turn.
The European Union has developed a single definition of renewable electricity. Although there remains
much debate within the Union (Rowlands, forthcoming-a), the 2001 Directive
on Renewable Electricity defined ‘renewable energy sources’ as ‘wind, solar, geothermal, wave, tidal,
hydropower, biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment plant gas and biogases’ (European Commission, 2001).
This definition largely mirrors what the International Energy Agency (IEA) has classified as ‘renewable’ in its
statistical work (IEA, 2002b, 8).Nevertheless, a key difference still exists. Specifically, biomass is more broadly
defined in the European Directive: not only is the biodegradable fraction of municipal waste included (as it is in
the IEA definition), but so too is the biodegradable fraction of industrial waste defined as renewable; this is not the
case with the IEA definition.
The United States is relatively less advanced than the European Union in its efforts to develop a single
definition of renewable electricity, for, at present, there exists no single, universal, definition of ‘green
electricity’. Instead, local groups and state-level governments have taken the lead in developing their own sets
of rules and regulations. The result is a relative patchwork quilt of definitions across the country (Rowlands
and Patterson, 2002). Nonetheless, there is some evidence that agreement surrounding ‘what is green’ is
growing in the United States, for some country-wide approaches are becoming increasingly prevalent. For
one, Green-e, the country’s largest ‘green power’ labelling scheme, has developed programs in four states and two
regions in the United States. Moreover, the United States had in place (until the end of last year) a ‘Renewable
Energy Production Incentive’, and the US Senate passed a bill for a ‘Renewable Portfolio Standard’ (which
did not ultimately enter into force). In each, there exists a definition of what would qualify as renewable. Although
differences exist among these, some tentative trends can be identified.
40
File Title
Regulations regarding renewable energy hurt US-EU relations

Study”
Not only are the ‘electrons’ – either independently, or ‘embedded’ within other goods and services – potentially
the subjects of international disputes regarding renewable electricity, but so too are the devices used to ‘create’
those electrons in the first place. It is certainly the case that conflicts could arise because of different standards
regarding renewable electricity technologies. Let me elaborate with a hypothetical example.
There are potentially significant environmental burdens associated with different parts of the lifecycle of a
photovoltaic (PV) panel. In particular, because toxic and hazardous substances are used in the manufacture of
PV panels or are actually found within the PV panels themselves – for example, cadmium, hydrogen selenide,
phosphorous oxychloride and tellurium – their unintended escape into the atmosphere could have health and
environmental consequences (IEA, 1998). Given that all jurisdictions would have regulations regarding the
proper use of these substances – perhaps the conditions in which they could be applied, or even restrict their
utilisation altogether – it is certainly conceivable that there could be differences in these rules. This, in turn,
could lead to conflicts, for manufacturers of PV panels in jurisdiction A, who find their panels shut out of
jurisdiction B’s markets for ‘health and safety reasons’, may claim that jurisdiction B’s actions are actually disguised
protectionism.
Although there are efforts afoot within international society to develop accepted standards regarding
renewable electricity – for the case of PV panels, the International Energy Agency has played a key role – these
kinds of disputes are certainly possible. Indeed, a similar hypothetical example from windpower – often the
other resource identified as one of the two ‘greenest’ possible sources for electricity – could also be developed,
perhaps regarding acceptable levels of noise.
These kinds of disputes are certainly foreseeable, particularly given that we often see ‘technology laggards’
impose different kinds of standards (different that is, than those being promoted by the ‘technology leader’) in
order to protect and defend their markets. (For such a discussion with examples from television standards in Europe,
see Austin and Milner (2001).) With the stakes being as high as they are (renewable energy markets could soon be
worth billions of dollars (Rowlands, 2003)) and with apparent differences in technological capabilities between
the European Union and the United States (while the former is the undisputed global leader in wind power, the
latter appears to have an edge in biomass technologies (Rowlands, 2003), significant conflicts are distinct
possibilities.
41
File Title
Alt Causes
Cant solve US EU rels: Other factors check
Environmental issues are one small part of the strain on US-EU relations- Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, CIA rendition
programs, various trade issues, differing leadership styles between national leaders, US unilateralism, Bush’s failure
to be interested in Europe, and other issues check any gains they might make.
Archick and Morelli 06, (“The United States and Europe: Current Issues” Kristin Archick and Vince L. More, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division CRS Report for Congress November 21, 2006 http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22163.pdf)
Despite common interests and close economic ties, the transatlantic partnership continues to be challenged by trade and
foreign policy disputes. Although Europeans are not monolithic in their views, most states have objected to at least some
elements of U.S. policy on a range of issues, including Iraq, the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and Abu
Ghraib, aircraft and export tax subsidies, and climate change, among others. New issues, such as alleged covert CIA
prisons in and “rendition” flights through Europe, the visa waiver program, and the passenger name records data
transfer program, have emerged as irritants in the relationship. Some observers argue that U.S.-European frictions
may have been driven by personality and style differences among U.S. and European leaders. Many Europeans
viewed the first-term Bush Administration as inclined toward unilateralism and largely uninterested in Europe.
42
File Title
RPS Can’t Solve
US-EU relations are growing, but lack of action on KYOTO is the key factor
The United States and Europe have steadily broadened the transatlantic energy dialogue to include joint
promotion of collective energy security, energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. At the April 2007
U.S.-EU summit, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic agreed to advance cooperation to develop alternative
and renewable energy technologies. However, U.S. officials have expressed concern at some European
member states’ unwillingness to exert more pressure on Russia to comply with EU market principles. On the
other hand, European leaders appear increasingly frustrated with U.S. reluctance to pursue binding
multilateral regulatory frameworks to reduce carbon emissions and promote energy efficiency.
US-EU relations are on edge because of US unwillingness to commit to

MULTILATERAL energy requirements
European officials appear encouraged by what they perceive as an increasing U.S. willingness to
acknowledge climate change as a problem with serious global ramifications, and to link energy and climate
change policy. However, they are reportedly frustrated by U.S. reluctance to commit to binding international
emissions and energy efficiency targets. The United States is not party to the Kyoto Protocol, and the
Administration reportedly views global regulation to address climate change skeptically; instead, U.S. Officials
advocate transatlantic and international cooperation to develop alternative and renewable energy sources and
liberalize international energy markets. To this end, the United States and EU used their 2007 Summit to launch a
series of initiatives jointly promoting technological advances in clean coal and carbon capture and storage, biofuels,
energy efficiency, and methane recovery. U.S. officials argue that such technological innovation is proving more
effective in reducing emissions than global regulation and that such regulation may actually impede the economic
growth necessary to sustain further technological advances. To support their claims, Administration officials point
out that, despite EU participation in the Kyoto Protocol, carbon dioxide emissions increased at a faster rate in the
EU than in the United States from 2000-2004. During the same period, they add, U.S. economic growth
outpaced economic growth in the EU.68
43
File Title
US-EU Turns Climate

US-EU cooperation on energy is key to climate change – turns their advantage
Jonathan Schaffer, staff writer for America.gov, May 30, 2008 [America.gov, “U.S., Europe Need Collective
Energy Security Strategy”]
When President Bush and his European counterparts meet June 10 in Brdo, Slovenia, one of their top
priorities will be to move closer to a common approach to energy security.
Officials from both sides of the Atlantic understand that such an approach not only is fundamental to
maintaining a consistent flow of energy at sustainable prices, but is also vital to tackling broader climate
change challenges.
European Union (EU) member states have taken actions recently to boost the use of renewable energy and
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. U.S. experts argue, however, that it also is critical for European countries to
develop a unified policy that promotes the diversification of its sources of energy, particularly with the countries
of the Caspian Basin and Central Asia, and eventually with Iraq.
US-EU cooperation on energy is key to climate change – turns their advantage

Jonathan Schaffer, staff writer for America.gov, May 30, 2008 [America.gov, “U.S., Europe Need Collective
Energy Security Strategy”]
When President Bush and his European counterparts meet June 10 in Brdo, Slovenia, one of their top
priorities will be to move closer to a common approach to energy security.
Officials from both sides of the Atlantic understand that such an approach not only is fundamental to
maintaining a consistent flow of energy at sustainable prices, but is also vital to tackling broader climate
change challenges.
European Union (EU) member states have taken actions recently to boost the use of renewable energy and
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. U.S. experts argue, however, that it also is critical for European countries to
develop a unified policy that promotes the diversification of its sources of energy, particularly with the countries
of the Caspian Basin and Central Asia, and eventually with Iraq.
44
***Other RPS Neg***
File Title
A/T: Soft Power Add-On
No spillover- one issue won't affect the overall U.S. image

Nye 02 [Harvard prof of government; Paradox of American Power] pg 159
Of course, not all multilateral arrangements are good or in our interests, and the United States, should occasionally
use unilateral tactics in certain situations, which I will describe below. The presumption in favor of multilateralism
that I recommend need not be a straightjacket. Richard Haass, the State Department's director of policy planning
says, "What you're going to get from this administration is 'a la carte multilateralism.' We'll look at each agreement
and make a decision, rather than come out with a broad-based approach."
Alternate Causalities –
A. ICC
Douglass Cassel, Director of the Center for International Human Rights of Northwestern University School of Law
in Chicago, The Christian Century, May 12, 1999, pp. 532-36
Thus understood, US opposition to the ICC is of a piece with its vote a year earlier against the treaty to ban anti-
personnel land mines, its refusal to pay UN dues, its economic sanctions on allies that do business in Cuba, and its
implicit foreign policy of demanding a "superpower exemption" from international rules. It lends further support to
the views of the "elites of countries comprising at least two-thirds of the world's people," as recently reported in
Foreizn Affairs by Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington, that Uncle Sam is "intrusive, interventionist, exploitative,
unilateralist, hegemonic, hypocritical, and applying double standards." Small wonder that following the 120-7
humiliation of the US in Rome, delegates applauded for 15 minutes.
B. Death Penalty and Gun Control

Nye 02 [Harvard prof of government; Paradox of American Power] pg 16
At the same time, the United States is not alone in many of the cultural changes that cause controversy. When such
problems are shared, comparisons are less invidious and less damaging to our soft power. A Population Council
report finds "trends like unwed motherhood, rising divorce rates, smaller households and the feminization of poverty
are not unique to America, but are occurring world--wide."' Respect for authority and some standards of behavior
have declined since 1960 throughout the Western world. But there is little indication that our levels of personal
responsibility are much lower today than those of other advanced Western societies, and our levels of charitable
giving and community service are generally higher. Himmelfarb admits, "In this international perspective, the
American `case' emerges clearly, not as an unprecedented anomaly, but as an all too-common phenomenon.." Our
soft power is eroded more by issues such as capital punishment or gun control, where as we are the deviants in
opinion among advanced countries, than by cultural changes that we share with others. To the extent that social
changes are similar in postmodern societies, culture battles become transnational rather than merely national. Those
who applaud or deplore such changes find allies in other countries, and stark national comparisons become blurred.
Such blurring limits the loss of soft power that accompanies inadequate (not declining) American performance.
45
File Title
States Solve Now

Adopting a federally controlled RPS would disrupt existing state programs and pressure
electricity prices and reliability.
Roger Kranenburg, January 2008, director, business development for the Edison Electric Insti-
tute, Academic search complete database.
The U.S. Congress continues to debate proposals that would mandate that a set amount of the nation's electricity come
from renewable energy sources such as wind, the sun, or biomass. These discussions about adopting a nationwide renewable
portfolio standard (RPS) raise significant concerns for power providers and customers alike.
Backers of a one-size-fits-all federal RPS believe it to be an essential component of a broad na-

tional energy strategy to address global climate change, improve air quality, and lower electricity
price volatility. But in reality, a national RPS could disrupt existing state renewable energy pro-
grams and put added pressure on electricity prices and reliability.
States are already instating RPS – a federal RPS would undercut and preempt their efforts.
States are moving forward with their own programs to promote renewable energy sources. As of
September 2007, 24 states and the District of Columbia had established an RPS. Four other states had nonbinding goals for adopting renewables,
and 48 states now support programs that offer consumers incentives, grants, loans, or rebates to use renewable energy resources.
Each state's RPS plan includes carefully considered timetables and targets based upon its own
unique circumstances and available energy sources. A federal RPS that imposes different targets
and timetables could undercut or preempt those efforts. This would create uncertainty and drive
up the cost of meeting renewable mandates even further for electricity suppliers and consumers
in those states.
Even among states that have an RPS, all have chosen to add energy sources unique to their areas,
such as geothermal power, which are not included in the broad-sweeping federal RPS proposals.
Many state programs also include technologies such as fuel cells, as well as alternative means of compliance such as en-
ergy-efficiency programs, which are not recognized in the federal plans.
46
File Title
Not Feasible
States devoid of renewable energy sources will have to pay exorbitant rates in order to meet
the federal RPS requirements.
Finally, not
all regions of the country have abundant renewable energy sources that they can turn
to for generating electricity. The cost for states in these regions to comply with a federal RPS
could be high, because many of the retail electric suppliers in these areas will not be able to meet
an RPS requirement through their own generation. They will be required to purchase higher-cost
renewable energy from other suppliers or purchase renewable energy credits.
Thus anationwide RPS mandate will mean a massive wealth transfer from electric consumers in
states with little or no renewable resources to the federal government or states where renew-
ables happen to be more abundant.
47
File Title
US Leader on Renewables Now

The United States is the top country using alternative energy
John Roach; for National Geographic News; April 21, 2008
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-wind-power.html
As Earth Day approaches, a new report finds that the United States is on track to breeze past Germany within two
years as the world leader in installed capacity to spin the wind into electricity. Globally, wind-power capacity rose
27 percent in 2007 to 94,100 megawatts, according to the report from the Washington D.C.-based Worldwatch
Institute. The U.S. led the charge with a record-breaking 5,244-megawatt increase for a total of 16,818 megawatts—
enough to power 4.5 million U.S. homes. And the potential in the U.S. is far greater, according to Janet Sawin,
director of the Worldwatch Institute's energy and climate change program and author of the new report. "Wind
resources in just three U.S. states could, theoretically, meet all of our nation's electricity needs," she said in an email.
Technologically and economically, researchers believe wind could account for 20 percent of U.S. electricity by
2030.
48
File Title
Spending Links
A federally controlled RPS would be costly, requiring conventional power plants for sup-
port and transmission lines.
A federal RPS would also mean higher costs due to the need to build high-voltage electric trans-
mission lines. Renewable energy facilities, especially wind farms, are usually located in remote areas. To
deliver their electricity to the populated areas where it is needed, transmission lines would need
to be built. To do so will cost approximately $1 million to $3 million per mile.
Most renewable energy sources are intermittent, meaning they do not generate power all the
time. Consequently, conventional power plants (most likely fueled by natural gas) need to be
built to support them, which accounts for costs in addition to the cost of building the renewable
energy facilities.
49
File Title
Consult EU
US and EU can cooperate on renewable energy

Study”
In addition to potential conflict, however, there is also the prospect for transatlantic cooperation – to the
benefit of those on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean – on issues related to renewable electricity. Indeed,
differences – of the kind identified in the previous section – can also be reflected upon positively, so that
mutual learning can result. More specifically, actions can be compared and the respective costs and benefits
of alternative approaches assessed. Better decisions can then be made, on the basis of these multiple
experiences. Thus, potential potholes can be avoided, or successes adopted earlier than would otherwise
have been the case. In this section, I examine three specific areas.
Alternative energy policies benefit the US and EU

Study”
As noted in Section 3, there are differences in the ways in which the European Union and the United States
have defined, and are continuing to define, ‘renewable electricity’. In this case, it appears that each may have
interesting experiences to offer the other – specifically, with respect to the definition of hydropower and the
way in which definitions can or cannot vary from region to region within a particular country (or within a
regional economic organisation). Let me elaborate on each.
50
***Misc Neg***
File Title
Biofuel Cards
Biofuels take more energy to produce than they put out

Robert Rapier, author of the R-Squared Energy Blog with over 15 years of experience in the petrochemicals
industry, including experience with cellulosic ethanol, gas-to-liquids (GTL), refining, and butanol production,
February 10, 2008 [E-International Relations, “The Politics of Renewable Energy: Unintended Consequences of
Biofuel Policies”]
While corn farmers and palm oil plantation owners have been elated by the policies, critics have warned all along
about the short-sightedness of these policies. Some, like Cornell Professor David Pimentel and Berkeley Professor
Tad Patzek, argued that a full life-cycle analysis showed that most biofuels are actually net energy negative - that
is it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce biofuels like ethanol than is returned in the process. This
assertion, if true, would imply that expansion of biofuels would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions.
However, Professors Pimentel and Patzek have their own critics, who assert that their studies made flawed
assumptions.
The use of biofuels would starve the poor

Robert Rapier, author of the R-Squared Energy Blog with over 15 years of experience in the petrochemicals
industry, including experience with cellulosic ethanol, gas-to-liquids (GTL), refining, and butanol production,
February 10, 2008 [E-International Relations, “The Politics of Renewable Energy: Unintended Consequences of
Biofuel Policies”]
But the criticisms of the rush into biofuels didn’t stop there. Some argued that the diversion of grains and edible
oils away from food and toward biofuels had the potential to starve the poor
. The United States Department of
Agriculture, longtime staunch supporters of the biofuels expansion, published a study that concluded that the
policies of the west="on"U.S. and the EU would raise prices across the food sector. Lester Brown, the president
of the Earth Policy Institute a group that advocates environmental sustainability famously noted in a Washington
Post opinion piece that "the grain required to fill a 25gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol would feed one person
for a full year." Brown further wrote:
"Plans for new ethanol distilleries and biodiesel refineries are announced almost daily, setting the stage for
an epic competition. In a narrow sense, it is one between the world’s supermarkets and its service stations.
More broadly, it is a battle between the world’s 800 million automobile owners, who want to maintain their
mobility, and the world’s 2 billion poorest people, who simply want to survive."
Thus, at best the critics suggested that the impact of biofuels policies would increase food prices. Worse, biofuel
mandates may be mandates for starving the poor.
51

Rps Upgrade2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rps Upgrade2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Miami Debate Institute RPS Upgrade

Sustaining the global ecosystem

The Bush administration enters

International Herald Tribune 07 (May 30 , “Merkel to Push Bush on Warming,” Lexis)

E.U.-U.S. relations are strained.

Currently, EU-US relations are strained.

European countries and the EU have been active partners

US-EU relations are low due to trade disputes

US-EU trade disputes hurt economic leadership of the WTO

US-EU relations are low

oUS-EU differences on energy can actually boost success of policy

Global nuclear war

US-EU relations are key to fighting terrorism

Terrorism causes extinction

US relations with Europe are key to promote democracy worldwide

Collapse of leadership causes global nuclear war

Collapse of leadership causes global nuclear war

Collapse of leadership causes global nuclear war

More States Answers

State control of RPS creates inconsistencies and unproductive competition.

The vagaries of state

Generators and utilities should be expected to respond to economic signals. But

History proves- the USFG is an important driver of innovation.

RPS Solves LNG Security

, renewable energy facilities are also not vulnerable to supply shortages or

A national RPS will effectively reduce CO2 emissions.

emissions in the U.S. economy—will have to eventually reduce those emissions.

A national RPS reduces harmful emissions and reduces environmental damage.

July 14, 2005; The National Energy Information center;

The U.S. barely uses oil for electricity

Oil is barely used to produce electricity

Oil is not a main source of electricity today

US-EU Relations are high.

The US and EU are cooperating on energy and climate change

EU-US RELATIONS HIGH

EU BUSINESS 08[EU BUSINESS “EU-US Trade and Investment”10 June 2008

RELATIONS ARE STABLE NOW AND WILL INCREASE

Economist 08 [The economist intelligence unit “Brighter future” June 25,

Renewables Hurt EU Relations

Renewables Hurt EU Relations

The US and EU have different ideas about alternative energy

Renewables Hurt EU Relations

Regulations regarding renewable energy hurt US-EU relations

RPS Can’t Solve

US-EU relations are on edge because of US unwillingness to commit to

US-EU Turns Climate

US-EU cooperation on energy is key to climate change – turns their advantage

A/T: Soft Power Add-On

No spillover- one issue won't affect the overall U.S. image

B. Death Penalty and Gun Control

States Solve Now

Backers of a one-size-fits-all federal RPS believe it to be an essential component of a broad na-

US Leader on Renewables Now

US and EU can cooperate on renewable energy

Alternative energy policies benefit the US and EU

Biofuels take more energy to produce than they put out

The use of biofuels would starve the poor

Potrebbero piacerti anche