Download the original attachment
OCS drilling is up in the air – pressure from Bush is key to ensure drilling
The Wall Street Journal, 7-16-08, (“US prohibition on outer continental shelf energy search has been shelved”,25197,24026023- 20142,00.html)
US PRESIDENT George W. Bush lifted an executive prohibition on energy exploration in the outer continental shelf, firing the latest salvo in the debate over how to respond to soaring oil prices.
Mr Bush's move to lift the executive moratorium on offshore drilling, in place since 1992, will not have any effect until a separate congressional prohibition expires or is overturned.
A month ago, Mr Bush had said he would lift the executive ban after Congress acted. But yesterday the President changed tactics, in a move that puts pressure on congressional Democratic leaders already feeling the heat from voters on the drilling issue.
Mr Bush said lawmakers should pass legislation that gives states a say in potential drilling off their shores, provides for the sharing of leasing revenue and protects the environment.
The congressional ban expires on September 30, but record oil prices make it politically difficult to extend the ban. On the House side, it is not clear whether Democrats will have the votes for an extension.
In recent days, congressional leaders have suggested they may relax restrictions on offshore drilling, but only in return for concessions from the oil industry, such as surrendering leases that are sitting idle. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has sided with Mr Bush, despite previous opposition to offshore drilling, while likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama is a critic of opening more offshore territory to drilling.
Alternative energy’s divisive – controversial and expensive.
By LINDSAY RENICK MAYER, the money-in-politics reporter for the Center for Responsive Politics, Big Oil, Big Influence, 347/oil-politics.html
Battles on the Horizon
With Democrats now in control of Congress, the oil and gas industry is finding that it's getting less for its money on Capitol Hill. Other industries with competing interests and far less cash to spread around, such as environmental groups and alternative energy producers, are now finding more support for their legislative goals. For example, the Clean Energy Act of 2007 seeks to repeal the 2004 and 2005 tax breaks to Big Oil and re-direct the money to renewable energy efforts.
Because of the change in power, the oil industry faces the possibility of stricter oversight and fewer goodies from Congress. The industry "definitely has to be worried that there will be anti-oil legislation of all types, and also possibly regulations, depending on who takes over the White House," says David Victor, a law professor at Stanford University and a senior fellow on the Council for Foreign Relations. Victor was part of the council's task force on energy security.
"I think [the new leadership] generally puts the issue on the agenda for legislative action. It puts it higher on the agenda. But it's not clear Congress will actually be able to do very much in terms of getting the votes for legislation, because energy policy in reality is very controversial and often very expensive," Victor said. "That's something that both parties have a difficult time dealing with."

Oil drilling is key to decreasing foreign oil dependency
Newswire, 7-16-08, (“ATA Applauds Bush Decision to Lift Off-Shore Drilling Moratorium” news/248476.php)
Restricted areas of the Outer Continental Shelf contain at least 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that can be recovered using environmentally safe technology. This is enough oil to power 40 million cars and to heat 2 million households for 15 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million households for almost 20 years.Currently, wells in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico supply 30 percent of the oil and about 20 percent of the natural gas produced in the United States.Other resource rich areas, however, remain under moratoria, preventing exploration and production off most of the U.S. coastline. These restrictions deny American consumers access to vast domestic energy supplies. Expanding access to new areas would ensure adequate domestic energy supplies because areas currently restricted contain large, untapped resources of oil and natural gas, which are critical to sustaining U.S. economic growth.
Rising oil revenues in exporting nations are used to support corrupt and totalitarian governments and buy nuclear weapons.
(Ariel Cohen, PhD and senior research fellow in energy security at the heritage foundation, 6/4/08, The Heritage Foundation, “Big Money, Big Oil, Big Risk”, Commentary/ed060408b.cfm)
Yet, there is a downside to the skyrocketing oil prices, which hurts Azerbaijan's ally, the United States, Western Europe, China, Japan, and other countries without energy resources.
From Russia to Iran to Venezuela, America's and the West's adversaries are splurging on oil windfalls, while programs directed against Uncle Sam and his allies are funded by petroleum revenues. Big bucks are allowing the oil sultans and dictators to intimidate US allies, buy politicians and academics, and purchase election outcomes.
Oil prices are going up partly because of supply and speculation. Part of the reason they can do this is that governments of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel, and the non-cartel producers like Russia, make sure that international oil companies do not own reserves in the ground.
Exxon, for instance, spent only 4 percent of its exploration budget in the Middle East last year - local governments do not allow Western companies to take control of their own destiny.
Thus, the global oil production is at the mercy of opaque and corrupt national oil companies, while the governments that own them enjoy skyrocketing oil prices and the growing, mind-boggling wealth.
The revenues of the major oil producing countries have quadrupled in three years. Since 9/11, oil prices have more than quintupled: from $20/barrel to $125/barrel. This year Europe and the US will spend approximately $2 trillion on imported oil, while the world will spend close to $3 trillion.
This money recycles back to the US and the West, often in the most legitimate ways. Sovereign Investment Funds have acquired large chunks of America's financial flagships: Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Blackstone and the Carlyle Group.
A foreign government acquiring a serious stake in US corporate gems can influence US policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. The oil sheikhs can "tweak" attitudes towards extremism and terrorism, and buy access to politicians through lobbying and campaign contributions. In the future, these funds may acquire defense and technology flagships: Boeing, General Electric, Lockheed Martin and others, or go after primary media assets, from CNN to FOX.
However, oil revenues may be used in much more sinister ways. Money can buy nuclear weapons programs, ballistic missile arsenals, and other arms. It can also pay for terrorist armies.
Today's attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government in Lebanon is bankrolled by Iran.

Widespread nuclear proliferation is the most dangerous scenario for nuclear war
(Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of the Strategy Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, 2002, “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, pgs. 87-90)
The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intenseand blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

Our fear of the “inevitable attack” on the US allows descisons to be made on lies and deception to instill fear into the public justifying our actions in the name of national security
Robert Jay Lifton, American psychiatrist and author, chiefly known for his studies of the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence and for his theory of thought reform. He was an early proponent of the techniques of psychohistory, 2003, Superpower Syndrom: America’s Violent Confrontation with the World, book ocr.

Our invasion of Iraq reflects the web of deception that the Bush administration, through its "war on terrorism," has woven around the events of that September morning. By all objective evidence Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld suggested on the day after the attacks, the broad definition of that "war" would require us to invade Iraq. At that moment, Iraq rose to the surface from the deeper dreams and visions of our leaders— and so the moment became one of opportunity. To facilitate that policy our leaders then either made, or encouraged by innuendo, the false claim that Iraq was indeed implicated in 9/11, and by the time of the invasion about 50 percent of Americans had come to believe that falsehood. A deception on such a large scale could only occur because Americans remained genuinely fearful of terrorist attacks even more lethal than 9/11, and because that fear, that sense of vulnerability, could be manipulated to support larger and more ambitious policy aims. It became possible to redirect the fear from Osama bin Laden to another hated Middle Eastern figure, Saddam Hussein, to the point where the two became virtually interchangeable. If anything, American fear of another 9/11 has been intensified by the "successful" invasion and so remains available for use in other situations.
The paranoia of inevitable annihilation associated with superpower syndrome – legitimizes violence under the mask of “security”.
Robert Jay Lifton, American psychiatrist and author, chiefly known for his studies of the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence and for his theory of thought reform. He was an early proponent of the techniques of psychohistory, 2003, Superpower Syndrom: America’s Violent Confrontation with the World, book ocr.
Inseparable from this grandiosity is the paranoid edge of the apocalyptic mindset. Leader and followers feel themselves constantly under attack—threatened not just with harm but with annihilation. For them that would mean the obliteration of everything of value on this degraded planet, of the future itself. They must destroy the world in order to survive themselves. This is why they in turn feel impelled to label as absolute evil and annihilate any group that seems to impede their own sacred mission. Such a sense of paranoid aggressiveness is more readily detectable in the case of certified zealots like Asahara or bin Laden. But it is by no means absent from the minds of American strategists who, though possessing overwhelming military dominance, express constant fear of national annihilation, and embark upon aggressive or "preemptive" military actions.

America’s obsession with trying to prevent and stop conflict – fueled by the fear of vulnerability and the unknown legitimizes violent acts to take place in the name of security eventually leading to inevitable extinction.
Robert Jay Lifton, American psychiatrist and author, chiefly known for his studies of the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence and for his theory of thought reform. He was an early proponent of the techniques of psychohistory, 2003, Superpower Syndrom: America’s Violent Confrontation with the World, book ocr.

The apocalyptic imagination has spawned a new kind of violence at the beginning of the twenty-first century. We can, in fact, speak of a worldwide epidemic of violence aimed at massive destruction in the service of various visions of purification and renewal. In particular, we are experiencing what could be called an apocalyptic face-off between Islamist* forces, overtly visionary in their willingness to kill and die for their religion, and American forces claiming to be restrained and reasonable but no less visionary in their projection of a cleansing war-making and military power. Both sides are energized by versions of intense idealism; both see themselves as embarked on a mission of combating evil in order to redeem and renew the world; and both are ready to release untold levels of violence to achieve that purpose. The war on Iraq—a country with longstanding aspirations toward weapons of mass destruction but with no evident stockpiles of them and no apparent connection to the assaults of September 11—was a manifestation of that American visionary projection. The religious fanaticism of Osama bin Laden and other Islamist zealots has, by now, a certain familiarity to us as to others elsewhere, for their violent demands for spiritual purification are aimed as much at fellow Islamics as at American "infidels." Their fierce attacks on the defilement that they believe they see everywhere in contemporary life resemble those of past movements and sects from all parts of the world; such sects, with end-of-the-world prophecies and devout violence in the service of bringing those prophecies about, flourished in Europe from the eleventh through the sixteenth century. Similar sects like the fanatical Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which released sarin gas into the Tokyo subways in 1995, have existed—even proliferated—in our own time. The American apocalyptic entity is less familiar to us. Even if its urges to power and domination seem historically recognizable, it nonetheless represents a new constellation of forces bound up with what I've come to think of as "superpower syndrome." By that term I mean a national mindset—put forward strongly by a tight-knit leadership group—that takes on a sense of omnipotence, of unique standing in the world that grants it the right to hold sway over all other nations. The American superpower status derives from our emergence from World War II as uniquely powerful in every respect, still more so as the only superpower left standing at the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s. More than merely dominate; the American superpower now seeks to control history. Such cosmic ambition is accompanied by an equally vast sense of entitlement, of special dispensation to pursue its aims. That entitlement stems partly from historic claims to special democratic virtue, but has much to do with an embrace of technological power translated into military terms. That is, a superpower—the world's only superpower—is entitled to dominate and control precisely because it is a superpower. The murderous events of 9/11 hardened that sense of entitlement as nothing else could have. Superpower syndrome did not require 9/11, but the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon rendered us an aggrieved superpower, a giant violated and made vulnerable, which no superpower can permit. Indeed, at the core of superpower syndrome lies a powerful fear of vulnerability. A superpower’s victimization brings on both a sense of humiliation and an angry determination to restore, or even extend, the boundaries of a superpower-dominated world. Integral to superpower syndrome are its menacing nuclear stockpiles and their world-destroying capacity. Throughout the decades of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union both lived with a godlike nuclear capacity to obliterate the cosmos, along with a fear of being annihilated by the enemy power. Now America alone possesses that world-destroying capacity, and post-Soviet Russia no longer looms as a nuclear or superpower adversary. We have yet to grasp the full impact of this exclusive capacity to blow up anyone or everything, but its reverberations are never absent in any part of the world. -- The confrontation between Islamist and American versions of planetary excess has unfortunately tended to define a world in which the vast majority of people embrace neither. But apocalyptic excess needs no majority to dominate a landscape. All the more so when, in their mutual zealotry, Islamist and American leaders seem to act in concert. That is, each, in its excess, nurtures the apocalypticism of the other, resulting in a malignant synergy.

The alternative is to vote negative – this begins our interrogations of security by refusing the affirmative’s quest for stability.
Accepting and living with ambiguity and vulnerability is key to preventing violence.
Robert Jay Lifton, American psychiatrist and author, chiefly known for his studies of the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence and for his theory of thought reform. He was an early proponent of the techniques of psychohistory, 2003, Superpower Syndrom: America’s Violent Confrontation with the World, book ocr.

To live with ambiguity is to accept vulnerability. American aspirations toward superpower invulnerability have troubling parallels in Islamist visions of godly power. Surrendering the dream of invulnerability, more enlightened American leaders could begin to come to terms with the idea that there will always be some danger in our world, that reasonable and measured steps can be taken to limit that danger and combat threats of violence, but that invulnerability is itself a perilous illusion. To cast off that illusion would mean removing the psychological pressure of sustaining a falsified vision of the world, as opposed to taking a genuine place in the real one. Much of this has to do with accepting the fact that we die, a fact not altered by either superpower militarism or religious fanaticism. A great part of apocalyptic violence is in the service of a vast claim of immortality, a claim that can, in the end, often be sustained only by victimizing large numbers of people. Zealots come to depend upon their mystical, spiritual, or military vision to protect themselves from death, and to provide immortality through killing.

PBS 2K "MISSILE DEFENSE POLITICS" july-dec00/nmd_8-24.html [JWU]
And overseas, there has been a growing drumbeat of opposition. Many foreign leaders argue that a U.S. missile defense system would provoke an arms race and challenge historic understandings built on deterrence and international treaties. French President Jacques Chirac said building the system would "retrigger a proliferation of weapons, notably nuclear missiles." German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said, "Everything that goes in the direction of proliferation is a bad direction. I'm skeptical." And the chief of foreign policy for the European Union, the former head of NATO, Javier Solana, said recently, "If the decision on deployment is taken without agreement with Russia and without help from European leaders, it will be very badly taken." They, along with the Russians and Chinese, worry that an American missile defense system would give the U.S. global military dominance. But if it's to be built, allied concurrence is essential, because radars will have to be stationed in Greenland and Great Britain, as Secretary of Defense William Cohen explained recently. WILLIAM COHEN: In order to have a technologically effective system, we need to have the support of our allies. If we don't have the support of our allies with respect to forward-deployed x-band radars, you will not have an effective technologically reliable system.

WASHINGTON TIMES 5-26-08 http://www.washingtontimes. com/news/2008/may/26/us- pressed-for-emissions-cuts-by- 20/[JWu]
KOBE, __Japan__ (AP) — European and developing countries urged the United States and Japan yesterday to commit to deep cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 — a step they say is needed to defuse a coming ecological disaster caused by global warming. The calls at a meeting of environment ministers from the __Group of Eight__ industrialized nations in Japan coincided with rising concern that momentum is draining from __U.N.__-led efforts to force a new climate-change agreement by a December 2009 deadline.

David Malone is president of the International Peace Academy in New York. AND Ramesh Thakur is vice rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo. 3-11-01 jp/cgi-bin/eo20010311a2.html [JWU]
There can be little doubt that the Bush administration does not incline naturally toward multilateral diplomacy and a treaty-based international security system. Nevertheless, it will not wish to alienate close allies on more than one or two issues at a time and may soon find itself engaged in give-and-take with them. Its top priority appears to be the further development and eventual deployment of a national missile defense system, a U.S. idea that has long unsettled not only Russia and China, but also key European allies and Canada. It could well decide, among other measures, that ratification of the CTBT had become useful to reassure allies and foes alike. Regardless of their views on NMD, U.S. allies and foes now need to consider their own strategies. Indefinitely stamping their feet on an issue that may be nonnegotiable in essence but negotiable in specifics and at the margins, would be self-defeating. NMD is not something the allies, Moscow or Beijing can stop. However, they could well influence the context within which NMD will be developed, its ultimate scope and its detailed aims. Their eventual consent can also be exchanged against concessions from Washington on related or different issues

D. Deploying Bush’s Missile Defense in Europe means U.S.-Russian accidental nuclear war and extinction
Mike Whitney, frequent contributor to the Centre for Research on Globalization, December 20, 2007, “Putin Agonistes: Missile Defense will not be Deployed,” CRG, online: __ index.php?context=va&aid=7659__ [Bapodra]
Bush's Missile Defense system has restarted the nuclear arms race. Welcome to the new Cold War. Finally, Russia Chief of Staff, General Yuri Balyevsky warned:
“A possible launch of a US interceptor missile from Central Europe may provoke a counterattack from intercontinental ballistic missiles....If we suppose that Iran wants to strike the United States , then interceptor missiles which would be launched from Poland will fly towards Russia and the shape and flight trajectory are very similar to ICBMs” (Novosti Russian News Agency)
Balyevsky's scenario of an “accidental” World War 3 is more likely than ever now that Bush is pressing ahead with his plans for Missile Defense. Russia's automated missile warning systems can be triggered automatically when foreign missiles enter Russian air space. Its a dangerous game and potentially fatal every living thing on the planet.
To great extent, the American people have no idea of the reckless policy that is being carried out in their name. The gravity of the proposed Missile Defense system has been virtually ignored by the media and Russia's protests have been dismissed as trivial. But hostilities are steadily growing, military forces and weaponry are being put into place, and the stage is set for a major conflagration. This is every bit as serious as the Cuban Missile Crisis, only this time Russia cannot afford to stand down.

Text: The state and territorial governments should increase revenue-neutral incentives for alternative energy to increase alterative energy to at least 20% of electricity production by 2020, measured from the baseline of current production. The state and territorial governments should send representatives to engage in nationwide binding regulatory negotiations to determine implementation. Parties will have no more than one year to negotiate.
The counterplan competes through the net benefit of politics and is non-topical.
Uniform action is feasible – almost all states highlight energy as a major concern
Gregory Dierkers, Senior Policy Analyst in Environment, Energy & Natural Resources Division @ National Governors Association, 5/7/07 “Recent State Actions Promoting Alternative Energy” __ 0705ALTENERGY.PDF__
In their 2007 state-of-state addresses, 47 governors highlighted the environment, energy and natural resources, 45 discussed their efforts to develop energy resources, and 39 mentioned new proposals to pursue alternative sources of energy, including wind, solar, hydro, and bio-fuels. Such initiatives provide the opportunity for government energy and environmental leadership-by-example and often demonstrate the fiscal benefits of energy efficiency, resource conservation, and the development of advanced and clean energy technologies.
State governments can spur alternative energies through a laundry list of incentives
The Council of State Governments 12/3/06 “Resolution on Renewable Energy Development at Department of Defense Installations” __ documents/ DoDRenewableEnergyResolution. pdf__
State governments can help encourage the development of renewable energy projects inmany ways: (1) through financial incentives such as grants, loans, rebates, industryrecruitment, bond programs, tax incentives and production incentives; (2) throughregulatory incentives such as public benefits funds, renewable portfolio standards, netmetering, extension analysis, generation disclosure, contractor licensing, equipmentcertification, solar/wind access laws, construction and design standards, required utilitygreen power options and green power purchasing/aggregation policies.

A. Interpretation–The aff must specify the type of incentive they use.
Incentive specification key to policymaking and disad links
David M Driesen. Spring 98. “Is emissions trading an economic incentive program?: Replacing the command and control/economic incentive dichotomy,” Washington and Lee Law review __ articles/mi_qa3655/is_199804/ ai_n8791954/print__ [Takumi Murayama]
Any meaningful theory of economic incentives must address several key questions. What precisely does a proposed program provide incentives to do? Who will create the incentives? A theory that focuses on these questions helps analyze claims that emissions trading offers free market-like dynamic advantages - inducement of innovation and continuous environmental improvement - central to its attractiveness. It clarifies the advantages and disadvantages of traditional regulation. It shows that much more useful things can be done with the concept of economic incentives than trade emission reduction obligations. A theory of economic incentives may help create more dynamic and effective environmental law.

B. Violation–The aff fails to specify what type of incentive they use.

C. A priori voter for fairness and education
1. Ground–Key CP ground is lost; the aff should be able to defend the type of incentive they do in the plan.
2. Limits–The term “alternative energy” is already unlimiting enough we should at least get to know what type of incentive the affirmative is using to limit the topic.
3. Predictability–It’s totally unpredictable what the 1AC becomes in the 2AC after the addition of add-ons; there is already in-round abuse from the 1AC, since the aff strat after the 1AC can change 180°.

Deficit Turn
A. Lack of competitiveness is due to trade deficits
Robert A. Blecker, Professor of Economics, American University, 8-19-99, Trade Deficit Review Commission
“This discrepancy between our demand… the U.S. economy vis-à-vis its major trading partners.”

B. Trade deficit key to economy- empirical proof
Daniel T. Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington,
2-15-05, __ StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4390__
“Years in which the … the deficit was "improving."

China relations Turn
A. Trade deficit key to relations with China
People's Daily Online, 2-20-06, __http://english.peopledaily. 244261.html__, Junaid
“The report entitled … export market for the United States."
B. US China competition is zero sum
James Petras, Former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, 10-22/23-05, __ petras10222005.html__, Junaid
“China is increasingly diversifying … structural weaknesses in the US.”
C. U.S.-Sino Economic Conflict escalates to military conflict
(Ben Landy, Ben Landy, Director of Research and Strategy at the Atlantic Media Company, publisher of the Atlantic Monthly, National Journal, and Government Executive magazines. Landy served in various research and project management positions at the Brookings Institution and Center for Strategic and International Studies, two leading public policy think tanks in Washington, D.C. Ben holds a bachelor of arts degree from Yale University. April 3, 2007, 03/protectionism-and-war/# comments,)
“The greatest threat … military budgets and anti-satellite tests.”

D. Military conflict with China causes the destruction of civilization
(STRAIT TIMES, June 25, 2000, Pg. l/n)
THE high-intensity scenario …the destruction of civilization.”