Download the original attachment
Topicality

  1. Incentives in the context of government action must be given to private industry
A Dictionary of Geography, 2004, Susan Mahew, __http://www.answers.com/topic/ government-incentives?cat= technology__,
Government Incentives
Measures taken by a government to attract the development of industry in specified areas. These include grants for building, works, plant, and machinery, assistance in encouraging sound industrial projects, removal grants to new locations, free rent of a government-owned factory for up to five years, taxation allowances against investments, loans, and contract preference schemes
  1. The affirmative incentivizes Native American tribes, which aren’t an industry.

  1. Ground—the neg loses ground for disads and kritiks that only apply to topical plans

Limits—the aff interpretation explodes limits since they can pay any random group of citizens they want to use renewable energy. There are unlimited subsets of American citizens that the neg would have to research.
Predictability—since the limits are so wide, the neg can’t anticipate the affirmative’s plan and do good research.
  1. Topicality is an a priori voting issue for fairness and jurisdiction.


























Inherency

Tribes are already receiving money for building wind farms
Nawig News, The Quarterly Newsletter of the Native American Wind Interest Group, Summer 06, http://www.nativewind.org/ documents/press/nawig/nawig_ Sum06.pdf [Jiajia Huang]
The Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians is earning landowner payments for the wind farm on its tribal land near San Diego, California, that are substantially above wind industry standards.
The 25-turbine, 50-MW Kumeyaay project provides roughly $16,000 per turbine (2 MW each) per year for the Campo Band. The Kumeyaay receive high payments because of a lucrative power purchase contract with local utility San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), as well as local land values.
The tribe is acting only as a landowner on this project, with no tribal ownership stake and no risk to the tribe. The tribe earns fees structured as 5% of the power purchase contract with SDG&E. According to Michael Connolly, a tribal council member, the tribe also received an upfront payment of $200,000 for the project.
The project was developed by Superior Renewable Energy, which has since sold its stake in the project to Australian investment bank Babcock & Brown. Babcock & Brown is in the middle of a big push to invest in energy, including wind energy, in the United States.
The Department of Energy is already funding tribes to use more renewable energy
U.S. Department of Energy, 6-14-05, “Energy Department Makes $2.5 Million Available for Native American Tribes to Develop Renewable Energy Resources,” http://www.doe.gov/news/1665. htm
[Jiajia Huang]

WASHINGTON, DC – The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced today that it is making nearly $2.5 million available to 18 Native American tribes to advance the use of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies on tribal lands.
"DOE is committed to helping Native American tribes develop their energy resources," said Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman. "Renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies can play a significant role in encouraging tribal self-sufficiency, creating jobs and improving environmental quality."
One tribe receiving assistance is the Citizen Potawatomi Nation. Tapping the resources of Fire Lake on their reservation in Central Oklahoma, the tribe will use geothermal ground source heat pumps to provide electricity to community buildings and a grocery store. The tribe, the ninth largest tribe in the U.S. with 1,011 members, will also build a 20-by-96-foot greenhouse using previously wasted heat to grow vegetables to sell in the reservation grocery store.
Similarly, 17 other tribes were competitively selected to receive DOE funding for developing renewable energy technologies on their reservations, including:
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (Alaska) – The Association, federally recognized as a tribal organization of the Aleut people in Alaska, resides in one of the windiest places in the world. Currently, site selection and monitoring is underway in six communities, including Sand Point, St. George, Adak, False Pass, King Cove and Nikolski, to evaluate wind energy development. The impact on nearby seabird colonies is also being studied.
Hualapai Tribe (Ariz.) – The Hualapai plan to establish a tribally operated utility-scale wind farm to provide service to its 9,000-acre tourism facility called Grand Canyon West, which has been without conventional grid power for the last seven years. The formation of a tribal utility will reduce the cost of electrical services and facilitate expansion of Grand Canyon West, thus enhancing the economic benefit for the entire tribe.
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (Minn.) – The Red Lake Band wants to develop the capacity of Tribal members to conduct energy audits, to implement energy efficiency improvements in existing tribal homes and to build more energy efficient housing. The advancement of the capacity of Tribal members is seen as a step toward increased energy autonomy and sustainability on the reservation.
Aroostook Band of Micmacs (Maine) – The tribe plans to take advantage of plentiful wind and biomass resources to reduce high energy costs and to move toward energy self-sufficiency and energy security. With the third highest cost of electricity in the U.S. in 2002, the tribe hopes to take advantage of their renewable energy resources as a step toward energy independence.
Solvency

  1. Western norms for protection of minority rights are empirically rejected
Will Kymlicka, Professor of Philosophy at University of Toronto, July
2000, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence. http://heinonline.org/HOL/ Page?handle=hein.journals/ caljp13&id=222&type=text& collection=journals

This question has begun to be addressed within various Western organizations in the context of promoting democratization and minority rights in Eastern and Central Europe (hereafter ECE). We can distinguish two broad strategies. One strat- egy is to try to draw a water-tight separation between TA and secession, and to per-suade ECE states that adopting TA will not and indeed could not lead to secession. The idea here would be to encourage states to think about TA in an open-minded way, without challenging their view that secession is unthinkable and that seces-sionist mobilization is intolerable. This could be done in a variety of ways. In par-ticular, the international community can provide strong assurances regarding secession. It can make solemn pledges guaranteeing the integrity of state borders in ECE, and can insist as part of its TA proposals that the minority agree to some 'loyalty clause' which affirms their acceptance of state borders. And it can insist that kin-states renounce all irredentist territorial claims on neighbouring states, and indeed pressure these states to sign bilateral treaties guaranteeing the borders. With these guarantees against secession in place, the international community can then encourage states to think in a more open-minded way about TA, and about the role it can play in promoting greater trust, cooperation and stability in multination states.



  1. No modeling: Only liberal democracies will even consider accommodation
Gevork Ter-Gabrielian, Department of Political Science Bowling Green
State University, Strategies in Ethnic Conflict, August 19
99, Fourth
World Journal
__http://www.cwis.org/fwj/41/ fworld.html__

Accommodation, if it is possible to achieve in a form of federation or consociation, is a solution. However, the cases of accommodation are rare, and there is no guarantee that accommodation in a society divided by ethnic conflict will result in a long-lasting peace. Moreover, state elites are reluctant to consider accommodation as an option because they believe that a federative arrangement would give ethnic groups an even more legitimate opportunity to break away. This happened in Czechoslovakia. Before 1992, it was only nominally federation. In the 1992 Constitution, it was re-named Czecho-Slovakia, and the federation comprised of two equal republics was constituted. In less than a year Slovakia seceded. This was the only case of indeed peaceful ('velvet') divorce in the post-Soviet space. All other post-Soviet states, except for Russia and Romania, rather than enhancing the status of their ethnic groups have nominally discarded even the existing political autonomies (in the best case substituting them by a vague cultural autonomy), which, in turn, has become a cause for ethnic conflict escalation (Naumkin, 1994). If states are not liberal by their ideology, if they are not economically secure and politically well-established democracies, they tend to reject the option of accommodation to the demands of ethnic groups.



  1. Since other countries don’t apply the tribal model, the aff’s global warming and competitiveness advantages fall apart. Even if their Gough 02 card was correct, global warming isn’t caused by oppressed minorities that supposedly would model the tribes, it’s caused by industrial centers in countries like China.

  1. The Thornberry 2K article, in its entirety, doesn’t say one word about Native Americans, who (unlike other ethnic minorities Thornberry talks about) enjoy unique status in the US. Also, their Shehadi evidence can be disregarded because Native Americans don’t have nuclear weapons.


  1. Sovereignty from the federal government isn’t sovereignty at all – it’s rigidly controlled colonialism
Peter d’Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 1997, “American Indian Sovereignty: Now You See It, Now You Don’t” umass.edu/legal/derrico/ nowyouseeit.html [JW]
The fundamental premise of "American Indian sovereignty" as defined in federal Indian law is that it is not sovereignty. Federal power truncates "tribal sovereignty" in myriad ways too numerous to list here. Federal Indian law is perhaps the most complex area of United States law (including tax laws). In civil and criminal law both, the range and scope of "tribal sovereignty" is fragmented into overlapping and contradictory rules premised on one foundation: the "plenary power" of the United States. That such "plenary power" is nowhere stated in the U.S. Constitution is no more than a small nuisance to the judges who have declared its existence. Administrative agencies and Congress alike grasp firmly to their judicially-created prerogatives of total power over their "wards," in whose "trust" they act as they see fit.
Federal Indian law is the continuation of colonialism. On the basis of a non-sovereign "tribal sovereignty," the United States has built an entire apparatus for dispossessing indigenous peoples of their lands, their social organizations, and their original powers of self-determination. The concept of "American Indian sovereignty" is useful to the United States because it denies indigenous power in the name of indigenous sovereignty.
  1. Self-determination must come from natives themselves – not a grant at the whims of the government
Peter d’Errico, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 1997, “American Indian Sovereignty: Now You See It, Now You Don’t” umass.edu/legal/derrico/ nowyouseeit.html [JW]

Ultimately, it is land -- and a people's relationship to land -- that is at issue in "indigenous sovereignty" struggles. To know that "sovereignty" is a legal-theological concept allows us to understand these struggles as spiritual projects, involving questions about who "we" are as beings among beings, peoples among peoples. Sovereignty arises from within a people as their unique expression of themselves as a people. It is not produced by court decrees or government grants, but by the actual ability of a people to sustain themselves in a place. This is self-determination.
Self-determination of indigenous peoples will be attained "through means other than those provided by a conqueror's rule of law and its discourses of conquest." [Williams, 327.] The "anachronistic premises" [Id.] of the current system of international law -- "discovery" and "state sovereignty" -- must be discarded in order to understand self-determination clearly and see a way to manifest it. This is the real struggle of indigenous peoples: "to redefine radically the conceptions of their rights and status.... to articulat[e] and defin[e] [their] own vision within the global community." [328.] On the plus side for all of us, this struggle has the "potential for broadening perspectives on our human condition." [Id.] As Phillip Deere said, "It is a mistake to talk about an American Indian way of life. We are talking about a human being way of life." [Deere.]
Politics DA

Obama is winning because he can control the framing on energy
Andrew Ward, 6-22-08
“Energy concerns could swing Ohio result”, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ 235879bc-4098-11dd-bd48- 0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid= f2b40164-cfea-11dc-9309- 0000779fd2ac.htm[Ian Miller]
Richard Daley hoped he would spend more time at his Kentucky vacation home in retirement. Instead, the 60-year-old former engineer, has cut his number of visits by half because of the soaring cost of driving the 200 miles from his home in West Chester, Ohio. “On a fixed income, we just can’t keep absorbing these increases,” he says. Mr Daley is one of millions of Americans rethinking their approach to energy consumption as petrol prices hit record levels. According to the Department of Transportation, US drivers travelled 30bn fewer miles between November and April, compared with a year earlier, the biggest drop since the 1979 energy crisis. While Mr Daley’s story is increasingly familiar, his carries added weight because he lives in one of the most important battleground states in November’s presidential election. His heavily Republican county on the edge of Cincinnati helped deliver George W. Bush’s narrow victory in Ohio four years ago and John McCain needs to win by a big margin there if he is to hold the state. Describing himself as an undecided independent, Mr Daley supports Mr McCain’s plan to lift the ban on fresh offshore oil and gas drilling around the US coast. But he also favours Barack Obama’s proposal to levy a windfall profit tax on oil companies and invest the proceeds in renewable fuels: “We need to exploit all the oil we have, but, in the long term, we have to find alternatives,” says Mr Daley. Energy has soared towards the top of the election agenda as petrol prices have topped $4 a gallon for the first time. Three in four voters say the issue will be “very important” in determining their vote – outranking taxes, terrorism and the Iraq war – according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Centre. Asked who they trusted most to handle the energy issue, respondents favoured Mr Obama over Mr McCain by 18 percentage points.Voters are making the simple conclusion that if you change the party in the White House somehow things will get better,” says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.


The plan dooms Obama. McCain will pounce on a new energy policy to revitalize the GOP brand – it will tip the election
(Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc/ investment advisor in the United States and Canada, 6-17-08, “Theo Caldwell: If the Republicans promise to cut fuel costs, 2008 could be their year”, http://network.nationalpost. com/np/blogs/fullcomment/ archive/2008/06/17/theo- caldwell-if-the-republicans- promise-to-cut-fuel-costs- 2008-could-be-their-year.aspx, [Ian Miller])
Drill here, drill now, pay less. This is the mantra of former U.S. speaker of the house Newt Gingrich, whose American Solutions policy group is campaigning for America to begin tapping its own oil resources to combat high gas prices. For all the environmental constraints the U.S. government has placed on domestic oil production (China and Cuba are drilling closer to the U.S. coastline than American companies are allowed to do), polls show Americans would rather pay less for gasoline than fight global warming. Indeed, the price of gas now permeates almost every policy discussion, from foreign affairs to inflation. As we approach the 2008 elections, whichever presidential candidate and party conjures a cogent energy plan — incorporating domestic drilling and defying environmental alarmism — will be rewarded. At first glance, it would seem that spiralling gas prices and frustration at the pumps would hurt the incumbent party. Notwithstanding the Democrats’ majorities in both houses of Congress, it is the Republican party that the public identifies with incumbency, saddled as they are with an unpopular president who catches blame for everything from poor Iraq war planning to inclement weather. But the religious environmental zealotry of much of the Democrats’ base makes them the party of windmills and stern lectures, not practical solutions. Congressional Democrats have contented themselves with browbeating today’s most politically correct villains, oil executives, while reflexively voting down any proposed energy solution, from domestic drilling to nuclear power. The Democrats’ presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, has suggested that high energy costs might carry the benefit of forcing America to change its gluttonous ways, recently chiding his countrymen: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” Americans did not win the Cold War so they would have to consult Sweden before setting their thermostats. This kind of thinking is anathema to the Land of the Free, and it opens the door for the GOP to capitalize on the energy issue. In 1994, Gingrich’s Republicans achieved a majority in Congress through a simple, common sense platform known as the Contract with America. A one-page roster of eight reforms and 10 proposed Acts, the Contract neatly answered voters’ principal questions of those who seek to govern. To wit, who are you, what do you hope to accomplish, and how will you do it? In 2008, with energy prices fixing to become the top election issue, combining foreign and domestic policy concerns into a monstrous hybrid of a problem, an understandable and workable proposal could help the GOP again. If every Republican running for office, from freshman House candidates to their presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, spoke with a single, sensible voice on this issue, they could snatch victory from defeat. A first draft might read: “We are Americans too, and we know that energy prices have gotten out of hand. We want to reduce fuel costs for all of us, and cut the number of dollars we send to hostile, oil-producing countries in the Middle East and South America. If you elect us, we will do the following three things: We will begin to tap America’s vast oil reserves, using technological drilling advances that protect the environment. We will also promote alternative energy sources, such as nuclear power, to move us away from an oil-based economy. Finally, we will eliminate barriers to the import of cheaper, more efficient automotive systems that have been successful in other parts of the world.” If the Republicans agree on such a platform, 2008 could be their year after all.



McCain would start wars on every continent
Doug Bandow –Washington based political writer and analyst; 7-18-08; Foreign Follies, “John McCain: The Candidate of god – Mars, the god of war http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/ ?articleid=13154
It is fine to think of the unborn. But how about the born? Shouldn't conservatives who claim to be Christians care about the human impact of the foreign policy advanced by the presidential candidates? James Dobson declared that "What terrifies me is the thought that" Obama might end up as military commander-in-chief. But, in truth, the really terrifying thought is of John McCain at the ready to invade, bomb, coerce, and threaten other nations as his heart, or temper, moves him. After all, he, not Obama – at least, maybe not quite as much – sang about bombing Iran, even though it is years away from creating, let alone deploying, an atomic weapon. He, not Obama, wrote an article suggesting an assault on North Korea, despite the risk of triggering a full-scale war. He, not Obama, clamored for a ground offensive against Serbia in the needless war over Kosovo a decade ago. He, not Obama, supported the invasion of Iraq, which has turned out so differently than promised by most of its advocates. He, not Obama, wants to preserve obsolete American military occupations and mount counterproductive military interventions around the globe. Many foreign policy questions are largely prudential – what policies advance the interests of the United States? That cannot be the only question asked, but it is an essential standard by which to measure America's foreign actions. And all of the wars and occupations backed by McCain fail the test of serving America's interests. Washington policymakers might like them. But treating war as a discretionary activity, and one guaranteed to lead to group hugs and mass flower tosses, is practically foolish and morally grotesque. In fact, Christians overseas have proved to be among the greatest victims of the Bush administration's aggressive military actions. Iraq's historic Christian community has been destroyed, with up to half of the population forced into exile, internally or abroad. Sadly, few American Christian leaders, many of whom backed the war, have owned up to their responsibility for the catastrophe which has enveloped Iraq's Christians. There is an additional irony when social conservatives crusade for war: can there be a more anti-family program than initiating a conflict which kills parents, leaves kids without fathers and even mothers, spurs divorce and family break up, and steals parents from children's lives for an extended period, time and time again? It is one thing to claim that necessity sometimes requires paying such a cost. But none of John McCain's wars was or is necessary. It has become obvious to all but the most unregenerate neoconservative that Iraq posed no threat to America. Unleashing the dogs of war on Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, wounding even more of them, and driving millions of them into exile, while utterly destroying the fabric of Iraqi society, certainly was not humanitarian, even though Saddam Hussein's removal was a plus. U.S. intelligence doesn't believe Iran even has an ongoing nuclear weapons program, and Tehran certainly is not poised to create a nuclear arsenal. The idea of attacking Iran before actually testing the possibility of a negotiated settlement is obscene. And the practical consequences of war would be hideous. North Korea is dismantling the reactor that would be the most likely target of U.S. military action, obviating the purpose of such a strike. Anyway, committing an act of war against the unpredictable totalitarian regime of Kim Jong-il would risk sparking full-scale war, which would have catastrophic consequences for all concerned, and South Korea in particular. The attack on Serbia was unprovoked, the geopolitical interests at stake were frivolous, and the intervention was hypocritical. At the same time the U.S. initiated war to resolve a minor guerrilla war among white Europeans, it ignored much larger and more costly conflicts in Africa. Nevertheless, John McCain sees war as a solution to potentially any geopolitical situation. The spectacle of religious conservatives backing John McCain's veritable policy of a war on every continent is even more bizarre given Christianity's message of peace. Christian theologians have argued for centuries over the legitimacy of serving in the military and going to war. The dominant view reflects some sense of Just War theory, that under specific and narrow circumstances, war is justified. In practice, alas, clerics could always be found to pronounce almost every war to be just and necessary, turning Just War theory into more an excuse for than limit on war. Still, despite the spirited case for neo-pacifism made by some Christians, it is hard not to countenance national self-defense just as most Christians accept personal self-defense. But this really means self-defense, not romping around the globe attempting to micro-manage the affairs of other nations at the point of a gun. If God acknowledges cases in which the moral good is better served by going to war than surrendering to evil, it likely is a very reluctant acknowledgement, for war is the embodiment of evil: committing death and destruction writ large, wrecking entire countries and continents, and targeting God's creation, human and natural. No wonder Jesus Christ declared in the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) Thus, making peace obviously is better than making war. While the latter sometime might be unavoidable – when the consequences of any alternative course are far worse – most often it is not. And even when war might be theoretically justified, resolving the controversy peacefully if possible would still be far preferable. But if there is one thing John McCain is not, it is a peacemaker. He sees war and the threat of war, backed by an even larger military – bigger than today's already largest, most sophisticated, most powerful armed forces on earth – as a simple tool to be promiscuously deployed not just against smaller powers such as Iraq, but serious states, such as China and Russia. His policy of confrontation all the time, everywhere, may be favored by the usual neoconservative suspects, but is likely to generate conflict and war, and perhaps protracted conflict and catastrophic war.
Such a policy would seem inconsistent with Christian teaching. Forget general injunctions for peace. Most wars turn into widespread murder and theft, behaviors proscribed by the Ten Commandments, as well as other Biblical teachings. While war sometimes brings out the best and most heroic in people, it far more often brings out the worst and most base personal characteristics. In short, it is something Christians should strongly resist, not welcome.



















States CP

Plantext: The state and federal territorial governments should offer Tribal Joint Ventures in the United States tradable permanent Production Tax Credits for non-hydroelectric power renewable energy.

Observation 1: Competition
The counter-plan is non-topical and competes through net-benefits.
Observation 2: Solvency
States leadership on energy policy is comparatively better than federal action – multiple reasons.
Robert B. McKinstry, Jr. partner in the Litigation Department, the Environmental Group, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLPand CCS President Thomas D. Peterson, 2007, [The Implications of the New “Old” Federalism in Climate-Change Legislation: How to Function in a Global Marketplace When States Take the Lead, in Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal. http://www.climatestrategies. us/ewebeditpro/items/ O25F17683.pdf [Alex Kats-Rubin]
Having states taking the lead in crafting GHG emissions reduction strategies through these bottom-up, stakeholder driven processes has a number of advantages compared to a more centralized federally developed strategy.41 Some of these benefits arising out of a state lead may not be achievable at the federal level, even where stake-holder processes are employed there.42 A. Bottom Up Decision Making and Greater Stakeholder Involvement. One of the principal advantages of having the states take the lead in designing strategies arises from the fact that bottom up decision making is frequently employed by these state processes and can function best at a local level. Such processes at these levels allow greater stakeholder involvement in receiving and transmitting information and in formulating policy. This results in greater buy-in by stakeholders, who become more aware of the constraints and goals and have greater confidence in the decision making process and the information used in that process. It can also often improve the quality of the information used in policy formulation. The stakeholders frequently can provide more detailed, relevant information about what can actually be achieved.43 This is particularly important for businesses, whose particularized needs and capabilities may not be adequately considered at the federal level. Indeed, at the federal level, businesses frequently work through trade organizations that are forced to represent the lowest common denominator of the business and are less able to represent the needs and capabilities of individual businesses who may get a voice in state level stakeholder processes.
B. More Narrowly Focused Targets and Strategies. A second advantage of state-based programs is the ability to develop more narrowly drawn targets that are appropriate for the region and the industries. For example, strategies aimed at smart growth to reduce miles driven are best targeted in growing areas. Various agricultural and sequestration strategies may vary according to the predominant type of agriculture or soil and rainfall patterns.
C. Flexibility. Third, since states are smaller than the federal government, they can have somewhat more flexibility. They may be better able to change strategies if a selected strategy is ineffective or more costly. D. Ability to Innovate with Less Severe Consequences. Fourth, as suggested by Justice Brandeis, states may be better able to innovate. An innovation in a particular state that fails will have less of an impact on the national economy than a federal experiment that fails. Innovative state programs can provide examples of what to do or what not to do. Indeed there is a typical pattern of upward evolution of national policy through states in the United States. As noted earlier, most national environmental laws, for instance, have origins in state actions, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Surface Mining Reclamation Act.44 This pattern is again likely to occur in the area of climate change policy. In 2005 the U.S. Senate debated two major pieces of legislation to advance a national GHG policy. These included a vote on the McCain-Lieberman Climate Security Act of 2003 that failed by a short margin,45 and hours later a majority vote in favor of a resolution46 introduced by Senator Bingaman to establish a mandatory GHG control policy in the United States.47 The juxtaposition of these two votes suggests that support for mandatory national action to control GHG emissions is growing, but the Congress as yet has not settled on a specific approach. States may provide an important input to this debate by demonstrating policies that reduce emissions in a politically and economically acceptable manner. E. Police Power Not Subject to Federal Constitutional Limitations.
Finally, states are not subject to certain limitations on federal power. Federal powers to effect social and economic policy are primarily founded upon the spending clause and the commerce clause. Relying on the spending clause requires that the federal government spend money and that each state agree to accept that money and implement the program. Relying on the commerce clause may limit the ability to influence actions that have no interstate nexus. While efforts to control climate change should, per se, establish the requisite nexus, states are not subject to these constraints and are free to regulate all manner of actions without the need to appropriate funds.


No race to the bottom.
Jonathan H Adler, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, "Jurisdictional Mismatch in Environmental Federalism" (July 2005). Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies 05-18 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract= 770305 [Alex Kats-Rubin]
One immediate problem with the race to the bottom theory is its static view of the tradeoff between economic development and environmental protection. Insofar as it is possible to reduce the costs of environmental regulation without sacrificing existing levels of environmental protection, government efforts to create a more business-friendly regulatory climate need not produce suboptimal levels of environmental protection. At the same time, business interests often have their own reasons for supporting greater levels of environmental protection, including the effect of environmental conditions on labor supply. States are not only competing for industry, but for workers and taxpayers as well. Moreover, as incomes rise, so does the demand for environmental protection, so states that fail to maintain high levels of environmental protection risk driving away residents to other states.
Additional problems with the race-to-the-bottom theory have been identified by Professor Richard Revesz. First, there is no reason to assume that interjurisdictional competition in environmental policy is any less likely to produce optimal results or otherwise less reliable, than in other contexts. While it is plausible that interjurisdctional competition could produce suboptimal results due to game theoretic interactions, there is no a priori reason to assume that the result would be state standards that are suboptimally lax, rather than suboptimally stringent. Assuming that there is a race to the “bottom,” and state standards are insufficiently stringent, federal regulation might not solve the problem. Environmental regulation is not the only, or even the most common, context in which states compete for business investment. If a federal standard prevents competition in environmental standards, states will compete in other areas. Indeed, if the race-to-the-bottom argument can justify federal environmental standards, it could justify the federalization of just about everything.
Another problem with the race to the bottom theory, as noted by economist William Fischel, is the dominant role of homeowners in local politics, which can often produce a “Not in My Back Yard” (NIMBY) reaction to proposed changes in land use. Homeowners tend to be very risk averse about local changes or developments that have the potential to depress land values, and this risk aversion “pervades all local political decisions.” Even those homeowners who are not particularly concerned about the environmental effects of proposed developments or industrial activities are likely to recognize that prospective buyers might. As a result, Fischel goes so far as to argue that local governments are “the least likely candidates for a ‘race to the bottom’ of the environmental ladder” and that “local governments are, if anything, inclined to accept too little garden-variety industry” and other environmentally harmful land-uses.
Theory aside, empirical evidence of a race to the bottom in environmental policy is conspicuously lacking. While there are some studies finding that the stringency of environmental regulation can affect industry siting decisions, and survey data indicating that such effects may influence state-level environmental policy decisions, the available empirical evidence cannot sustain the claim that interjurisdictional competition produces suboptimally lax environmental regulation. The fact that many states adopted federal regulation in advance of the federal government, and that in some cases those states with the most to lose from regulation were the first to act, would strongly suggest otherwise. Further evidence suggests that, at least in some environmental contexts, any “race” among jurisdictions is “to the top,” as states seem more likely to increase their environmental efforts in response to neighboring jurisdictions’ actions than to relax regulation. In short, despite its prominence in environmental policy discussions, the “race-to-the-bottom” theory is not a particularly strong basis upon which to rest the case for federal intervention.


One type of funding for all Native Americans fails – only accounting for individual needs of all tribes solves.
[Shaun Tsabetsaye, professor at University of New Mexico, 8/14/03, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority: Electrification Demonstration Program Developing a Sustainable Tribal and Rural Cooperative Solar Program]
There is a lack of electrical service on approximately 18,000 homes on the Navajo Nation because of isolation; these homes need to be electrified. The Navajo Electrification Demonstration Program (NEDP) was created in 2001 by Congressional appropriation to be implemented by the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA), a 30-year-old rural utility co-op. For this fiscal year, this program allows for 50% of the multi-million dollar appropriation to implement 880-watt photovoltaic (PV) hybrid systems that use solar and wind technologies to electrify the off-grid homes. The ultimate goal of our work is to help the Navajo Nation and NTUA sustain a solar energy program as a viable technology option for its people. NTUA can serve as a model for sustainable solar energy development for tribal governments and rural utility co-ops. In 1993, the Navajo Nation received a grant from DOE (through the Western Area Power Administration) to launch the Photovoltaic Solar Electric system program through NTUA. This federal grant allowed NTUA to provide 200-watt PV systems to 40 rural homes. With the success of this initial effort, the Navajo Nation adopted the concept of renewable energy as a sustainable solution and authorized NTUA to spend about $2 million of the utility funds to implement 100 additional 640-watt PV systems in 1999 [1]. The funds, however, were insufficient for the remaining un-electrified homes. On December 2000, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), the Navajo Nation, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which authorizes collaboration and technology transfer for the Navajo Nation. The collaboration emphasizes energy, environment, education, economic development, and communication. The MOU reinforces Sandia’s commitment to this effort. Under this MOU, SNL has made strides to provide technical assistance on behalf of DOE to help the Navajo Nation provide rural electricity. It is under the auspices of this technology transfer that the Navajo Nation sought to service the remaining un-electrified homes. Then in the fiscal year 2001, a multi-million dollar Congressional authorization and appropriation, through New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman, was granted to the Navajo Nation for 5 years. NTUA was authorized again by the Navajo Nation to develop and provide sustainable electricity by line extension from a grid or by using stand-alone PV systems [1]. The current appropriation plan allocated half the budget to develop PV systems for the Navajo Nation. With technical assistance from SNL in fiscal year 2002, NTUA procured 42, 880-watt PV-hybrid systems to be leased to the remote NTUA customers. These systems use solar combined with wind energy resources to fulfill their electrical needs. The outlook of continuing to provide these alternative systems looks promising, yet NTUA has determined that adequate federal funding in a timely manner still remains a factor. Another key factor in successfully developing renewable energies on tribal lands is the care and sensitivity taken when conducting business with tribal governments. At issue is the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the federal government. Involved parties must understand that each tribal government is a sovereign government and is independent from other tribes and states in the United States, and the policy needs refinement. Sandra Begay-Campbell of SNL's Tribal Energy Program points out that policies vary from tribe to tribe and what works for one may not work for another.

States are more flexible than the federal government, so they’re better able to adjust their policies based on the needs of individual tribes.