RPS+Climate

Our group is producing an RPS affirmative with a climate advantage. Our affirmative establishes a Renewable Portfolio Standard that is a negative incentive for electric utilities to increase the use of alternative energy. Because an RPS would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, it would slow the rate of climate change.

Contention One: Inherency

Renewable energy technologies are making progress now, but need more incentives to be successful. Antonia V. Herzog, Scientist, Climate Center, December 2001. [“Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice,” Environment, Vol. 43 No. 10, Science Direct] http://rael.berkeley.edu/files/2001/Herzog-Lipman-Edwards-Kammen-RenewableEnergy-2001.pdf

Renewable energy technologies have made important and dramatic technical, economic, and operational advances during the past decade. A national energy policy and climate change strategy should be formulated around these advances. Despite dramatic technical and economic advances in clean energy systems, the United States has seen far too little research and development (R&D) and too few incentives and sustained programs to build markets for renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency programs.2 Not since the late 1970s has there been a more compelling and conducive environment for an integrated, large-scale approach to renewable energy innovation and market expansion.3 Clean, low-carbon energy choices now make both economic and environmental sense, and they provide the domestic basis for our energy supply that will provide security, not dependence on unpredictable overseas fossil fuels.

Current state RPS fails to generate investment in renewables – it’s perceived as uncertain and will be struck down Benjamin K. Sovacool, Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, and Jack N. Barkenbus, Political scientist with the Institute for Energy Analysis, July 2007. [“Necessary but Insufficient: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies,” Environment, Vol. 49 Issue 6, p20-31] http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bZRsKyzSbOk63nn5Kx95uXxjL6srUqupbBIrq6eSbCwr024qa44v8OkjPDX7Ivf2fKB7eTnfLuqsUmxrrVKtZzqeezdu33snOJ6u%2bnhgKTq33%2b7t8w%2b3%2bS7SrOut0m2prU%2b5OXwhd%2fqu37z4uqM4%2b7y&hid=4

While the considerable state-based RPS activity, just described, can be lauded as better than no action at all, it is not necessarily superior to national legislation. Important issues such as geographic scope, eligible technologies or industries, inclusion of existing versus new technologies, and the specifics of credit trading have been decided differently in every state. Consequently, the resulting state-based market may create confusion, complexity, and inconsistency for policymakers, investors, and businesses. Contrary to enabling a well-lubricated national renewable energy market, inconsistencies between states—over what counts as renewable energy, when it has to come online, how large it has to be, where it must be delivered, and how it may be traded—clog the renewable energy market like coffee grounds in a drain. Implementing agencies and stakeholders must grapple with inconsistent state RPS goals, and investors must interpret competing and often arbitrary statutes.19 To pick just a few prominent examples, Massachusetts set its target at 4 percent by 2011, while Rhode Island chose 15 percent by 2020. In Maine, fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration units count as “renewables,” while the standard in Pennsylvania includes coal gasification and small-scale fossil fuel power plants. Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas set their purchase requirements based on installed capacity, whereas other states set them relative to electricity sales. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island trade renewable energy credits (RECs) under the New England Power Pool, whereas Texas has its own REC trading system. Minnesota and Iowa have voluntary standards with no penalties, whereas Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania all levy different noncompliance fees.20 The result is a renewable energy market that deters investment, complicates compliance, discourages interstate cooperation,  and encourages tedious and expensive  litigation.21  The electricity utility industry is also  transitioning away from a state-by-state  energy market, making a state-by-state  RPS approach anachronistic. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 removed the geographic restrictions that limited public utility holding companies to single, integrated systems.22 More utilities operate across state lines, and many have begun to merge and consolidate to maximize profits and deal with the perceived challenges of restructuring. Using individual states as a crucible for innovations in electricity generation and marketing may have made sense when limits were placed on the size and geographic scope of utility holding companies, but it makes little sense now. Finally, state-based renewable portfolio standards risk challenges on legal grounds. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power  “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes.”23 In the many years since ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently used the converse of this part of the commerce clause (hence its description as the “dormant commerce clause”) to strike down state legislation that it has determined might hinder or prohibit interstate trade. In 1986, the Court defined this to mean that a state cannot “needlessly obstruct interstate trade or attempt to ‘place itself in a position of economic isolation.’”24 The smooth functioning of the national market requires the federal government to prevent states from adopting protectionist or autarkic policies that would attribute a product’s market share to its  geographic origins rather than to market  mechanisms.

Plan: The United States federal government should establish a nationally tradable Renewable Portfolio Standard that fines utilities in the United States that fail to generate at least 20 percent of their electricity from alternative energy by 2020. Contention Two: Climate Change.

Climate change is real and happening now-thousands of studies prove. Stephanie B. Ohshita, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science & Management at the U of San Francisco, Summer, ‘7 (The Scientific and International Context for Climate Change Initiatives, 42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1)

What is new about scientific certainty on climate change is increasing evidence to support past scientific findings. For nearly two decades, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") - composed of experts from around the world - has been assessing the understanding of the climate change problem. n10 Through a formal process of review involving national governments as well as climate experts, the IPCC has issued four assessment reports. In 1995, the Second Assessment Report carefully worded its conclusion: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." n11 Even this cautious statement evoked sharp reactions from those reluctant to acknowledge the climate change problem. In the Third Assessment Report of 2001, the IPCC strengthened its language and made it more specific: "there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to [*4] human activities." n12 By 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report left no doubt and stated: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." n13 In the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC made considerable effort to provide decision makers with further information about the strength of their findings. n14 To do this, the IPCC sought to quantify the degree of certainty on expert findings, by calculating confidence intervals and by using consistent language to describe the level of confidence. For example, the IPCC used the language "very high confidence" or "very likely" to express a level of certainty of ninety percent or greater. n15 IPCC used the language "very likely" to convey that climate experts around the world are more than ninety percent certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the cause of observed global warming. n16 By better quantifying and communicating scientific certainty, the IPCC clarified misconceptions or misrepresentations about agreement among the majority of climate experts. Misrepresentation has been especially problematic in the United States. Lack of media coverage on climate change has left the public unaware of the extent of the problem. n17 False journalistic balance - where the media presents unsupported conjectures of individuals on the same footing as the rigorous findings of hundreds of experts based on years of research - has confused both the public and policy makers. n18 Perhaps most blatant [*5]  and disturbing has been political tampering with scientific findings, including White House staff deleting text and re-writing scientific reports, or attempts to gag scientists at government agencies when they communicate their findings in presentations or written reports. n19 In contrast, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report presents the conclusions of more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, over 800 contributing authors, and 450 lead authors from more than 130 countries around the world, after six years of current work. n20 Four main conclusions were conveyed in the authoritative IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: (1) the climate system is warming, (2) climate change is human-induced, (3) climate change impacts are happening now, and (4) climate change solutions are available and needed now. n21 1. The Climate System Is Warming  Based on direct and indirect measurements of temperature around the globe, scientists have found that the warming of the Earth's climate is "unequivocal." n22 Observations of temperatures on the land surface, on the ocean surface and below, and at different heights in the atmosphere show that the average global temperature is increasing. n23 Greater trapping of incoming solar radiation by higher levels of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere is causing the [*6]  land surface to heat up. n24 The ocean layers are also showing warming, with surface heat slowly penetrating into deeper levels, weakening some ocean currents and conveying more heat in cyclical phenomena like El Nino events. n25 Higher temperatures at the Earth's surface are causing changes in the height of atmospheric layers, like some giant cafe latte; the height of the lowest layer (the stratosphere) has risen, while the layer above (the stratosphere) has cooled. Further investigation into climatic change is now showing changes in circulation patterns and hurricane intensity due to global warming, as well as changes in the water vapor content of the atmosphere. n26

Humans are responsible for climate change-natural variation alone can’t explain temperature increases Stephanie B. Ohshita, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science & Management at the U of San Francisco, Summer, ‘7 (The Scientific and International Context for Climate Change Initiatives, 42 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1)

Even if we recognize that the globe is warming, how do we know that humans are causing the phenomenon? Through a combination of measurements and models, we can discern the human "fingerprint" on the climate system in a number of ways. n27 First, the observed warming goes well beyond natural variation. Paleoclimatology - the sleuthing for indicators of past temperatures in ice cores and coral reefs - indicates that current levels of CO<2> in the atmosphere far exceed the natural range of the last 650,000 years. n28 We know that atmospheric concentrations of CO<2> and temperature are strongly correlated, explaining why temperature levels are higher than ever before. n29 Second, the rapid increase in levels of CO<2> in the atmosphere coincides with the onslaught of the industrial revolution and the release of CO<2> from fossil fuels, along with dramatic changes in land use by humans. n30 Third, models of the climate system with and without human emissions show that natural variation alone cannot explain observed [*7] changes. n31 Natural fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, natural variation in solar activity, and other non-human phenomena cannot account for the rapid rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases and average temperature over the past century. Human activity does explain the observed changes.

Unless we act now, climate change will cause a chain reaction that’ll be impossible to stop. John Podesta, President of the Center for American Progress and Peter Ogden, Senionr National Security Analyst at the Center for American Progress, Winter, ‘7 (The Security Implications of Climate Change, The Washington Quarterly 31.1)

Consequently, even though the IPCC projects that temperature increases at higher latitudes will be approximately twice the global average, it will be the developing nations in the earth's low latitudinal bands, as well as sub-Saharan African countries, that will be most adversely affected by climate change. In the developing world, even a relatively small climatic shift can trigger or exacerbate food shortages, water scarcity, destructive weather events, the spread of disease, human migration, and natural resource competition. These crises are all the more dangerous because they are interwoven and self-perpetuating: water shortages can lead to food shortages, which can lead to conflict over remaining resources, which can drive human migration, which can create new food shortages in new regions. Once underway, this chain reaction becomes increasingly difficult to stop. It is therefore critical that policymakers do all they can to prevent the domino of the first major climate change consequence, whether it be food scarcity or the outbreak of disease, from toppling. The most threatening first dominos, where they are situated, and their cascading geopolitical implications are identified in this essay.

Warming will cause a billion to starve – staple crops are most vulnerable AFP, November 22, ‘7 (p. lexis)

An agrarian crisis is brewing because of climate change that could jeopardise global food supplies and increase the risk of hunger for a billion poorest of the poor, scientists warned Thursday. South Asia and Africa would be hardest hit by the crisis, which would shift the world's priorities away from boosting food output year after year to bolstering the resilience of crops to cope with warm weather, they said. Rice, the staple for billions of people, is most vulnerable to global warming, said Dyno Keatinge, deputy director general of research at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. "It is the world's most consumed crop and it makes everything else pale in comparison," Keatinge told reporters in Hyderabad, southern India, where the research institute has organised a conference on the impact of climate change on farming. "We have the opportunity to grow other crops that are more resistant to higher temperatures such as sorgum and millet, but changing people's food habits is very difficult, he said. The rice yield could fall "very quickly in a warmer world" unless researchers find alternative varieties or ways to shift the time of rice flowering, he added, demanding governments allocate more money to research. Environmentalists and agricultural scientists are mounting pressure on governments to act quickly to stem carbon emissions responsible for climate change, ahead of next month's global summit in Bali, Indonesia.  They also want bigger budgets to combat damage already done and cope with risks into the future. According to the crop research institute, one billion of the world's poorest are vulnerable to the impact of climate change on agriculture -- from desertification and land degradation to loss of biodiversity and water scarcity. India accounts for about 26 percent of this population, China more than 16 percent, with other Asian countries making up 18 percent and sub-Saharan Africa the remainder. "Climate change will generally reduce production potential and increase the risk of hunger," said Martin Parry, co-chair of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former US vice president Al Gore. "Where crops are grown near their maximum temperature tolerance and where dry land, non-irrigated agriculture predominates, the challenge of climate change could be overwhelming, especially on subsistence farmers," he said.

Climate change will destroy biodiversity worldwide-we’re on the brink now. China Daily, “Earth Facing ‘Catastrophic’ Loss of Species, 7/21/06, http://english.people.com.cn/200607/21/eng20060721_285286.html The Earth is on the brink of "major biodiversity crisis" fuelled by the steady destruction of ecosystems, a group of the world's most distinguished scientists and policy experts warn yesterday. Nineteen leading specialists in the field of biodiversity, including Robert Watson, chief scientist at the World Bank, and Professor Georgina Mace, director of the Institute of Zoology, are calling for the urgent creation of a global body of scientists to offer advice and urge governments to halt what they call a potentially "catastrophic loss of species". "All the scientific evidence points to the fact that whatever measure of vulnerability you take, whether it is local populations, species or ecosystem, we know that the rate at which we are altering them now is faster than it has been in the past," Georgina Mace said in an interview. Mace, director of science at the Institute of Zoology in London, is one of the 19 scientists from 13 countries who signed a declaration published in the journal Nature explaining why an intergovernmental body is needed. Destruction of natural habitats and the effects of climate change are causing species to die out at 100 to 1,000 times faster than the natural rate, leading some scientists to warn we are facing the next mass extinction. Nearly one-quarter of the world's mammals, one-third of amphibians and more than one-tenth of bird species are threatened with extinction. Climate change alone is expected to force a further 15-37 per cent of species to the brink of extinction within the next 50 years. Writing in the journal yesterday, the experts, from countries ranging from China, Chile and Canada to South Africa, Germany and the United States, urge for the new body, the international mechanism of scientific expertise on biodiversity (IMOSEB), to be set up to force better biodiversity policies around the world. "We are on the verge of a major biodiversity crisis. Virtually all aspects of diversity are in steep decline and a large number of populations and species are likely to become extinct this century. Despite this evidence, biodiversity is still consistently undervalued and given inadequate weight in both private and public decisions," the authors say.

Species loss outweighs nuclear war Richard Tobin, The Expendable Future, 90, p. 22 Warming will cause severe water and food shortages throughout Central Asia, sparking instability and war. Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Visiting Professor of Physics at Oxford University, Vice-Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change, ‘8 (http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf)

Central Asia is an area prone to conflict. All the countries of Central Asia are characterized by a major democracy deficit, autocratic and paternalistic forms of government and weak governance structures (Kaufmann et al., 2006; Grävingholt, 2007). The post-Soviet political institutions lack legitimation and fail to operate in accordance with the rule of law. Inefficient public administration and widespread corruption hinder economic and social development. Unmet material and participative needs fuel discontent among the population, leading increasingly to internal political conflict. Political tensions usually have ethnic or religious undercurrents, because the region is home to a variety of ethnic groups and Islamic opposition movements are growing in strength (Lüders, 2003). Arbitrary border- drawing between the areas occupied by different ethnic groups further exacerbate the situation. In consequence, the internal stability of these countries has been repeatedly shaken in the recent past by terrorist campaigns (Uzbekistan), civil war (Tajikistan) and criminal penetration of politics. On account of their poor governance capacities, many countries are regarded as so weak and fragile that it would take little in the way of critical events for the state to collapse. The unstable internal situation is compounded by global developments: the geostrategic importance of the region has increased as a result of the ‘ war on terror’ (Halbach, 2002). On account of its proximity to Afghanistan, Central Asia is regarded, moreover, as a hub of the international drugs trade. In addition, in connection with the securing of global resources and energy supplies, this resource-rich region is increasingly caught up in the potentially conflicting interests of powers such as the USA, Russia and China (Lüders, 2003; Amineh, 2006). The region is characterized in some places by great poverty. For example, the proportion of the population living below the poverty line of less that US$2 per day is 16 per cent in Kazakhstan, 21 per cent in Kyrgyzstan and as high as 43 per cent in Tajikistan (World Bank, 2006e). The Human Development Indices of theses countries are close together, all lying in the lower part of the middle range (UNDP, 2006). The sole exception is Kazakhstan, which scores better than its neighbours. A large proportion of the population of Central Asia is affected by unemployment and struggles for opportunities to earn a living. Kazakh stan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are the only countries in which the state fulfils its welfare obligations, and then only at a very low level (Schmitz, 2004). At the same time, there are extremely wide social differences in these three countries, with a large proportion of the profits from gas and oil exports benefiting only a small, affluent minority. Economic structures depend to a large extent on natural resources. In addition, these countries still have to contend with inefficient management structures created for a planned economy; this is particularly significant for the supply of water. Agriculture forms the basis of existence for large sectors of the population and accounts for up to 40 per cent of GDP. The proportion of agricultural land requiring irrigation is 75–100 per cent (Bucknall et al., 2003; Giese and Sehring, 2006). The non-sustainable monoculture has far-reaching consequences, including soil salination, declining availability of pasture and arable land and contamination of water with fertilizers and pesticides. In addition, the large-scale abstraction of water from the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers has led to a gradual silting up of the Aral Sea, with disastrous consequences for climate and environmental conditions in the region and the health and socio-economic situation of the population (WBGU, 1998). Health problems caused by impure drinking water and sandstorms, high unemployment and impoverishment have fuelled social unrest and migratory movements in the region. The allocation of scarce water supplies, combined with controversial measures such as the building of the Golden Century reservoir, places strain on relationships between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Because of the anticipated affects of climate change in the Aral Sea region, the potential for destabilization is therefore particularly high (Giese and Sehring, 2006). In addition to agriculture, another important economic sector is the generation of hydroelectricity for both the domestic and – increasingly – the export market. With regard to the use and distribution of water, there is sometimes a divergence of interest between countries adjoining the upper and lower reaches of rivers that flow through different states: for example, the requirements of electricity generation in winter (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) as opposed to agricultural irrigation in summer (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan). Since the Central Asian republics gained political independence, these differences of interest between riparian countries has resulted in more interstate disputes over water throughput quantities. Increased worsening of the water supply situation in summer would significantly increase the existing potential for conflict and far overtask current regional water management structures such as the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination, which was later included in the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (Section 6.2.3.2). A part of Central Asia that is particularly prone to conflict is the Fergana basin. This is the most important area of agricultural cultivation and the most densely populated part of the region. It is situated in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Since the end of the 1980s there has repeatedly been conflict over access to resources that has erupted along ethnic lines.

[Next Page]

[Schellnhuber Continues]

On account of social impoverishment and existing ethnic tensions, there is a high security risk attached to the anticipated consequences of climate change – that is, the probable increasing loss of valuable arable land, the risk of landslides and the growing scarcity of usable water resources in summer. This applies not only to the valley itself, but to the entire region. In the neighbouring autonomous Uyghur region of Xinjiang in the People’s Republic of China, too, scarce water and land resources are already the principal cause of conflict between ethnic groups. The tensions between immigrant, controlling Chinese on the one hand and the local population (Islamic Turkic ethnic groups: Uyghurs, Kazaks, Kyrgyz and Buddhist- Lamaist Mongols) on the other have increased in severity in the recent past and have erupted openly. Further developments in the province could have a destabilizing effect on the whole of China (Section 7.7). 7.5.3 Conclusions Central Asia is a region severely affected by climate change. An increasing shortage of water is already noticeable. The above-average warming of Central Asia and the increasing variability of precipitation will exacerbate the situation. Combined with increasing demand for water, this will lead to further water scarcity in lakes and rivers that are shared between countries, siltation of inland lakes and desertification. Although the melting of the glaciers will increase the flow of water in the short to medium term, it will further exacerbate the water shortage in the long term. Water is both a key resource for agriculture (ensuring the survival of the population) and a strategic resource (electricity generation), and the region is already characterized by political and social tensions, the growth of Islamic movements, civil war and resource disputes; there is therefore considerable additional potential for conflict. The socio-economic consequences of global warming are borne in particular by small farmers. Environmental degradation affects primarily regions that are politically and economically marginalized and whose problems are not a priority for those in power (Giese and Sehring, 2006). This can lead to unrest or to the escalation of existing tensions, particularly if the problems are instrumentalized ethnically or nationalistically, as for example in the Fergana valley or Xinjiang. Climatic changes could also affect the strategic interests of countries through which waterways flow. Declines in agricultural exports (cotton) and disputes over water throughput quantities affect the economies of some countries. The countries themselves have very weak capacity for dealing with the consequences of environmental problems and climate change. This applies both to the implementation of national and international agreements and to domestic political reforms. Water management problems are further compounded by the geostrategic and economic interests of powerful countries in the region and by geographical aspects such as proximity to Afghanistan. The further development of the region could depend to a significant extent on resolving this critical complex of socio-economic and ecological problems.

Central Asian instability leads to terrorism and thermonuclear war. M. Ehsan Ahari, Professor of National Security and Strategy of the Joint and Combined Warfighting School at the Armed Forces Staff College, August, ‘1 (Jihadi Groups, Nuclear Pakistan and the New Great Game, p. Questia)

South and Central Asia constitute a part of the world where a well-designed American strategy might help avoid crises or catastrophe. The U.S. military would provide only one component of such a strategy, and a secondary one at that, but has an important role to play through engagement activities and regional confidence-building. Insecurity has led the states of the region to seek weapons of mass destruction, missiles, and conventional arms. It has also led them toward policies which undercut the security of their neighbors. If such activities continue, the result could be increased terrorism, humanitarian disasters, continued low-level conflict and potentially even major regional war or a thermonuclear exchange. A shift away from this pattern could allow the states of the region to become solid economic and political partners for the United States, thus representing a gain for all concerned.

Rapid climate change causes nuclear war and extinction – resource scarcity** Marko Beljac, PhD, Science and Global Security, Professor at Monash University, 3/2/07, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5557

All agree that what is at stake in the climate change debate is the very terms of future human survival perhaps going all the way to the very survival of the species itself: if so we are presented with interesting paradoxes of evolutionary biology which we might call evolution's challenge. The Pentagon has developed the nexus between climate change and nuclear war. As far as are aware there are no Hippie or Bolshevik cells in the Pentagon so when the US Department of Defence draws a link between droughts and nukes we should at least sit up and take notice. The Pentagon focused on what is referred to as abrupt climate change where the world's climate changes significantly and rapidly. As the report pointed out there exists evidence to suggest that such a scenario is an increasing possibility. Abrupt climate change could occur because of feedback loops, that occur in systems that are highly-interdependent such as the Earth’s climate system particularly dangerous are positive feedback loops that explosively amplify smaller initial changes, and because of the collapse of the thermohaline circulation. Both of these factors are related. In the meantime the world's "carrying capacity" is facing a sustained challenge. The Earth's carrying capacity refers to the ability of the planet's ecosystem to support the human population. For instance, the world's demand for oil and water is going to substantially increase but supply will face a hard time keeping up. Climate change, especially abrupt climate change, will stretch the planet's carrying capacity to it very limits. Through history humans have fought wars over scarce resources. The Pentagon pointed out (PDF 411KB) that as the Earth's carrying capacity comes under further strain "it seems undeniable that severe environmental problems are likely to escalate the degree of global conflict". But we are also increasingly living in what strategic analysts have pointed out is a "second nuclear age". The idea is that the "first" nuclear age reflected the bi-polarity of the cold war while the second nuclear age is to be an age characterised by nuclear multi-polarity.

Contention 3 is Solvency:

An RPS that mandates utilities generate 20% of their power from renewables by 2020 would freeze carbon dioxide emissions at 2000 levels. UCS, Union of Concerned Scientists, 1/99. [“Costs and Benefits of Increasing Renewable Energy Use in the United States” Powerful solutions] javascript:openPDFWindow('/assets/documents/jump.jsp?origID=pdf-43')

A 1999 study by UCS analyzed the costs and benefits of generating a gradually increasing share of the na-  tion’s electricity from wind, biomass, geothermal and  solar energy, as proposed in six federal bills. 3 These renewable portfolio standards (RPS) range from 4 per-  cent in 2010 to 20 percent in 2020. The study found that achieving the most aggressive renewables target of  20 percent in 2020 would freeze electricity-sector car-  bon dioxide emissions at year 2000 levels through 2020  at a modest cost of $18 per ton reduced. By contrast, carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow 24 per- cent over the same period under a business-as-usual  scenario. Meeting the 20 percent target would also result in renewable energy development in every region of the  country. In particular, the Plains, Western, and Mid- Atlantic states are projected to generate more than 20  percent of their electricity from a diverse mix of renew-  able technologies. Biomass, wind, and geothermal en- ergy are projected to provide the majority of new re-  newable generation.

Keeping cardoon dioxide at this level lets us avoid the worst impacts of climate change, allows us to adapt, and gives us time to further develop renewables. Robert Socolow, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Princeton and Head of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton and Stephen Pacala, Professor of Ecology at Princeton and Head of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton, September, ‘6 (A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check, Scientific American, Volume 295, Issue 3)

Getting a grip on greenhouse gases is daunting but doable. The technologies already exist. But there is no time to lose Retreating glaciers, stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, thinner polar bears: the ominous harbingers of global warming are driving companies and governments to work toward an unprecedented change in the historical pattern of fossil-fuel use. Faster and faster, year after year for two centuries, human beings have been transferring carbon to the atmosphere from below the surface of the earth. Today the world's coal, oil and natural gas industries dig up and pump out about seven billion tons of carbon a year, and society burns nearly all of it, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2). Ever more people are convinced that prudence dictates a reversal of the present course of rising CO2 emissions. The boundary separating the truly dangerous consequences of emissions from the merely unwise is probably located near (but below) a doubling of the concentration of CO2 that was in the atmosphere in the 18th century, before the Industrial Revolution began. Every increase in concentration carries new risks, but avoiding that danger zone would reduce the likelihood of triggering major, irreversible climate changes, such as the disappearance of the Greenland ice cap. Two years ago the two of us provided a simple framework to relate future CO2 emissions to this goal. We contrasted two 50-year futures. In one future, the emissions rate continues to grow at the pace of the past 30 years for the next 50 years, reaching 14 billion tons of carbon a year in 2056. (Higher or lower rates are, of course, plausible.) At that point, a tripling of preindustrial carbon concentrations would be very difficult to avoid, even with concerted efforts to decarbonize the world's energy systems over the following 100 years. In the other future, emissions are frozen at the present value of seven billion tons a year for the next 50 years and then reduced by about half over the following 50 years. In this way, a doubling of CO2 levels can be avoided. The difference between these 50-year emission paths--one ramping up and one flattening out--we called the stabilization triangle. To hold global emissions constant while the world's economy continues to grow is a daunting task. Over the past 30 years, as the gross world product of goods and services grew at close to 3 percent a year on average, carbon emissions rose half as fast. Thus, the ratio of emissions to dollars of gross world product, known as the carbon intensity of the global economy, fell about 1.5 percent a year. For global emissions to be the same in 2056 as today, the carbon intensity will need to fall not half as fast but fully as fast as the global economy grows. Two long-term trends are certain to continue and will help. First, as societies get richer, the services sector--education, health, leisure, banking and so on--grows in importance relative to energy-intensive activities, such as steel production. All by itself, this shirt lowers the carbon intensity of an economy. Second, deeply ingrained in the patterns of technology evolution is the substitution of cleverness for energy. Hundreds of power plants are not needed today because the world has invested in much more efficient refrigerators, air conditioners and motors than were available two decades ago. Hundreds of oil and gas fields have been developed more slowly because aircraft engines consume less fuel and the windows in gas-heated homes leak less heat. The task of holding global emissions constant would be out of reach, were it not for the fact that all the driving and flying in 2056 will be in vehicles not yet designed, most of the buildings that will be around then are not yet built, the locations of many of the communities that will contain these buildings and determine their inhabitants' commuting patterns have not yet been chosen, and utility owners are only now beginning to plan for the power plants that will be needed to light up those communities. Today's notoriously inefficient energy system can be replaced if the world gives unprecedented attention to energy efficiency. Dramatic changes are plausible over the next 50 years because so much of the energy canvas is still blank. An RPS will spillover and spur the development of renewables throughout the U.S. Daniel Kammen, Professor of Energy and Society at UC Berkeley, July 11th, ‘1 (Energy Tax Incentives, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony, p. lexis)

The RPS is a renewable energy content standard, akin to efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances that have proven successful in the past. A gradually increasing RPS provides the most economically efficient way of ensuring that a growing proportion of electricity sales are provided by renewable energy, and is designed to integrate renewables into the marketplace in the most cost-effective fashion. In this manner, the market picks the winning and losing technologies and projects, not administrators. With all the discussion and hype about market forces, a RPS provides the one true means to use market forces most effectively. I recommend a renewable energy component of 2 percent in 2002, growing to 10 percent in 2010 and 20 percent by 2020 that would include wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, and landfill gas. A number of studies indicate that this 20% in 2020 level of an RPS is broadly good for business and can readily be achieved 24,25. This standard is similar to the one proposed by Senators Jeffords and Lieberman in the 106th congress (S. 1369). This bill has not been reintroduced nor has any other RPS legislation been introduced in this Congress yet. States that decide to pursue more aggressive goals - many of which make economic and environmental sense - could be rewarded through an additional federal incentive program. To achieve compliance a federal RPS should use market dynamics to stimulate innovation through an active trading program of renewable energy credits. Renewable credit trading is analogous to the sulfur allowance trading system established in the Clean Air Act. Like emissions trading, it is designed to be administratively simple and to increase flexibility and decrease the cost of compliance with the standard. Electricity suppliers can generate renewable electricity themselves, purchase renewable electricity and credits from generators, or buy credits in a secondary trading market. The coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power industries are mature; yet continue to receive considerable government subsidies. Moreover, the market price of fossil and nuclear energy does not include the cost of the damage they cause to the environment and human health. Conversely, the market does not give a value to the environmental and social benefits of renewables. Without the RPS or a similar mechanism, many renewables will not be able to compete in an increasingly competitive electricity market focused on producing power at the lowest direct cost. The RPS is designed to deliver renewables that are most ready for the market. Additional policies are still needed to support emerging renewable technologies, like photovoltaics, that have enormous potential to eventually become commercially competitive through targeted investment incentives. Smart investors typically acquire a portfolio of stocks and bonds to reduce risk. Including renewables in America's power supply portfolio would do the same by protecting consumers from fossil fuel price shocks and supply shortages. A properly designed RPS will also establish a viable market for the long-term development of America's renewable energy industries, creating jobs at home and export opportunities abroad. The RPS is the surest market based approach for securing the public benefits of renewables while supplying the greatest amount of clean power for the lowest price. It creates an ongoing incentive to drive down costs by providing a dependable and predictable market, which has been lacking in this country. The RPS will reduce renewable energy costs by: - Providing a revenue stream that will enable manufacturers and developers to obtain reasonable cost financing and make investments in expanding capacity to meet an expanding renewable energy market. - Allowing economies of scale in manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance of renewable energy facilities. - Promoting vigorous competition among renewable energy developers and technologies to meet the standard at the lowest cost. - Inducing development of renewables in the regions of the country where they are the most cost-effective, while avoiding expensive long-distance transmission, by allowing national renewable energy credit trading. - Reducing transaction costs, by enabling suppliers to buy credits and avoid having to negotiate many small contracts with individual renewable energy projects. Analysis by several groups of the effects of ramping up to the 20 percent RPS target in 2020 would result in renewable energy development in every region of the country with most coming from wind, biomass, and geothermal sources. In particular, the Plains, Western, and Mid-Atlantic States would generate more than 20 percent of their electricity as shown in Figure 6. Electricity prices are projected to fall 13 percent between 1997 and 2020 under this RPS (see Figure 7).

A domestic RPS system will be modeled internationally. Energy Policy, 6/01 [“Renewables portfolio standard: a means for trade with electricity from renewable energy sources?” Volume 29, Issue 7, Pages 557-566, Science Direct] doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00157-9

An important aspect when introducing a new support scheme today is also the international aspect. First of all, liberalisation in the European Union is supposed to create an internal market also in the electricity system. So it might be a good idea, not only to harmonise national support schemes, but also encourage external trade with electricity from renewable energy sources. On the other hand, the Kyoto protocol, even if it is not yet ratified by any country, aims at implementing an international trade with CO2 emission credits. A well-established and accepted national certification system for the benefits from renewable energy within an RPS system could be the basis for a transition to international trading schemes. There is already a group of companies, non-governmental organisations and scientists working on the issue of introducing a European Certificate scheme for RE (EnergieNed, 1999). On the one hand, experience gained from national or European RE certificate trading systems can help design an international scheme. On the other hand, emissions can be avoided by using RE, where they are cheapest to exploit, which would make the system more efficient and induce a certificate trade, when there is a national or European quota. US action key is key-the U.S. is the biggest polluter and other nations are looking to the U.S. for leadership. J.R. Pegg, Washington D.C. Bureau Chief for Environment News Service, U.S. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle, 2/1/08, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10.asp

The head of the United Nations scientific climate panel spoke with U.S. lawmakers Wednesday, encouraging them lead the world in cooling the overheated planet. "We really don't have a moment to lose," said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. The massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to avoid serious disruptions to Earth's climate system are impossible without U.S. leadership, Dr. Pachauri told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "It is essential for the U.S. to take action," said Pachauri, who also spoke at a public briefing Wednesday afternoon convened by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The United States is responsible for some 22 percent of current greenhouse gas emissions. Although China recently emerged as the leading emitter, U.S. emissions are four times greater than China's on a per capita basis. Despite broad criticism from across the world, President George W. Bush and his administration have rejected mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. And many U.S. lawmakers remain reluctant to commit their nation to deep cuts without similar obligations from China, India and other developing nations. The IPCC chairman said that view is misplaced. "The rest of the world looks to the U.S. for leadership … [but] the perception round the world is that the U.S. has not been very active in this area," Pachauri said, adding that strong action would "undoubtedly reestablish confidence in U.S. leadership on critical global issues." Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and journalists listen to a question from the House Select Committee. (Photo courtesy House Select Committee Pachauri presented the House committee with an overview of the key messages contained in recent reports issued by the IPCC panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. The IPCC includes some 2,500 scientists from across the United States and around the world. The panel does no original research but rather assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

U.S. action is key-it’ll spillover and bring China and India on board. Julianne Smith, Director of the CSIS Europe Program & Derek Mix, Research Associate in the CSIS Europe Program, ‘7 (The Transatlantic Climate Change Challenge, The Washington Quarterly 31.1)

In reality, a U.S. commitment to future climate change regimes will be essential to the regimes' success. As the world's greatest producer of greenhouse gases and the world's largest consumer of energy, any solution to this challenge must include the United States. Without it, any hope of bringing China and India on board is futile.