Concentrated Solar Power

Inherency- Your inherency screws over the entirety of your advantages. Your cards prove that CSP can be used now, just not on government lands. Your only advantage is the economy whos entire link, internal link, impact stories begin with the economist 08 card that says, "The next technology boom may well be based on alternative energy, there is growing concern that the supply of oil may soon peak as consumption continues to grow, known supplies run out and new reserves become harder to find. Americans have become intolerant of large, polluting industrial plants. That has opened up a capacity gap and an opportunity for wind and sunlight. The future price of these resources—zero—is known. That certainty has economic value as a hedge". Ignore the affs power tagged card and take it for what it actually says. There is nothing in the card that says the government lands are key to theis technology boom, make the aff prove this before he accesses any of his advantages. If you look to what the status-quo has to offer, you see that CSP is already a viable option and private investors can use it now. Going by the affirmative teams card we see that this technological boom is inevitable, therefore every link, internal, impact story that he offers is inevitable in the status-quo, thus the plan is worthless. He will come up with a card saying that, "government land usage will cause an increase in solar power use" but this is inadequate. In order to prove any of his advantage stories make him prove that it is ONLY in a world post plan we would see an increase in alternative energy that is adequate to raise the stock of alternative energy enough to "save the economy". Energy grid- This is a DISADVANTAGE to your plan. Read the lockwood 08 card and it NEVER states that the energy can be used with the current grid. Hence the counterplan, The USDOE should provide all necessary funding for the transition to smart grids A. Current power grid cant handle alternative energy Seeking Alpha: ETF UPDATE: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND THE POWER GRID, http://seekingalpha.com..., September 04, 2008. Our nation's aging power grid seems ill-equipped to handle our renewable-energy dreams. While new ways to generate power from sources such as solar and wind are coming fast and furious, getting those technologies to the market has become a challenge, says Matthew L. Wald for the New York Times. Our grid today was conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop one another up in order to reduce blackouts and share power in smaller areas. While only 1% of our electricity comes from wind turbines, experts believe that it could soon be as much as 20%, and our grid as it stands can't handle it. B. Smart Grid allows further integration of U.S. Alternative energy Phil, Hall, Alternative Energy Retailer: CAN A SMART GRID HELP THE SOLAR POWER CAUSE?, http://www.aer-online.com..., Monday, August 18, 2008. According to Kurt E. Yeager, the only thing that is preventing a further integration of U.S. alternative energy power sources to the nation's electric grid is…the grid. Yeager, the former president and CEO of the Electric Power Research Institute, is advocating the implementation of what he calls the "smartgrid," a series of micro grids that would more efficiently serve both the national power needs and offer more opportunities for incorporating alternative solutions such as photovoltaic power. Jobs- AGAIN, there is NO warrant to the USfg adoption of CSP on government land and its effect on jobs. every card talks about how solar power will effect jobs if expanded, but no where does it say that these government lands will have a big enough increase in jobs to save the economy. Competitiveness- Prove that government lands are key to maintaining our world competitiveness. There are WAY too many factors to be able to prove that one little thing on government lands will solve all competitiveness. The impacts to this is imaginary, we will always be a competitive nation. Your impact screws you over as well. You only use Mead 92 to impact the entirety of your case. All it says is "economic downturn leads to nuclear war"- "what if the GLOBAL economy collapsed". There is no way you are going to prove that you solve the world economy by merely putting solar panels on government land. Don't run the card that says the global economy is dependent on the US either because you do not solve for the entire US economy. Your impact is also already being solved in the status-quo, look to the 900 billion dollars we are spending on a stimulus package right now that will bring our economy back to being strong. KRITIK The affirmative attempt to find new ways to continue our consumption patterns is only another verse of same old same old. 1ac focus was not concerned with over-consumption, but only in finding better ways to consume. As long as policies continue to placate corporations with short term quick fixes, true solutions to the energy and environmental problems will never be discovered. This becomes our argument that values can change policies but policies do not change values. Policies that cater to the corporations and the marketplace for solutions are too far away from a true reduction in our human impact on the earths biosphere. Our argument is that the there are a multitude of problems that are interconnected, and just attempting to address one of these singular problems is ineffective when the attempted solution never escapes the dominant ideological ways of thinking and perceiving our place in the biosphere. Each of us as individuals play the role of the trunk on the web of environmental problems. All of the impacts discussed in the 1ac can be traced back to our desire to consume. We are not deep ecology or some environmental movement, our argument is that only we/us as individuals can offer concrete solutions by consuming less. It is not a question of acting, but one of not acting, of not consuming. Learning how to not consume has widespread effects on all of the diverse areas of the environmental mega-crisis. We contend that unless we deal with our consumption patterns, wars are inevitable. And we dismiss the affirmative solvency as idealistic and not focused on the key areas of human consumption that must be address if we are going to stave off the coming environmental destruction. The affirmative use of the state to address the environmental and energy problems is ineffective. The state serves the interests of the corporations which means money will always continue to be elevated over environmental health. Putting your hopes in the state to solve environmental problems should be avoided, the state will not solve. And the use of the state also effects true change, which is individuals reducing their consumption. We will contend that policy action by the state acquiesces individual change. The affirmative caters to individual consumption by trying to figure out how to allow individuals the ability to consume. Now is the key time to change the tide of overconsumption. The alternative of individual action is only way Your focus on alternative energy can never access a reduction in consumption. The move to increase alternative energy requires increased consumption on the frontside to create the technology needed to have alternative energy. The lack of focus on consumption allows the affirmative to increase short term energy use. The alternative is to examine your own life-place, and attempt to reduce personal consumption in your everyday life. The alternative gives you 100% solvency of reducing consumption while the affirmative only reifies the notion that consumption is a way of life and must continue. We control uniqueness on this debate, we have been waiting for government protection action to be effective, but this is empirically flawed.