Textbooks

2008-9 Topic Guide: Alternative Energy

This free online textbook is available to all. No log-in is required to view any of the chapters and sections.

Within the essays there are links to other sections of our site such as blocks [bl], the evidence database [db], the CX Guide [cx], and lectures [l]. Subscription access is required to access those links.

Over the next few months the textbook will grow in size and we will be adding additional features for our Gold, Platinum, and Master multi

Introduction

Traditionally, efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption and pollution have relied on command and control regulations to reduce pollution. Command and control regulations are laws and regulations that articulate a specific prohibition or directly require industries and individuals to engage in certain practices. Failure to comply usually results in a penalty, such as a fine or imprisonment.

This year’s resolution calls for the affirmative to use incentives to get companies to increases the use of alternative energy. Incentives, however, arguably can be positive (see the topicality essay, Topicality Strategy Guide), so many affirmatives will rely on measures that are mandatory and traditionally regulatory – Renewable Portfolio Standard (essay, affirmative file, negative file) and tradable permits (essay, affirmative file, negative file), for example.

If affirmatives rely on more traditional regulatory approaches, negatives may wish to rely on more “voluntary” approaches.

The Counterplan

What exactly constitutes a voluntary approach is up for debate. At one extreme end, “voluntary” simply means that companies agree to implement the plan’s mandates simply by being asked. Unless the negative can get the affirmative to agree in cross-x that the companies want to do the plan (which is sometimes possible since people don’t think), this version of the counterplan won’t get the negative very far.

In order to solve, what the negative usually needs to do is to “juicing” the request with something like a subsidy, a tax credit, some positive publicity (or some combination of all (and maybe even more)). The more costly the plan is, the more the negative will need to provide to get industry to do the plan voluntarily.

Of course, as you can see as the counterplan becomes more specific, this is really just another “incentive” mechanism.

The net-benefits to the counterplan – usually Business Confidence (essay, DA file) – usually stem from the fact that the plan imposes regulatory costs on businesses through its mandates and that the costs of those mandates are opposed by businesses. Businesses prefer the more voluntary/positive incentive based approach. Since positive incentive approaches generate less political opposition than regulatory approaches, the political capital politics disadvantage (essay, file) is also a net-benefit.

Negatives have to be careful not to provide so many positive incentives in the counterplan text that businesses would no longer care about the costs. For example, image that the government gave businesses $4 trillion to adopt renewable energy technologies. Even if the government mandated it, the businesses would be so happy to get the $4 trillion that they wouldn’t care at all about the mandate. Doing both (the permutation) would solve the link to the disadvantage, rendering the counterplan non-competitive..

Defeating the Counterplan

Attack the competitiveness. In order to effectively attack the competitiveness of the counterplan, you should try to avoid specifying how your plan is implemented since the competitiveness of the counterplan really stems from the implementation of the plan. If your plan just says “incentives,” voluntary is an incentive.

Beyond fighting the negative on how your plan is implemented, you can also argue that it is net-beneficial to combine incentive-based approaches with command and control regulations. There is some good evidence for this and there it is also logical to argue that if you provide incentives such as subsidies that the costs to industries will be substantially less.

Attack the solvency. Since solvency is the weakest part of the counterplan, the best way to attack the counterplan is to argue it doesn’t solve. There are no guarantees that industries will voluntarily comply or that even if a few do that will solve as well as all industries being required to comply.

Study Questions

1. What are all of the possible net-benefits to the counterplan?

2. What net-benefit do you think people will usually go for?

3. Why will this counterplan apply to only a limited number of affirmatives?

2010-11 Policy Resources