RESEARCHERS—FOLLOW THESE EXPECTATIONS

POLICY RESEARCHERS—FOLLOW THESE EXPECTATIONS

ALL FIRST TIME WEST COAST RESEARCHERS—you need to turn in two pages of work to Aaron to be reviewed to assure you are doing your work right. This is recommended for returning workers too.

EXAMPLE POLICY EVIDENCE FILE

Use this Template: westcoast.dot

1) USE UP-TO-DATE EVIDENCE.

--When people look at the evidence, we want them to think “this is new stuff.”

--If the issue is timely (e.g., uniqueness, current policy)—it should be VERY RECENT.

--Otherwise, the more recent, the better but not absolutely critical (USUALLY, THE PAST 2 YEARS but salient, important works that aren’t as new should not be overlooked).

2) USE DIVERSITY OF QUALITY SOURCES.

--Don’t overuse one source for your evidence

--Minimize the use of less credible sites such as blogs, Reuters, “crazy ideologue websites,” etc.

--TRY TO GET QUALIFIED EXPERTS

--You may not turn in material from sources such as Lexis if you do not have legal access to use that source for BUSINESS PURPOSES such as our handbooks.

3) USE QUALITY EVIDENCE THAT GIVES WARRANTS

4) INCLUDE AT LEAST 3 PIECES OF EVIDENCE ON A PAGE.

--Evidence longer than that is too long for our market—our customers don’t like it. Need an exception to use just one or two cards? Contact the editor.

--Got a page that isn’t filled up? Fill it up with evidence please.

5) CITATION FORMAT. Make sure your citations look like this:

For regular citations:

June Jones, District Attorney, September 12, 2006, The Legal News, p. 12.

For web citations:

Harry Bustamente, Professor of Psychology, April 1, 2006, Mental Health Web Page, accessed 6/4/2006, www.mentalhealthweb.com/psycho/helpers/tips23.htm

Citation Questions Answered

NOTE: YOU DO NOT NEED A PAGE NUMBER FOR WEB PAGE CITATIONS.

NOTE: YOU DO NOT INCLUDE TITLES OF JOURNAL/NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.

6) REMOVE FOOTNOTES!

Remove ALL footnotes that were in the original articles; that includes footnotes that look like this

*83

[76]

¹⁹

7) ALL EVIDENCE IS SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY.

Email it to Aaron.

8) USE TIMES ROMAN 10 POINT FONT.

Use 1 inch margins ALL THE WAY AROUND.

9) DO NOT FORMAT YOUR DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY EXCEPT TO BOLD TAGS.

Please do NOT use styles, formatting, italicizing, etc. in your document.

10) WHAT TO INCLUDE IN YOUR ASSIGNMENTS

Keep in contact with Aaron for details. Exact page expectations vary depending on the topic and specific assignment.

AFFIRMATIVE

1AC 5 pages

Backup 19 pages*

--backup for harms, inherency, solvency

--answers to disads, counterplans, kritiks

--answers to topicality args

*may be less if the handbook has a shared section for harms/solvency.

NEGATIVE

16 pages*

--frontlines against harm/inherency/solvency

--frontlines against the 2 to 3 likely advantages and extensions

--specific links to the generic disadvantages

--specific disadvantages, specific counterplans and extensions

--topicality shells and extensions

*may be less if the handbook has a shared section for harms/solvency.

DISADVANTAGES

Shell 1-2 pages

Backup with uniqueness, generic links, impacts, 12-13 pages

Responses to the Disad (not unique, no link, turns), 7 pages

COUNTERPLANS

Shell 1 page

Backup for solvency, links to net benefits, 9 pages

Responses to the Counterplan (perm, no solvency, disads), 7 pages

IMPACT/HARMS/SCENARIO ARGUMENTS

(e.g. warming bad/good; happening/not happening)

Frontlines and backup—contact editor for expected pages

Frontline responses and backup—contact editor for expected pages

KRITIKS

Explanation Text: 2 pages

Shell 2 pages

Backup 12 pages

Responses to the Kritik (perms, no link, turns): 8 pages.

If you have more or less—we can work around that BUT WE NEED TO KNOW. CONTACT AARON.

A Typical Affirmative Handbook has:

A Table of Contents

Topic Analysis and Affirmative Cases Paper

5 Affirmative Cases

Answers to the 5 WC Disadvantages

Answers to the 2 WC Counterplans

A Typical Negative Handbook has:

A Table of Contents

Topic Negative Arguments Paper

Definitions

Responses to 5 WC Affirmative Cases

5 Disadvantages

2 Counterplans

A Typical Kritik Handbook has:

6 Kritiks

6 Answer Files to Kritiks

The Updates are ad hoc but focus on negatives

11) WHAT EACH BRIEF THAT YOU TURN IN SHOULD LOOK LIKE:

Note: “Briefs” do not go over a page. If you have too much evidence on the same issue for just one page, then make a new AND DIFFERENT brief title for the next page and put the extra evidence there.

Alternative Energies Increase Consumer Costs

1. Tax credits for alternative energy increase consumer costs

Charli Coon, JD, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, September 18, 2002, The Heritage Foundation, Accessed April 8, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg1590.cfm

Regardless of the way they choose to meet this mandate, electricity suppliers will pass the costs on to consumers in the form of a new "tax"--higher monthly electric bills. Taxpayers will effectively be forced to pay twice for the electricity they use: once as a government subsidy to favored renewable energy sources and, again, in the form of higher monthly electric bills. In fact, the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates that in 2020 the RPS proposal will cost about $12 billion a year.

2. Mass subsidies on alternative energy waste important government revenue

Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, February 14, 2008, The Heritage Foundation, Accessed April 8, 2008, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1816.cfm

Much of the extra revenue generated from these taxes would go toward subsidizing politically correct alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. However, the 30-plus-year history of federal attempts to encourage such alternatives includes numerous failures and few, if any, successes. Indeed, many of the recipients of tax breaks and incentives in the bill have been subsidized for decades—ethanol since 1978, for example—originally with the promise that they would become viable within a few years and then go off the dole and compete in the marketplace. But this has never happened. Instead, Congress just passed a huge expansion of the ethanol mandate, essentially forcing Americans to use more of it even as it continues to be heavily subsidized. Wind and solar are doing no better.

3. The money spent on tax breaks for energy companies decreases the ability to create a sustainable economy and end suffering

As Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, "We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more effectively in the developing world." He continues, "Resources squandered to solve what the best science says is a small effect that may appear in the distant future has the certainty of increasing human suffering and environmental harm in the near present." Given that "the most substantial authority--science--has weighed against the fear of potential human-made global warming," the conferees should stop excessive spending on climate change, strike Title XIII of the Senate-passed energy bill, and allocate taxpayer dollars more responsibly.

4. Alternative energy increases consumer costs

Roy Innis, national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, 2008, Grassroots Institute, Accessed April 8, 2008, http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/GrassrootPerspective/AltEnergy032608.shtml

Every week brings new claims that clean, free, inexhaustible renewable energy will soon replace the “dirty” fuels that sustain our economy today. A healthy dose of reality is needed. Over half of our electricity comes from coal. Gas and nuclear generate 36 percent of our electricity. Barely 1 percent comes from wind and solar. Coal-generated power typically costs less per kilowatt hour than alternatives – leaving families with more money for food, housing, transportation and healthcare. By 2020, the United States will need 100,000 megawatts of new electricity, say EIA, industry and utility company analysts. Unreliable wind power simply cannot meet these demands.

Ethanol Doesn’t Help The Environment And Hurts The Economy

1. Ethanol subsidies increase consumer costs and don’t improve the environment

In addition, ethanol must be denatured by gasoline during the course of its production. This raises production costs, significantly devalues ethanol as a renewable resource, and contributes very little to enhancing the nation's energy security. Moreover, a recent study by Cornell University scientist David Pimentel shows that producing ethanol from corn actually requires more energy than the fuel produces, thereby making the United States more fossil-fuel dependent, not less. Mandating the increased use of fuel ethanol is unnecessary and amounts to a new gas tax for consumers. It gives more taxpayer subsidies to a handful of companies that currently produce ethanol. Furthermore, the bill's Renewable Fuels Safe Harbor provision relieves these companies from any liability related to the ethanol they produce. In short, the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4 is nothing short of "corporate welfare" legislation, with big business emerging as the winners and consumers as the losers.

2. Ethanol is not commercially viable

Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, July 1, 2007, p. 1

Congress, meanwhile, appears to be betting heavily on the development of next-generation ethanol sources -- switchgrass, biomass, wood chips and agricultural waste among them. The technology looks promising in the laboratory, but has yet to make the leap to commercial viability. Some investment in this research is prudent, but it cannot yet be considered an alternative to corn- based ethanol to reach the bill's ambitious mandates. Along with the mandates, the Senate approved another liberal helping of taxpayer subsidies for the ethanol industry, much of which will benefit agribusiness giants like Archer Daniels Midland. The bill also renews tariffs that keep cheaper ethanol from countries like Brazil out of the U.S. market. This smells like corporate welfare. Ethanol might eventually reduce some of the demand for traditional gasoline, if scientists find a way to make cellulosic ethanol production commercially viable. But corn isn't the answer. The U.S. House has yet to vote on the energy bill. Some versions of the House bill do not contain the ethanol mandates. This offers some hope that Congress will adopt an energy plan grounded in science rather than in politics. Cut the subsidies and the tariffs from the bill. Provide modest funds for cellulosic research. If ethanol is commercially viable, private industry will find a way to make it work. If not, it is only a pipe dream of energy independence.

3. Cheap biodiesel will be exported, this nullifies any economic advantage and increases consumer costs

Scott Susich, senior partner at Energy Management Institute, February 2008, International News on Fats, Oils and Related Materials, INFORM, Vol. 19, Iss. 2; p. 127.

Recent figures show there are 165 biodiesel plants capable of producing close to 2 billion gallons of the fuel [in the United States]. This number is growing with 80 plants under construction adding 1.3 billion gallons of capacity. With current U.S. demand hovering somewhere near 400 million gallons, where is all the production going? Answer: Europe, where, bolstered by a $ 1.00-per-gallon U.S. tax subsidy American biodiesel producers can knock the socks off German-made product and reap a nice margin. The biodiesel tax incentives, first approved by Congress in 2004, were intended to promote the use of renewable fuel in the United States and enhance domestic energy security by adding fuel to the U.S. energy supply. Exporting the product to Europe does neither. So tell me again, who is violating the spirit of the law?