R&D isn’t t violates Energy production it’s pre-production


States energy policies cause federal follow-on—empirics



Download 153.9 Kb.
Page26/45
Date29.06.2021
Size153.9 Kb.
#147487
1   ...   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   ...   45

States energy policies cause federal follow-on—empirics


McKinstry, 4

(Prof-Forestry & Environmental Resources Conservation-Penn State, Laboratories for Local Solutions for Global Problems: State, Local and Private Leadership in Developing Strategies to Mitigate the Causes and Effects of Climate Change, 12 Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev. 15)



Although the United States joined with the rest of the world in signing and ratifying the Framework Convention on Climate Change n1 and in signing the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention, n2 concerns about possible, adverse short-term economic impacts from control of greenhouse gases has stymied further participation by the federal government in global efforts. These concerns have generated pressures that have prevented the United States from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, participating in the Bonn, Germany in 2001 negotiations, or meeting some of its obligations under the Framework Convention. The federal government's withdrawal from active engagement in the global response to climate change has not, however, eliminated all response to climate change in the United States. It has simply moved the locus of the response from the federal government to state and local governments and the private sector. State leadership in environmental issues has not been uncommon historically. In a frequently quoted dissent, Justice Brandeis observed [*16] that "it is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." n3 Results from state "laboratories" have often generated the models for federal legislation governing the United States' national response to environmental problems. For example, California state air regulation provided a model for the Clean Air Act. n4 Regulation of water quality by the interstate Delaware River Basin Commission ("DRBC") n5 provided the model for the system of federal regulation implemented by the Clean Water Act. n6 Pennsylvania's system of surface mining regulation served as the model for the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. n7 The hazardous site remediation program established by New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act n8 was copied by Congress in enacting the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act. n9

Directory: download -> Northwestern
Northwestern -> 1ac – Heg Advantage
Northwestern -> I emphasize this point because
Northwestern -> 1nc Off-Case *Off
Northwestern -> China da 1NC
Northwestern -> Congressional oversight is necessary for a pragmatic, flexible approach to threats executive discretion results in knee-jerk policy failure
Northwestern -> A. Interpretation and violation the affirmative should defend topical action grounded in the resolution
Northwestern -> Advantage 1 is accountability
Northwestern -> Contention 1: internment the Internment Cases have not been analyzed by modern courts yet
Northwestern -> “Armed Forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard
Northwestern -> Security is a psychological construct—the aff’s scenarios for conflict are products of paranoia that project our violent impulses onto the other

Download 153.9 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   ...   45




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page