196 BQ Natives Affirmative Wave 3

NATIVES AFFIRMATIVE – 1AC
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Table of Contents: Natives Aff (Wave 3)

Table of Contents: Natives Aff (Wave 3).................................................................................................................................................1
Table of Contents: Natives Aff (Wave 3)..............................................................................................................1
Dear User.................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Dear User................................................................................................................................................................3
1AC..........................................................................................................................................................................................................4
1AC..........................................................................................................................................................................4
Observation 1: Inherency 1/2...................................................................................................................................................................5
Observation 1: Inherency 1/2................................................................................................................................5
Observation 1: Inherency 2/2...................................................................................................................................................................5
Observation 1: Inherency 2/2................................................................................................................................5
Plan Text..................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Plan Text.................................................................................................................................................................7
Observation 2: Colonialism 1/3...............................................................................................................................................................8
Observation 2: Colonialism 1/3.............................................................................................................................8
Observation 2: Colonialism 2/3...............................................................................................................................................................9
Observation 2: Colonialism 2/3.............................................................................................................................9
Observation 2: Colonialism 3/3.............................................................................................................................................................10
Observation 2: Colonialism 3/3...........................................................................................................................10
Observation 3: Self-determination 1/3...................................................................................................................................................11
Observation 3: Self-determination 1/3...............................................................................................................11
Observation 3: Self-determination 2/3...................................................................................................................................................12
Observation 3: Self-determination 2/3...............................................................................................................12
Observation 3: Self-Determination 3/3..................................................................................................................................................13
Observation 3: Self-Determination 3/3..............................................................................................................13
Observation 4: Solvency 1/4..................................................................................................................................................................14
Observation 4: Solvency 1/4................................................................................................................................14
2AC Blocks............................................................................................................................................................................................18
1
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
2AC Blocks...........................................................................................................................................................18
A2: T – “in the United States”...............................................................................................................................................................19
A2: T – “in the United States”............................................................................................................................19
A2: Consult Natives CP 1/2...................................................................................................................................................................20
A2: Consult Natives CP 1/2.................................................................................................................................20
A2: Consult Natives CP 2/2...................................................................................................................................................................21
A2: Consult Natives CP 2/2.................................................................................................................................21
A2: Birds DA 1/2...................................................................................................................................................................................22
A2: Birds DA 1/2..................................................................................................................................................22
A2: Birds DA 2/2...................................................................................................................................................................................22
A2: Birds DA 2/2..................................................................................................................................................22
A2: States CP 1/1...................................................................................................................................................................................24
A2: States CP 1/1..................................................................................................................................................24
A2: Essentialism 1/2..............................................................................................................................................................................25
A2: Essentialism 1/2.............................................................................................................................................25
A2: Essentialism 2/2..............................................................................................................................................................................26
A2: Essentialism 2/2.............................................................................................................................................26
2
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Dear User
So here is wave 3. Really it’s the second wave of the natives aff, but whatever.
Details. For this one I took out the warming advantage and added some Butler
cultural intelligibility stuff into the self-d advantage. I also added to solvency
because Cory is faster than you, whoever you may be. Also included in this file
are 2AC blocks. The states one is not carded, but you can go find cards in the
original natives file to finish that off. The Birds DA is stupid and has
insignificant impacts. Yay strategic essentialism. And we are topical, damn it!
Yeah anyway, not much explaining that needs to happen here. Enjoy.
-Lauren
3
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
1AC
4
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Observation 1: Inherency 1/2

1. A lack of federal tax credit gives Native Americans a huge disadvantage in the alternative energy
sector.
Mark Shahinian, third year law student, Univ. of Mich., 2007, Special Feature: The Tax Man Cometh Not:
How The Non-Transferability Of Tax Credits Harms Indian Tribes, American Indian Law Review
With the power to tax also comes the power to push, to encourage, to foster and to favor. If taxation can sap economic power,
tax policy can also confer vast economic rents on certain favored groups.
However, America's Indian tribes are a group not favored by federal tax policy. n2 This paper is concerned with elements
of U.S. tax policy that do [*269] unrecognized harm to Indian tribes. In the standard analysis, Indian tribes benefit from
tax-free status - it is a bright line rule of U.S. tax policy that tribes and their subsidiary corporations do not pay federal income
taxes. However, the guarantee of tax-free status for Indian tribes also guarantees the tribes cannot use tax credits granted by
the federal government.
In certain industries, federal tax credits play such an important financial role that entities unable to use those tax credits
are at a significant financial disadvantage to entities able to utilize the tax credits. Federal tax credits play a key role in the
coal bed methane extraction industry, n3 the low-income housing development industry n4 , and the wind power industry, n5
among others. In some of these fields, tribes cannot make use of the tax credits, and so face a severe financial handicap as
compared to entities that can utilize the tax credits. Perversely, this handicap is present in precisely the industries the federal
government has decided to nurture and encourage - for instance, the wind energy industry.
To bring focus to the discussion of tax credits and tribes, this article examines how the inability of tribes to access federal tax
credits handicaps tribes' ability to own and develop wind farms. Indian tribes could be a major force in the growing
U.S. wind industry. Wind power from tribal lands could provide 22% of installed U.S. electric power generation capacity. n6
Renewable energy development is an issue with broad support in the United States and has the potential to bring significant
economic benefits to the tribes.
Traditional methods of electricity generation are faced with increasing difficulties: coal-fired generation is a liability in the age
of global warming; n7 natural gas prices are high and unpredictable; n8 nuclear power still poses [*270] storage problems; n9
and there are few rivers in the U.S. left undammed for hydroelectricity. n10
These problems have opened up a market opportunity for wind-generated electricity. Wind power has stepped in to fill the gap
left by traditional power sources and provides new generation capacity. n11 Builders of wind farms will add about 2750
megawatts (MW) of generating capacity in 2006, which will produce about as much electricity as is used by the entire state of
Rhode Island. n12
Wind enjoys three main advantages: price, environmental benefits and economic benefits. When coupled with federal tax
credits, new wind turbine designs are now cost-competitive with new coal plants and natural gas generation. n13 With
concerns of global warming rising, wind is an energy source that results in few greenhouse gasses. Wind power also enjoys
political support for the positive impact it can have on domestic manufacturing industries. n14 Renewable energy
development brings high levels of economic benefits to the local community, when compared to fossil-powered electricity. n15
Renewable energy is particularly popular in rural areas with few [*271] other economic prospects. In 2006, a successful
challenger for a U.S. Senate seat in Montana made wind power a prominent part of his campaign. n16
There is potential for tribes to play a major role in the U.S. wind industry. As noted above, wind power on tribal lands
could provide a substantial portion of U.S. electricity needs. n17 The Great Plains have wind in abundance, and many tribal
reservations are located in the Great Plains. Wind developers are interested in working with tribes because tribes are single
landowners over vast, windy tracts of land - the area within the Rosebud Reservation boundaries alone is larger than the land
area of the entire state of Rhode Island. Additionally, some power purchasers, realizing the economic plight of the reservations,
are willing to give the tribes better-than-market prices for tribally generated electricity. n18
Tribes do not have experience with operating wind farms as businesses, but tribes do have long experience in more
traditional forms of energy development. The tribes of the Southwest, especially the Navajo and Southern Utes, have long-
developed their coal and oil and gas resources. The Utes have become quite wealthy off revenues from energy development. n19
The U.S., especially the Western U.S., needs this tribally produced power. The Western Governors' Association has
convened an energy task force to address Western states' concerns about shortfalls in energy production. The
Observation 1: Inherency 2/2

Governors' Association has called for 30,000MW of clean power (including wind) development by 2015, n20 and has pointed
out the need for federal, state, local and tribal authorities to coordinate in siting wind projects. n21
5
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Yet tribes cannot fully participate in the renewable energy industry because of their tax status and their lack of ability to use the
tax credits the federal government allocates to renewable energy companies. Despite the current wind boom, reservations have
not become wind development sites. In fact, [*272] only one major wind development exists on an Indian reservation in the
U.S. - a 50MW project on the land of the Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians near San Diego, Calif. n22
To address the handicap tribes face with regards to the impossibility of utilizing tax credits, this paper proposes making
federal tax credits tradable - tribes could trade the tax credits they would receive as part of their investment in projects to
business partners with tax liability in return for cash or other consideration.
2. Native Americans are not eligible for federal incentives.

Rob Capriccioso, staff writer for Indian Country, 4-11-08, Indian Country, Tribes Looking for Federal Wind
Energy Incentive, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417026
Recent legislative developments have also made it challenging for tribes to obtain federal wind energy seed funding. In
2007, Thune proposed the Wind Energy Development Act, which included $2.25 billion in funding for Clean Renewable
Energy Bonds that tribes could have used to fund pilot wind energy programs. Under Thune's plan, 20 percent of this
bonding would have been specifically set aside for tribes; however, the set-aside did not make it into the current version of
the wind energy tax credit legislation, and it was not in the energy bill that passed last December.
Some tribal energy advocates believe supporting new legislation that promotes Clean Renewable Energy Bonds may be the best
hope for tribes that want to receive federal funding to begin wind energy development. Thune's current legislation proposes
$400 million in funding for the bonds, which energy experts say tribes should be eligible to apply for via the IRS.
3. This means they cannot access their vast potential for wind energy.
Rob Capriccioso, staff writer for Indian Country, 4-11-08, Indian Country, Tribes Looking for Federal Wind
Energy Incentive, http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096417026
The wind energy setbacks in Congress have been especially disappointing to some tribes, since their lands often have some of
the highest wind resource potential in the nation.
Research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that many of the windiest areas in the U.S. are located
close to and on reservations. The laboratory has estimated that the total tribal wind generation potential is about 535 billion
kwh per year, or 14 percent of the total U.S. electric generation in 2004.
South Dakota alone is capable of producing 566 gigawatts of electrical power from wind, which is the equivalent of 52
percent of the nation's electricity demand. Wind energy potential is also great in tribe-rich states including Montana,
Minnesota and Wyoming.
6
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Plan Text
Plan text: The United States federal government should substantially increase
alternative energy incentives in the United States by offering tradable tax
credits to Native American tribes for the purposes of increasing wind power on
Native lands. We reserve the right to clarify execution and intent.
7
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Observation 2: Colonialism 1/3

1. Cultural genocide has occurred against Native Americans, and it is our duty
to end it.
Dean B. Suagee, University of Michigan. Spring 1992 “Self-Determination for Indigenous Peoples At The Dawn Of The Solar
Age” Lexis.
Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to be protected from cultural genocide, including the
prevention of and redress for:
(a) Any act which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct societies, or of their cultural or ethnic
characteristics or identities;
(b) Any form of forced assimilation or integration by imposition of other cultures or ways of life;
(c) Dispossession of their lands, territories or resources; (d) Any propaganda directed against them. 101
Under the Working Group's definition, cultural genocide has taken place all over the world, even recently in the United
States. For instance, the United States' "termination" policy of the 1950s [*697] and early 1960s clearly fits the concept.
102 Racial prejudice and notions of racial superiority provide the rationalizations for cultural genocide. 103 Despite the human
rights norm inherent in the Genocide Convention that all cultural groupings have the right to exist, 104 the destruction of
indigenous peoples continues, in part because of the notion that indigenous ways of life are somehow inferior to those of
modern industrialized societies. Those who seek to defend the rights of indigenous peoples must work to make this
notion simply untenable. Indigenous peoples believe that their right to survive and to control their own territories should be
respected not only because they are entitled to basic human rights but also because they have some values and wisdom to share
with the other peoples of the Earth. To put an end to the destruction of indigenous peoples, indigenous rights advocates
must help the rest of the world to see that there is real value in what indigenous peoples have to offer, especially in their
spiritual relationships with the Earth and with nonhuman living things.
Those who would defend the human rights of indigenous peoples can draw many lessons from the long history of the relations
between the United States and the indigenous tribes and nations of North America. Although the autonomy possessed by Indian
tribes in the United States is less than ideal, tribes do exercise a broad range of governmental powers, and the simple fact that
more than 500 federally recognized tribes continue to exist in the United States 105 suggests that positive as well as negative
lessons may be drawn. Two of the most important lessons are: (1) forced assimilation does not work and (2) local autonomy
and self-government can work. In my view, these two lessons are fundamental for the survival of indigenous peoples
throughout [*698] the world. 106 The next part of this Article examines tribal autonomy in the United States in some detail,
with an emphasis on tribal authority for protection of the environment and the preservation of tribal cultures.
2. The failure to transition to renewables makes us complicit in cultural

genocide.
Dean B. Suagee, University of Michigan. Spring 1992 “Self-Determination For Indigenous Peoples At The Dawn Of The
Solar Age” Lexis.
In this part of the Article, I offer a brief review of the pursuit of economic growth and economic development by the states of
the world in the latter half of this century, including the emerging consensus that development must be "sustainable" and the
lack of consensus on just what the word "sustainable" means. I then briefly review the evidence which indicates that (in the
context of energy development at least) to be sustainable, energy development requires a worldwide shift from technologies
that consume fossil fuels to technologies that derive useful energy from the sun and from natural forces and processes that are
driven by solar energy. The evidence suggests that we really have no choice; rather, the issue is how much global climate
change we are willing to accept before we commit ourselves to achieving this transition. The concluding section of this
part discusses some of the ways in which conventional energy development already has devastated and continues to
threaten indigenous peoples. My point is that by delaying the commitment to bring about the transition to the solar age,
we accept not only the global climate change that will accompany delay but also the cultural genocide of some of the
world's remaining indigenous peoples.
8
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen

3. As demonstrated by the discourse of Cowboys and Indians, Native
Americans are colonized citizens of the United States, and forced into a
policy of white superiority. This subjugation leaves them an exploited hollow
shell.
Michael Yellow Bird, Associate Professor Center for Indigenous Nations Studies, 2004-10, Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 19, No. 2,
Colonization/Decolonization, I, (Autumn, 2004), pp.33-48, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1409497.
America has carefully made sure that Indigenous Peoples continue to fulfill the role of a racial and cultural scapegoat in
the game of cowboys and Indians. However, it is hardly an amusing situation since Indigenous Peoples experience
numerous humiliating assaults from colonial society, for instance, control and manipulation of their tribal governments
by the U.S. federal government, land and resource theft and destruction by U.S. multinational corporations, control and
exploitation of tribal gaming and economic revenue by state governments, poorly funded on-reservation substandard
schools that continue teaching the prevaricated history of the colonizer, and the continued use of racist images and
words to describe Indians. As colonized peoples, many of us have internalized and adapted to the colonizer's dominant
ideology, which has perpetuated our subjugation and repression. As a result we have developed a certain sense of internalized
denigration and personal contempt within our consciousness resulting in self-effacing and destructive behaviors. However, this
45 can change if Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples intelligently resist American colonialism and begin the process of
decolonizing cowboys and Indians, beginning by telling the truth about the racist intent of the cowboys and Indians
phenomenon. We must also intelligently interrogate and reform the colonial structure of this nation and challenge the written
false histories of the American colonizer. Indigenous Peoples must consciously refuse to be little red plastic toy Indians
participating in the racist American myths and policies of white colonial supremacy. Whites must refuse to be little blue plastic
toy cowboys blindly accepting their position of privilege in society and, instead, truthfully amend this nation's history and
practice of colonialism while seeking justice on behalf of those they have colonized here and abroad. Until this is done,
cowboys and Indians will continue to be toys of genocide, icons of colonialism. As colonized peoples, many of us have
internalized and adapted to the colonizer's dominant ideology, which has perpetuated our subjugation and repression. As a
result we have developed a certain sense of internalized denigration and personal contempt within our consciousness
resulting in self-effacing and destructive behaviors. However, this can change if Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples
intelligently resist American colonialism and begin the process of decolonizing cowboys and Indians, beginning by
telling the truth about the racist intent of the cowboys and Indians phenomenon. We must also intelligently interrogate
and reform the colonial structure of this nation and challenge the written false histories of the American colonizer.
Indigenous Peoples must consciously refuse to be little red plastic toy Indians participating in the racist American
myths and policies of white colonial supremacy. Whites must refuse to be little blue plastic toy cowboys blindly accepting
their position of privilege in society and, instead, truthfully amend this nation's history and practice of colonialism while
seeking justice on behalf of those they have colonized here and abroad. Until this is done, cowboys and Indians will continue to
be toys of genocide, icons of colonialism.
9
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen

4. The cultural genocide against Native Americans results in extinction
through loss of biodiversity. Empirically, the loss of Native Americans leads
to the loss of species.
Lilian Friedberg, American Indian Quarterly vol. 24, No. 3 Summer 2000 “Dare to Compare: Americanizing
the Holocaust”
Attempts on the part of American Indians to transcend chronic, intergenerational maladies introduced by the settler population
(for example, in the highly contested Casino industry, in the ongoing battles over tribal sovereignty, and so on) are challenged
tooth and nail by the U.S. government and its “ordinary” people. Flexibility in transcending these conditions has been greatly
curtailed by federal policies that have “legally” supplanted our traditional forms of governance, outlawed our languages and
spirituality, manipulated our numbers and identity, usurped our cultural integrity, viciously repressed the leaders of our efforts
to regain self-determination, and systematically miseducated the bulk of our youth to believe that this is, if not just, at least
inevitable.” 55 Today’s state of affairs in America, both with regard to public memory and national identity, represents a
flawless mirror image of the situation in Germany vis-àvis Jews and other non-Aryan victims of the Nazi regime.56
Collective indifference to these conditions on the part of both white and black America is a poor reflection on the nation’s
character. This collective refusal to acknowledge the genocide further exacerbates the aftermath in Native communities and
hinders the recovery process. This, too, sets the American situation apart from the German-Jewish situation: Holocaust denial
is seen by most of the world as an affront to the victims of the Nazi regime. In America, the situation is the reverse:
victims seeking recovery are seen as assaulting American ideals.
But what is at stake today, at the dawn of a new millennium, is not the culture, tradition, and survival of one population
on one continent on either side of the Atlantic. What is at stake is the very future of the humanspecies. LaDuke, in her
most recent work, contextualizes the issues from a contemporary perspective:
Our experience of survival and resistance is shared with many others. But it is not only about Native people. . . . In the
final analysis, the survival of Native America is fundamentally about the collective survival of all human beings. The
question of who gets to determine the destiny of the land, and of the people who live on it—those with the money or those who
pray on the land—is a question that is alive throughout society.57
“There is,” as LaDuke reminds us, “a direct relationship between the loss of cultural
diversity and the loss of biodiversity. Wherever Indigenous peoples still remain, there is
also a corresponding enclave of biodiversity.” 58 But, she continues,
The last 150 years have seen a great holocaust. There have been more species lost in the
past 150 years than since the Ice Age. (During the same time, Indigenous peoples have been
disappearing from the face of the earth. Over 2,000 nations of Indigenous peoples have gone extinct in
the western hemisphere and one nation disappears from the Amazon rainforest every year.) 59 It is not
about “us” as indigenous peoples—it is about “us” as a human species. We are all related. At issue is
no longer the “Jewish question” or the “Indian problem.” We must speak today in terms of the
“human problem.” And it is this “problem” for which not a “final,” but a sustainable, viable solution
must be found—because it is no longer a matter of “serial genocide,” it has become one of
collective suicide. As Terrence Des Pres put it, in The Survivor: “At the heart of our problems is that
nihilism which was all along the destiny of Western culture: a nihilism either unacknowledged even as
the bombs fell or else, as with Hitler or Stalin, demonically proclaimed as the new salvation.”
10
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Observation 3: Self-determination 1/3

1. Increase use of renewable energy resources on tribal lands results in
increased tribal sovereignty, economic development and reduced pollution.
Thomas L. Acker, William M. Auberle, Earl P.N. Duque, William D. Jeffery, David R. LaRoche, Virgil Masayesva, and Dean H.
Smith, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Director for the Center for Sustainable Environments, Director of the Institute for Tribal Environmental Practices, and
Professor of Economics and Applied Indigenous Studies, 9-21-02, Implications of the Regional Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind
Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West College of Business Administration Working Paper Series,
http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf.
One of the key recommendations of the GCVTC report was to assess the potential impact of increasing the use of
renewable energy resources for the generation of electricity as a way to reduce pollution from fossil-fueled power plants in
the West, and thereby improve visibility. The WRAP has commissioned studies to assess the potential for the generation of
electricity from renewable energy resources. One such study focused on the policy actions that States in the West could take
in order to increase the generation of electricity from renewable resources.(2) A similar study focused on actions that Native
American Tribes could take in order to increase electricity generation form renewable resources. However, the tribal study
had an expanded focus that considered not only policy actions, but also the available renewable energy resources in
Indian country, energy information required in a TIP, tribal energy perspectives, and an analysis of the barriers and
opportunities for tribal energy development. The resulting report from this study (“the Tribal Renewables Report”(3))
recommends policies and strategies for tribal leaders to consider in order to use renewable energy resources not only to
reduce pollution but also as a means to assert tribal sovereignty and autonomy and to spur economic development on
tribal lands
11
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Observation 3: Self-determination 2/3

2. A sense of personhood is linked to the desire for recognition and thus the
demand for legal rights in the public realm is key to sustaining viability as
humyn.
Butler 04; (Judith; Professor in Rhetoric at UC Berkeley; Undoing Gender; pg. 32-34)
To assert sexual rights, then, takes on a specific meaning against this background. It means, for instance, that when we
struggle for rights, we are not simply struggling for rights that attach to my person, but we are struggling to be
conceived as persons. And there is a difference between the former and the latter. If we are struggling for rights that
attach, or should attach, to my personhood, then we assume that personhood as already constituted. But if we are
struggling not only to be conceived as persons, but to create a social transformation of the very meaning of personhood,
then the assertion of rights becomes a way of intervening into the social and political process by which the human is
articulated. International human rights is always in the process of subjecting the human to redefinition and
renegotiation. It mobilizes the human in the service of rights, but also rewrites the human and rearticulates the human when
it comes up against the cultural limits of its working conception of the human, as it does and must.
Lesbian and gay human rights takes sexuality, in some sense, to be its issue. Sexuality is not simply an attribute one has or a
disposition or patterned set of inclinations. It is a mode of being disposed toward others, including in the mode of fantasy, and
sometimes only in the mode of fantasy. If we are outside of ourselves as sexual beings, given over from the start, crafted in part
through primary relations of dependency and attachment, then it would seem that our being beside ourselves, outside ourselves,
is there as a function of sexuality itself, where sexuality is not this or that dimension of our existence, not the key or bedrock of
our existence, but, rather, as coextensive with existence, as Merleau-Ponty once aptly suggested.6
I have tried here to argue that our very sense of personhood is linked to the desire for recognition, and that desire places us
outside ourselves, in a realm of social norms that we do not fully choose, but that provides the horizon and the resource for
any sense of choice that we have. This means that the ec-static character of our existence is essential to the possibility of
persisting as human. In this sense, we can see how sexual rights brings together two related domains of ec-stasy, two connected
ways of being outside of ourselves. As sexual, we are dependent on a world of others, vulnerable to need, violence, betrayal,
compulsion, fantasy; we project desire, and we have it projected onto us. To be part of a sexual minority means, most
emphatically, that we are also dependent on the protection of public and private spaces, on legal sanctions that protect us from
violence, on safeguards of various institutional kinds against unwanted, aggression imposed upon us, and the violent actions they
sometimes instigate. In this sense, our very lives, and the persistence of our desire, depend on there being norms of
recognition that produce and sustain our viability as human. Thus, when we speak about sexual rights, we are not merely
talking about rights that pertain to our individual desires but to the norms on which our very individuality depends. That
means that the discourse of rights avows our dependency, the mode of our being in the hands of others, a mode of being
with and for others without which we cannot be.
3. Indigenous Indian development creates a solvent global model

Miriam Jorgensen, Research Associate for the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development
and consultant to the Standing Rock Sioux and White Mountain Apache Tribes, 97, American Indian Studies, p.
137
In particular, the challenge for American Indian economic development is for it to be indigenously defined and
institutionally based. As such, development will be a process which takes account of Native assets and goals and incorporates
them into specific plans for the future. It will be capable of addressing welfare issues generally, and not income issues alone.
Because it concentrates on institutional development, it will not put limited projects ahead of broader policy-making. It will
create a political-economic environment which is conducive to investment by tribal members and non- members alike.
Furthermore, its political and social institutions will together promote the continued success of these designated welfare-
improving investments. Clearly, development that succeeds at combating poverty and its concomitant ills is not narrowly
"economic." Finally, if Native nations achieve this kind of development, their success will be a beacon not only to other
indigenous peoples whose colonizers allow a measure of political independence, but to all nations which are restructuring
their development outlook. American Indian nations have the potential to show other countries—from Eastern Europe to
Asia and beyond -how development can be done "right."
12
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Observation 3: Self-Determination 3/3

4. Suppression of self-determination triggers wars.
Glenn Morris, Professor of the Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous Law and Policy at the
University of Colorado, 99, Native American Sovereignty, p. 324-325
More important, the purpose here is to indicate that through the application of contemporary principles of international law,
particularly in the area of decolonization and self-determination, indigenous peoples must ultimately be entitled to decide for
themselves the dimensions of their political, economic, cultural, and social conditions. It must be emphasized that the
construction of this position is not based in the supposition that because indigenous peoples constitute ethnic or cultural
minorities in larger societies they must be protected due to that status. Rather, the position is that since Europeans first
wandered into the Western hemisphere they have acknowledged the unique status of indigenous peoples qua indigenous
peoples. That status is only now being reacknowledged through the application of evolving principles of positive and
customary international law. While such assertions may seem novel and untenable at present, it should be recalled that just
forty years ago, tens of millions of people languished under the rule of colonial domination; today, they are politically
independent. Central to their independence was the development and acceptance of the right to self-determination under
international law. Despite such developments, many colonized peoples were forced by desperate conditions to engage in
armed struggle to advance their legitimate aspirations. Similarly, for many indigenous peoples few viable options remain
in their quest for control of their destinies. Consequently, a majority of the current armed conflicts in the world are not
between established states, but between indigenous peoples and states that seek their subordination. Armed struggle for
most indigenous peoples represents a desperate and untenable strategy for their survival. Nonetheless, it may remain an
unavoidable option for many of them, because if their petitions seeking recognition of their rights in international forums
are ignored, many indigenous peoples, quite literally, face extermination.
5. VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ARE TRAPPED WITHIN THE SPHERE OF THE UNREAL

WHERE CERTAIN LIVES ARE NOT CONSIDERED LIVES AT ALL. THIS GIVES,
RISE TO INEVITABLE VIOLENCE AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE NOT RECOGNIZED
AS REAL.
Butler 04; (Judith; Professor in Rhetoric at UC Berkeley; Undoing Gender pg. 24-25)
So what is the relation between violence and what is "unreal," between violence and unreality that attends to those who
become the victims of violence, and where does the notion of the ungrievable life come in? On the level of discourse,
certain lives are not considered lives at all, they cannot be humanized; they fit no dominant frame for the human, and
their dehumanization occurs first, at this level. This level then gives rise to a physical violence that in some sense
delivers the message of dehumanization which is already at work in the culture.
So, it is not just that a discourse exists in which there is no frame and no story and no name for such a life, 'Or that
violence might be said to realize or apply this discourse. Violence against those who are already not quite lives, who are
living in a state of suspension between life and death, leaves a mark that is no mark. If there is a discourse it is a silent
and melancholic writing in which there have been no lives, and no losses, there has been no common physical condition,
no vulnerability that serves as the basis for an apprehension of our commonality, and there has been no sundering of
that commonality. None of this takes place on the order of the event. None of this takes place. How many lives have been
lost from AIDS in Africa in the last few years? Where are the media representations of this loss, the discursive
elaborations of what these losses mean for communities there?
13
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
Observation 4: Solvency 1/4

1. Despite past atrocities, Native Americans support alternative energy and
believe Congress should create a tax incentive to aid in developing these
technologies for tribes.
National Congress of American Indians, 2008, 2008 Political Platform, http://nativevote.org/documents/NCAI%20Politi
cal%20Platform%202008.doc.
WE BELIEVE in the importance of balancing natural resource and economic development with sustainable
conservation principles. To help combat climate change and simultaneously develop new economic opportunities, renewable
energy sources should be a priority for future energy development. Indian Nations across the country have a vast
renewable energy potential, and many of them are leading the way in developing wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy
sources. Indian tribes have a great capacity to assist in the national energy agenda, and work as partners in developing
progressive energy policies. We call upon Congress to adopt legislation that will create a Production Tax Incentive that
will allow Indian tribes to develop alternative energy sources in an economically feasible manner.
WE BELEVE that the United States, as legal trustee of Indian lands, has a special obligation to assist tribes in the
protection, management, and environmentally sound development of their natural resources, including reserved water
rights and mineral resources, toward the end of utilizing them to promote the development of sustainable, diversified, self
governing economies on Indian reservations. The history of the government’s efforts to make these decisions and to manage
these properties unilaterally is replete with scandalous failures, resulting in enormous liabilities for the government,
unmitigated environmental disasters, and incalculable financial losses for Indian tribes and resources owners. In its fiduciary
capacity, and in accordance with the federal Indian policy of tribal self-determination, the federal government must
make available appropriate private sector expertise, where requested, that will be responsive to tribal objectives and
cultural values in making decisions regarding resource development on Indian lands.
2. The tax status of Native Americans removes them from the two criteria necessary for successful wind
power business.
The project owners: Project ownership is the key to the issues discussed in this paper. Only certain owners will find profit in
wind farms. These owners must, for financial reasons, meet two criteria. First, they must have easy access to the capital
markets. Wind farms are extremely capital intensive. A 30MW n33 wind farm (enough to power, on average, 12,000 homes)
such as one proposed for the Rosebud Reservation can cost $ 48 million to build. n34 Modern wind farms are generally in the
100-200MW range, and can represent capital investments of half a billion dollars. n35 Second, the owner must have a large,
steady tax liability from non-wind operations that they can offset with the PTC credits. A 30MW wind farm throws off
more than $ 1.6 million per year in tax credits for the first ten years of its operation. n36
[*275]
The two requirements above - access to capital markets and large tax liability - mean wind farm owners tend to be some
of the largest corporations in the world, and that the owners and financiers of projects tend to be one in the same.
American investment bank Goldman Sachs, financial giant General Electric and Australian investment bank Babcock & Brown
all own or have owned significant wind properties. n37
III. Tax Credits and Tribes
However, the two requirements - access to capital markets and large tax liability - also work to wreck the hopes for
tribal ownership of wind projects. Tribes, as discussed infra, are non-taxable entities. As such, they cannot use tax
credits, and are at a competitive disadvantage compared to taxable owners of wind projects.
14
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen

3. Tradable tax credits for wind farms are a financial incentive from Congress to Native Americans to
increase alternative energy.
Making tax credits tradable by tribes - and thereby aligning the financial incentives of tribes with the rest of the U.S. business
community - promotes the federal goal of guiding economic activity, whether in the wind power industry or in other industries
with substantial tax credits.
Congress is bent on fostering renewable energy production in the United States. Congress is also bent on fostering tribal
energy development. If Congress made the PTC tradable, tribes would face the same tax incentives as the rest of the
business community, renewable energy development on tribal lands would increase, and Congress would take a step
forward in achieving its goals of tribal and renewable energy development.
Tax credits are economic incentives the government provides to promote certain activities. n76 With these incentives, the
government is trying to encourage economic activity (such as charitable giving or pollution-free energy production) that
the government considers socially beneficial. n77 The government has an interest in promoting those activities targeted for
promotion to the fullest extent possible, including in Indian Country.
4. Tradable tax credits promote lasting business and encourage nation-state

building.
How The Non-Transferability of Tax Credits Harms Indian Tribes, American Indian Law Review
Making the PTC tradable for tribes, as part of a program to make all tax credits tradable for tribes, would have a positive
economic impact on tribes. But to fulfill its potential, a tradable tax credit must be enacted as part of broader legislation to
bolster tribal economic development. Or, as one scholar put it, "A federal Indian policy that focuses on the exploitation of tribal
natural resources, and not on the development of tribal economies, is doomed to resistance and failure." n98
Much research has been done over the past decade on the factors that make tribal economies prosper, notably by Stephen
Cornell, Joseph Kalt, Jonathan [*290] Taylor and their colleagues at the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic
Development. n99 The main points of the research stress tribal governance, the importance of tribal sovereignty, tribal corporate
governance and the need to think broadly about economic development in order for tribal enterprises to succeed.
Cornell and Kalt, in particular, stress a nation-building approach:
A nation-building approach to development doesn't say, "let's start a business." Instead, it says, "let's build an
environment that encourages investors to invest, that helps businesses last, and that allows investments to flourish and
pay off." A nation-building approach requires new ways of thinking about and pursuing economic development. Telling
the planning office to go get some businesses going doesn't begin to crack the problem. The solutions lie elsewhere: in
the design and construction of nations that work. n100
New ideas in tax credits and other tax incentives for tribes can be a part of this nation-building approach, by laying the
fiscal framework for tribal business to prosper. But tax credits will only be a part of the solution - moving toward tribal
economic development will require much broader effort than tax credits alone, and Congress should be cautioned against
thinking that solving the PTC transferability problem will prove a magic bullet for tribes.
15
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen

5. Tradable tax credits decrease tribal dependency on the federal government.
Increasing tribal revenues from wind energy production - or any other economic activity that prospers off-reservation
in a tax-credit environment and could benefit tribes if tax credits are made tradable - is a good way to meet federal
goals of reducing tribal dependence.
[*287]
The reduction of tribal dependence has been a congressional goal since the nineteenth century. Even during the passage
of the Allotment Acts in the late nineteenth century, the twisted logic of the time said that forcing tribal members into farming
would push the Indians toward "real and permanent progress." n83
This goal of reduced tribal dependence was first codified in the economic development context nearly 100 years ago - in
the Buy Indian Act of 1908. n84 The Act directs the Department of Interior to give preference to Indians as far as is practicable
in hiring and procurement. n85 The Buy Indian Act has been expanded over the years. In 1974, it was made to apply to all
federal contracts. n86
Congress has been willing to extend the same type of support evinced by the Buy Indian Act to tribal energy programs.
For example, in 2001, the full House of Representatives passed the Hayworth amendment to the proposed energy bill adding
"energy products and energy by-products" to the categories of materials covered under the Buy Indian Act. n87 That bill, House
Bill 4, died in conference committee in 2002. However, the ideas from the Hayworth amendment are incorporated into the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 - the Act provides for federal purchases of power generated by Indian tribes. n88
Even outside the energy development or economic development contexts, the Federal Government has made clear
through the years that it would like to see the tribes less dependent on direct grants of federal dollars. The Reagan
administration advocated reduced tribal dependence in an important policy statement issued in 1983. "It is important
to the concept of self-government that tribes reduce their dependence on federal funds by providing a greater
percentage of the cost of their self-government," the administration wrote. n89
[*288]
Any measures that give the tribes a leg up in the economic development game reduce their economic dependency on the
federal government. Wind power development could play a role in this economic development, but only if tribes have
access to the PTC. Wind power development would provide the "greater percentage of the cost of [tribal] self
government" that the Reagan administration sought and it would push the tribes toward "real and permanent
progress".
6. Wind energy is readily available within many tribal lands in the West.
Thomas L. Acker, William M. Auberle, Earl P.N. Duque, William D. Jeffery, David R. LaRoche, Virgil Masayesva, and
Dean H. Smith, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Director for the Center for Sustainable Environments, Director of the Institute for Tribal
Environmental Practices, and Professor of Economics and Applied Indigenous Studies, 9-21-02, Implications of the Regional
Haze Rule on Renewable and Wind Energy Development on Native American Lands in the West College of Business
Administration Working Paper Series, http://ses.nau.edu/pdf/Smith_AWEA.pdf.
It has been established that many tribes in the West are interested in developing their renewable and wind energy
resources. The question that naturally arises next concerns the availability of wind resources on Native American lands. Wind
energy resource maps from the national wind resource assessment of the United States, created in 1986 for the U.S.
Department of Energy by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, are documented in the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United
States. (5) Wind maps based on this data and overlaid with tribal boundaries and transmission lines were created by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory to assist tribes in evaluating their potential for wind energy development. Wind
resource maps similar to the one shown in Figure 2 are presented for each of the 13 states in the WRAP region in
Reference (6) (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota,
Utah, Washington and Wyoming), along with resource maps for solar, biomass and geothermal energy. There are 237 tribes in
the WRAP region. Based upon NREL wind energy resource maps, there are about 60 reservations in the WRAP region
that have a class-5 wind resource (excellent) or better. Many of these reservations with the wind resource have
sufficient land to develop the wind resource, and some are in proximity to existing transmission lines.
16
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen

7. Empirically, Native Americans have been able to utilize Alternative Energy technology.
National Conference on State Legislature, Legislature service organization, June 2007, Native American Power,
http://www.ncsl.org/magazine/articles/2007/07SLJune07_Native.pdf
New energy projects are popping up all around the country. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs in
Central Oregon are on their way to becoming a major energy supplier in the Pacific Northwest. The tribes’ own
interest in two large hydroelectric projects and a biomass project that operates on wood waste from the tribes’ lumber
mill. Another project in the works is a large biomass plant that will use forest waste to generate renewable
electricity for more than 15,000 homes. With funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, Warm Springs also is
working on a wind energy assessment, and is studying geothermal resources on the reservation.
There are more examples around the country. A wind turbine powers Four Bears Casino near Ft. Berthoud,
N.D. The Mohegan Nation in Uncasville, Conn., tapped the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund to finance two giant fuel
cells that use hydrogen and operate like a battery. This cleaner power replaces diesel generators as the source
of emergency power for the tribe’s gambling facility. The tribe plans eventually to go off-grid by adding
more fuel cells for their main power source as well.
17
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
2AC Blocks
18
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
A2: T – “in the United States”

1. Counter interpretation: Reservations are in the U.S.
National Park Service, no date

http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/ResMAP.HTM
This map shows the location of Federal Indian Reservations in the continental
United States. The map was compiled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in ARC/INFO format
at a scale of 1:2,000,000. The BIA map data was subsequently adjusted by the Center for
Advanced Spatial Technologies to a scale of 1:5845860 using a Lambert Azimuthal Equal
Area Projection.
2. We meet. Native American land is in the United States. I don’t need a passport to get into
a casino, and they are still under American jurisdiction. In all of the literature natives are
referred to as “in the United States.”
3. Standards
a. Predictability – no one thinks of reservations as outside of the United States, and our
affirmative is predictable. All literature refers to it as in the United States, and there
are still laws in the country that affect natives.
b. Ground – the neg does not lose any ground by us running this aff, they gain ground
by being able to run arguments they would have never been able to run. Like
essentialism. If they are going to claim ground loss, make them tell you exactly
what ground they have lost.
4. T is not a voter for education – you still learn even if we aren’t topical.
19
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
A2: Consult Natives CP 1/2
1. It’s normal means

a. Consultation on development projects with indigenous peoples is
international law.
Karen E. Bravo, Writer and Research Editor for Columbia Journal of Legal and Social Problems, Summer 1997, the Columbia
Journal of Law and Social Problems, Balancing Indigenous Rights to Land and the Demands of Economic Development: Lessons
from the United States and Australia, Lexis
Under the international legal system, states are obligated to protect and promote the rights of their indigenous citizens.
n28
United Nations documents provide a basis for understanding those obligations and contextualizing the demands of
indigenous groups within the parameters of international norms and expectations. n29 Traditional human rights documents
usually posit the individual as the rights bearer; n30 in contrast, indigenous communities are concerned with collective rights that
will protect their ability to continue their existence as a "separate" people. n31
Despite this focus on individual rights, the general human rights instruments adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
carry the basic seeds for the recognition and security of land rights and the right of participation of indigenous communities in
development projects.
A. protection of indigenous rights
The ILO Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries n32 and the Draft
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples n33 fully recognize the goals of indigenous peoples. First, both documents
affirm the right of indigenous [*536] peoples to participate in and control development activities that affect them. For
example, Article 7 of Convention 169 expressly recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to control and participate in the
development process, especially as it affects their lives, beliefs, and lands. n34 Article 30 of the Draft Declaration mandates
the informed consent of, and consultation with, indigenous peoples before development projects that affect their lives and
territories are undertaken. n35 Convention 169 also confers on indigenous people control of their economic, social, and
cultural development. Governments are urged to, among other things, make the living standards of indigenous peoples affected
by development projects a priority, to implement studies in connection with development projects, and to protect the
environments of indigenous peoples. n36 [*537] Governments must also ensure compensation when land rights or resources are
infringed or relocation is necessary. n37
b. The United States federal government is in constant consultation with

Indian tribes.
Timothy McKeown, Ph.D., is the program officer with the National NAGPRA
Program, Summer/Fall 1997, Speaking Nation to Nation, National Park Service,
http://www.nps.gov/archeology/cg/vol2_num3-4/meaning.htm
Since 1990, a growing number of statutes and executive orders specifically require federal consultation with Indian
tribes. Most requirements apply to particular departments or agencies, with the Department of the Interior having to consult
most often. Only two statutes—the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act, as amended in 1992—apply to most agencies. In addition, Executive Order 12875 calls for regular
consultation with tribal governments and Executive Order 13007 requires consultation with Indian tribes and religious
representatives on the access, use, and protection of sacred sites.
20
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
A2: Consult Natives CP 2/2

c. Executive agencies are required to consult with Native American tribal
governments.
Timothy McKeown, Ph.D., is the program officer with the National NAGPRA Program, Summer/Fall 1997, Speaking Nation to
Nation, National Park Service, http://www.nps.gov/archeology/cg/vol2_num3-4/meaning.htm
Consultation is founded on the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes
established by the Constitution, treaties, statutes, court decisions, and policy. This relationship has evolved to ensure
tribes sovereignty over their lands and a voice in federal management. This legacy makes consultation similar in many
ways to diplomacy between nations, which President Clinton recently underscored by requiring all executive departments
and agencies to consult with federally recognized tribal governments "in a knowledgeable, sensitive manner respectful to
tribal sovereignty" (Executive Memorandum, April 29, 1994).
Federal consultation is driven by specific statutes, regulations, and policies.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act requires consultation with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian
organizations, lineal descendants, and traditional Native American religious leaders in order to provide for the disposition or
repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony in an
agency's possession or under its control.
The National Historic Preservation Act requires consultation with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and the
interested public regarding means by which adverse effects on any National Register-eligible district, site, building, structure,
or object will be considered.
Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda require all executive departments and agencies to consult prior to taking
actions that affect federally recognized tribal governments. Such actions often include activities conducted under the
National Environment Policy Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act,
and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
2. Perm: Do the Counterplan. It’s legitimate since the Counterplan and the plan are the same. It also means that
the DA becomes a net benefit to the plan.
3. Consult Counterplans Bad:

a. Interpretation: the Neg gets all CPs except those which compete off the immediacy or certainty of
the plan. It's a voter for fairness and education:
b. Moots the 1AC - the counterplan does 100% of our plan text, stealing our advocacy and making it
impossible for us to generate offense. Reject the neg for being artificially competitive.
c. Unlimits aff research burden - There are nearly-infinite numbers of actors to consult or ways they
can modify the immediacy or certainty of plan. The aff cannot prepare answers to all these minute
changes while the neg can merely win on 1% risk of the net benefit, makes the aff always lose.
d. Timeframe fiat bad - the plan gets implemented after consultation, to which there is no definitive
date for conclusion – lets the neg avoid aff turns and is inherently unpredictable.
e. Inherently conditional - destroys 2AC and 1AR time allocation because the neg refuses to defend if
they would say “yes” or “no”. This is the worst form of conditionality and an independent voter.
21
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
A2: Birds DA 1/2

1. DA is not intrinsic to Plan. This is not a perm, but a set of decisional constraints. This is best for education
because it teaches us to separate the avoidable form the inevitable.
2. Correctly used wind energy technology doesn’t harm the ecosystem.

Kamaal R. Zaidi, Attorney, 2007, Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacade
mic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4168507277&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo
=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4168507282&cisb=22_T4168507281&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=221806&docNo=1
Wind energy is regarded as "green" technology because it produces no air pollutants or greenhouse gases, and thus
has little impact on the environment. n47 Therefore, wind energy neither uses any source of fuel, nor produces toxic or
radioactive waste. n48 Wind farms have had some impact on specific bird and [*208] bat populations. n49
However, as long as an appropriate site is located, the capture of wind energy also poses little threat to damaging
surrounding ecosystems, including wildlife and fauna and flora. n50 Wind farming is popular among farmers because they
can still grow crops and graze livestock on their land with little interference from wind turbines. n51 Using wind energy
instead of conventional fossil fuels to power approximately 200 homes would leave around 900,000 kilograms of
coal in the ground and reduce annual greenhouse emissions by 2,000 tonnes.
3. Aff solves the terminal impact. Natives are key to biodiversity. Not doing plan makes natives sad people and this
is bad. Cross apply Friedberg 2000 from the 1AC
4. Case outweighs – self-determination, sovereignty, and colonialism are all more important than a couple of birds
dying. Our impacts are people who are not really people
5. Fatal Bird Collisions With Turbines Caused By Poor Planning, Out-Moded Technology, and Poor Siting.
Fatalities Caused By Wind Turbines Are Insignificant When Placed In Context
EWEA (European Wind Energy Association) 2004. “Wind Energy and the Environment.”
Wind-related avian collision Collisions with turbines have been an issue at some older wind farm sites form the
1980s, especially the Altamont Pass in California – a result of poor siting, out-moded turbines and tower
technology. Subsequent experiences in Germany and Denmark show that such effects can be avoided by
responsible planning practice. Proper siting of turbines is important if adverse impacts are to be avoided.
In the United States, a study in 2001 estimated an average of 2.2 fatalities for each turbine. By comparison,
between 100 and 1,000 million birds are estimated to die each year in the US from colliding with vehicles,
buildings, power lines and other structures. That is wind-related avian collision fatalities represent 0.01 -
0.02% of annual avian fatalities in the US. In Spain, a study in the province of Navarre showed that 0.13 birds
had died per year per turbine. The impact of birds must be placed in context. 99% of threats to birds are human
related, from habitat loss to industrialization, over exploitation of natural resources, hunting, the pet trade,
pollution, etc. Habitat loss is the single greatest threat to birds, and 12% of the world’s 9,800 bird species face
extinction.
A2: Birds DA 2/2

6. Even If Windplants Were Numerous, Bird Fatalities From Collisions Would Still Be Insignificant
22
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
National Wind Coordinating Committee. August 2001. “Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: A Summary of
Existing Studies And Comparisons To Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States”
Our review indicates that avian collision mortality associated with windplants is much lower than other sources of collision
mortality in the United States. We believe there are reasons for the relatively low mortality rates at most windplants. The primary
reason is that there are far fewer windplants and that many of the windplants are located in areas with relatively low bird and raptor
use. However, even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely cause no more than a few
percent of all collision deaths related to human structures. It appears from the available data that siting windplants in areas
with low bird and raptor use is currently the best way to minimize collision mortality. The apparently high raptor mortality
levels at Altamont can mostly be attributed to high prey base for raptors, large populations of raptors, topography and the
large size of the windplant. Other factors such as older turbine designs may also contribute to the raptor mortality levels, but such
factors are less understood. Windplants sited in areas of high bird use can expect to have higher fatality rates than many of those
reported in this document although other factors such as topography, prey abundance, and species composition also likely influence
mortality. For example, in the Netherlands, where turbines are often sited near coastal areas, estimates of collision rates have been as
high as 37 birds per turbine per year (Winkelman 1994). The results of our review and updated estimates indicate that avian
collision mortality attributable to windpower at the current level of production in the U.S. is minor in comparison to other
sources of collision mortality. The current levels of mortality caused by windplants do not appear to be causing any significant
population impacts (except possibly for golden eagles at Altamont (Hunt et al. 1999), although several possible contributors to this
decline have been proposed). Due to recent declines in many species of birds, especially some raptors and many neotropical
migrants, however, any additional mortality may be a cause for concern. Monitoring programs in place at many of the newer
generation windplants will continue to provide information to better understand avian mortality levels and to continue to determine
factors important for siting windplants. Because the cumulative impacts of all mortality factors on birds continue to increase as
the human population climbs and resource demands grow, efforts by every industry are important to reverse avian mortality
trends and to minimize bird deaths.
23
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
A2: States CP 1/1

1. States cannot offer same sort of incentives government can
2. Natives are asking for and/or need federal support
3. More colonialist/doesn’t solve colonialism adv – state lines were not drawn in accordance
to tribal boundaries, so continuing to confine natives to these boundaries perpetuates
colonialism
4. 50 state fiat bad
a. Empirically denied- There is no example even in the history of our country that all 53 states and
territories have accepted a proposal in unison- the fail to read evidence that they have and it is very
unlikely anyway
b. Counter interpretation- The neg gets any CP on which there is literature and a historical precedent-
this insures the neg has a solvency advocate and the affirmative gets offense.
c. Real world and Education- since the 50 state counter plan would never occur in real life- we don’t
learn anything in this round- the purpose of this round is to learn about real life situations in policy-
not fake proposals that would never occur.
d. Multi-actor fiat bad- it legitimizes countless numbers of solvency advocates at the same time- this is
abusive and unpredictable for us to defend.
e. It’s a voting issue- its abusive to the affirmative- we should have to answer something so arbitrary it
would never occur in real life
5. Native Americans hate states more/won’t accept state help

6. Perm – States can assist the Natives in their alternative energy pursuits but leave the
tradable tax credits to the federal government.
7. We have already consulted them by the fact that they have already said yes, but states
would have to consult - each of the 50 individually.
24
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
A2: Essentialism 1/2

1. Our essentialism is good – recognition must come before essentialism.
Judith Butler, Badass UC Berkeley professor, 2004, Undoing Gender, pg 2-3
The Hegelian tradition links desire with recognition, claiming that desire is always a desire for recognition and that it is only
through the experience of recognition that any of us becomes constituted as socially viable beings. That view has its allure
and its truth, but it also misses a couple of important points. The terms by which we are recognized as human are socially
articulated and changeable. And sometimes the very terms that confer "humanness" on some individuals are those that
deprive certain other individuals of the possibility of achieving that status, producing a differential between the human
and the less-than-human. These norms have far-reaching consequences for how we understand the model of the human
entitled to rights or included in the participatory sphere of political deliberation. The human is understood differentially
depending on its race, the legibility of that race, its morphology, the recognizability of that morphology, its sex, the perceptual
verifiability of that sex, its ethnicity, the categorical understanding of that ethnicity. Certain humans are recognized as less than
human, and that form of qualified recognition does not lead to a viable life. Certain humans are not recognized as human at
all, and that leads to yet another order of unlivable life. If part of what desire wants is to gain recognition, then gender,
insofar as it is animated by desire, will want recognition as well. But if the schemes of recognition that are available to us are
those that "undo" the person by conferring recognition, or "undo" the person by withholding recognition, then recognition
becomes a site of power by which the human is differentially produced. This means that to the extent that desire is implicated
in social norms, it is bound up with the question of power and with the problem of who qualifies as the recognizably human
and who does not.
If I am a certain gender, will I still be regarded as part of the human? Will the "human" expand to include me in its reach?
If I desire in certain ways, will I be able to live? Will there be a place for my life, and will it be recognizable to the others upon
whom I depend for social existence?
There are advantages to remaining less than intelligible, if intelligibility is understood as that which is produced as a
consequence of recognition according to prevailing social norms. Indeed, if my options are loathsome, if I have no desire
to be recognized within a certain set of norms, then it follows that my sense of survival depends upon escaping the clutch of
those norms by which recognition is conferred. It may well be that my sense of social belonging is impaired by the distance
I take, but surely that estrangement is preferable to gaining a sense of intelligibility by virtue of norms that will only do
me in from another direction. Indeed, the capacity to develop a critical relation to these norms presupposes a distance from
them, an ability to suspend or defer the need for them, even as there is a desire for norms that might let one live. The critical
relation depends as well on a capacity, invariably collective, to articulate an alternative, minority version of sustaining
norms or ideals that enable me to act. If I am someone who cannot be without doing, then the conditions of my doing are, in
part, the conditions of my existence. If my doing is dependent on what is done to me or, rather, the ways in which I am done by
norms, then the possibility of my persistence as an "I" depends upon my being able to do something with what is done with me.
This does not mean that I can remake the world so that I become its maker. That fantasy of godlike power only refuses the
ways we are constituted, invariably and from the start, by what is before us and outside of us. My agency does not consist in
denying this condition of my constitution. If I have any agency, it is opened up by the fact that I am constituted by a
social world I never chose. That my agency is riven with paradox does not mean it is impossible. It means only that
paradox is the condition of its possibility.
2. The essentialism of the aff is a prerequisite to cultural intelligibility. We must know the natives as a
group before we can know them individually through the cultural intelligibility claimed in the 1AC.
25
DDI 2008 BQ
dandridge/hansen
A2: Essentialism 2/2

3. Culture is something that one has, not what one is. This is a matter of reclaiming culture.
Gerald Sider, PhD at CUNY, The Walls Came Tumbling Up: The Production of Culture, Class and Native
American Societies, Australian Journal of Anthropology, Dec 2006, Vol. 17, Issue 3
In conclusion, we have before us two situations, one colonial and one contemporary, where culture/cultures are formed
not as the property of a people, not as something people have, 'these people have this culture', but as an aspect of a
much larger social formation, where place, position, and profound inequalities are necessarily contested. What
anthropology has been calling culture takes part of its shape in these wide-ranging contests. In this perspective we might well
and productively understand the production of cultures (like races, in their necessary plurality, as violent, real fictions) to
be part and parcel of processes of state formation, along with the production of race, gender, nationality, and citizenship: all
the deadly flowers of modern state power that grew so virulently in the nineteenth century from seeds planted only
shortly before. What we have called culture turns out to be a major terrain for the production and reproduction of
inequalities among a people--especially the kinds of locally-specific inequalities that root a people within and against
their place in a larger social formation, within and against their place in the state, among and against each other. Yet
here we must also keep firmly in mind that the kinds of beliefs and practices that we call culture can also be a major terrain for
defying state power, and for forming one's own more or less collective claims upon the production of inequality. The crucial
point to understand, and to find ways to use, is that culture ordinarily does this in simultaneous collusion with some, and
opposition to other, forms and processes of received inequalities.
To address this characteristic mixture of collusion and opposition, I end with a final suggestion- provocation: 'culture'
emerges from this analysis as a terrain of necessary and unavoidable struggle. Even the so-called 'traditional cultures'
of indigenous and hinterland peoples are not simply ways of withdrawing from a larger world or from the forces of
'history', but one among many ways of engaging, confrontationally-evasively, this larger world and those forces. In
mobilising to resist the outrages of state-sanctioned power, it may help to put aside the well-earned attractiveness of Gramscian
notions of hegemony and look more closely at the potentials woven into the social relations, beliefs and practices of
ordinary people's lives, for it is in these relations that peoples' capacities to grasp the forces arrayed against and for them is
made and unmade.
To say that culture is a crucial terrain of struggle over the production of inequality, and simultaneously that it is a
fiction of power, puts us in a position to go beyond the usual notions of power securing its domination with its
hegemony. The route beyond lies in the ambiguity, the irreducible confusion, of the English word 'with'. If we say that John
fights with Jane, it could mean against her or it could mean both fight alongside each other against, say, Bush, Blair and
Howard. What then if we say that Jane and John fight with domination? That fluidity, that potential for instant,
fundamental, but partial transformation, that simultaneity of against and within, that irreducible ambivalence, both
makes hope possible and more: gives some life to what ordinary people, borrowing our central anthropological concept
which is also one of the categories of state domination, have learned to call their culture. This ambivalence, this volatile
and continual production of 'culture' can snap hegemony like a dead twig, or make a dead staff flower--because
dominated people both can, and must, continually form new kinds of relations with one another.
4. Perm: engage the plan while reconfiguring notions of identity

5. They bite their own K. Instead of viewing individuals as pure difference, they conceive of them within
their tribes. This assumes that each tribe has a homologous identity.
6. No link – we don’t force tribes to take tax credits, they can always say no.
7. Links to CP – you enter into binding consultation with tribes, this assumes homology.
8. The neg doesn’t offer an alternative to essentialism besides rejecting our Affirmative. This means they
do not solve our harms, so our Aff become a DA to their K.
26

196 BQ Natives Affirmative Wave 3

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

196 BQ Natives Affirmative Wave 3

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NATIVES AFFIRMATIVE – 1AC

Table of Contents: Natives Aff (Wave 3)

Observation 1: Inherency 1/2

Observation 1: Inherency 2/2

2. Native Americans are not eligible for federal incentives.

Observation 2: Colonialism 1/3

2. The failure to transition to renewables makes us complicit in cultural

Observation 2: Colonialism 2/3

Observation 2: Colonialism 3/3

Observation 3: Self-determination 1/3

Observation 3: Self-determination 2/3

3. Indigenous Indian development creates a solvent global model

Observation 3: Self-Determination 3/3

5. VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ARE TRAPPED WITHIN THE SPHERE OF THE UNREAL

Observation 4: Solvency 1/4

Observation 4: Solvency 2/4

4. Tradable tax credits promote lasting business and encourage nation-state

Observation 4: Solvency 3/4

Observation 4: Solvency 4/4

A2: T – “in the United States”

National Park Service, no date

A2: Consult Natives CP 1/2

1. It’s normal means

b. The United States federal government is in constant consultation with

A2: Consult Natives CP 2/2

3. Consult Counterplans Bad:

A2: Birds DA 1/2

2. Correctly used wind energy technology doesn’t harm the ecosystem.

A2: Birds DA 2/2

A2: States CP 1/1

5. Native Americans hate states more/won’t accept state help

A2: Essentialism 1/2

A2: Essentialism 2/2

4. Perm: engage the plan while reconfiguring notions of identity

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen