Ratify The Kyoto Protocal Negative Brief For F

Hearn/Rentschler Page 1 of 7
9/27/2009 Kyoto protocol negative Arx Axiom
RATIFY THE KYOTO PROTOCAL NEGATIVE BRIEF FOR F-SERIES
INTRO: 2
A. Intro quote: Kyoto deeply flawed 2
SIGNIFICANCE: 3
1. Global warming 3
A. GW not anthropogenic 3
2. Kyoto doesn’t solve GW 3
3. OBAMA SOLVES 4
A. Obama solves for case. “the one” will move the US to the forefront on the environment 4
B. Obama solves international relations and all that good socialist stuff 4
4. Copenhagen accords 4
A. US will ratify new treaty 4
5. AT: WTO penalties/Everybody hates us b/c we don’t do Kyoto 5

A. No impact to failure: many countries haven’t actually fulfilled their obligations 5
B. More than half of Kyoto countries aren’t fulfilling obligations 5
C. Without the US Kyoto lost all significance 5
SOLVENCY: 5
1. Kyoto can’t solve because of India and China 6
A. Kyoto fails because china and india are exempt 6
2. Kyoto doesn’t solve GW 6

A. Kyoto reduces temperatures a “woefully inadequate” .02 degrees Celsius 6
DA’S 6
1. Economy 6
Link: Reduces economy by 4% per year, that’s not very smart 6
B. Kyoto would cost the US econ 4% of GDP and 4 Million jobs 7
2. Oil prices 7
Link: Kyoto raises oil prices 7
Impact: Oil price spikes cause recessions 7
A. Price shocks cause every recession since world war 2 7
1
Intro:
A. Intro quote: Kyoto deeply flawed
Sheila M. Olmstead Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Robert N Stavins John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and
Resources for the Future December 6, 2005 “AN INTERNATIONAL POLICY
ARCHITECTURE FOR THE POST-KYOTO ERA”
http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2006/0106_1015_0604.pdf [CR]
“Because the Kyoto Protocol’s ambitious targets apply only to the short term (2008-
2012) and only to industrialized nations, the agreement will impose relatively high costs
and generate only modest short-term benefits while failing to provide a real solution
(Joseph E. Aldy et al. 2003). For these reasons, most economists see the agreement as
deeply flawed (Richard N. Cooper 1998; David G. Victor 2001; Warwick J. McKibbin
and Peter J. Wilcoxen 2002), although some see it as an acceptable first step (Axel
Michaelowa 2003). Virtually all agree, however, that the Protocol is not sufficient to the
overall challenge.”
Significance:
1. Global warming
A. GW not anthropogenic
Jerry Taylor (Director Natural Resource Studies, The Cato Institute), “Should the U.S. sign the Kyoto
Protocol?” New York Times, March 25, 2002,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_12_134/ai_n18613488/ [CR]
“First of all, there's simply no evidence yet that mankind has anything to do with the
modest amount of global warming we've experienced so far. As the most recent report of
the UN's International Panel on Climate Change points out, there is no "compelling
evidence of a clear cause-and-effect link" between industrial pollution and the detectable
warming of the Earth's climate. The report goes on to speculate about whether it might be
possible to make that connection in the future, and concludes that no one knows for sure.
The assertion that we already know that industrial emissions are behind global warming
is simply dead wrong.”
2. Kyoto doesn’t solve GW

A. Doesn’t solve climate change
2
“Besides, even if global warming is as bad as some environmentalists think, the Kyoto
Protocol would not produce the desired effect. Computer simulations show it would only
reduce global temperatures by a tiny fraction of 1 degree Fahrenheit by 2050. This is not
enough to justify the enormous cost.”
3. OBAMA SOLVES
A. Obama solves for case. “the one” will move the US to the forefront on the
environment
New York Times February 28, 2009 ELISABETH ROSENTHAL “Obama’s Backing
Raises Hopes for Climate Pact”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/science/earth/01treaty.html[CR]
“But within weeks of taking office, President Obama has radically shifted the global
equation, placing the United States at the forefront of the international climate effort and
raising hopes that an effective international accord might be possible. Mr. Obama’s chief
climate negotiator, Todd Stern, said last week that the United States would be involved in
the negotiation of a new treaty — to be signed in Copenhagen in December — “in a
robust way.””
B. Obama solves international relations and all that good socialist stuff
“The perception that the United States is now serious has set off a flurry of diplomacy
around the globe. “The lesson of Kyoto is that if the U.S. isn’t taking it seriously there is
no reason for anyone else to,” said Bill McKibben, who runs the environmental
organization www.350.org. This week the United Nation’s top climate official, Yvo de
Boer, will make the rounds in Washington to discuss climate issues. The United Nations
secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, is organizing a high-level meeting on climate and
energy. Teams from Britain and Denmark have visited the White House to discuss
climate issues. In China, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made climate a
central focus of her visit and proposed a partnership between the United States and
China. And a special envoy from China is coming soon.”
4. Copenhagen accords
A. US will ratify new treaty
3
“American negotiators were limited in Kyoto by a Senate resolution saying that the
United States would not accept numerical caps unless China did as well. But
Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said, “There has been a sea change
in the Senate,” and he added that he believed that there were enough votes —
Democratic and Republican — to ratify a strong treaty.”
5. AT: WTO penalties/Everybody hates us b/c we don’t do Kyoto

A. No impact to failure: many countries haven’t actually fulfilled their
obligations
“The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, was widely viewed as badly flawed. Many
countries that signed the accord lagged far behind their targets in curbing carbon dioxide
emissions. The United States refused even to ratify it. And the treaty gave a pass to major
emitters in the developing world like China and India.”
B. More than half of Kyoto countries aren’t fulfilling obligations

“But Kyoto was shaped largely by climate scientists and environment ministers, not the
higher-level officials now laying the groundwork. And even many who participated in the
earlier accord now say they see it as weak and naïve about political and economic
realities. Of the countries that signed, more than half are not on track to meet their targets
according to 2008 United Nations data, including Germany, Ireland and Canada.”
C. Without the US Kyoto lost all significance

“The perception that the United States is now serious has set off a flurry of diplomacy
around the globe. “The lesson of Kyoto is that if the U.S. isn’t taking it seriously there is
no reason for anyone else to,” said Bill McKibben, who runs the environmental
organization www.350.org. This week the United Nation’s top climate official, Yvo de
Boer, will make the rounds in Washington to discuss climate issues. The United Nations
secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, is organizing a high-level meeting on climate and
energy. Teams from Britain and Denmark have visited the White House to discuss
climate issues. In China, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made climate a
4
central focus of her visit and proposed a partnership between the United States and
China. And a special envoy from China is coming soon.”
Solvency:
1. Kyoto can’t solve because of India and China
A. Kyoto fails because china and india are exempt
“With developing countries like China and India emerging as major carbon dioxide
emitters in the past few years, experts said that if the new treaty was to be effective,
every nation would have to accept emissions limits. “If one part of the world acts and
the other does not, that doesn’t really generate a climate benefit,” said Mr. de Boer
[UN’s leader on climate change], who is responsible for organizing the December
meetings.”
2. Kyoto doesn’t solve GW

A. Kyoto reduces temperatures a “woefully inadequate” .02 degrees Celsius
Heartland Institute April 2005 S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental

sciences at the University of Virginia and president of the Science and Environmental
Policy Project (SEPP) in Arlington, Virginia. He has held several federal positions,
including director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. “U.S. Fighting off Kyoto
Restrictions”
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/16813/US_Fighting_off_Kyoto_Restrictions
.html [CR]
“Even supporters of the protocol concede that if it is carried out without cheating, its goal
of cutting emissions of greenhouse gases to 5 percent below the 1990 level by 2012
would reduce the calculated temperature rise in 2050 by a virtually undetectable 0.02
degrees Celsius. That's two one-hundredths of a degree Celsius. No wonder Friends of
the Earth calls the Kyoto Protocol "woefully inadequate." Even if the United States and
Australia were to ratify and implement the measure, the temperature decrease would be
an insignificant 0.05 degrees Celsius.”
DA’s
5
1. Economy
Link: Reduces economy by 4% per year, that’s not very smart
“Reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere by the amount
stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol would cost more than 4 percent of the entire American
economy each year, according to the federal Energy Information Administration. That's
about the size of the current defense budget--and is a sum larger than the cost of all our
current environmental regulations combined.”
B. Kyoto would cost the US econ 4% of GDP and 4 Million jobs

Dr Chen Gang (Ph.D. in International Relations, Research Fellow at the East Asian Institute, National
University of Singapore), “The Kyoto Protocol and the Logic of Collective Action,” Chinese Journal of
International Politics, Oxford University, Vol. 1, Number 4, 2007, pages 525-557
http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/cgi/reprint/1/4/525 [CR]
“In Pan Jiahua’s view, adopting measures to mitigate climate change will exert different
economic and political influence on different nations. The European Union’s marginal
costs for emission reduction are slightly less than those of the US and Japan. The cost to
the US of fulfilling its obligations, for instance, could exceed 4% of its GDP and result in
the loss of 4 million job opportunities. Taken as a whole, developing nations’ emission
reduction costs are lower than those of the developed nations, but large discrepancies in
cost also exist among them.21”
2. Oil prices
Link: Kyoto raises oil prices
“The only way to reduce our use of coal, oil, and gas is to increase the price of those
fuels. But higher energy costs would harm the poor more than anyone else. In Third
World countries, higher energy costs would only prevent industry from growing and keep
people in poverty. This is the real price of supporting the Kyoto Protocol, and it is too
high.”
6
Impact: Oil price spikes cause recessions
A. Price shocks cause every recession since world war 2

EAST-WEST CENTER WORKING PAPERS April 2009Weiqi Tang is a graduate student
at the School of Economics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Libo Wu is an associate
professor at the School of Economics and Executive Deputy Director, Center for Energy
Economics and Strategy Studies, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. ZhongXiang Zhang
is a senior fellow at the East-West Center. Currently, he is a co-editor of International
Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics, and serves on the editorial boards of
seven leading international journals and one Chinese journal. “Oil Price Shocks and
Their Shortand Long-Term Effects on the Chinese Economy”
“The world has witnessed a continuous oil-price climb that lasts as long as
astonishingly 5 years before a sharp downturn, leaving a historical record of US$147 per
barrel in July 2008. The adverse impact of such oil-price shocks on the global economy
has long been observed. Intuitively, rising oil prices preceded almost all of the recessions
since 1965 (see the periods between dotted lines in Fig. 1). Analytically, Hamilton (1983)
argued that oil-price increases were at least partially responsible for every post-World
War II (WWII) U.S. recession except the one in 1960; Brown and Yucel (2002) pointed
out that rising oil prices preceded eight of the nine post-WWII economic recessions.”

Ratify The Kyoto Protocal Negative Brief For F

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ratify The Kyoto Protocal Negative Brief For F

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Hearn/Rentschler Page 1 of 7

9/27/2009 Kyoto protocol negative Arx Axiom

RATIFY THE KYOTO PROTOCAL NEGATIVE BRIEF FOR F-SERIES

2. Kyoto doesn’t solve GW 3

5. AT: WTO penalties/Everybody hates us b/c we don’t do Kyoto 5

2. Kyoto doesn’t solve GW 6

2. Kyoto doesn’t solve GW

5. AT: WTO penalties/Everybody hates us b/c we don’t do Kyoto

B. More than half of Kyoto countries aren’t fulfilling obligations

C. Without the US Kyoto lost all significance

2. Kyoto doesn’t solve GW

Heartland Institute April 2005 S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental

B. Kyoto would cost the US econ 4% of GDP and 4 Million jobs

A. Price shocks cause every recession since world war 2

Вам также может понравиться