STP Neg File For Mini Tournament

STP Lab 1
2008
FLEx-fuel strategy sheet.......................................................................................................................................................4
Food Prices DA—Flex-Fuel Mandate Link...........................................................................................................................5
Food Prices Impact – Billions...............................................................................................................................................6
Food Prices Impact – Terrorism ...........................................................................................................................................7
Oil Dependence Advantage Answers....................................................................................................................................9
Air Pollution Advantage Answers.......................................................................................................................................10
Oil Spills Advantage Answers.............................................................................................................................................11
Poverty Advantage Answers...............................................................................................................................................12
Solvency Answers...............................................................................................................................................................13
Offshore Drilling CP—1NC Shell.......................................................................................................................................14
Offshore Drilling CP—Lifting Offshore Ban Immediately Lowers Oil Prices....................................................................15
Offshore Drilling CP—CP Lowers Oil Prices/A2 Drilling Bad Turns................................................................................16
PHEV CP—1NC Shell........................................................................................................................................................17
PHEV CP—2NC Extensions...............................................................................................................................................18
OPEC Flood DA—1NC Shell.............................................................................................................................................20
OPEC Flood DA—Uniqueness—Spare Capacity Now.......................................................................................................21
OPEC Flood DA—Uniqueness—Refining Capacity ↑ Now...............................................................................................22
OPEC Flood DA—Uniqueness—A2 US Giving Alt Energy Incentives Now....................................................................23
OPEC Flood DA—Links—Renewables/Alternative Energy...............................................................................................24
OPEC Flood DA—Link Magnifier—Perception of Higher Supply → Price Collapse .......................................................25
OPEC Flood DA—Impacts—Low Oil Prices Undermine Alternative Energy....................................................................26
IPI Pipeline Good—1NC Impact Module...........................................................................................................................27
IPI Pipeline Good—1NC Impact Module...........................................................................................................................28
IPI Pipeline Good—Unique Internals—High Oil Prices → IPI Pipeline Cooperation........................................................29
IPI Pipeline Good—Impacts—Key to South Asian Stability..............................................................................................30
IPI PIPLINE GOOD—IMPACTS—KEY...........................................................................................................................31
...........................................................................................................................................................................................32
Topicality............................................................................................................................................................................32
Liquid coal strat...................................................................................................................................................................33
AT: Heg Solves Terrorism..................................................................................................................................................34
AT: Heg Solves Prolif.........................................................................................................................................................35
AT: Heg Solves Econ. Growth............................................................................................................................................36
AT: Heg Solves Genocide...................................................................................................................................................37
AT: Heg Solves Indo/Pak....................................................................................................................................................38
Heg Collapse Inevitable......................................................................................................................................................39
Heg Counterbalancing........................................................................................................................................................40
Heg Counterbalancing cont…............................................................................................................................................41
Heg Imperial Wars.............................................................................................................................................................42
AT: Iraq Mod......................................................................................................................................................................43
AT: Taiwan Mod.................................................................................................................................................................44
No Intervention...................................................................................................................................................................45
AT: Heg. Laundry List .......................................................................................................................................................46
Military Costs......................................................................................................................................................................47
AT: Oil Dependence Link + Fuel Consumption UQ...........................................................................................................48
AT: New Weapons Link......................................................................................................................................................49
A2: Air Power Key [1/2].....................................................................................................................................................50
In 1919, the Japanese discovered a more potent version of the drug — methamphetamine. The new drug was a crystalline
powder soluble in water. In this form, it can be smoked, injected, snorted or taken orally. Users get an intense but brief
high when they inject or smoke the drug, but if it’s snorted or taken orally by cap.............................................................50
Well, I think the idea of energy independence is an idea that really is a -- it's not a reality. It's not something that's
achievable for the United States. And there are a lot of reasons for that. It's partly because the global oil market is a
market where -- you can't escape from it -- it's a totally globalized market. There's no way to really isolate yourself,
insulate yourself Hegemony 1NC Frontline 2/2..................................................................................................................51
Airlines 1NC Frontline 1/2..................................................................................................................................................52
STP Lab 2
2008
Airlines 1NC Frontline 2/2..................................................................................................................................................54
cp texts................................................................................................................................................................................55
Railroads D/A....................................................................................................................................................................56
Oil Shale CP........................................................................................................................................................................57
Impact Calculus...................................................................................................................................................................58
T: Alt. Energy Fossil Fuels ................................................................................................................................................59
Ecomanagment Kritik.........................................................................................................................................................60
***K***..............................................................................................................................................................................61
Tradable Gas Rights 2NC....................................................................................................................................................61
LW Cap and Trade 2NC......................................................................................................................................................62
Flex Fuel Aff 2NC..............................................................................................................................................................63
Depletion Deduction (Coal) 2NC........................................................................................................................................64
Algae Biodiesel 2NC...........................................................................................................................................................65
AT: Perm.............................................................................................................................................................................66
AT: Framework...................................................................................................................................................................67
AT: K doesn’t solve............................................................................................................................................................68
Theory Answers..................................................................................................................................................................69
2NR Extensions of Robbinson and Tormey........................................................................................................................70
2NR Extensions of Gibson and Graham..............................................................................................................................71
Uniqueness Cont.................................................................................................................................................................73
Federalism: Algae Biodiesel Link.......................................................................................................................................74
A/T ETHNIC CONFLICT IMPACT TURN.......................................................................................................................80
***algea neg strat***..........................................................................................................................................................82
Strat 1 Delegation and politics............................................................................................................................................83
On Elections-U....................................................................................................................................................................84
elections link......................................................................................................................................................................85
elections impacts.................................................................................................................................................................86
On Solvency........................................................................................................................................................................88
On their Warming advantage.......................................................................................................................................89
Strat 2: Da’s and case Attacks.............................................................................................................................................90
impacts................................................................................................................................................................................91
ONto their warming advantage...........................................................................................................................................92
global warming cont............................................................................................................................................................93
airline adv............................................................................................................................................................................94
airline ext............................................................................................................................................................................95
airline ext............................................................................................................................................................................96
Splash and dash adv............................................................................................................................................................97
A much more serious risk is that the obsession with competitiveness will lead to trade conflict, perhaps even to a world
trade war. Most of those who have preached the doctrine of competitiveness have not been old-fashioned protectionists.
They want their countries to win the global trade game, not drop out. But what if, despite its best efforts, a country does
not seem to be winning, or lacks confidence that it can? Then the competitive diagnosis inevitably suggests that to close
the borders is better than to risk having foreigners take away high-wage jobs and high-value sectors. At the very least, the
focus on the supposedly competitive nature of international economic relations greases the rails for those who want
confrontational if not frankly protectionist policies.............................................................................................................97
On their kernels of truth advantage.....................................................................................................................................98
On Solvency........................................................................................................................................................................99
Strat 3: States CP+Other stuff...........................................................................................................................................100
da federalism.....................................................................................................................................................................101
elections............................................................................................................................................................................102
link....................................................................................................................................................................................103
impacts.............................................................................................................................................................................104
***PERMITS STRAT***................................................................................................................................................106
1NC Frontlines- Peak Oil..................................................................................................................................................106
peak oil..............................................................................................................................................................................107
STP Lab 3
2008
oil peak..............................................................................................................................................................................108
peak oil..............................................................................................................................................................................109
1NC Frontlines- Terrorism................................................................................................................................................110
terrorism ext......................................................................................................................................................................111
1NC Frontlines- Central Asia/Caspian Scenario...............................................................................................................112
asia/caspian scenario cont..................................................................................................................................................113
asia/caspian scenario cont..................................................................................................................................................114
1NC- Solvency Frontline...................................................................................................................................................115
solvency cont.....................................................................................................................................................................116
Solvency Extensions- Terrorism.......................................................................................................................................117
Solvency- Central Asia/Caspian Scenario.........................................................................................................................118
solvency............................................................................................................................................................................119
Solvency Alt. Causes- Central Asia/Caspian Scenario......................................................................................................120
Case Turns- Backstopping.................................................................................................................................................121
Link Extensions- Backstopping.........................................................................................................................................122
link extentions cont...........................................................................................................................................................123
link extentions...................................................................................................................................................................124
Impact Extensions-Backstopping......................................................................................................................................125
Case Turn- Hedge.............................................................................................................................................................126
Link Extensions- Hedge....................................................................................................................................................127
Impact Takeouts- Peak Oil................................................................................................................................................128
oil takeout cont..................................................................................................................................................................129
oil peak cont......................................................................................................................................................................130
oil takeout cont..................................................................................................................................................................131
Link Turns- Prevents Shocks.............................................................................................................................................132
Link Turns- U.S. Presence in Middle East........................................................................................................................133
link turns-middle east........................................................................................................................................................134
Link Turns- Terrorism.......................................................................................................................................................135
Peak Oil Extensions..........................................................................................................................................................136
peak oil extensions............................................................................................................................................................137
Negative Strategy against the Tradeable Gas Rights Aff:..................................................................................................142
Gas Tax CP (1NC)............................................................................................................................................................143
Gas Tax CP – Solvency XT...............................................................................................................................................144
gas tax cp...........................................................................................................................................................................145
Gas tax is the most efficient way to decrease consumption..............................................................................................146
States CP 1NC...................................................................................................................................................................147
Economic Management K – 1NC......................................................................................................................................148
k cont.................................................................................................................................................................................149
k cont.................................................................................................................................................................................150
k cont.................................................................................................................................................................................151
Politics links – Energy independence popular...................................................................................................................152
Politics – public support....................................................................................................................................................153
politics public support.......................................................................................................................................................154
Politics links-fights in congress.........................................................................................................................................155
politics links......................................................................................................................................................................156
politics links......................................................................................................................................................................157
Politics links – unpopular with public...............................................................................................................................158
Politics – Lobbies hate (oil & auto)..................................................................................................................................159
politics ..............................................................................................................................................................................160
STP Lab 4
2008
FLEX-FUEL STRATEGY SHEET

1. This is not recommended to everyone. You will have to work harder to win.
a. This is strat doesn’t include a CP. Two of the DA’s link. You will have to win them all. It is a pretty
ballsy move.
b. DA’s will be politics, IPI Pipeline, Food prices, and OPEC.
c. T will be anything you want. We will include the list of possible T shells below.
d. On case will be the same in every strat. Run at least one card on each advantage and the no solvency
cards are pretty good as well. Also for more solvency you can go to the alt. energy file and get any
biofuels bad cards. Flex Fuels use biofuels. Don’t run the Inherency arguments Winning on case
arguments will be critical to win so your DA’s can outweigh.
2. This is for if they don’t run the oil spill advantage.

a. CP should be Offshore drilling is good. It solves the other 2 advantages and is competitive.
b. DA would be food prices. Also you could go with politics. Politics doesn’t like because the links are
specific to alternative energy and oil isn’t alternative. You will probably have to make that argument.
cards are pretty good as well. Also for more solvency you can go to the alt. energy file and get any
biofuels bad cards. Flex Fuels use biofuels. Don’t run the Inherency arguments
3. This is for all 3 advantages. It doesn’t matter if they just run 2. it works for them all.
a. CP is PHEV. This is just hydro cars not flex fuel.
b. DA is OPEC FLOOD as the as the NB. You can also read the food DA and politics. You however link
to politics. So it may not be good to read. Unless you plan on kicking the CP.
cards are pretty good as well. Also for more solvency arguments you can go to the alt. energy file and get
any biofuels bad cards. Flex Fuels use biofuels. Don’t run the Inherency arguments
STP Lab 5
2008
FOOD PRICES DA—FLEX-FUEL MANDATE LINK

A flex-fuel mandate drives up demand for corn, increasing food prices and
promoting unsustainable agricultural practices
Hamilton 4/7/08 (Tyler, "It's time to 'flex' our energy muscles," Toronto Star,
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/410812)
The idea of pushing for mandatory flex-fuel vehicles, which U.S. manufacturers such as General Motors and Ford already
sell in small volume, does raise a few red flags for some. It would drive up demand for corn, the dominant feedstock at
the moment for producing ethanol, and as a result would continue to push up prices for corn-based foods.
Such a spike in demand, and the inability of North American farmers to keep up, would also spur ethanol imports from
countries that may have unsustainable agricultural practices, negating the environmental benefits of using the
renewable biofuel.
STP Lab 6
2008
FOOD PRICES IMPACT – BILLIONS

Each 1% rise in food prices causes thousands of deaths
Lester R. Brown, founder and president of Earth Policy Institute, January 25, 2008, p.
http://media.cleantech.com/2360/why-ethanol-production-will-drive-world-food-prices-even-
higher-in-2008
The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake
among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the
global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and
begin to fall off.
Food blips will kill more than a billion

Tampa Tribune, January 20, 1996, p. Lexis
On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995, world production failed to meet
demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in
Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent
at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent
the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s,
world grain stocks were at 15 percent.
"Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices
can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said.
"Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the
developing world who live on a dollar a day or less."
STP Lab 7
2008
FOOD PRICES IMPACT – TERRORISM

High food prices cause failed states
Lester R. Brown, founder and president of Earth Policy Institute, January 25, 2008, p.
http://media.cleantech.com/2360/why-ethanol-production-will-drive-world-food-prices-even-
higher-in-2008
As economic stresses translate into political stresses, the number of failing states,
such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and
Haiti, which was already increasing before the rise in food prices began, could
increase even faster.
Failed states allow terrorists to breed

Carla Koppell, Wildrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, PREVENTING NON-TRADITIONAL
CONFLICTS, 2003, wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?
topic_id=1411&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=40287
The number of states that are unable to sustain themselves and manage as part of the
international community is growing as well. Countries like Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Liberia
and Cambodia are characterized by governmental inability to manage the state,
control criminal elements, tackle social, economic and environmental challenges, or
resolve conflicts over borders and territory. They can contribute to regional and
global instability in several ways. By creating havens in which there is no rule of law,
they permit the growth of transnational crime.
Unchecked terrorism will cause extinction

Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, August 28, 2003
(Yonah, Washington Times, p. Lexis)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again
illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to
understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very
survival of civilization itself.
Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national
security concerns.
It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the
center of the nation's commercial and military powers.
Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three
years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire
arrangements [hudna].
Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"?
There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism,
the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare.
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new
scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The
internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we
have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear
and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global
security concerns.
STP Lab 8
2008
"Given how important it is for this nation to cut carbon emissions,

it is vital that we tear down all the roadblocks that have
slowed nuclear power's revival. Setting up a program for the
government to help the private sector develop nuclear waste recycling plants,
creating a funding mechanism to pay for the work and then allowing only the
communities that want the economic activity that a waste recycling plant will
produce to apply are all useful steps that will help the economics of nuclear
power. It will allow for the economic recycling of fuel and help reduce waste
volumes and their toxicity protecting the environment," Murkowski said.
STP Lab 9
2008
OIL DEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE ANSWERS

Flex-fuel alone is insufficient to solve US oil dependence EVEN IF we diverted all
of our food crops into fuel production
Luft 5/2/08 (Gal, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, "Symposium: Energy
Independence and the Terror War," http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7DFE9F38-493C-4887-
9E33-4D267570E830)
Luft: I share Robert's sense of urgency about reducing the strategic value of oil by opening the transportation sector to healthy competition, and fuel flexibility should
indeed be the first item on our agenda. There is no reason why the $100 addition which allows cars to burn alcohol should not be - just like seat belts, air bags or rear
view mirrors - a standard feature in every car sold worldwide. This would be a low premium insurance policy against future supply disruptions and a Band-Aid to stop
the bleeding of our economy. But flex fuel alone would not be sufficient to solve our energy problem. In the U.S. today we use
annually roughly 140 billion gallons of gasoline and additional 60 billion gallons of petroleum diesel. We simply don't
have the resource base to replace all of this with alcohol and bio-diesel, even if we tapped into our vast coal reserves
and diverted all of our food crops into fuel production. So we need solutions beyond liquid fuels.
STP Lab 10
2008
AIR POLLUTION ADVANTAGE ANSWERS

Flex-fuel vehicles alone aren’t enough to combat large-scale environmental
concerns due to their fuel inefficiency
Hamilton 4/7/08 (Tyler, "It's time to 'flex' our energy muscles," Toronto Star,
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/410812)
Gary Kendall, a senior energy analyst with environmental group WWF, argues that flex-fuel vehicles alone, while they may
ease dependence on oil, aren't nearly enough to combat larger environmental concerns such as climate change.
"One of the problems with the way flex-fuel vehicles are treated today is the way auto makers claim them to be green, by
counting the biofuels as zero carbon," said Kendall in an email message from Belgium. "But the fact remains that an inefficient
vehicle burning renewable fuels is still an inefficient vehicle."
Methanol and ethanol both release significant amounts of air pollution when
burned and produced
Zubrin 06 (Robert, president of the aerospace engineering and research firm Pioneer Astronautics, “An Energy
Revolution," The American Enterprise, March, http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18976/article_detail.asp)
Ethanol is actually edible, whereas methanol is toxic when drunk. This difference, though, should not be overdrawn, since
in an FFV economy, both would be mixed with gasoline. The breakdown products of both ethanol and methanol are much
less noxious than those from petroleum, and both emit far fewer particulates when burned. Methanol, ethanol, and
gasoline are about equal in the levels of nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide produced when they are burned. Since
it is made exclusively from agricultural products, ethanol acts as counter to global warming. Methanol can as well, but
only if its source is agricultural. Methanol produced from coal or natural gas has about the same impact on global
warming as gasoline.
STP Lab 11
2008
OIL SPILLS ADVANTAGE ANSWERS

Oil spills are a relatively small percentage of ocean pollution—almost all ocean
pollution comes from land-based sources
Craig 05 (Robert, Associate Professor of Law and Dean's Fellow, Indiana University School of Law, Spring, 20 J.
Land Use & Envtl. Law 333, lexis)
Despite the obviousness of oil spills, however, they are a relatively small ocean pollution problem. While the world's
oceans receive about 3.25 million tons of oil each year, the majority of that oil comes from street runoff instead of tanker
spills. 82 Accidental spills and shipping are responsible for only about 12 percent of all marine pollution, while
offshore oil and gas drilling and mining are responsible for another 1 percent. 83 Instead, 77 percent of all marine
pollution comes from land-based sources - 44 percent from land-based water pollutant and 33 percent from land-based air pollution. 84 As Nancy
Knowlton at the Center for Marine Biodiversity at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has summarized:
The most obvious problems stem from our propensity to view dilution as the solution to pollution. Human numbers continue to grow, as do per capita amounts of waste,
and much of this waste ultimately finds its way into the ocean. Some waste is toxic, some carries human pathogens, and some alters marine food chains in ways
detrimental to human well-being. 85
Land-based air pollution can arise from both natural events, such as desert sand storms and dust storms, and human-
caused events, such as forest fires and industrial air pollution. This pollution can acidify ocean waters, increase the concentration of heavy metals
and other toxic pollutants in the oceans, and increase sedimentation of the oceans, blocking sunlight, interfering with photosynthesis, and smothering coastal ecosystems
such as coral reef. 86 Land-based water pollution can also carry toxics and sediment into the seas, causing similar problems. 87 In addition, toxic pollutants, in
combination with rising sea temperature, "are lowering the natural resistance of marine organisms to infections." 88 Thus, for example, organochloride pollution has
been linked to "the mass mortality of Mediterranean monk seals off the coast of Mauritania, which died after becoming infected with a distemper virus of dolphins." 89
STP Lab 12
2008
POVERTY ADVANTAGE ANSWERS

Zubrin’s claims to alleviate poverty is an example of over-the-top idealism—the
money that could be potentially generated won’t reach the poor
Walters 11/27/07 (Alan, Staff, Energy Daily, "The Plan to Destroy OPEC," http://www.energy-
daily.com/reports/The_Plan_To_Destroy_OPEC_999.html)
Which brings us to Zubrin's idealism. He doesn't just want to take away the Saudi's treasure. He wants to use it to end world poverty. He says:
"Instead of financing terrorism, our energy dollars could be used to fund world development. Instead of selling blocks of our media
to Saudi princes, we could be selling tractors to Africa. Instead of paying for death, we could be helping to spread life. Instead of buying arms for our enemies and
chains for ourselves, we could be building a world of prosperity and freedom."
I think he goes a bit over the top here, but there is substance to his case. His points are threefold.
First, that OPEC's jacked up oil prices represent a massive regressive tax on the world's poorest nations. Of this there can be no doubt - it's one thing to pay $100/bbl
when you make $200/day, it's quite another when you make $2/day.
Second, he says that by going to alcohol fuels, which can be produced by many kinds of resources, including biomass readily producible by tropical agricultural nations,
a substantial fraction of the revenue that is now going to the OPEC petrotyrannies could be much more widely distributed.
As Zubrin points out, in 2005, Saudi Arabia, with a population of 24 million received $150 billion in foreign exchange revenues from oil, while Kenya, with 36 million
inhabitants, took in $2.5 billion in foreign exchange earnings from all sources. So distributed more equitably, the Saudi's profits could double the foreign exchange
earnings of 60 countries the size of Kenya. That's quite a thought.
Having been to Africa, I have my doubts as to how much of that money would actually reach the poor, but still, one must
concede that some probably would, at least indirectly, by providing revenue for national development.
STP Lab 13
2008
SOLVENCY ANSWERS
No solvency—even if 100% of vehicles in the US were flex-fuel capable, there
aren’t enough stations to put biofuels in fuel tanks
Becker 6/17/08 (Nathan, MarketWatch reporter, "Senator plans bill to increase flex-fuel fleet,"
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/half-new-us-cars-should/story.aspx?guid=%7B9DC82056-1A08-426B-9002-
21AA36CB1638%7D)
But there are drawbacks for consumers who buy ethanol rather than gasoline. Flex-fuel vehicles get a range of 20% to
30% fewer miles for each gallon of E85 because ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, the Energy Department says.
Also, flex-fuel drivers face a dearth of E85 filling stations in the United States. There are only 1,474 E85 stations in the
country, according to the government.
Although the Midwest has a higher concentration of E85-capable stations, they aren't as prevalent in big car-buying states
such as California and New York, O'Dell said.
"You could make 100% of the vehicles in this country flex-fuel capable, but there's no place to put ethanol in the
tanks," he commented. "We'd be better off with a bill that says, 'Here's some funding and some incentive to put
ethanol pumps in places that they don't exist.'" End of Story
The non-availability of high alcohol fuels as gas stations means you can’t solve
—your author concedes
Zubrin 06 (Robert, president of the aerospace engineering and research firm Pioneer Astronautics, “An Energy
Revolution," The American Enterprise, March, http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18976/article_detail.asp)
The only sticking point is the non-availability of high alcohol fuel mixes at the pump. Filling stations don’t want to
dedicate space to a fuel mix used only by 1 percent of all cars. And consumers are not interested in buying vehicles for
which the preferred fuel mix is unavailable.
STP Lab 14
2008
OFFSHORE DRILLING CP—1NC SHELL

The United States federal government should lift its moratorium on offshore oil
drilling.
The counterplan isn’t topical—it doesn’t increase alternative energy incentives—

and the counterplan competes—it avoids the case-specific and incentive-
specific disads
And the counterplan solves—
Increases in expected future supplies of oil—i.e. lifting the offshore drilling ban
—results in lower oil prices TODAY
Feldstein 7/1/08 (Martin, Prof of Economics @ Harvard + fmr chairman of Council on Economic Advisers under
Reagan, "We Can Lower Oil Prices Now," http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486800837317581.html)
There are of course considerations of risk, and of the impact of price changes on long-term consumer behavior, that complicate the oil owner's decision – and therefore
the behavior of prices. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (the OPEC cartel), with its strong pricing power, still plays a role. But the
fundamental insight is that owners of oil will adjust their production and inventories until the price of oil is expected to
rise at the rate of interest, appropriately adjusted for risk. If the price of oil is expected to rise faster, they'll keep the oil in the
ground. In contrast, if the price of oil is not expected to rise as fast as the rate of interest, the owners will extract more and
invest the proceeds.
The relationship between future and current oil prices implies that an expected change in the future price of oil
will have an immediate impact on the current price of oil.
Thus, when oil producers concluded that the demand for oil in China and some other countries will grow more rapidly in future years than they had previously
expected, they inferred that the future price of oil would be higher than they had previously believed. They responded by reducing supply and raising the spot price
enough to bring the expected price rise back to its initial rate.
Hence, with no change in the current demand for oil, the expectation of a greater future demand and a higher future price
caused the current price to rise. Similarly, credible reports about the future decline of oil production in Russia and in Mexico implied a higher future global
price of oil – and that also required an increase in the current oil price to maintain the initial expected rate of increase in the price of oil.
Once this relation is understood, it is easy to see how news stories, rumors and industry reports can cause substantial fluctuations in current prices – all without anything
happening to current demand or supply.
Of course, a rise in the spot price of oil triggered by a change in expectations about future prices will cause a decline in the current quantity of oil that consumers
demand. If current supply and demand were initially in balance, the OPEC countries and other oil producers would respond by reducing sales to bring supply into line
with the temporary reduction in demand. A rise in the expected future demand for oil thus causes a current decline in the amount of oil being supplied. This is what
happened as the Saudis and others cut supply in 2007.
Now here is the good news. Any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to
fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today's price of oil with policies that will
have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the future.
For example, increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve the gas
mileage of the stock of cars, would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today.
Similarly, increasing the expected future supply of oil would also reduce today's price. That fall in the current price
would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be matched by an increase in supply from the OPEC producers and
others with some current excess capacity or available inventories.
STP Lab 15
2008
OFFSHORE DRILLING CP—LIFTING OFFSHORE BAN IMMEDIATELY

LOWERS OIL PRICES
Lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling immediately lowers oil prices
New York Post 7/6/08 ("Drill, & Save, Now ... " http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?
url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07062008/postopinion/editorials/drill___save__now_____118666.htm)
As Reagan-era economic advisor Martin Feldstein noted last week in a Wall Street Journal oped, "We Can Lower Oil Prices Now," you don't need more oil
on the market today to nudge down prices today.
All that's required (to simplify his point) is for oil producers to expect more oil (or less demand) at some point in the
future.
That in itself, he says, may be enough to trigger a price plunge immediately.
Indeed, any steps to boost supplies, such as easing the offshore-drilling ban, can lower prices right away.
Why is that?
Think about it: More oil (or less demand) down the road will surely push future prices down - reducing incentives for
producers, like Saudi Arabia, to keep their black gold in the ground.
If prices are going to keep soaring, after all, it may make sense to wait and collect more later. But if prices are expected to dip, or rise only slightly,
why not sell now? Indeed, in that case, it's smart to unload the stuff fast - and park the proceeds in something with a better return.
It's Business 101.
Congress, it turns out, does have the power to push oil prices down right now. So much for Schumer & Co.'s claim that there's no
point in tapping ANWR because it'd be years before that oil began to flow.
Alas, no number of rebuttals - or actual facts - will change some Democrats' minds. They're just not interested in lower oil prices - not if some caribou is
inconvenienced.
Dems are welcome to their priorities, even if it goes against those of more and more Americans - even liberals.
absolutely wrong to claim that efforts to boost domestic oil production can't bring prices down soon.
But they're
It can. As Feldstein points out, Americans won't have to wait five or 10 years; they can see immediate relief.
Lifting the ban on offshore drilling has a RAPID, HELPFUL impact on global oil
prices
Stuttaford 7/1/08 (Andrew, Columnist @ National Review, "Getting it Right,"

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDY1OTY5M2IwZDM1NmEwNGQyNzFkNTA5MWI1NDE4ZDU)
offshore drilling in and of itself is the answer to the current oil price crunch, I do believe that an announcement that
While I don't think for a minute that
these resources are available for development could have a helpful impact on the oil price. And do so fairly rapidly.
The same is true of removing some of the obstacles to the development of oil sands, shale oil and the like. Here, much more elegantly than I could, Martin Feldstein
explains why:
Any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible
to bring down today's price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the
future. For example, increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve
the gas mileage of the stock of cars, would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today. Similarly, increasing the expected future
supply of oil would also reduce today's price. That fall in the current price would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be
matched by an increase in supply from the OPEC producers and others with some current excess capacity or available inventories.
Any steps that can be taken now to increase the future supply of oil, or reduce the future demand for oil in the U.S. or elsewhere, can therefore lead both to lower prices
and increased consumption today.
It's essential to note that Professor Feldstein is not only talking about increasing future supply (although that is, of course, important). Restricting demand is also part of
the equation (something that may also have environmentally benign consequences). That, in turn, must include conservation (including, I'd argue, tougher mandates on
Detroit), and (where needed) regulatory and other support for alternatives to oil - solar, wind, nuclear and so on.
Bottom line: the benefit to the U.S. from showing that it is serious about solving its oil problem may come much more
quickly than is often claimed. Being "serious" does not, of course, include the pork barrel, big government
buffoonery of cap-and-trade, and nor does it include gas tax 'holidays'.
STP Lab 16
2008
OFFSHORE DRILLING CP—CP LOWERS OIL PRICES/A2 DRILLING

BAD TURNS
Drilling will occur responsibility and with little environmental impact, other
factors pose a greater threat to the environment than does drilling, and
increases in oil supplies now quickly lowers oil prices globally
Petrowski 7/10/08 (Joseph, President of Gulf Oil, "A Bipartisan Fix for the Oil Crisis,"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564783168740955.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)
Supply must be increased, and that will require more drilling.

We can responsibly drill. The technology to find, drill and recover oil has evolved tremendously, and careless drillers will fear
tort lawyers more than government regulators. The claim that the oil companies are sitting on leases and not drilling defies all logic. With oil at $135 per barrel and
drilling rigs renting at $300,000 per day, there are no idle rigs anywhere. Furthermore, economic decline – and war induced by basic resource
struggles – are greater threats to the environment and American workers than drilling.
Your claim that any oil we drill for now will not come on line for five years or longer – and will thus have no effect on prices today – is incorrect.
Unlike past oil
crises, where the spot price of oil (that is, today's price) rose more than forward prices, the oil price for delivery in 2012 is
trading at $138 per barrel. The market is sending a clear price signal that our problem is in the future – because we do not
have the will to curb demand or increase supply.
How many houses would someone invest in if there were a future guarantee that the price would not decline? It is anticipation of ever-increasing prices
that fuels the mania.
The oil market, however, has more than anticipation; it has a well-defined forward price signal. This is a key
component of the added $25-$40 per barrel in current oil prices. Congressional hearings and "make it go away" legislation will not stop
that. Demonstrate the national will to address the supply and demand issues now and it will.
As forward prices decline, watch how quickly the spot price comes down.
STP Lab 17
2008
PHEV CP—1NC SHELL

The United States federal government should substantially increase incentives
for the development and purchase of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
The counterplan avoids OPEC flood—
Flex-fuel mandates compel OPEC to drop oil prices globally to make alternative
fuels uneconomical—OPEC can’t lower the price of oil low enough to crowd
out electric hybrids without destroying their own economy
9E33-4D267570E830)
The oil cartel will surely respond to the emerging alcohol economy by dropping crude prices to a level that would
make ethanol and methanol economically unattractive. This is exactly what they did in the 1980s in response to a
massive effort by Western countries to wean themselves from oil. Oil dropped to $8 a barrel and alternative fuels
producers lost their shirts. If cars had full fuel flexibility, allowing them, in addition to burning alcohols, to also tap into the grid, OPEC would have
to drop prices to $5 a barrel to compete with 3 cents per mile of electric drive. This is way below where they can afford
to go considering their youth bulges and domestic economic conditions. This is why the commercialization of plug
in hybrid electric vehicles, which allow us to drive the first chunk of our daily driving on electricity after which the car begins to burn liquid fuel, is so
critical. Congress should therefore provide tax incentives to early adopters of plug in hybrids--just as it did in the case of regular
hybrids--while facilitating the emergence of a viable battery industry in the U.S. A flex fuel plug-in hybrid will run approximately 500 miles on a gallon of gasoline.
This could really pull the plug on OPEC.
And the counterplan solves—
Incentivizing the commercialization of plug-in hybrids achieves significant

petroleum displacement AND hybrids are insulated from a price-related
counterattack by OPEC
9E33-4D267570E830)
In order to achieve significant petroleum displacement we must begin to electrify the transportation sector by
speeding the commercialization of plug-in hybrids and fully electric cars. Unlike in the 1970s, today only 2 percent of our electricity is
made from oil. Almost all of our electricity is made from domestic energy resources like coal, nuclear power, natural gas and hydro. In other words, on the
electricity front, unlike the Europeans who rely on imported natural gas for their light and heating, Americans are already energy independent.
Using electrons for transportation, instead of gasoline, essentially means shifting from an imported resource which poses a
national security threat to an array of abundant domestic energy sources. In addition, electricity is cheaper and cleaner
than gasoline. It costs about 3 cents per mile to run a car on electricity--roughly one fifth of the cost of driving the same
mile on gasoline. This cost differential protects us from a counterattack by OPEC.
STP Lab 18
2008
PHEV CP—2NC EXTENSIONS

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can reach 100 miles per gallon of gasoline AND
70% of the US vehicle market could shift to plug-ins without having to install
additional electricity capacity
Korin 5/22/08 (Anne, Co-director @ Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, "Rising Oil Prices, Declining
National Security," http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/kor052208.htm)
Since we hardly generate any electricity from oil, using electricity as a transportation fuel enables the full spectrum of
electricity sources to compete with petroleum. Plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) can reach oil economy levels
of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline without compromising the size, safety, or power of a vehicle. The key is changing our thinking
from miles per gallon to miles per gallon of oil-based fuel – it is not the total energy consumption of the vehicle which is the problem, it is the portion of that energy
that comes from petroleum. If a PHEV is also a flexible-fuel vehicle powered by 85 percent alcohol and 15 percent gasoline, oil economy could reach over 500 miles
per gallon of gasoline. Ideally, plug-in hybrids would be charged at night in home or apartment garages, when electric utilities
have significant reserve capacity. The Department of Energy estimates that over 70 percent of the U.S. vehicle market
could shift to plug-in hybrids without needing to install additional baseload electricity-generating capacity.
Incentivizing the commercialization of plug-in hybrids achieves significant

petroleum displacement AND hybrids are insulated from a price-related
counterattack by OPEC
9E33-4D267570E830)
In order to achieve significant petroleum displacement we must begin to electrify the transportation sector by
speeding the commercialization of plug-in hybrids and fully electric cars. Unlike in the 1970s, today only 2 percent of our electricity is
made from oil. Almost all of our electricity is made from domestic energy resources like coal, nuclear power, natural gas and hydro. In other words, on the
electricity front, unlike the Europeans who rely on imported natural gas for their light and heating, Americans are already energy independent.
Using electrons for transportation, instead of gasoline, essentially means shifting from an imported resource which poses a
national security threat to an array of abundant domestic energy sources. In addition, electricity is cheaper and cleaner
than gasoline. It costs about 3 cents per mile to run a car on electricity--roughly one fifth of the cost of driving the same
mile on gasoline. This cost differential protects us from a counterattack by OPEC.
Plug-in electric hybrids can effectively solve US oil dependence AND they’re
more likely to achieve substantial market penetration than flex-fuel vehicles
Romm 1/22/08 (Joseph, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and was acting assistant secretary of
energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration, "The car of the future is here,"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/22/plug_in_hybrids/print.html)
When is someone going to offer a practical and affordable family car that runs on something other than oil and that
sharply reduces both greenhouse gas emissions and your fuel bill? A few weeks ago, I test-drove this mythical car of the future, a plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle whose mass production might be only a few years away.
The Extreme Hybrid from AFS Trinity was rolled out last week at the Detroit auto show. It can run 40 miles on electricity before reverting to running efficiently on
gasoline like a normal hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius. Because the majority of people drive less than 40 miles a day, that car can replace most weekly gasoline use,
even if it is charged only once a day. The fuel cost per mile, while running on electricity, is under one-third the current cost of
gasoline. A full overnight charge might cost a dollar. The car accelerates like a cheetah, though quietly.
STP Lab 19
2008
Time is running out on developing a truly energy-efficient car. Accelerated burning of fossil fuels is bringing us closer to the tipping point of irreversible climate
catastrophe. We are likely to peak soon in the production of conventional oil -- so gasoline prices are inevitably headed higher in the coming decades. Meanwhile, the
cars we build today stay on the road more than 15 years, so we have no time to waste.
You can buy a flexible fuel vehicle today that runs on 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, and you might even be
able to find an E85 station in your city. But corn ethanol is far from a desirable alternative fuel. It doesn't significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or your fuel bill. That would require low-carbon ethanol from biomass such as switchgrass, so-called
cellulosic ethanol, but the country does not have a single commercial cellulosic ethanol facility. It will probably be at
least 15 years -- and possibly twice that long -- before we have large volumes of cellulosic biofuels for sale nationwide
at an affordable price.
STP Lab 20
2008
OPEC FLOOD DA—1NC SHELL

--The mere perception of attempts to reduce US oil dependence causes OPEC to flood the market with
cheap oil
Southeast Farm Press 12/19/01 (lexis)
But just when it appears something will in fact be done toward increasing domestic energy supplies, getting serious about
alternative sources, and making a long-term commitment toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil - well,
miraculously, prices go down. OPEC magnanimously increases supply, refineries begin humming, and once again
thoughts of a national energy policy fade like the Cheshire cat.
Only the cat's grin is left. And the cat is OPEC and the energy industry. They've seen it all before. They know they have
only to wait; that we in the United States have a short memory, and that as long as they toss us a sop of energy
"bargains" from time to time, we'll moan and groan and pay their price the rest of the time.
--OPEC-led oil price collapse would cripple the economies of high-cost oil producers like Indonesia,
Russia, Nigeria and others
Mohamedi 3/22/03 (Fareed, chief economist, PFC Energy, Middle East Policy, lexis)
A more aggressive strategy--and actually a better strategy for the Saudis in many ways over the longer term and for OPEC--would
be to crash oil prices and not agree to accommodate Iraq. To do what they did in '99 and inadvertently discovered had some
advantages: push the burden onto non-OPEC producers--the high-cost producers--and over time induce a decline in non-OPEC
production, and then come back and take that share of demand for themselves.
That would require a fairly low oil price, $ 14-$ 15 a barrel. You may ask, how can the oil producers' economies take that? They can barely take it at $ 30 a barrel. If
you look at the macroeconomic situation in some of the Gulf countries--Saudi Arabia and Iran, even Algeria--they have
accumulated a lot of assets and paid down a lot of their debt. Financially, they're doing a lot better than they were just a
few years ago. To a certain extent, they have the war chest to do this if they have the will and the guts. In sharp contrast,
this would be disastrous for Indonesia, Russia, Venezuela and Nigeria. None of these countries can take that type of
low oil price for a period of 18 months to two years.
STP Lab 21
2008
OPEC FLOOD DA—UNIQUENESS—SPARE CAPACITY NOW

OPEC has 2 million barrels of spare capacity AND they're investing to massively expand capacity now
allAfrica.com 6/1/08 ("Nigeria: OPEC to Spend $160 Billion to Increase Capacity,"

http://allafrica.com/stories/200806021036.html)
The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members will invest US$160 billion in oil development
projects in the next three years to increase their production capacity by 15% in response to growing demand, the
secretary-general of the cartel,Abdalla Salem el Badri, has said.
The announcement by Badri came a day after British Prime Minister Gordon Brown sought to put high oil prices at the top of the agenda for a summit in July of the
Group of Eight (G8) most powerful nations.
Mr Brown had said that a lack of investment in future production capacity was the main factor driving prices to record highs, but Mr Badri disputed this.
"Even though we see no shortage of oil in the market, since the middle of 2007 we have seen a major disconnect between oil prices and market fundamentals. A number
of factors have contributed to this, but primarily [it is] the massive role that speculators now play in the oil market," Mr Badri said.
Badri was quoted to have said that OPEC countries would add five million barrels per day (bpd) of extra crude production capacity by 2012.
"Our members have already undertaken a $160 billion investment programme to expand crude production capacity by
close to five million bpd by 2012," he said in emailed responses to The National.
OPEC pumped about 32 million bpd in April, equivalent to 40 per cent of world oil consumption, and has about two million bpd of spare
capacity.
OPEC has substantial spare production capacity and stands ready to act to lower prices if necessary
Forbes 5/8/08 ("OPEC says oil market well supplied; 3 mln bpd spare capacity available if needed,"
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/05/08/afx4986536.html)
OPEC Secretary General Adbullah al-Badri said in a statement that the 13 member cartel had over 3 million barrels of
spare capacity per day if needed.
'OPEC spare capacity continues to increase, with the figure currently standing above 3 million bpd. At the same time, crude oil movements indicate that some member
countries are unable to find buyers for their additional supply,' he said in the statement.
'OPEC will continue to be proactive and monitor these developments closely. The organization stands ready to act if
the market shows a need for any further measures,' he added.
OPEC has plenty of spare capacity
Phillips 6/5/08 (John, Analyst @ FXStreet.com, "Rate Decisions Approaching; Payrolls in Sight,"
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/european-market-update/2008-06-05.html)
·In energy news overnight Mexico's President noted that the declining production at Pemex is concerning. The company's production fell by 200K barrels in the first
quarter. Later the CEO of Pemex reported that the company's exports of oil will average 1.4M-1.45M bpd in 2008. OPEC's Khelil said overnight that
OPEC has 2M-3M barrels of spare capacity. Khelil said that oil prices are likely to stay around $120/barrel, and will not fall below $100/barrel,
adding that the IEA's 2008 world oil demand forecast is optimistic.
OPEC spare capacity continues to increase
Business Day 6/3/08 ("Dollar appreciation reverses rise of crude oil prices,"
http://www.businessdayonline.com/economic-watch/10760.html)
(OECD) commercial oil stocks remain above the five-year average. OPEC
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development
member countries continue to produce at more than 32mb/d. In addition, a number of new OPEC crude oil projects
have started to come on-stream and OPEC spare capacity continues to increase.
STP Lab 22
2008
OPEC FLOOD DA—UNIQUENESS—REFINING CAPACITY ↑ NOW

Saudi Arabia has plenty of refinery capacity and is making plans for capacity expansions now
Steelguru 6/7/08 ("Saudi Arabia approves 2 refining ventures," http://steelguru.com/news/index/2008/06/03/NDg2Mjc

%3D/Saudi_Arabia_approves_2_refining_ventures.html)
Emirates Business 24-7 reported that Saudi Arabian government is assessing plans to almost double its refining capacity
regardless of the sharp increase in investment requirements.
As per report, the Kingdom has already approved of 2 mega refining ventures with foreign partners in June 2008 despite a
minimum increase of 60% in costs. The amount of capital investment required for the 2 plants was initially estimated at around USD 6 billion each and is now expected
to have increased by at least 60% on rising cost structures.
Saudi Arabia's domestic refining capacity is estimated at around 2.1 million barrels per day, however it also
controls more than 1 million barrels per day in joint refining ventures abroad.
Saudi Arabia, China, and India are rapidly investing in substantial, new refining capacity—will be online
in the near-term
Kingsdalec 6/3/08 (James, Energy investor + analyst @ Energy Investment Strategies, "Global Net Oil Exports Have
Declined for Two Years,"
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+articleid_2245873~zoneid_Home~title_Global-Net-Oil-Exports.html)
1. Over half the decline is from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s are swing producers in the world and they claim that they could produce more oil if the markets required it.
Some suspect the Saudi’s are unable to produce more but the true facts are unknown. What seems clear is that they do have the capacity to produce a good deal more (1
- 2 mb/d) of heavy sour crude oil on a sustained basis but there is not currently market demand for it due to lack of refining capacity for that type of oil. The
Saudi’s are well along the road to constructing substantial new refining capacity, as are both the Chinese and the
Indians, all of which will be able to use heavy sour inputs. In fairly short order - 2009 or 2010 - there will be
substantially more global capacity to refine the heavy sour crude that is in increasing surplus supply in the world, particularly from the Saudis.
STP Lab 23
2008
OPEC FLOOD DA—UNIQUENESS—A2 US GIVING ALT ENERGY

INCENTIVES NOW
Status quo alternative energy incentives aren’t “firm” enough to trigger our link
The Independent 5/2/08 (“In search of some wind in their sails” Lexis)
Yesterday ExxonMobil announced that it made $10.9bn (£6bn) in profits for the first three months of this year. It was one
of the biggest quarterly profit reports in American corporate history. The US oil giant has achieved the remarkable feat of
making earnings from Shell and BP, announced earlier this week, look modest. But as descendants of John D Rockefeller,
America's original oil magnate, are vociferously pointing out, obsolescence beckons for ExxonMobil and other energy
groups if they do not step up their search for alternative fuels and cleaner technologies. The Rockefeller family, still major
shareholders in Exxon, are backing resolutions calling for the company to fund research into how climate change will
affect developing nations. They are also demanding targets from the company for reducing carbon emissions from its
output. They hope this will compel Exxon's management to bring less-polluting products than oil and gas to market. But it
looks as though the family are fighting an uphill battle. Exxon has at least ceased to deny a link between fossil fuel
emissions and climate change. But it has still invested no serious effort in cleaner energy technologies, even though this is
the area into which the oil majors should manifestly be ploughing those vast profits. The evidence of this week suggests
the energy producers need considerably firmer incentives from governments to make the strategic shift away from
environmentally destructive fossil fuels towards renewable, clean power generation. Shell may have been concerned
by the rising price of offshore wind, but it is seriously misguided if it thinks that concentrating its efforts on extracting the
remaining fossil fuels is a better bet than renewables in the medium or long term. If the conservative-minded energy
conglomerates do not stump up the necessary investment, then governments will have to intervene to see that they do. The
stakes are too high for a business-as-usual approach to the challenge of meeting the world's energy needs.
STP Lab 24
2008
OPEC FLOOD DA—LINKS—RENEWABLES/ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

History is on our side—OPEC floods the market with cheap oil at any sign of US
development of alternative energy sources
Jeffords 91 (Jim, US Senator, 3/21, FNS, lexis)

SEN. JEFFORDS: Thank you very much, Tim, and I am very pleased to be with you and excited about the programs that you have announced here, for this is the one
bill right now that will bring us to a point where we can be energy independent, and by doing it in a responsible and very clean way. And I deeply commend Senator
Wirth for his efforts in pulling all of these pieces together.
But I'd like to talk to you about the piece that I have contributed as well as supporting the others. To me, the most important thing that we have to do is
to ensure, to have an insurance policy and that's what my piece of the legislation is. It is an insurance policy that we can reach the point by 2010 where we
have the option of becoming energy independent. And the only way we can do that is by isolating ourselves by the whims of OPEC and
the price of oil. And how we do that, this provision, is to say okay, we just cannot allow the price to be set by OPEC. And so every
time we get excited about energy from alternative sources they lower the price below that which is competitive and
run the alternative fuels businesses out of business.
Perceived loss of market share to renewables causes OPEC to voluntarily collapse oil prices—grinds
conservation and renewable energy programs to a halt
Zunes 93 (Stephen, Director of the Institutes for a New Middle East Policy, Mideast Policy, January, p. 107)
Despite recent setbacks, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is in a relatively strong position.
Even the 1986 collapse of prices was not a result of splintering, but a voluntary decision based on the realization that
prices were too high. The artificially high prices of previous years had resulted in a loss of market share to non-OPEC
produces such as Mexico and the North Sea countries, as well as from efforts at conservation and alternative energy
sources. This pricing strategy worked, not only by challenging non-OPEC oil producers, but by grinding conservation
programs and alternative energy research and development in the United States to a halt.
OPEC fears shifts towards renewable energy or energy saving—they'll flood the world with cheap oil at
the flick of a switch
Campbell 02 (Colin, Analyst @ Oil Depletion Resource Centre, "Petroleum and People," Population and Environment,
November, p. ebscohost)
Oil is traded on international markets at a price set by the marginal barrel, giving rise to an unpredictable volatility that obscures the underlying trends of supply and
demand. Prices collapsed in 1998 from a combination of unseasonably warm weather; an Asian recession that reduced the demand for swing Middle East production;
the devaluation of the Russian ruble, encouraging Russian exports; and under-estimation of supply by the International Energy Agency, which misled OPEC.
Furthermore, there were more sinister motives to talk down the long-term price of oil, as oil companies and their financial advisers planned acquisitions and mergers,
which successfully concealed their real predicament from the stock market. Budgets were slashed and staffs purged in a climate of uncertainty. There was an
improvident draw on stocks as demand overtook supply. The OPEC countries, for their part, did everything possible to foster the notion
that they could flood the world with cheap oil at the flick of a switch. It was a strategy aimed to inhibit investments in gas,
non-conventional oil, renewable energy or energy saving that they feared might undermine the market for their oil, on
which they utterly depend. Their populations are growing fast in an economy dominated by oil.
STP Lab 25
2008
OPEC FLOOD DA—LINK MAGNIFIER—PERCEPTION OF HIGHER

SUPPLY → PRICE COLLAPSE
Oil prices are perception based—OPEC’s actions result in a price collapse via the inverse of the current
speculative bubble
Shiller 04 (Roberts, Prof. Econ @ Yale, The Edge (Malaysia), “The perception of declining prices triggers a massive
sell-off and price collapse”, 11/8, lexis)
But what matters for oil prices now and in the foreseeable future is the perception of the story, not the ambiguities behind it. If there is a
perception that prices will be higher in the future, then prices will tend to be higher today. That is how markets work. If it is generally thought
that oil prices will be higher in the future, owners of oil reserves will tend to postpone costly investments in exploration and expansion of production capacity, and they
may pump oil at below capacity. They would rather sell their oil and invest later, when prices are higher, so they restrain increases in supply. Expectations
become self-fulfilling, oil prices rise and a speculative bubble is born. But if owners of oil reserves think that prices will fall in the long
run, they gain an incentive to explore for oil and expand production now in order to sell as much oil as possible before the fall. The
resulting supply surge drives down prices, reinforces expectations of further declines, and produces the inverse of a speculative bubble:
a collapse in prices.
Once oil prices start to fall following increases in OPEC production, it’s nearly impossible to stop the
tumble
Oil and Gas Journal 00 (“OPEC eyes another output hike to cut oil prices” 7/24, lexis)
The move to boost production likely will trigger a scramble for markets that could cause a tumble of oil prices back
to $ 20/bbl, said Fred Leuffer, senior managing partner and oil analyst at Bear, Sterns & Co. The proposed increase would boost
OPEC's total production to 25.9 million b/d from the 25.4 million b/d that group members agreed to in June when they raised production by 708,000 b/d. Saudi officials
had earlier indicated that they would undertake an increase of 500,000 b/d -- unilaterally, if necessary -- in an attempt to drive down high prices. Under the quotas
proposed by Rodriguez, the Saudis would bear the brunt by adding 162,000 b/d of production to a total 8.4 million b/d. "The flood gates are now open. Saudi Arabia's
decision to produce more oil means OPEC unity is out the window. The race is on to see which countries can capitalize on these high oil prices while they last," said
Leuffer in a report issued last week. He said every OPEC member except Nigeria has cheated on its new production quota in the last 2 months. Saudi officials would
like to push back world oil prices to a level of $ 25/bbl to prevent the US from increasing domestic oil exploration and development of alternative energy sources. But
it is difficult to engineer a market price reduction, as other nations try to cash in before oil prices drop, Leuffer warned. "Once oil prices
start to fall, it will be hard to stop them," he said.
STP Lab 26
2008
OPEC FLOOD DA—IMPACTS—LOW OIL PRICES UNDERMINE

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Cheap oil encourages consumption and discourages renewables
Sahimi 3/9/00 (Muhammad, chairman @ chemical and petroleum engineering department at the University of Southern
California, The Record)
Finally, consider the environmental effects of cheap oil. The main culprit of air pollution is fossil fuels, mainly oil, which
in the
United States accounts for 85 percent of fuel use. There are hidden costs of cheap oil, which we pay for through air and
water pollution, global warming, and acid rain.
Cheap oil induces people to overuse it and thus discourages development of alternative sources of energy that are
environmentally friendly. It affects the economy negatively. It costs us huge sums in health care. It causes social and political instability abroad. Is this the
world that we envision for ourselves and our children?
Low oil prices undermine energy conservation and alternative energy developments
Al-Chalabi 89 (Fadhil, Past Permanent Undersecretary of Oil, OPEC at the Crossroads, p. 90)
The 'confrontation' aspect of the so-called OPEC price war strategy went beyond oil production, to affect the consuming
countries. For, after the initial jubilation at the price crash, they awoke to the fact that low oil prices could jeopardize their
investment programmes in energy diversification and could well lead to greater dependence on imported oil, an
eventuality they had been fighting against for the previous 12 years. The benefits of the lower cost of oil imports could
well be offset by the accompanying slowdown, or even halt, in the drive towards more energy conservation and
diversification, for the national security of supply.
Cheap oil turns the case—undermines renewable development and encourages fossil fuel consumption
Maugeri 03 (Leonardo, group senior vice president for corporate strategies and planning at Italian energy company ENI,
Energy Compass, 9/18)
In fact, cheap oil is the most elusive enemy of oil security. It constricts the development of expensive energy alternatives
and new oil regions, discourages conservation, perpetuates lax Western consumption habits, and increases dependence on
the Mideast Gulf countries with the lowest production costs. Cheap oil harms producing countries, too. Today, less than 25% of global
production but 65% of the world's proven oil reserves are concentrated in five countries -- Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, and Iran. Like all Opec members, they
need decent oil prices, since their economies remain heavily based on oil while their demography has changed dramatically.
Low oil prices undermine renewable energy developments and incentives to

conserve energy
Renneris 03 (Michael, Worldwatch Institute, UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, February 6, 2003)
Sustained low prices would critically undermine the fledgling efforts to build wind, solar, and hydrogen industries, kick
away the economic incentive to use energy more prudently, and effectively destroy the Kyoto protocol. Wind power in
particular has come a long way, growing by more than 30 percent annually in recent years and now cost-competitive with
most conventional sources of energy. Such advances could fall victim to artificially cheap oil -- a fuel whose
considerable ecological and security costs are not properly accounted for.
STP Lab 27
2008
IPI PIPELINE GOOD—1NC IMPACT MODULE

--High oil prices are driving Indian support for the IPI gas pipeline
Hindustan Times 4/26/08 (lexis)
Apr. 26--NEW DELHI -- The good news is that the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project is very much
alive and kicking, contrary to the widespread impression that it will be shelved due to relentless American opposition. Taking things one step further, India has
also formally joined the Washington-backed $7.6 billion Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline project that would stretch across 1,680 km to
deliver gas from the Dauletabad gas field in Turkmenistan to Fazilka on the Indo-Pakistan border by 2015.
On Friday, oil ministers of Pakistan and India announced that they had made "significant progress" in bilateral talks on a
number of outstanding issues on the IPI gas pipeline project and predicted that the project would start supplying natural gas by 2012.
Construction work on this project will commence in 2009 and the project would supply natural gas from the South Pars gasfield in Iran on a 50-50 sharing basis
between India and Pakistan. The project would supply 2.06 billion cubic feet of gas per day.
The announcement comes a day after the 10th steering committee of oil ministers from Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India on Thursday agreed to start
construction work on the much-delayed TAPI project.
It is, however, premature to uncork the bubbly. India's security concerns have not gone away for both projects as both pipelines traverse through volatile regions. The
three possible routes for the IPI pipeline, for instance, pass through insurgent Balochistan. India has had an on-off relationship with this project thanks to its tensions
with Pakistan. As for TAPI, the Afghan government has not been able to establish its authority beyond Kabul, and the risk of pipeline being sabotaged by the resurgent
Taliban is an ever-present danger.
Since mid-2007, India has not participated in trilateral talks on the IPI project. But there are compelling reasons for New
Delhi to rejoin talks on IPI and formally become a full member of TAPI. Although the Indian government formally denies the 'China factor', it was only after
Beijing expressed an interest in this project --with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf stating that IPI can well be an Iran-Pakistan-China pipeline--that New Delhi
bestirred itself to restart negotiations with both Islamabad and Teheran.
India's compulsions are basically economic. "As far as India is concerned, we want to settle and activate both [the
pipelines] because energy demand in India is so much and oil prices are shooting up," says Petroleum Minister Murli Deora.
India will need to import as much as 75 billion cubic metres (BCM) of gas by 2024-25 for rising power generation, fertiliser production, industrial uses and household
consumption. Thanks to domestic shortages, 13,444 mw of gas-based capacities in the power sector are now generating less power than they can.
As both these pipeline projects become viable with India's participation, New Delhi should leverage its position to get the best possible price for
gas. Gas pricing has indeed been a sticking point for the highly controversial IPI project.
STP Lab 28
2008
IPI PIPELINE GOOD—1NC IMPACT MODULE

--The IPI pipeline is vital to the economic prosperity and political stability of South Asia
Zaidi 6/7/05 (Mazhar, Columnist @ BBC Urdu, "Why Pakistan-India pipeline matters,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4070916.stm)
The agreement between India and Pakistan on a project to pipe gas to India from Iran via Pakistan is being termed by
some observers as historic.
Though both countries have as yet only agreed in principle, officials say work on the project could start as soon as within six months.
So why is this pipeline project so important and what does it mean for South Asia as a region?
In a world where politics is increasingly driven by battles for energy resources and everyone seems to be talking about 'pipeline politics,' this project could be
vital for the economic prosperity and political stability of sub-continent.
Take-off
In recent years Pakistan's economy has shown signs of improvement. That's thanks mostly to developments post 11 September and Pakistan's role as a front state in the
United States' war on terror.
The economy of India has been booming for many years now and according to many market analysts it is in a 'take-off' stage and could start influencing the world
market in a major way. But despite these improvements, both economies are facing a looming crisis - deficiency of energy resources.
"The Indian economy will not be able to sustain for long if the issue of energy deficiency is not resolved." says M
Ziauddin, editor of the Pakistani daily Dawn.
"Pakistan also badly needs additional sources of energy as it can neither afford the costs of further exploration and nor can it fulfil its requirement
by any other way."
'Hugely benefit'
Mr Ziauddin believes that the pipeline from Iran will not only provide the much needed boost to the Indian economy but it
will also become a source of revenue for Pakistan.
"If without investing much Pakistan can start getting $500m-$600m in annual revenue because of the pipeline, there is nothing like it for Pakistan. It will hugely
benefit the economy and resolve the energy crisis also."
The implications of the proposed pipeline are not limited to the economic field.
Analysts believe that the laying down of the gas pipeline from Iran to India will also bring about a new set political
rules.
Lahore-based political analyst and writer Khalid Ahmed thinks the proposed project is truly a historic opportunity for
both the countries to change the politics of the region forever.
"This is the first time in the history of South Asia that such an occasion has arrived. Pakistan can redefine its identity as a
transit state in the region and can pave the way for peace and prosperity." According to Mr Ahmed such a project would
go a long way in changing the nature of political relationships in the region.
"Instead of basing its identity on animosity towards India, when Indian economic prosperity will also mean prosperity for Pakistan,
things will definitely change." That indeed would be a historic change in relations between India and Pakistan.
--South Asian instability risks global nuclear winter
Washington Times 7/8/01 (lexis)
The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched
between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan . It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948
and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States
would enjoy no sanctuary.
STP Lab 29
2008
IPI PIPELINE GOOD—UNIQUE INTERNALS—HIGH OIL PRICES → IPI

PIPELINE COOPERATION
Record-high oil prices are driving Indian participation in the IPI gas pipeline
Afrasiabi 4/30/08 (Kaveh, political scientist/author, "Iran holds key to India's energy insecurity,"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD30Ak02.html)
With oil prices skyrocketing, India's thirst for cheaper imported gas has acquired a greater urgency than ever
before, considering what the Hindustan Times has termed as the growing "supply-demand mismatch" reflected in the recent news that "as against an overall
requirement of 77 million standard cubic meters per day (mmscmd) of gas between April 2007 and January 2008, only 37 mmscmd was supplied".
Sure, India has other prospects besides Iran and, in addition to investing in Yemeni oil fields and negotiating with Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar, questing for a piece
of the Iraqi energy market and scouting various African countries (such as Nigeria, Chad, Angola, Cameron and Congo), Indian officials have also been playing catch-
up with China in Central Asia lately, seeking deals with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
But with the Turkmenistan's proximity to Iran and Iran's ability to act as an energy corridor for the sub-continent, the
salient importance of Iran is indisputable.
In addition to the US$7.6 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline, India has set its eyes on a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-
Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline that is, for now at least, more of a pipedream because of growing insecurity in Afghanistan, reflected in the
bold assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai in Kabul this week.
High oil prices are spurring Indo-Pak cooperation over the IPI gas pipeline
Khan 4/26/08 (Mubarak, "Energy crisis forces India to join Iran gas pipeline project," DAWN Media group,
http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/26/top1.htm)
ISLAMABAD, April 25: Differences between Pakistan and India over the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project
were resolved on Friday and the two countries agreed to start work on laying pipelines next year for procuring gas from
Iran by December 2012.
Talks between the two countries to resolve the differences, mainly relating to transit fee and transportation tariff, failed in
June last year, putting the $7.5 billion ‘peace pipeline’ project into cold storage. But the current energy crisis and
spiralling oil prices brought them back to the table.
Skyrocketing oil prices compels India to pursue gas pipeline cooperation with Pakistan and Iran
Stanley 5/5/08 (John, research scholar with the Centre for West Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University,
"Ahmadinejad’s visit - India intensifies global energy game (Commentary),"
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/ahmadinejads-visit-india-intensifies-global-energy-game-
commentary_10045103.html)
New Delhi’s decision to welcome Ahmadinejad must have taken at least a few of India watchers by surprise. It was just two
years ago that India, under pressure from Washington, voted twice against the Iranian nuclear programme in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Since
then India’s ties with Iran had not been as warm as they used to be. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has often been
criticised both at home and abroad for not showing real interest in the proposed India-Pakistan-Iran (IPI) gas pipeline.
Besides, bilateral ties between the two countries hit a new low earlier this year as Israel blasted off a spy satellite with the help of India. Iran’s envoy to India even went
public criticising New Delhi over the issue.
Then why this turnaround?
This could be seen as part of India’s changing energy policy. According to a recent New York Times report, cosy relations with Iran are
important for India at least for three reasons. Iran is India’s second largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, is a potential source of natural gas in the future and wields
influence in Afghanistan, a gateway for New Delhi to enter Central Asia’s rich oil and gas fields. Still, India had been reluctant to engage Iran, particularly after the US
intensified its campaign to isolate the Islamic Republic. The rumours of a possible US attack on Tehran have also pulled India back from going ahead with its ambitious
energy plans.
Now, with the US bogged down in Iraq and the possibility of an attack on Tehran looking remote, New Delhi is back on front-foot in the energy
game. With oil prices skyrocketing, India does not have many options but to enter into comprehensive energy
cooperation with resource-rich countries. The supply-demand mismatch in India has already sent out warning signals across the ruling class.
STP Lab 30
2008
IPI PIPELINE GOOD—IMPACTS—KEY TO SOUTH ASIAN STABILITY

Cooperative pipelines like the IPI are key to sustainable growth and stability in South Asia
Maleki and Afrasiabi 8/17/07 (Abbas and Kaveh, Director of the International Institute for Caspian Studies in Tehran
and a visiting senior research scholar at International Security Program, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University + political scientist/author, ""Saving the Peace Pipeline,"
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17453/saving_the_peace_pipeline.html)
In addition, in light of the IPI’s potential contribution to regional development, complementing the North-South corridor
under consideration by the member states of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), it may be a good idea to revamp the IPI into a
consortium that opens the possibility of a future role by other regional parties, both in terms of investment as well as linkage with the regional gas network. Thereby, for
instance, Turkmenistan’s gas could also be exported to Pakistan and India through the IPI pipeline. In fact, by forming a consortium and allowing a role for other ECO
countries — Iran and Pakistan, together with Turkey, are the founding members of this regional organization of ten member states (which could induct India as an
observer) — the regional dimension of IPI becomes immediately more pronounced.
These recommendations would not only ensure that the IPI does not devolve into endless intra-state wrangling, but materializes as it has been envisioned. Also, they
reduce the impact of future shocks that may be of political or geo-strategic in nature.
add to its significance and
By increasing the pool of regional participants through a consortium,
the IPI project glues the three countries into a greater web of
cooperation and cements this cooperation through the positive input of the other participants. As the experience of the BTC (Baku-
Tblisi-Ceyhan) pipeline clearly demonstrates, cooperative pipelines contribute to the sustainable growth and stability
of the region. By all indications, the IPI would be no different.
The IPI serves as a durable CBM that fosters stability in South Asia
Luft 1/12/05 (Gal, Executive Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, "Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline:
the Baloch wildcard," http://www.iags.org/n0115042.htm)
A land based pipeline would be four times cheaper than any other option, even after taking into account transit fee payments to Pakistan.
But for a long time political tensions between India and Pakistan made it difficult for Delhi to accept an energy project that would create dependence on a neighbor with
whom its relations are far from stable. Recent improvement in the relations between the two neighbors has bought India to finally consider joining forces with Pakistan
for the mutually beneficial pipeline project, estimated to cost around $4 billion. A third of the gas would be delivered to Pakistan and the rest to India.
For Iran, India’s participation in the project is of paramount importance. In addition to a broader market for its gas Iran hopes to gain political support from India as it is
facing strong international pressure to terminate its nuclear program. In return for India's agreement to buy large quantities of gas, Iran has awarded Indian gas
companies major service contracts and also granted them participation in refining and other energy related projects to the tune of $40 billion. Iran’s relations with
Pakistan are also strategically important. With American troops stationed in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is trying to check U.S. influence in the region by
strengthening its ties with Pakistan, one of America’s most needed allies in the war on terror. The Pakistanis, for their part, would like to see their
territory used as a transit route to export natural gas to India. This would not only guarantee a source of income for them
but also increase stability in the region. Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline
is "a win-win proposition for Iran, India, and Pakistan," that could serve as a durable confidence-building
measure, creating strong economic links and business partnerships among the three countries.
STP Lab 31
2008
IPI PIPLINE GOOD—IMPACTS—KEY
The gas pipeline serves as a confidence-building measure that fosters regional security via mutual
cooperation
BBC 4/29/08 ("Indian leader upbeat on pipeline," http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7372646.stm)
The pipeline will transport gas from Iran to India through Pakistan, and is seen as crucial to Indian energy needs.
Analysts say the pipeline could contribute to regional security as Iran, Pakistan and India would depend on each
other more and benefit from mutual co-operation.
Hold-ups
After talks with Mr Singh at the end of his tour of South Asia, Mr Ahmadinejad said he was optimistic about a deal on the 2,600-km (1,620-mile) pipeline, which would
initially transport 60m cubic metres of gas (2.2bn cubic feet) a day.
"The two sides are very close to each other. We will finalise the gas pipeline soon," he told reporters in Delhi.
Mr Ahmadinejad said a firm proposal on the pipeline would be formulated in the next 45 days and then put before the leaders of the three countries involved.
The Indian government said the project was feasible, but needed to be financially viable with assured supplies.
India has boycotted trilateral meetings since mid-2007, saying it wanted to first resolve the issues of transit fees and transportation tariffs with Pakistan, its long-
standing regional rival.
"This pipeline is not just a commercial deal. It is a part of confidence-building measures," Indian Foreign Secretary
Shivshankar Menon said on Tuesday.
STP Lab 32
2008
TOPICALITY
A. Under this plan, You should most definitely run topicality and Run it before everything. The affirmative case has
so much solvency and so many specific solvency cards that you are going to need as backups as you can get. If
they have all of your counterplan solvency, which they will, considering the fact that this case has 200 pages, you
will need t.
B. The best T violations that you can run just from seeing the plan are on page 10, 11, of the topicality core file.
They say that incentives equal tax breaks.
C. During the 1AC cross-x, you should ask is your plan mandatory? If so run “incentives don’t =mandatory”.
D. Also ask who is the actor of your plan? Depending on what they say run some of the violations on 21 through 23.
E. Ask what these flex fuels are and if they include fossil fuels, or hydrogen. Then depending on what the say, run
the different violations on pages 28 through 32.
F. Also ask by what percentage point will your plan increase alternative energy incentives. IF they say anything less
than thirty percent, run the violations on page 4 about what substantially means.
G. Run Aspec if they don’t clarify which branch of the government is the agent this is on page 15
H. Run Ospec if the affirmative specifies one branch of the federal government. This is on page 16
For the neg block

Extend all of the interpretations and say why they are important
Then read FX bad on page 18 because they are most definitely going to read that effects are good.
STP Lab 33
2008
LIQUID COAL STRAT

Coal to Liquid Strat 1
CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil Shale CP
DA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warming DA
Frontline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hegemony
T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspec
CP - By securing supplies of Oil, the US will solve it's oil problems . . .

DA - GW O/W and Turns the Case.
Frontline - Blocks Solvency with Hegemony arguments (Including Link Turn, Plan Pop. Unpop)
T – Aff doesn’t specify which branch of the USFG enacts the plan.
Coal to Liquid Strat 2
CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . States CP
DA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warming DA
Frontline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hegemony
T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Increase = to make greater)
CP - The States should enact the plan.

DA - GW O/W and Turns the Case.
Frontline - Blocks Solvency with Hegemony arguments (Including Link Turn, Plan Pop. Unpop), add States
Solve best solvency to frontline.
T - Aff doesn't increase incentives, pushes for existing coal source, coal.
Solvency Blocks
Extend Solvency cards (Pages 20-29) In my opinion, the Hegemony Solvency evidence is the best, but
none of the three your excellent evidence. Make sure to extend all of your solvency blocks, as they answer the
Aff's Solvency arguments. As they have good answers to your answers, so at that point you must extend
evidence and analyze their arguments. A total Solvency frontline will follow.
Frontlines contradict each other, so if you were pressed on Solvency, you could read all nine cards. I
would put the Hege first, then the Sequestration, and then the Airlines. The Airlines Solvency has good cards,
but isn't as versatile as the other two. All three Solvency arguments have takeouts and great defense, but little
offense. I suggest you supplement with Case Turns and the like. The offense is sketchy at best, with out good
Turns or O/W's. Such as Plan Pop/Unpop.
Their main Solvency arguments come from the Military, who is funding the program. Point this out.
Their sources are obviously biased, so the judge should prefer
Military Coal to Liquid Negative Strategy Sheet 3

Oil Shale CP
Railroads D/A
Impact Calculus
Alt. Energy ≠
Fossil Fuels T
Ecomanagement K
STP Lab 34
2008
AT: HEG SOLVES TERRORISM
American’s grand strategy of preponderance leads to terrorism—9/11 proves

Schwarz and Layne, 2002 [Benjamin and Christopher, “A New Grand Strategy,” The Atlantic Journal,
01/15/02, http://people.ku.edu/~schrodt/pols572/04.atlantic.schwarz.layne.html]//jh)
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. grand strategy has revolved around maintaining this country's overwhelming military,
economic, and political preponderance. Until now most Americans have acquiesced in that strategy, because the costs
seemed to be tolerably low. But the September 11 attacks have proved otherwise. Those assaults were neither random nor
irrational. Those who undertook them acted with cool calculation to force the United States to alter specific policies—
policies that largely flow from the global role America has chosen. The attacks were also a violent reaction to the very
fact of America's pre-eminence.
Imperialistic wars breed terrorists against the U.S.

01/15/02, http://people.ku.edu/~schrodt/pols572/04.atlantic.schwarz.layne.html]//jh
Any remaining doubt that American hegemony could trigger a hostile reaction, whether reasonable or not, surely
dissipated on September 11. The role the United States has assigned itself in the Persian Gulf has made it—not Japan, not
the states of Western Europe, not China—vulnerable to a backlash. Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan resent America's intrusion
into regional affairs. The widespread perception within the region that the Middle East has long been a victim of "Western
imperialism" of course exacerbates this animosity. Moreover, aggrieved groups throughout the Middle East contest the
legitimacy of the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf emirates which the United States is compelled to support,
making America even more of a lightning rod for the politically disaffected. In this sense Osama bin Laden's brand of
terrorism (which aims to compel the United States to remove its military forces from the Persian Gulf, and to replace
America's client, the Saudi monarchy, with a fundamentalist Islamic government) dramatically illustrates U.S.
vulnerability to the kind of "asymmetric warfare" of which some defense experts have warned.
STP Lab 35
2008
AT: HEG SOLVES PROLIF.

Unilateral counterproliferation can not solve, military restraint is our best options to stop nuclear proliferation.
Gholz, Press and Sapolsky,1997 [Eugene, Daryl and Harvey, “”Come Home America: The Strategy of
Restraint in the Face of Temptation,” International Security, Spring 1997,
http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/bios/Pubs/Gholz_Press_ComeHome.pdf]//jh]
A military counterproliferation operation against a regional power with a dispersed, concealed weapons program would
require weeks or months of ground operations. Stopping an Iranian weapons program, for example, would not be a
precision strike. Iran's armed forces would have to be neutralized and its major military and industrial areas occupied. In
other words, Iran would have to be conquered.
Counterproliferation operations would be long, complex, and costly, but more to the point, these operations would
multiply, not reduce, the risk that America will be the target of nuclear attacks. The reason to attack an Iranian nuclear
program is that Iran might, in some fit of irrationality, use nuclear weapons against the United States. But during an
attack, Iran would be forced to defend itself. It would not face the difficulty of delivering a warhead against a distant U'.S.
homeland, because American troops would be on its shore. Even worse, the Iranian government might believe it had little
to lose.
Nuclear proliferation among hostile states would not be a pleasant development, but an activist security policy does not
reduce the danger. To the contrary, the best the United States may be able to do is to stay out of hostile countries' disputes
and maintain a powerful nuclear deterrent. Fortunately, that is probably good enough. Military restraint would not
increase the danger of rogue states developing nuclear weapons, because even an activist policy could not halt their
efforts.
Unilateral military engagement can not solve for proliferation of nuclear

weapons.
Gholz, Press and Sapolsky,1997 [Eugene, Daryl and Harvey, “”Come Home America: The Strategy of
Restraint in the Face of Temptation,” International Security, Spring 1997,
http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/bios/Pubs/Gholz_Press_ComeHome.pdf]//jh]
Some advocates of continued engagement argue that America should use its military to prevent hostile countries (e.g.,
Iran, Syria, and Libya) from developing nuclear weapons. These critics of restraint argue that, due to the nuclear
revolution, the oceans grant less security than ever before; even poor faraway countries can do serious harm.
Counterproliferators conclude that today more than ever America needs to discourage proliferation by allies and
adversaries."
The spread of nuclear weapons to hostile countries is not good news. Certain countries may use nuclear weapons in
irrational attacks on Americans or their friends. Accidental nuclear wars are not likely but are possible, especially if new
nuclear states lack technical safeguards for their weapons. Continued military engagement, however, will not help stop
proliferation to America's enemies.
STP Lab 36
2008
AT: HEG SOLVES ECON. GROWTH
Hegemony leads to overexpansion

Nyden ’06 (Paul J. Nyden, December 10 2006, Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), “Review; Good vs. evil; Disastrous
Iraq war part of long foreign policy since end of World War II”, LexisNexis)
"Security imperatives cannot explain U.S. expansion or the U.S. pursuit of extra-regional hegemony," he writes.
"Domestic factors play a much greater role in explaining U.S. grand strategy than they do in explaining other great
powers' strategies." In the long run, "hegemonic grand strategy" designed to dominate the world will end up hurting the
United States, Layne argues - a point also made in other recent books including Ivan Eland's "The Empire Has No
Clothes" and Gareth Porter's "Perils of Dominance." Hegemony leads to overexpansion. It creates delusions. Today,
exploding federal budget deficits and trade deficits loom on our horizon, as Republican strategist Kevin Phillips also
pointed out in his "American Theocracy." Layne warns that the "United States cannot live beyond its means indefinitely.
Sooner or later, the bill will come due in the form of higher taxes and higher interest rates."
Overexpansion leads to economic depression

Doyle, Radzicki, Trees ’98 (James K. Doyle, Michael J. Radzicki, W. Scott Trees, May 26 1998, Department of Social
Science and PolicyStudies, Department of Economics, ”Measuring Change in Mental Models of Dynamic Systems: An
Exploratory Study”, https://www.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/SSPS/14.pdf)
Subjects participated in a systems thinking intervention structured around their experience playing STRATEGEM-2, a
simulation game of the Kondratiev cycle, or economic long wave, developed by Sterman and Meadows (1985) and
employed in experiments on dynamic decision making by Sterman (1989). The purpose of the game is to help students
and managers learn about and gain confidence in a simplified behavioral theory of the causes of long-term cycles of
overexpansion and depression in the economy (Sterman, 1985). According to the theory, which focuses on the capital-
producing sector of the economy, management investment decisions lead to overexpansion due to time delays in
production and the reinforcing nature of capital self-ordering. This overexpansion leads to a subsequent depression as
excess capital slowly depreciates over time.
STP Lab 37
2008
AT: HEG SOLVES GENOCIDE

U.S. Dominance causes globalization.
Sommers and Woolfson 2008 (Sommers, Jeffrey and Woolfson, Charles, 01 April 2008, Debatte: Journal of
Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe, [Director of Cultural and Educational Affairs of the State Department,
University of Glasgow Law faculty], 'Trajectories of Entropy and “the Labour Question”: The Political Economy of Post-
communist Migration in the New Europe' Pg. 60-61)
Yet, the limits to accumulation prevented the continuation of that system. The Clinton era National Security Advisor
Anthony Lake summed up this situation nicely: “Throughout the Cold War we contained a global threat to market
democracies”, but now we can “consolidate the victory of democracy and open markets” (Chomsky 14, emphasis added).
And, Clinton era Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers declared, “Globalist economic policy . . . is the forward defence
of America’s deepest security interest” (Laxer). Thus, Keynesianism’s utility as a politico-economic paradigm was
redundant. By the 1970s it had created overcapacity and competition that proved ruinous to the US economy. With the
end of the Cold War it became an anachronism that obstructed future profitability and resurgent US hegemony. The US
could now pursue an “open market” strategy, which for the rest of the world looked suspiciously like a giant Open Door
policy as advocated by US Secretary of State John Hay a century previously. Indeed, as Henry Kissinger asserted
“globalization is only another word for US domination” (Amin 15). A neoliberal globalization agenda replaced the
Keynesian Bretton Woods Order.
Globalization causes cultural extinction and terrorism.

Smith 2008 (Smith, Paul J., April 1, 2008, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Staff Writer, A Handbook of Terrorism
and Insurgency in Southeast Asia; Book review)
The final section of the book features two essays on counter-terrorism presented by two regionally-based scholars. Rohan
Gunaratna, who has written extensively on Al Qaeda, describes the linkage between local groups and the larger Al Qaeda
movement. Among other things, he argues that "the dispersal of al-Qaeda worldwide into less centralized nodes has
dictated the dramatically altered security environment in Southeast Asia" (p. 437). Renato Cruz De Castro argues that
contemporary terrorism in Southeast Asia can be tied to incomplete or disruptive globalization: "As globalization creates
alienation and religious and cultural extinction, those who are alienated and marginalized may act out their discontent and
grievances through terrorism" (p.
STP Lab 38
2008
AT: HEG SOLVES INDO/PAK
US hegemony will lead to revolution in Pakistan

Roberts, 2007. (Paul Craig Roberts, http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=11422, US Hegemony
Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance, August 9, 2007)
In a mere 6.5 years the Bush regime has destroyed the world's good will toward the US. Today, America's influence in the
world is limited to its payments of tens of millions of dollars to bribed heads of foreign governments, such as Egypt's and
Pakistan's. The Bush regime even thinks that as it has bought and paid for Musharraf, he will stand aside and permit Bush
to make air strikes inside Pakistan. Is Bush blind to the danger that he will cause an Islamic revolution within Pakistan
that will depose the US puppet and present the Middle East with an Islamic state armed with nuclear weapons?
Considering the instabilities and dangers that abound, the aggressive posture of the Bush regime goes far beyond
recklessness. The Bush regime is the most irresponsibly aggressive regime the world has seen since Hitler's.
Impact is nuclear war with India

The independent, 2006, (March 8. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/toppling-musharraf-heat-rises-on-
pakistani-leader-467130.html
The Pakistani leader is also the army's chief and still, as far as we know, has the most powerful wings of
the military firmly on his side. But Pakistan is also still a hotbed for al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists
and jihadi militants hiding out and training in the wild ungovernable provinces along the border
with Afghanistan. Twice, they have tried to blow up the President.
The Taliban, who fled here after being driven from Kabul, have not gone away either. Musharraf's
removal, by elements who believe he is not Islamic enough, could open the way for dramatic
regional instability, the threat of jihadists getting hold of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, or
provoking a nuclear war with and India, and what Bush himself once warned would be "the worst
form of Islamist militancy" in South Asia.
STP Lab 39
2008
HEG COLLAPSE INEVITABLE
Heg Decline inevitable—economies

Lia 2005 [Brynjar Lia, senior researcher at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, Globalisation and the Future
of Terrorism, Routledge Publishing, 2005]
There are several reasons to expect a gradual decline of US hegemony as regional powers develop their
economies and seek to assert their influence, and as American unilateral power politics prove prohibitively
costly. Long before the US military overstretch in Iraq and Afghanistan became apparent and its current
budget deficit reached an unprecedented 520 billion US dollars for the fiscal year of 2004, observers pointed
to structural factors challenging the US global hegemony, especially in the economic field.7 Forexample,
Bomschier and Chaw-Dunn argued back in 1999 that 'the US economic hegemony is declining'.
Decline inevitable—Iraq
Layne, 2003 (Christopher, visiting fellow in Foreign Policy Studies, Supremacy Is America’s Weakness
August 13, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6001, //PS)
If that happens, President George W. Bush will not be remembered for liberating Baghdad, but for galvanising
international opposition to American power. Mr Bush’s self-proclaimed “victory” over Iraq may prove to have
shattered the pillars of the international security framework the US established after 1945; triggered a bitter
transatlantic divorce; given the decisive boost to European political unity; and marked the beginning of the
end of the era of US global preponderance.
Heg collapse inevitable—Costs

Layne, 1997 [Christopher, Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, “From Preponderance
to Offshore Balancing: America’s Future Grand Strategy” International Security Vol 22 No.1
Summer, JSTOR]//PS
My argument for adopting an alternative grand strategy is prospective: although sustainable for perhaps
another decade, the strategy of preponderance cannot be maintained much beyond that period. The
changing distribution of power in the international system-specifically, the relative decline of U.S. power
and the corresponding rise of new great powers-will render the strategy untenable. The strategy also is
being undermined because the robustness of America’s extended deterrence strategy is eroding rapidly.
Over time, the costs and risks of the strategy of preponderance will rise to unacceptably high levels. The
time to think about alternative grand strategies is now-before the United States is overtaken by
events.
STP Lab 40
2008
HEG →COUNTERBALANCING
U.S. attempts to maintain hegemony cause counterbalancing by other countries.

01/15/02, http://people.ku.edu/~schrodt/pols572/04.atlantic.schwarz.layne.html]//PS)
But states must always be more concerned with a predominant power's capabilities than with its intentions, and in fact
well before September 11—indeed, throughout most of the past decade—other states have been profoundly anxious about
the imbalance of power in America's favor. This simmering mistrust of U.S. predominance intensified during the Clinton
Administration, as other states responded to American hegemony by concerting their efforts against it. Russia and China,
although long estranged, found common ground in a nascent alliance that opposed U.S. "hegemonism" and expressly
aimed at re-establishing "a multipolar world." Arguing that the term "superpower" is inadequate to convey the true extent
of America's economic and military pre-eminence, the French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine called the United States a
"hyperpower." Even the Dutch Prime Minister declared that the European Union should make itself "a counterweight to
the United States."
Continued US preponderance results in attempting to challenge other rising

powers, leads to arms race
Layne, 1997 [Christopher, Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, “From Preponderance
Summer, JSTOR]//jf
The strategy of preponderance identifies the rise of new great powers and the spillover of instability
from strategically peripheral areas to regions of core strategic interest as the two main threats to
U.S. interests in stability and interdependence . The emergence of new great powers would have
two dele terious consequences for the United States . First, new great powers could become aspiring hegemons and, if successful, would
seriously threaten U.S. security? Offensive and defensive realists concur that China is the state most likely to emerge as a hegemonic challenger in the early twenty-first century.
Offensive realists believe that the United States should respond to the prospect of emerging Chinese power by moving now to contain Beijing. While holding the containment
option in reserve, defensive realists prefer to engage China now in the hope that democratization and interdependence will have meliorating effects on Beijing’s foreign policy.24
Second, the emergence of new great powers is always a destabilizing geo political phenomenon.
Although the United States may have to acquiesce in China’s rise to great power status, the
strategy of preponderance clearly aims to prevent the great power emergence of Germany and
Japan . U.S. policymak ers fear that a “renationalized” Japan or Germany could trigger an adverse
geopolitical chain reaction. For their neighbors, resurgent German and Japa nese power would revive
the security dilemma (dormant during the Cold War). At best, the ensuing security competitions
that could occur in Europe and East Asia would make cooperation more difficult. At worst,
renationaliza tion could fuel a cycle of rising tensions and arms racing (possibly including nuclear
proliferation) that would undermine regional stability and perhaps lead to war . Either way, however,
U.S. strategic and economic interests in interdependence would be imperiled.
STP Lab 41
2008
HEG →COUNTERBALANCING CONT…
Being too powerful causes backlash

Layne, Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, 2002 [Chistopher “Offshore Balancing
Revisited” Washington Quarterly Spring]//jf
Although at first the conclusion may appear counterintuitive, states that seek hegemony invariably end
up being less, not more, secure. Being powerful is good in international politics, but being too
powerful is not. The reasoning behind this axiom is straightforward as well as the geopolitical
counterpart to the law of physics that holds that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite
reaction. Simply put, the response to hegemony is the emergence of countervailing power. Because
international politics is indeed a competitive, “self-help” system, when too much power is
concentrated in the hands of one state, others invariably fear for their own security. Each state
fears that a hegemon will use its overwhelming power to aggrandize itself at that state’s expense
and will act defensively to offset hegemonic power. Thus, one of hegemony’s paradoxes is that it
contains the seeds of its own destruction.
The U.S. sees Europe as a threat to its hegemony, risking the use of U.S. military
force.
Engdahl, 2004 [F. William, “A New American Century? Not!,” The Ferguson Report, 01/19/04,
http://fergusonreport.myonlinepublication.com/article.asp?pop_id=161&article_id=69]//jh
Rather than work out areas of agreement with European partners, Washington increasingly sees Euroland as the major
strategic threat to American hegemony, especially 'Old Europe' of Germany and France. Just as Britain in decline after
1870 resorted to increasingly desperate imperial wars in South Africa and elsewhere, so the United States is using its
military might to try to advance what it no longer can by economic means. Here the dollar is the Achilles heel.
STP Lab 42
2008
HEG →IMPERIAL WARS
US defending vital interests empirically sucks us into conflicts

Layne, 1997 [Christopher, Associate Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School “From Preponderance
Summer, JSTOR]//jf
The strategy of preponderance assumes that the international system will be relatively orderly and stable if
the United States defends others’ vital interests, but would become disorderly and unstable if others
acquired the means to defend their own vital interests. Thus, to ensure a post-Cold War
geopolitical setting conductive to interdependence, the United States “will retain the pre-
eminent responsibility for selectively addressing those wrongs which threaten not only our interests
but those of our allies or friends, which could seriously unsettle international relations.r “ The
corollary is that the United States must defend its allies’ interests in both the core and in the
periphery. Two cases illustrate how the security/interdependence nexus invariably leads to
U.S. strategic overextension: the United States’ role in Indochina from 1948 to 1954 and its
current intervention in Bosnia.
U.S. leadership leads to war with rouge states

Walt, 2006 [Stephen M. Walt, academic dean and Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University “In the National Interest: a grand strategy for
American foreign policy”, http://www.bostonreview.net/BR30.1/walt.html, March 17, 2006]
This image of global dominance is undeniably appealing to some Americans, but the history of the past few years also
demonstrates how infeasible it is. President George W. Bush has embraced many of the policies sketched above, but the
rest of the world has not reacted positively. The Bush administration has been scornful of existing institutions and
dismissive of other states’ opinions, emphasizing instead the unilateral use of American power to “promote liberty” and
preempt potential threats. The result? America’s global standing has plummeted, and with it the ability to attract active
support from many of its traditional allies. Instead, many of these states have been distancing themselves from America’s
foreign-policy agenda and looking for ways to constrain its power. So-called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea
have become more resistant to American pressure and more interested in acquiring the ability to deter American military
action. Efforts to “promote liberty” at the point of a gun have arguably strengthened the hands of authoritarian rulers in
the Middle East, Central Asia, Russia, and elsewhere. The strategy of preventive war and the goal of regional
transformation led the United States into a costly quagmire in Iraq, demonstrating once again the impossibility of empire
in an era in which nationalism is a profound social force. President Bush’s overall approach to foreign policy
demonstrates why global hegemony is beyond our reach, and even some supporters of this strategy have begun to
recognize that fact.
STP Lab 43
2008
AT: IRAQ MOD
Cross Apply Layne ’97 and Walt ’06 from the Heg →Imperial Wars (page 9).

Summer, JSTOR]//jf

STP Lab 44
2008
AT: TAIWAN MOD

Summer, JSTOR]//jf

STP Lab 45
2008
NO INTERVENTION

Summer, JSTOR]//jf

STP Lab 46
2008
AT: HEG. LAUNDRY LIST

Summer, JSTOR]//jf

STP Lab 47
2008
MILITARY COSTS
Hegemony leads to overexpansion

Nyden ’06 (Paul J. Nyden, December 10 2006, Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), “Review; Good vs. evil; Disastrous
Iraq war part of long foreign policy since end of World War II”, LexisNexis)
"Security imperatives cannot explain U.S. expansion or the U.S. pursuit of extra-regional hegemony," he writes.
"Domestic factors play a much greater role in explaining U.S. grand strategy than they do in explaining other great
powers' strategies." In the long run, "hegemonic grand strategy" designed to dominate the world will end up hurting the
United States, Layne argues - a point also made in other recent books including Ivan Eland's "The Empire Has No
Clothes" and Gareth Porter's "Perils of Dominance." Hegemony leads to overexpansion. It creates delusions. Today,
exploding federal budget deficits and trade deficits loom on our horizon, as Republican strategist Kevin Phillips also
pointed out in his "American Theocracy." Layne warns that the "United States cannot live beyond its means indefinitely.
Sooner or later, the bill will come due in the form of higher taxes and higher interest rates."
Overexpansion leads to economic depression

Doyle, Radzicki, Trees ’98 (James K. Doyle, Michael J. Radzicki, W. Scott Trees, May 26 1998, Department of Social
Science and PolicyStudies, Department of Economics, ”Measuring Change in Mental Models of Dynamic Systems: An
Exploratory Study”, https://www.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/SSPS/14.pdf)
Subjects participated in a systems thinking intervention structured around their experience playing STRATEGEM-2, a
simulation game of the Kondratiev cycle, or economic long wave, developed by Sterman and Meadows (1985) and
employed in experiments on dynamic decision making by Sterman (1989). The purpose of the game is to help students
and managers learn about and gain confidence in a simplified behavioral theory of the causes of long-term cycles of
overexpansion and depression in the economy (Sterman, 1985). According to the theory, which focuses on the capital-
producing sector of the economy, management investment decisions lead to overexpansion due to time delays in
production and the reinforcing nature of capital self-ordering. This overexpansion leads to a subsequent depression as
excess capital slowly depreciates over time.
STP Lab 48
2008
AT: OIL DEPENDENCE LINK + FUEL CONSUMPTION UQ
Limiting oil imports makes us more vulnerable to supply disruptions

Diane Katz, director of science, environment, and technology policy with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 4/1,
2002, http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=4129
The fact is that oil imports per se pose no threat to national security. There is more oil to be had today from a wider variety of
sources than ever before. According to economist Donald Losman of the National Defense University, the United States now is
actually far less dependent on Middle East oil supplies than three decades ago. Venezuela and Saudi Arabia alternate as our No. 1
and No. 2 suppliers, while Mexico and Canada rank third and fourth, respectively. Moreover, world oil reserves have increased
dramatically thanks to technological advances in locating and extracting fuels at lower cost. Robert L. Bradley Jr., president of the
Institute for Energy Research, has calculated that known world oil reserves are more than 15-times greater than when record keeping
began in 1948. Gas reserves are almost four-times greater than in the 1970s, and coal reserves have risen 75 percent in the past two
decades. If the United States limits oil imports it will become more dependent on its remaining sources, thereby increasing its
vulnerability to supply disruptions. Artificial conservation measures, meanwhile, actually invite increased consumption, as
demonstrated by the doubling of vehicle miles traveled since the federal fuel efficiency regime began in 1975.
Oil shocks cause economic depression and war.

Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers, 2004, The End of Oil, pg.12-13
Suppose, for example, that worldwide oil production hits a kind of peak and that, as at Ghawar, the amount of oil that oil companies
and oil states can pull out of the ground plateaus or even begins to decline — a not altogether inconceivable scenario. Oil is finite,
and although vast oceans of it remain underground, waiting to be pumped out and refined into gaso¬line for your Winnebago, this is
old oil, in fields that have been known about for years or even decades. By contrast, the amount of new oil that is being discovered
each year is declining; the peak year was 1960, and it has been downhill ever since. Given that oil cannot be produced without first
being discovered, it is inevitable that, at some point, worldwide oil produc¬tion must peak and begin declining as well — less than
ideal circumstances for a global economy that depends on cheap oil for about 40 percent of its energy needs (not to mention 90
percent of its transportation fuel) and is nowhere even close to having alternative energy sources. The last three times oil production
dropped off a cliff — the Arab oil embargo of 1974, the Iranian revolution in 1979, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War — the resulting
price spikes pushed the world into recession. And these disruptions were temporary. Presumably, the effects of a long-term
permanent disruption would be far more gruesome. As prices rose, con¬sumers would quickly shift to other fuels, such as natural
gas or coal, but soon enough, those supplies would also tighten and their prices would rise. An inflationary ripple effect would set in.
As energy became more expensive, so would such energy-dependent activities as manufacturing and transportation. Commercial
activity would slow, and segments of the global economy especially dependent on rapid growth — which is to say, pretty much
everything these days — would tip into recession. The cost of goods and services would rise, ultimately depressing economic
demand and throwing the entire economy into an enduring depression that would make 1929 look like a dress rehearsal and could
touch off a desperate and probably violent contest for whatever oil supplies remained.
STP Lab 49
2008
AT: NEW WEAPONS LINK
- We don’t need to answer the new weapons link. If we win on

solvency, we win this argument. We win on hegemony,
airlines and sequestration. Extend our solvency frontlines.
STP Lab 50
2008
A2: AIR POWER KEY [1/2]
Air Force Pilots are so overworked, they are given

amphetamines to stay awake.
Amina Ali, June Chua & Martin O’Malley,(CBC News) Jan. 14, 2003,
“Amphetamine Go Pills dextroamphetamine friendly.’
The hearing into the case of the two U.S. pilots who bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan will
doubtless dwell on chain-of-command issues, perhaps the cowboy machismo of fighter pilots, but
military chemistry – and the so-called “go-pill” – is sure to play some role in the outcome.
The pilots, Majors Harry Schmidt and William Umbach, could face a court martial for their
actions, which could mean long prison terms for both men if found guilty. The “friendly fire”
incident happened on April 18, 2002, when the F-16 dropped a laser-guided 225-kilogram bomb
near Kandahar, accidentally killing four Canadian soldiers and injuring eight others.
Defence lawyers for the pilots have said they would argue that the forcible use of the
drug dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine) – known on the street as “speed,” in the
military as “go-pills” – was to blame for the incident. The lawyers use the term “forcible use,”
meaning the pilots could be found unfit for the missions unless they agreed to take the
pills.
Go-pills are routinely taken by pilots to keep them awake and alert on long missions.
Schmidt has said he flew seven 10-hour missions in the weeks preceding the April 18
sortie and had used the go-pills each time. At the time they dropped the bomb during
nighttime live-fire exercises at Kandahar, Schmidt and Umbach had been flying six hours.
Schmidt and Umbach are part of the 183rd fighter wing of the Illinois National Guard. They had
been called up for active service in Afghanistan in March, about a month before the Kandahar
incident. Schmidt had been trained as a top-gun fighter pilot. Umbach was a United Airlines pilot.
On the matter of go-pills, Dr. Robert DuPont, one of the leading authorities on drug
addiction in the U.S., recently told ABC’s 20/20 he was shocked to learn the U.S. air force
encourages, if not mandates, the use of amphetamines for its pilots. “People who get
strung out on amphetamines are … usually crazy,” DuPont said. “They’re paranoid, they stop
eating … Their judgment is impaired and they do very bad things … They are the sickest of all
drug addicts.”
Amphetamine is known on the street as copilots, speed, zip, dexies, bennies, crosstops, uppers
and crank. It has also been called the poor man’s cocaine.
Historical Use: Amphetamine was first synthesized in 1887 in Germany. It was investigated as a
possible cure or treatment for ailments from depression to decongestion.
IN 1919, THE JAPANESE DISCOVERED A MORE POTENT VERSION OF THE DRUG —

METHAMPHETAMINE. THE NEW DRUG WAS A CRYSTALLINE POWDER SOLUBLE IN
WATER. IN THIS FORM, IT CAN BE SMOKED, INJECTED, SNORTED OR TAKEN ORALLY.
USERS GET AN INTENSE BUT BRIEF HIGH WHEN THEY INJECT OR SMOKE THE DRUG,
BUT IF IT’S SNORTED OR TAKEN ORALLY BY CAP
STP Lab 51
2008
Hegemony 1NC Frontline 1/2
no oil shortages for the dod in the near future
Dimotakis, Grober and Lewis 6
Paul, Robert, Nate. September 2006. JASON. “Reducting DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence.” Online.
Based on proven reserves, estimated resources, and the rate of discovery of new resources, no extended world-wide
shortage of fossil-fuel production is reasonably expected over, approximately, the next 25 years. While the possibility of shortterm
shortages of refined gasoline or diesel product exists, depending on domestic refining capacity relative to domestic petroleum demand, there is not a strong
basis to anticipate sustained global shortages of crude oil in the next 25 year (or more) time frame. In addition, there is no
basis to anticipate shortages in petroleum available to the DoD, especially considering that present DoD fuel consumption
is less than 2% of the total U.S. domestic fuel consumption – a demand that can be met by only a few domestic supply
sources, at present – even though likely decreases in domestic-oil production will make the future domestic-coverage margin smaller. This finding is premised on
the assumption of no major upheavals in the world, in general, and in the major oil-producing nations and regions, and oil-transportation corridors, in particular, over
the next 25-year period.
us won’t lose control of the air – other powers can’t challenge

Posen 3
Barry. Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of its Security Studies Program.
International Security 28.1 (2003) 5-46. Muse.
Command of the commons is the military foundation of U.S. political preeminence. It is the key enabler of the hegemonic foreign
policy that the United States has pursued since the end of the Cold War. The military capabilities required to secure command of the
commons are the U.S. strong suit. They leverage science, technology, and economic resources. They rely on highly trained, highly
the U.S. military advantage at sea, in the air,
skilled, and increasingly highly paid military personnel. On the whole,
and in space will be very difficult to challenge—let alone overcome. Command is
further secured by the worldwide U.S. base structure and the ability of U.S. diplomacy to
leverage other sources of U.S. power to secure additional bases and overflight rights as
needed.
the us will always be dependent on oil

Wallin 7
Thomas. President of Energy Intelligence Group. 6/21/7. http://www.cfr.org/publication/13911/energy_security.html?breadcrumb=
%2Feducators%2Fmultimedia%3Fpage%3D20.
WELL, I THINKTHE IDEA OF ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IS AN IDEA THAT REALLY IS A -- IT'S NOT A REALITY.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ACHIEVABLE FOR THE UNITED STATES. AND THERE ARE
A LOT OF REASONS FOR THAT. IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE THE GLOBAL OIL MARKET IS A
MARKET WHERE -- YOU CAN'T ESCAPE FROM IT -- IT'S A TOTALLY GLOBALIZED
MARKET. THERE'S NO WAY TO REALLY ISOLATE YOURSELF, INSULATE YOURSELF
HEGEMONY 1NC FRONTLINE 2/2
market. There's no way to really isolate yourself, insulate yourself from it. And also in the case of the United States we
are so dependent on imports, and we're going to remain that way, so independence is really not a possibility for us.
shifting from oil would be impossible in a short timeframe

Bender 7
Bryan. 5/1/7. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_military/.
STP Lab 52
2008
Weaning the military from fossil fuels quickly, however, would be a herculean task -- especially because the bulk of the US
arsenal, the world's most advanced, is dependent on fossil fuels and many of those military systems have been designed to
remain in service for at least several decades.
other factors check a loss of hegemony

Layne 6
Professor of Political Science, Christopher, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to Present
the United States has sought to prevent a single

The received wisdom is that since the early twentieth century (at least), America’s grand strategy has been counterhegemonic. That is,
great power from achieving a Mackinderesque dominance of the Eurasian heartland, because a Eurasian hegemon would control enough hard power to threaten the American
homeland. This fear is invoked by U.S. strategists, along with the economic Open Door and oil access concerns, as a reason that the United States cannot abandon its hegemonic grand
strategy in favor of offshore balancing. The prospect that a threatening hegemon will emerge in Eurasia is remote, and the United States
does not need to maintain a permanent Eurasian military presence to guard against this possibility. The United
States has three lines of defense against a potential Eurasian hegemon: regional power balances, distance, and its own
military capabilities. Regional power balances are America’s first line of defense against a rising Eurasian hegemon, and an offshore balancing strategy would rely on the balance-of power dynamics of a
twenty-first-century multipolar system to thwart a distant great power seeking Eurasian predominance. The major powers in Eurasia have a much more immediate
interest in stopping a rising hegemon in their midst than does the United Sates, and it’s money in the bank that some of them will step up to the plate and
balance against a powerful, expansionist state in their own neighborhood. In a multipolar system, the question is not whether balancing will occur, hut which state(s) will to do it. Here is where the logic of passing the buck
comes into play.68 Offshore balancing would aim to capitalize on the strategic advantages of America’s insular position and pass the buck for stopping a Eurasian hegemon to those whose security would be most
immediatelyjeopardized.69 Insularity allows the United States to stand aloof from others’ security competitions and engage in bystanding and buck-passing behavior that compels others to take on the risks and costs of
counterhegemonic balancing in Eurasia.° Offshore balancing is a hedging strategy. It recognizes that if regional power balances fail, the United States might need to intervene
counterhegemonicallv, because a Eurasian hegemon might pose a threat to American security. However, an offshore balancing strategy would not assume that the rise of a twenty-first-century Eurasian hegemon inevitably
the nuclear revolution has transformed the geopolitical context with respect to
would threaten the United States. There is a strong case to be made that
America’s interests in Eurasia in two crucial ways. First, nuclear weapons have made the Eurasian balance less salient to
the United States. Because of nuclear deterrence (and geography), fear that a future Eurasian hegemon would command
sufficient resources to imperil the United States arguably is a strategic artifact of the pre-nuclear era.7’ Second, even as
the impact of the Eurasian balance of
If your running the Shale Oil CP, run this solvency frontline:
AIRLINES 1NC FRONTLINE 1/2
the dod won’t be modeled

Dimotakis, Grober and Lewis 6
Paul, Robert, Nate. September 2006. JASON. “Reducting DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence.” Online.
DoD is not a sufficiently large customer to drive the domestic market for demand and consumption of fossil fuel
alternatives, or to drive fuel and transportation technology developments, in general. Barring externalities, e.g., subsidies,
governmental and departmental directives, etc., non-fossil-derived fuels are not likely to play a significant role in the next
25 years.
STP Lab 53
2008
the us airline industry is resilient
(A)it adapts to higher costs by shifting those costs, like increasing luggage
costs
(B)it’s survived big hits like september 11th and sars, which disprove your airline
collapse arguments
the economy is resilient

Financial Times 6
A slowing US could brake the world. 9/27/6.
To doubt the resilience of the world economy must now look perverse. Since 2000, it has overcome so many obstacles: post-
bubble traumas in Japan; the bursting of a global stock market bubble in 2000; the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001; a
US recession; years of stagnation in the eurozone; wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; real oil prices at levels close to those of the late
1970s; and the failure to complete the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations. Yet, in spite of all this, world economic growth was
4.1 per cent in 2003, 5.3 per cent in 2004 and 4.9 per cent in 2005, measured at purchasing power parity exchange rates.
STP Lab 54
2008
AIRLINES 1NC FRONTLINE 2/2
economic decline doesn’t cause war

Deudney 91
Daniel, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April. Online.
Poverty wars. In a second scenario, declining living standards first cause internal turmoil, then
war. If groups at all levels of affluence protect their standard of living by pushing deprivation on other groups, class war and
revolutionary upheavals could result. Faced with these pressures, liberal democracy and free market systems could increasingly be
replace by authoritarian systems capable of maintaining minimum order." If authoritarian regimes are more war-prone because they
lack democratic control, and if revolutionary regimes are war-prone because of their ideological fervor and isolation, then the world is
likely to become more violent. The record of previous depressions supports the proposition that widespread economic stagnation and
unmet economic expectations contribute to international conflict. Although initially compelling, this scenario has major flaws. One is
it is arguable based on unsound economic theory. Wealth is formed not so much by
that
the availability of cheap natural resources as by capital formation through savings and
more efficient production. Many resource-poor countries, like Japan, are very wealthy, while
many countries with more extensive resources are poor. Environmental constraints require an end to
economic growth based on growing use of raw materials, but not necessarily an end to growth in the production of goods and
economic decline does not necessarily produce conflict. How societies respond to
services. In addition,
economic decline may largely depend up on the rate at which such declines occur. And as people get poorer, they
may become less willing to spend scarce resources for military forces. As Bernard Brodie observed
about the modern era, "The predisposing factors to military aggression are full bellies, not empty ones."10 The experience of
economic depressions over the last two centuries may be irrelevant, because such
depressions were characterized by under-utilized production capacity and falling
resource prices. In the 1930s, increased military spending stimulated economies, but if economic growth is retarded by
environmental constraints, military spending will exacerbate the problem.
STP Lab 55
2008
CP TEXTS
Text: The USFG should negotiate a long-term contract with shale oil producers for the purpose of developing a domestic
supply of shale oil for the department of defense. We can clarify.
States CP
Text: In a relevant test case, the US Supreme Court will issue a narrow ruling that federal authority over tradable permit
schemes for carbon dioxide (and other “greenhouse gases”) violates the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court will
devolve authority of this narrow ruling to the States and Territories.
STP Lab 56
2008
RAILROADS D/A
THEIR IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR…. OUR IMPACT IS EXTINCTION. WE OUTWEIGH.
1NC Shell:
- The D/A starts by describing how the railroad system, which is key to the economy, is on the brink of collapse,
and how increased freight (material) will cause the system to collapse. (Tarm ‘8)
- The next card discusses how coal accounts for more than 40% of train freight. (Myrtle Beach Online ‘8)
↑ The above seems like an obvious card to lead in to a card saying how the plan increases coal
production. However, the next card doesn’t discuss this. However there is an extension card from Blackwell in
2007, saying the plan leads to a 40% increase in coal production. I recommend putting this page 19 between
pages 14 and 15.
- The next card discusses how chemicals are shipped by rail, and a collapse of the railroad industry will collapse the
chemical industry. (Weinstein ’98).
Then there’s the impact card, which discusses how the chemical industry is key for longevity of people. Without
chemicals people will die. ↑ This is a very weak impact card! Nowhere doe sit actually mention extinction.
Links:
- Congestion Link: Increase in coal demand →Increase in railroad congestion →Spillover →Disruption of
entire railroad system.
- Congestion Link: The railroad is already congested, coal increases cause congestion.
• Can once again use the Blackwell in ‘7 card.
D/A Turns the Case

- This D/A links to all of their advantages: Price, Readiness and Dependence.
- The D/A turns the case on hegemony (railroads key), on economy (railroads key) and on the environment (trains
are better, less CO2 emissions).
-
STP Lab 57
2008
OIL SHALE CP
Text: The USFG should negotiate a long-term contract with shale oil producers for the purpose of developing a domestic
supply of shale oil for the department of defense. We can clarify.
- The three cards in the INC shell say how the USFG and it’s DOD (Department of Defense), should supply it’s
own oil from reserves under the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. This is called shale oil. (Fine ‘7).
- The next card describes how the technology to produce shale oil is being developed in the status quo. (Fine ‘7).
- The third card describes how the amount of shale oil can meet the DOD’s needs. This is important for our security
because it means we aren’t dependent on foreign oil.
Advantages: Price, Readiness, Dependence.

- The CP solves for all three aff. advantages. (Pages 3-5 in neg. file)
STP Lab 58
2008
IMPACT CALCULUS
Extinction Outweighs Nuclear War
Magnitude: Our magnitude is greater, it’s immediate extinction. Their impact is nuclear war. Even with nuclear winter,
which could eventually lead to extinction, our magnitude is greater because it is immediate.
Probability: Our impact of extinction is much more likely because the railroad system is already on the brink of collapse
(XT Tarm ‘8 and Richmond Time Dispatch ‘8). This means with the passing of the plan, the railroads will collapse,
economies will collapse, and extinction ensues. The probability of nuclear war is much lower. Countries won’t want to go
to war with each other, let alone nuclear war, it hurts their economies. It also hurts their soft power.
Time Frame: Extend our magnitude arguments. Our time frame is immediate. Their impact takes time. Also, it takes time
before countries will launch nuclear weapons; there are diplomatic meetings and councils before any war happens.
STP Lab 59
2008
T: ALT. ENERGY ≠ FOSSIL FUELS

* This argument is on page 28 of the Topicality core.
- This is a good T block to run because the use of coal is an obvious violation of the resolution. The resolution
specifies “alternative energy incentives”, and coal is not an alternative energy, it’s a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are
what are currently being used in the SQ, and what are failing and leading to global warming. Coal is also not an
alternative energy incentive because it is non-renewable.
• Don’t read/highlight the last sentence of the Torridge District Council ‘8 card that says, “Need not be
renewable.
STP Lab 60
2008
ECOMANAGMENT KRITIK
- This is a good kritik to run for this case, but it’s a good kritik to run for any case involving the United States federal
government, because the United States is inherently capitalist.
- The INC shell works for any affirmative, and then there are specific links and impacts based on what advantages they’re
claiming.
* I recommend: Renewables Link (page 10) and then Environment Links (pages 19-24).
- There are also good arguments on why the K turns the case (page 18) and on why the alternative solves (page 27).
STP Lab 61
2008
***K***
TRADABLE GAS RIGHTS 2NC
A tradable gasoline rights system would simple feed the capitalistic fetish by turning an intangible idea like gas
rights into capital to be bought and sold. This is a direct link to our Luke evidence from the 1NC. It condemns
the use of capitalistic approaches to environmental protection. It will only harm it in the end. Extend our
Johnston evidence about how we must withdraw from the ideology of capital to destroy the fetish that allows it
to survive. It is impossible for us to reject the idea of capital while indulging in a system that creates currently
non-existent capital.
INTERPASSIVITY – the narrow focus of the 1AC makes it impossible to address the root cause of environmental
degradation – its particular content creates mass complacency
Bobertz Ass’t Prof of Law, Nebraska College of Law 1995 Bradley Texas Law Review lexis
Environmental laws and the social patterns they reflect raise troubling questions. If we reduce the purpose of environmental law to merely
stopping end-point pollution, we inevitably discourage scrutiny of our basic habits and ways of life. With pollution being
"taken care of" by the government, only the most guilt-sensitive will take action to change their own behavior, and only
the most fervently committed will press for deeper changes in our systems of production and waste disposal. Unfortunately, these
ardent few occupy a marginalized position in mainstream America, and as the process of environmental lawmaking marches onward --
identifying and punishing its scapegoats -- the underlying causes of pollution are rarely mentioned, let alone acted upon.
n16 Thus, environmental legislation presents a striking example of how the law can legitimize an existing state of affairs
while simultaneously creating the appearance of reforming it.
That turns the case

The enactment of environmental laws also includes a less virtuous tendency to return with one hand what is taken away by the other. We wish to exorcise our demons,
but still retain the pleasures of their company. A law that strikes at the external manifestations of an environmental problem satisfies
the common desire for identifying and banishing the guilty. On a personal level, however, no one wants her own habits exposed to the same harsh
light. By acting with righteous vehemence against the visible end-products of pollution, we avoid asking harder questions
about global resource allocation and the sustainability of existing industrial, agricultural, and personal patterns of
behavior. Enactment of environmental laws not only releases us from guilt -- or the state of being "part of the problem" -- but also
enables us to avoid scrutinizing deeper patterns that implicate our personal habits and appetites. Few would like to admit that these
habits, and not simply the immediate targets of environmental law, create the very problems the law appears to address. In this manner, laws aimed at
curtailing pollution can ultimately create barriers to lasting reform by legitimizing the more deeply rooted causes of
pollution that the very process of lawmaking has exonerated from blame. Except for the environmental scapegoats -- duly
shamed and punished -- the rest of society is liberated, free to pursue its old ways without fear of reprisal.
STP Lab 62
2008
LW CAP AND TRADE 2NC

A cap and trade system like the Lieberman Warner permits scheme would perpetuate the capitalistic fetish by
turning emission, something free of the capital world into capital to be bought from the government and traded
amongst companies. Extend our Harriss-White evidence about the infiltration of capitalistic though processes
in environmental discussions. This is a direct link to the criticism. Extend our Johnson evidence about how we
must withdraw from the ideology of capital to destroy the fetish that allows it to survive. It is impossible to
reject the ideology of capital while perpetuating an environmental policy based on capitalism.
INTERPASSIVITY – the narrow focus of the 1AC makes it impossible to address the root cause of environmental
degradation – its particular content creates mass complacency
Environmental laws and the social patterns they reflect raise troubling questions. If we reduce the purpose of environmental law to merely
stopping end-point pollution, we inevitably discourage scrutiny of our basic habits and ways of life. With pollution being
"taken care of" by the government, only the most guilt-sensitive will take action to change their own behavior, and only
the most fervently committed will press for deeper changes in our systems of production and waste disposal. Unfortunately, these
ardent few occupy a marginalized position in mainstream America, and as the process of environmental lawmaking marches onward --
identifying and punishing its scapegoats -- the underlying causes of pollution are rarely mentioned, let alone acted upon.
n16 Thus, environmental legislation presents a striking example of how the law can legitimize an existing state of affairs
while simultaneously creating the appearance of reforming it.
That turns the case

The enactment of environmental laws also includes a less virtuous tendency to return with one hand what is taken away by the other. We wish to exorcise our demons,
but still retain the pleasures of their company. A law that strikes at the external manifestations of an environmental problem satisfies
the common desire for identifying and banishing the guilty. On a personal level, however, no one wants her own habits exposed to the same harsh
light. By acting with righteous vehemence against the visible end-products of pollution, we avoid asking harder questions
about global resource allocation and the sustainability of existing industrial, agricultural, and personal patterns of
behavior. Enactment of environmental laws not only releases us from guilt -- or the state of being "part of the problem" -- but also
enables us to avoid scrutinizing deeper patterns that implicate our personal habits and appetites. Few would like to admit that these
habits, and not simply the immediate targets of environmental law, create the very problems the law appears to address. In this manner, laws aimed at
curtailing pollution can ultimately create barriers to lasting reform by legitimizing the more deeply rooted causes of
pollution that the very process of lawmaking has exonerated from blame. Except for the environmental scapegoats -- duly
shamed and punished -- the rest of society is liberated, free to pursue its old ways without fear of reprisal.
STP Lab 63
2008
FLEX FUEL AFF 2NC

The flex fuel mandate is a directly uses capitalistic approaches to achieve environmental change. Extend our
Harriss-White evidence that explains the monumental implications of capitalistic thought infiltrating
environmental discussions. The flex-fuel plan attempts to alter the environment through the capitalistic
approach of selling green cars, or environmentally friendly capital. This perpetuates the fantasy that such a
thing exists. Extend our Johnson evidence about how we need to reject this ideology. It is impossible to reject
the idea of capital while marketing “environmentally friendly capital.”
THE NEW OPIATE – The affirmative creates tranquility within the masses and destroys and struggle against
capitalism – it uses the façade of change through the market to assure we never criticize the economy
Harriss-White, Professor of Development Studies, Oxford, 2006 Barbara Undermining Sustainable Capitalism: The
Market-Driven Politics of Renewable Energy socialistregister.com/socialistregister.com/files/ecolbhweh19Oct06.doc
First, aspirational utterance - the ‘priority’, the urgent political cause - dominates the public presentation of climate change
politics and renewable energy. Table 4 lists major climate change utterances which have been accompanied by targets since 1990. It shows how targets on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions
have been unstable. By and large they have become increasingly ambitious, moving from an original target of returning to the 1990 base line to - from 2000 onwards - a target of emissions 60% below that level . The
velocity of production of statements about targets appears to have accelerated, while the target dates have receded into the future as notably as the targets have become more ambitious – from 5 to 10 years at the start, to 45 –
specified; the public is deluged with arbitrary slogans
99 years at present. The technological means and policy instruments by which these targets are to be reached have never been well
and binary choices (the dash for gas (which when relative prices changed became an under-publicised dash for imported coal); nuclear power versus gas; RE
versus ever cleaner coal or nuclear power). The weighting of means and instruments also changes with a speed unrelated to the investment time spans required, and,
despite scenario modelling, the means remain vague. The targets and target dates for RE are modest, yet are currently far from being on track.
Policy is policy on climate change policy, and it is hard to see what it is doing other than serving as a mass tranquilliser. While the original
analgesic, religion, veiled the pain caused by the irrationalities of capitalist production, the politics of strategic vagueness
may well enable the government to avoid either informing the public or facing practical questions. As of mid 2006, the government
had deliberately delayed by many months the publication of research evaluating the dangers of climate change; and Sir Nick Stern, the chief economist to the
government and in 2005 the intellectual power behind the Commission for Africa, is not due to report on climate change policy until the autumn of 2006. David
Cameron’s new Tory party has also discovered the allure of climate-change-policy policy, has ‘put the environment at the heart of the repositioning of the party’ … and
is ‘urging the government to re-state its absolute commitment’…..
STP Lab 64
2008
DEPLETION DEDUCTION (COAL) 2NC
The depletion deduction aff directly links to the K. Extend our Harriss-White evidence that talks about the
infiltration of the market into environmental talks. The plan utilizes the laws of capitalism and the free market to
attempt to increase incentives through price spikes caused by the plan. Extend our Luke card that discusses
the use of capitalistic incentives aid the environment, and how it will inevitably have the opposite effect. They
feed the capital fetish talked about it our Johnson evidence. It is impossible to reject the ideology of capital
while embracing the plan that utilizes laws of capital.
COMPARTMENTALIZATION - The use of market mechanism assures that even

renewable energy becomes another prisoner of capitalism – plan only
hinders renewable development by making all strategies inherently
particular
The British government has evolved from intervening in technologies, quantities and prices, through fiscal mechanisms and policy for marginal transfers to RE, to a
politics of mere repeated utterances and increasingly utopian targets in relation to it. Policy on RE and climate change has shifted from active
participation to pure aspiration. Is the government in collective denial? Is it a weak prisoner of capital? Is it being corrupted? The current 2006
consultation for a new energy white paper recognises the urgency of reducing carbon emissions. But it presents the issue as a mere choice between imported gas (increasingly involving the political relationships between
Gasprom, RosUkrEnergo and the Russian state) and expanding domestic nuclear power (increasingly involving private US and European capital). The debate that then ensues does not acknowledge the irrelevance of both
energy sectors to the 60% emissions reduction target to which Britain has signed, let alone Britain’s energy footprint in the rest of the world. It has been crudely pre-empted by the Prime Minister’s announcement that
‘nuclear energy is back on the agenda with a vengeance’.
The state’s de-participation in the energy economy and its fractured energy policy architecture incidentally or deliberately enables its penetration by interests
undermining RE. Yet these interests shoot themselves in the foot because current bureaucratic political arrangements also prevent the formation and implementation of
a coherent energy policy. State regulative autonomy is doubly compromised – by the ‘independent’ regulators’ vulnerability to state capture, and by
the state’s capture by capital. In turn capital sheds activity that is low profit and high risk, and RE is regulated so as to be both. The result is not serving
capital well, but meanwhile RE is marginalized.
The struggle for market shares generates a politics as important as that initiated by the state. The practice of labelling energy policy by sector
masks the political struggle between companies and between individual companies and the state. Even though it is also labelled as a
sector, RE exists in two extreme forms of capitalist organisation. One is what one commentator called a ‘fashion statement’ of diversified
corporate capital, while the other is a much larger set of small specialist firms. There is little connection between the two. Despite green rhetoric, corporate
capital may have used its influence deliberately to slowdown the RE it controls, while small scale, specialised RE capital
is divided between competing RE sources and subjected to inconsistent and intermittent state support which has without
doubt constrained its development phase.
STP Lab 65
2008
ALGAE BIODIESEL 2NC
Algae biodiesel perpetuates the capital fetish outlined in our Johnson evidence. It utilizes monetary capitalistic
incentives for supposed environmental ends. This is addressed Luke evidence in the 1NC. These incentives
maintain social hege and dismiss discussions of non-economic evaluations, making criticism of capital
impossible. Our Johnson evidence discuses how you must reject the ideology of capital in order to destroy the
fetish the aff is indulging in. It is impossible reject the ideology while indulging through the medium of the plan.
DEPOLITICIZATION OF THE ECONOMY – we have entered an era of post politics

where strategies like the affirmative are enacted against the backdrop of a
supposedly neutral economy – this failure to recognize the inherently
political nature of the economy assures that the aff remains apolitical – their
attempt at ecological justice will simply be incorporated into capitalism
march of destruction
Zizek Senior Researcher at the Institute for Social Studies, Ljubljana 1999 Slavoj, The Ticklish Subject, page 352-355
The big news of today’s post-political age of the ‘end of ideology’ is thus the radical depoliticization of the sphere of the economy: the way the economy functions (the
need to cut social welfare, etc.) is accepted as a simple insight into the objective state of things. However, as long as this
fundamental depoliticization of the economic sphere is accepted, all the talk about active citizenship, about public discussion leading to responsible
collective decisions, and so on, will remain limited to the ‘cultural’ issues of religious, sexual, ethnic and other way-of-life differences, without actually encroaching upon
the level at which long-term decisions that affect us all are made. In short, the only way effectively to bring about a
society in which risky long-term decisions would ensue from public debate involving all concerned is some kind of
radical limitation of Capital’s freedom, the subordinated of the process of production to social control – the radical
repoliticization of the economy. That is to say: if the problem with today’s post-politics (‘administration of social affairs’) is that it increasingly
undermines the possibility of a proper political act, this undermining is directly due to the depoliticization of economics, to the
common acceptance of Capital and market mechanisms as neutral tools/ procedures to be exploited. We can now see why today’s
post-politics cannot attain the properly political dimension of universality; because it silently precludes the sphere of economy from politicization. The domain of global capitalist market
relations in the Other Scene of the so-called repoliticization of civil society advocated by the partisans of ‘identity politics’ and other postmodern forms of politicization: all the talk about new
on particular issues (gay rights, ecology, ethnic minorities…), all this incessant activity of fluid,
forms of politics bursting out all over, focused
shifting identities, of building multiple ad hoc coalitions, and so on, has something inauthentic about it, and ultimately resembles the obsessional
neurotic who talks all the time and is otherwise frantically active precisely in order to ensure that something – what really matters – will not be disturbed, that it will remain immobilized. 35
So, instead of celebrating the new freedoms and responsibilities brought about by the ‘second modernity’, it is much more crucial to focus on what remains the same in this global fluidity and
reflexivity, on what serves as the very motor of this fluidity: the inexorable logic of Capital. The spectral presence of Capital is the figure of the bit Other which not only
remains operative when all the traditional embodiments of the symbolic big Other disintegrate, but even directly causes this disintegration: far from being confronted with the abyss of their
freedom – that is, laden with the burden of responsibility that cannot be alleviated by the helping hand of Tradition or Nature – today’s subject is perhaps more than ever caught in an inexorable
compulsion that effectively runs his life.
STP Lab 66
2008
AT: PERM
1. The Perm still links. Political strategies based on financial incentives placate struggles against capitalism
and environmental destruction.
(Determine if their perm is severance or intrinsic and read that only.)
2. The perm is severance. The aff gives a financial incentive, which necessitates an ideology of capitalism.
Severance Perms are a voting issue because they steal all neg counterplan and K ground, which is key to
fairness. It also makes research useless, because they will simply spike out of our links. This destroys all
debate related education.
2. The perm is intrinsic. It includes positive action that is neither in the plan nor the alternative text. Intrinsic
Perms are a voting issue because it explodes their ground by allowing them to claim new non-topical
advantages. They destroy fairness by being a moving target. Finally, they destroy topic specific education
through plan planks.
3. Ethics Disad: extend Zizek and Daly. The perm relies on the big other, IE the market to dictate our political
and ethical strategies. This assures social subjugation on a global scale.
4. Negativity is a prerequisite. Our alternative is a negative gesture, which is key to progressive politics.
Extend our Johnston evidence.
5. Don’t believe the hype – doing nothing in the face of the affirmative is
essential to opening a space for resistance to the ideology of capital – the
plan can only replicate domination and their harms
Zizek in 2004 Slavoj Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, page 71-71
The stance of simply condemning the postmodern Left for its accommodation, however, is also false, since one should ask the obvious difficult question: what, in fact, was the alternative? If
today’s ‘post-politics’ is opportunistic pragmatism with no principles, then the predominant leftist reaction to it can be aptly characterized as ‘principle opportunism’: one simply sticks to old
formulae (defence of the welfare state, and so on) and calls them ‘principles’, dispensing with the detailed analysis of how the situation has changed – and thus retaining one’s position of
Beautiful Soul. The inherent stupidity of the ‘principled’ Left is clearly discernable in it standard criticism of any analysis which proposes a more complex picture of the situation, renouncing
any simple prescriptions on how to act: ‘there is no clear political stance involved in your theory’ – and this from people with no stance but their ‘principled opportunism’. Against such a
stance, one should have the courage to affirm that, in
a situation like today’s, the only way really to remain open to a revolutionary
opportunity is to renounce facile calls to direct action, which necessarily involve us in an activity where things change so
that the totality remains the same. Today’s predicament is that, if we succumb to the urge of directly ‘doing something’ (engaging in the
anti-globalist struggle, helping the poor…) we will certainly and undoubtedly contribute to the reproduction of the existing order. The
only way to lay the foundations for a true, radical change is to withdraw from the compulsion to act, to ‘do nothing’ – thus opening up
the space for a different kind of activity.
STP Lab 67
2008
AT: FRAMEWORK
1. Ethics Disad: Extend our Zizek and Daly evidence from the 1NC. Their Framework displaces ethics
onto external authority, guaranteeing apolitical ethics, which can never be progressive.
2. Kritik alternatives are good:
a. Neg flex: we should get actions outside the resolution to test al angles of the aff.
b. Critical thinking: forces the aff to consider best arguments to justify the intentions of their aff.
c. Education: extend the thesis of our k. If we win cap is the driving force behind global
oppression, it’s obviously important to learn about
3. Aff choice is arbitrary, if we have a link to your pan, you should have to answer us because it’s
predictable in the literature.
4. Aff always gets state good and cap good ground, which checks abuse.
5. PICs make your impact inevitable.
6. Framework isn’t a voter, at best it’s a reason why you evaluate their impact claims, in which case we
win because we have an ethics disad to the plan and all our link arguments are reasons why their plan
would not be able to solve.
STP Lab 68
2008
AT: K DOESN’T SOLVE.

1. Our textual alternative is to completely withdraw from the ideology of capital. This solves. Extend the
Johnston 04 evidence from the 1NC.
2. The solution to overarching ideology of capital is to simply withdraw from our obsession with this
system. The system can’t structurally exist if we do not believe in it. Our evidence is surprisingly good
on the question of rethinking solving for the ideology of Capital.
Our alternative is a pre-requisite to the affirmative – the exhaustion of the

current political imagination makes it impossible to adequately or accurately
answer the questions of the affirmative. We must step outside of the current
restrictions on thinking before we can begin to ponder where to go next.
AND - Re-politicizing the economy is the only mechanism which creates the
necessary conditions for the realization of environmental demands – only
the alternative can solve the case
Zizek, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Social Studies, Ljubljana, 1999 Slavoj, The Ticklish Subject, page 356
Of course, one should fully acknowledge the tremendous liberating impact of the postmodern politicization of domains
which were hitherto considered apolitical (feminism, gay and politics, ecology, ethnic and other so-called minority issues): the fact that these issues not only
became perceived as inherently political but also gave birth to new forms of political subjectivization thoroughly reshaped our entire political and cultural
landscape. So the point is not to play down this tremendous advance in favour of the return to some new version of so-called economic essentialism; the point is,
rather, that the depoliticization of the economy generates the populist Right with its Moral Majority ideology, which today is
the main obstacle to the realization of the very (feminist, ecological. . .) demands on which postmodern forms of political
subjectivization focus. In short, I am pleading for a 'return to the primacy of the economy' not to the detriment of the issues raised by postmodern forms of
politicization, but precisely in order to create the conditions for the more effective realization of feminist, ecological, and so on, demands.
STP Lab 69
2008
THEORY ANSWERS
AT: K is utopian
Our K is not utopian. We don’t believe that we are solving for all the evils of the world. We simply believe that
the implications of the aff need to be avoided. We just solve for this specific instance of capitalistic ideology.
We are simply trying to institute a change in the world. Rejection of the alternative is rejection of change and
leads to Nihilism.
AT: Floating PICs Bad
Our K is not a floating PIC. We do not attempt to solve the aff. We simply point out the lack of solvency and
reverse implications of the plan. Even if we are a Floating PIC, Floating PICs are good. Implications and lit
check abuse. Floating PICs allow for a variety of educational scenarios by mimicking congressional
discussions of the implications of bills and resolutions. And we don’t steal the 1AC, we simply kritik the thought
processes they justify. No abuse, don’t vote on potential abuse. Reject the team to prevent the argument.
AT: Vague Alternative
The alternative is not vague, we address a specific ideology that must be rejected. Our evidence is specific to
how the alternative is the only real solution that avoids the implications of the K. It is infinitely regressive. We
are no more vague than the plan. Cross x checks vagueness of the alternative just like it checks the
vagueness of the plantext. Vagueness is not a voter.
STP Lab 70
2008
2NR EXTENSIONS OF ROBBINSON AND TORMEY
1. No link. We aren’t Zizek’s alternative. Robbinson and Tormey criticize Zizek’s revolution, but we are a
negative action. Our rethinking is prerequisite to progressive politics. Extend our Johnson evidence.
2. Extend our Johnson alternative. Rethinking can solve violence. Our alternative wouldn’t lead to
totalitarianism because the universal that we defend would include equal participation in decision-
making by all members involved.
3. Lack Theory is not flawed. Using Lack Theory to analyze the realm of the political is necessary to solve
individual unethical policies. Extend Thomassen.
4. Their strategy of contingency allows for the government to identify fundamentalism as the root cause of
violence today. This justifies the war on terror and endless violence against the other. Extend Dean.
Only our alternative solves.
5. Robinson’s wrong. Violence isn’t necessary for our alternative. Rethinking is enough. Extend
Thomassen and Johnson.
6. The central thesis of their argument is reliant on them winning that absent the K, the plan is a god idea.
Our Harriss-White evidence proves that the aff itself is counterproductive. Voting neg down does not
give up on productive politics because the aff only makes the stat quo worse.
(continues on next page)
7. Robinson’s ideology partakes in a tautology of its own – their demand for rational morality succumbs to systems
of domination they do not criticize
Dean, Associate Professor of Political Theory, Hobart-William Smith Colleges, 2005 (Jodi, “Enjoyment as a Category of
Political Theory,” Paper at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association, Sept,
http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/files/apsa_05_enjoyment.doc, Kel)
Drawing from Louis Althusser’s theory of ideological interpellation, Zizek asks how the effect of belief in a cause arises, how, in other words, a
subject comes to recognize as hailed by an ideological institution (such as the state in the form of the policeman saying, “hey, you!” or God’s call as
made manifest through the practices, texts, and institutions of the church). The subject may go about specific activities related to a cause, but why
does the subject recognize this particular cause as his own? Why does he respond to the hail? Why is it he who is hailed, addressed, called? Zizek’s
surprising answer is not that the subject has a preexisting good reason for responding, not that the cause in some way corresponds to the subject’s
deep or true interests. Rather, the subject responds to a certain irrational injunction, that is, to the very fact of the groundless command. We might think here of the word of God, binding
because it is God’s word or of the fundamental authority of law as grounded in the fact that it is law. In each case, if
we point to something beyond God or law as
the grounds for their authority, we are positing something higher, something by which to judge God or law, say reason or
morality. And, if we then say that reason or morality is the ultimate authority, we get stuck in the same tautology: reason
authorizes because it is reasonable; morality authorizes because it is moral. Zizek conceives of this tautology as an object, a sticking point, a residue
of irrationality that serves as the very condition for the subject’s submission to the ideological hail (objet petit a). Hence, he offers the following wordplay: jouis-sense, enjoyment-in-sense
(enjoy-meant) to capture the conjunction of the meaning offered by ideology with its ultimate core of meaninglessness or, irrational enjoyment.17 Thus, unlike Foucault, Zizek emphasizes the
subjectivization of the practices constitutive of belief: belief in an ideological cause results from an excessive, traumatic kernel that resists symbolization or incorporation into a signifying
economy. The excess of the subject with respect to its practices, then, is not the result of a multiplicity of competing hails (although this is not excluded). Instead, it is
more fundamental: the subject is the very failure of interpellation/symbolization, an absence that is marked (embodied/positivized) by the irrational
injunction.18
STP Lab 71
2008
2NR EXTENSIONS OF GIBSON AND GRAHAM
1. No Link. Gibson and Graham criticize Marxist theorists how advocate revolution, our alternative
emphasizes individual responsibility. We approach capital as contextual and not totalizing.
2. Only they link. They’re cap good arguments are totalizing claims about capitalism. Only thy link to
Gibson and Graham’s arguments regarding capitalism.
3. Psychoanalysis solves. Our alternative provides a space for individuals to interact with the real thereby
allowing us to move outside the current confines of capitalistic thought.
Daly, Lecturer of International Studies @ University College of Northampton, 2004 (Glyn, “Slavoj Zizek: Risking the
Impossible,” Lacan.com, http://www.lacan.com/zizek-primer.htm, Kel)
Zizek's thought is concerned crucially to reactivate the dimension of the miraculous in political endeavour. For Zizek the miracle is that which coincides with trauma in
the sense that it involves a fundamental moment of symbolic disintegration (2001b: 86). This is the mark of the act: a basic rupture in the weave of reality that opens up
new possibilities and creates the space for a reconfiguration of reality itself. Like the miracle, the act is ultimately unsustainable - it cannot be reduced to, or
incorporated directly within, the symbolic order. Yet it is through the act that we touch (and are touched by) the Real in such a way that the bonds of our symbolic
universe are broken and that an alternative construction is enabled; reality is transformed in a Real sense.
The Real is not simply a force of negation against which we are helpless. In contrast to standard criticisms, what psychoanalysis
demonstrates is that we are not victims
of either unconscious motives or an infrastructural logic of the Real. If reality is a constitutive distortion then the ultimate lesson of psychoanalysis is that we
are responsible for its reproduction. Miracles can and do happen. We are capable of Real acts that give reality a new texture and direction; acts that reflect this gap in the order
,
of Being this abyss of freedom. If Freud - in his theory of the unconscious - affirms an essential autonomization of the signifier, then what Zizek emphasises is an
essential autonomization of the act: a basic capacity to break out of existing structures/cycles of signification. Far from being constrained by the notion of impossibility,
Zizek's perspective is sustained and energised by the ontological potential for achieving the "impossible" through Real intervention. In this sense, Zizek's conception of
the Real may be said to constitute both an inherent limit and an inherent opening/beginning: the radically negative dimension that is the condition of creatio ex nihilo
and the political itself.
STP Lab 72
2008
***Federalism: A/T: Non-U***

1. extend U card -Federalism is on the brink bc centralization of authority in DC is reversing (Scheppach ‘08)
( ) Federalism is in a state of flux – Roberts and Alito are on the side of states rights, but only future
cases will determine whether they succeed
Denise C. Morgan, Law Prof @ NYU, 2006, “A Tale Of (At Least) Two Federalisms,” 50 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 615, p ln
But the sexiness of the new federalism has come at the price of confusion and instability. Everything about the area of law now
seems to be in flux. The most obvious example is that the composition of the Supreme Court is changing for the first time in eleven
years - gone are both Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who played a strong leadership role in the Court's federalism cases, and
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another consistent member of the States' Rights Five. 2 We can only speculate about the positions
their replacements will take in future federalism cases and how the interplay of new personalities and judicial styles on the Court
will affect the work of the Justices. Chief Justice John Roberts's dissenting opinion in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, written when
he was a circuit court judge, suggests that he is willing to read Supreme Court precedent narrowing Congress's Commerce Clause
powers and expanding [*616] facial challenges to federal statutes broadly. 3 Then-Judge Roberts, however, also allowed that he
would be open to find "alternative grounds for sustaining application of [Commerce Clause statutes] that [would] be more consistent
with Supreme Court precedent." 4 Harriet Miers, President George W. Bush's next pick to fill a Supreme Court seat, had no record
that would betray her leanings in federalism cases. 5 Judge Samuel Alito, however, Bush's next selection for the Court, had
expressed hostility towards many of the assertions of Congressional power that we have grown accustomed to since the 1930s in his
position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 6 Since Justice Alito is now a member of the Supreme Court, only time
will tell if a new Court majority will coalesce to police strictly the boundaries of federalism.
( ) Federalism jurisprudence is at a unique juncture – new justices and conflicts between cases make this
the key time for the future of federalism
Christina E. Coleman, JD Loyola, Summer 2006, “The Future of Federalism,” 37 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 803, p ln
With the passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 1 some observers have wondered what will become of the former Chief
Justice's "Federalism Revolution." 2 Chief Justice Rehnquist's Court restrained Congress's authority to enact federal legislation
under the Commerce Clause for the first time since the New Deal era. 3 When the [*804] Court struck down federal legislation
enacted under the Commerce Clause, critics heralded a new era of federalism. 4 It appeared to certain commentators that the Court
would continue in this direction in deciding Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Respondents challenged the constitutionality of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in the context of medical marijuana - these observers predicted the Court would not uphold such
an attenuated exercise of the federal commerce power. 5 However, in Raich, the Court held that Congress had the power to regulate
the purely local, noncommercial cultivation and possession of marijuana for personal medical use. 6 Chief Justice [*805]
Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas vigorously dissented, insisting that such an extension of the federal commerce
power was unprecedented. 7 The majority, including Justices Scalia and Kennedy, who voted with the Raich dissenters in earlier
decisions limiting the commerce power, maintained that Raich was not analogous to those prior cases, and found a rational basis for
congressional regulation. 8 With this apparent departure from earlier limitations on federal power set by the Rehnquist Court and the
addition of two new Justices, 9 it is unclear whether Raich marks a shift away from federalism or simply a trumping of current drug
policy over federalist concerns. 10 Part II of this Note will provide an overview of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, with special
focus on the three central cases discussed in the Raich opinion: United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison, and Wickard v.
Filburn. 11 In addition, Part II will briefly outline Justice Rehnquist's efforts to turn the Court toward federalism. 12 Part II will also
outline the history of drug regulation in the United States and describe the main provisions of the CSA and state legislation
governing [*806] medical marijuana use. 13 Part III then will discuss the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions from the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich. 14 Part IV will argue that the dissenting judges were correct in
asserting that the purely local, noncommercial cultivation of marijuana for personal use as defined by state law is a class of activities
beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause. 15 Part V will evaluate the impact of Raich on future Commerce Clause challenges, as
well as on CSA enforcement, and will consider the future of federalism. 16 This Note will conclude by asserting that with the
majority decision in Raich, and the replacement of two confirmed federalists on the Court, the future of the new federalism is
uncertain.
STP Lab 73
2008
UNIQUENESS CONT.
( ) Federalism is high – states are winning court battles over rights

Ilya Somin, George Mason University - School of Law, 6-23-08, Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, Vol.
102, pp. 365-373, 2008, “A Floor, Not a Ceiling: Federalism and Remedies for Violations of Constitutional Rights in
Danforth V. Minnesota,” rks, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1150417
Few doubt that states can provide greater protection for individual rights under state constitutions than is available under the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Constitution. More difficult issues arise, however, when state courts seek to provide
greater protection than the Court requires for federal constitutional rights. Can state courts impose remedies for violations of federal
constitutional rights that are more generous than those required by the federal Supreme Court? That is the issue raised by the Court's
recent decision in Danforth v. Minnesota. By a 7-2 vote, the Court decided that state courts could indeed provide victims of
constitutional rights violations broader remedies than those mandated by federal Supreme Court decisions. I contend that this
outcome is correct, despite the seeming incongruity of allowing state courts to deviate from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
federal Constitution. The Supreme Court should establish a floor for remedies below which states cannot fall. But there is no reason
for it to also mandate a ceiling. Part I briefly describes the facts and background to Danforth. In Part II, I provide a doctrinal
justification for the Supreme Court's decision. It makes sense to allow state courts to provide more generous remedies than those
mandated by the federal courts in cases where restrictions on the scope of remedies are not imposed by the Constitution itself, but
are instead based on policy grounds. State courts can legitimately conclude that these policy grounds are absent or outweighed by
other considerations within their state systems, even if they are compelling justifications for restricting the scope of remedies
available in federal courts. State courts are in a better position to weigh the relevant tradeoffs in a state legal system than federal
courts are. Part III explains the potential policy advantages of allowing interstate diversity in remedies, most importantly inter-
jurisdictional competition and an increased ability to provide for diverse citizen preferences and local conditions across different
parts of the country. The optimal remedy for a constitutional rights violation in New York may well be different from the optimal
remedy for one that occurs in Mississippi.
( ) Roberts and Alito will keep the new federalism going – prior case history proves
Casey L. Carhart, JD can. Whittier, Spring 2006, “Note and Comment,” 27 Whittier L. Rev. 833, p ln
Chief Justice Roberts' limited experience leaves great speculation as to where he will stand on not only the Commerce
Clause, but on a multitude of other issues. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Roberts served for two years as
a federal appellate judge. The only insight we have into Roberts' standing on Federalism derives from a dissenting opinion
that he authored in 2003. 273 In Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 274 the majority upheld an order issued by the Federal Fish
and Wildlife Service under the Commerce Clause. 275 In his dissent, Roberts noted that the majority's definition of
"commerce" was inconsistent with the precedent set forth by Lopez 276 and Morrison, 277 as the activity regulated on private
property did not substantially affect interstate commerce. 278 Such a holding alludes to future rulings consistent with the
foundations set by Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor. In addition, since his appointment, Chief Justice Roberts has had little
opportunity to rule on similar issues. However, his votes thus far appear to be compliant with Federalist principles. 279 [*864]
Similarly, prior to his appointment, recently confirmed Justice Alito demonstrated a willingness to enforce constitutional limits
on federal power. In United States v. Rybar, Justice Alito voted to strike down a federal law banning the mere possession of
machine guns. 280 In his dissent, Justice Alito analogized Rybar to the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, 281 concluding
that a federal law which does not require prosecutors to demonstrate movement in interstate commerce was a violation of
the Commerce Clause. 282 The two recently appointed Justices seem to approach issues of Federalism in a manner which
comports with the ideals of former Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor. However, the impact of the recent restructuring of the
Court remains unclear. If history is any determination, the scope of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause
may never be clearly defined.
STP Lab 74
2008
FEDERALISM: ALGAE BIODIESEL LINK

A. Uniformity--When the federal government implements a single uniform policy, states cannot have their specific
requirements met.
B. Innovation-- states have already begun innovating. They already have plans and strategies in place that are successful,
and federal preemption weakens states’ rights.
Ernest Young, Law Prof @ Texas, November 2004, Texas L. Rev., p ln

Second, limiting preemption seeks to address certain process defects that may render the national political process less protective of
state autonomy. Professor Hoke has argued that the sort of concentrated interest groups that often seek preemption of state regulation
have certain organizational advantages at the federal level that offset state representation. More fundamentally, I have already
emphasized the extent to which widespread preemption threatens the state autonomy necessary to maintain a viable system of
political checks on central power. Limits on preemption thus address problems that undermine the self-enforcing character of the
system.
( ) Federal government infringes on states rights

James Lack, Senator NY, 7-11-1995, Hearing Before Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, p. 11
Inordinate reliance upon the central government for problem-solving feeds the misconception that uniformity for uniformity’s sake
alone is a concept that justifies preemption. However, in a federal system strong reasons compel acceptance of diversity among
states. Our federalism anticipates diversity; our unity does not anticipated uniformity. By definition, every preemptive law
diminishes other expressions of self-government and should be approved only where compelling need and broad consensus exist.
While proponents of preemption may claim expected benefits, these must be balanced against the potential loss of accountability,
innovation, and responsiveness.
STP Lab 75
2008
Federalism: Flex Fuel Link

A. States should be able to control what their own car companies are doing.
B. Federal preemption weakens states rights and does not give them full control.
( ) Federal preemption undermines states’ rights

system.
STP Lab 76
2008
Federalism: Tradable Gas Rights Link

A. Uniformity--When the federal government implements a single uniform policy, states cannot have their specific
requirements met.
B. Innovation-- states have already begun innovating. They already have plans and strategies in place that are successful,
and federal preemption weakens states’ rights.
( ) Federal preemption undermines states’ rights

system.
( ) Every instance of preemption risks federalism

James Lack, Senator NY, 7-11-1995, Hearing Before Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, p. 11
Inordinate reliance upon the central government for problem-solving feeds the misconception that uniformity for uniformity’s sake
alone is a concept that justifies preemption. However, in a federal system strong reasons compel acceptance of diversity among
states. Our federalism anticipates diversity; our unity does not anticipated uniformity. By definition, every preemptive law
diminishes other expressions of self-government and should be approved only where compelling need and broad consensus exist.
While proponents of preemption may claim expected benefits, these must be balanced against the potential loss of accountability,
innovation, and responsiveness.
STP Lab 77
2008
Federalism I/L:
( ) Each intrusion on federalism erodes the balance of power
James Lack, Senator NY, 7-11-1995, Serial No. J-104-31, p. 11
Every year Congress considers bills, federal agencies consider rules, and international agencies consider cases that would supplant
state statutory or common law. Adverse decisions may result not only in nullifying state laws and court decisions, but also in
narrowing the range of issues that legislatures may address. The threat is the steady, incremental, year-by-year erosion of the
jurisdiction of state legislatures.
( ) Expansion of federal power is a slippery slope --- each violation key

Virginia H. Johnson, JD Candidate, November 2001, Cardoza Law Review, lexis
Although the Lue court agreed that the "plainly adapted" 139 standard was the appropriate test to be applied to the Hostage Taking
Act, it found that, contrary to appellant's interpretation, the Act was "plainly adapted" to the Convention, in that "it tracks the
language of the Convention in all material respects." 140 [*380] Specifically, the court found that the Act satisfied the means-ends
relationship required by the prevailing view of the Necessary and Proper Clause because the statutory language did not stray too far,
if at all, from the terms of the treaty, thus insulating the legislation from appellant's Necessary and Proper Clause attack. 141 Based
on the judiciary's long-standing treatment of the Necessary and Proper Clause as conferring upon Congress broad implementation
powers, 142 it is not surprising that the Lue court premised its opinion on the presumptive validity of treaty-implementing
legislation. 143 However, what this analysis fails to take into account is the slippery slope toward a limitless treaty power that could
ultimately result in the over-expansion of federal power, especially in the area of human rights. 144 The reasoning employed in Lue
therefore provides a useful example of the typical but flawed understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause, in that the Lue
court simply assumed "necessary" and "proper" to be interchangeable constitutional requirements. 145
( ) Small decisions are the greatest threat to federalism

Cynthia C. Lebow, Associate Dir – RAND, Spring 1997, U. Tennessee Law Review, ln
n162 See Southland, 465 U.S. at 21 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (noting Rehnquist, C.J., joining opinion of O'Connor, J.); FERC, 456
U.S. at 775 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting Rehnquist, C.J., joining in opinion of O'Connor, J.).
Justice Powell filed his own partial dissent in FERC that also deserves mention. FERC, 456 U.S. at 771 (Powell, J., concurring in
part and dissenting in part). Lauding the "appeal" and "wisdom" of Justice O'Connor's dissent, Powell stated that PURPA
"intrusively requires [states] to make a place on their administrative agenda for consideration and potential adoption of federally
proposed standards.'" Id. at 771, 775 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). While finding that precedents of the
Court supported the constitutionality of the substantive provisions of PURPA "on this facial attack," Powell also evoked principles
of federalism to warn against the encroachment of federal authority into state affairs: But I know of no other attempt by the Federal
Government to supplant state-prescribed procedures that in part define the nature of their administrative agencies. If Congress may
do this, presumably it has the power to pre-empt state-court rules of civil procedure and judicial review in classes of cases found to
affect commerce. This would be the type of gradual encroachment hypothesized by Professor Tribe: "Of course, no one expects
Congress to obliterate the states, at least in one fell swoop. If there is any danger, it lies in the tyranny of small decisions in the
prospect that Congress will nibble away at state sovereignty, bit by bit, until someday essentially nothing is left but a gutted shell."
Id. at 774-75 (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 302
(1978)). Despite his warning, Justice Powell could probably never have envisioned the degree to which Congress would attempt to
preempt state court procedures with respect to tort and product liability actions, areas so traditionally anchored in state common law.
STP Lab 78
2008
Federalism OVERVIEW:
Federalism is on the brink now, aff plan reverses the state authority and gives it to the federal government, which
destroys federalism. This is disastrous because federalism prevents violence and war.
Impacts: US heg is preserved by federalism and if plan passes it disrupts heg and worldwide G.N.W. ensues. Federalism
also solves violence and is key to democracy worldwide.
T/F: as soon as plan passes G.N.W. will happen
Magnitude: worldwide extinction
Probability: war and violence is guaranteed to happen as soon as plan is passed
D/A turns case: fed prevents war and violence. If plan is passed then violence and war will occur, and plan
wont be able to solve for Global Warming. Therefore plan does not solve.
STP Lab 79
2008
AT: SUCCESSIONISM
1.extend Calabresi ’95 that states federalism prevents war and violence - the US has not produced violence of succession
for 130 years.
2. This card assumes the federal gov has no power. A balance of federalism means that states have certain powers and the
federal gov has certain powers.
3. Federalism solves violence, economic inequality and secession – prefer this evidence, it is based on
empirical examples
Will Kymlicka, Professor of Philosophy at University of Toronto, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, July
2000
I believe that this trend has been beneficial, and indeed quite successful, as measured by any of the criteria which should matter to
liberals, such as: [use a bullet here and below]- peace and individual security: these multination federations are managing to deal
with their competing national identities and nationalist projects with an almost complete absence of violence or terrorism by either
the state or the minority. - democracy: ethnic conflict is now a matter of "ballots not bullets", with no threat of military coups or
authoritarian regimes which take power in the name of national security; n10 - individual rights: these reforms have been achieved
within the framework of liberal constitutions, with firm respect for individual civil and political rights. - economic prosperity: the
move to multination federalism has also been achieved without jeopardizing the economic well-being of citizens. Indeed, the
countries that have adopted multination federalism are amongst the wealthiest in the world. - inter-group equality: last but not least,
multination federalism has promoted equality between majority and minority groups. By equality here I mean non-domination, such
that one group is not systematically vulnerable to the domination of another group. Multination federalism has helped create greater
economic equality between majority and minority; greater equality of political influence, so that minorities are not continually
outvoted on all issues; and greater equality in the social and cultural fields, as reflected for example in reduced levels of prejudice
and discrimination and greater mutual respect between groups. On all these criteria, multination federalism in the West must be
judged as a success. Indeed, this trend is, I believe, one of the most important developments in Western democracies in this century.
We talk a lot (and rightly so) about the role of the extension of the franchise to Blacks, women, and the working class in
democratizing Western societies. But in its own way, this shift from suppressing to accommodating minority nationalisms has also
played a vital role in consolidating and deepending democracy. These multination federations have not only managed the conflicts
arising from their competing national identities in a peaceful and democratic way, but have also secured a high degree of economic
prosperity and individual freedom for their citizens. This is truly remarkable when one considers the immense power of nationalism
in this century. Nationalism has torn apart colonial empires and Communist dictatorships, and redefined boundaries all over the
world. Yet democratic multination federations have succeeded in taming the force of nationalism. Democratic federalism has
domesticated and pacified nationalism, while respecting individual rights and freedoms. It is difficult to imagine any other political
system that can make the same claim.
Federalism prevents secessionist warfare

Will Kymlicka, Professor of Philosophy at University of Toronto, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, July
2000.
Why have Western countries become less hysterical about secessionist mobilization? One reason, as I've noted, is that allowing
secessionists to mobilize freely may actually reduce the likelihood of secession. Secession is less likely in a democratic multination
federation where secessionists can mobilize freely than in a centralized state where illiberal measures are adopted to suppress
minority nationalism. But there is another factor, namely that adopting multination federalism reduces the stakes of secession. After
all, relatively little would change if Flanders, Scotland or Quebec were to become independent states.
STP Lab 80
2008
A/T ETHNIC CONFLICT IMPACT TURN
1.Their evidence assumes that the federal government has no authority at all, we just promote that states have equal power
to the federal government
2.This card also doesn’t say that fed power can solve ethnic conflict- india and ethiopia would have experienced ethnic
tension even with more fed control
3. Federalism solves for all conflict and war

Norman Ornstein, resident scholar in social and political processes at American Enterprise Institute, Jan-Feb 1992. The
American Enterprise, v3 n1 p20(5)
No word in political theory more consistently causes eyes to glaze over than “federalism.” Yet no concept is more critical to solving
many major political crises in the world right now. The former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Eastern and Western Europe, South
Africa, Turkey, the Middle East, and Canada are suffering from problems that could be solved, if solutions are possible, by
instituting creative forms of federalism. Federalism is not a sexy concept like “democracy” or “freedom”; it describes a more
mundane mechanism that balances the need for a central and coordinating authority at the level of a nation-state with a degree of
state and local autonomy, while also protecting minority interests, preserving ethnic and regional identification and sensibilities, and
allowing as much self-government as possible. Federalism starts with governing structures put in place by formal, constitutional
arrangements, but beyond that it is a partnership that requires trust. Trust can’t be forged overnight by formal arrangements, but bad
arrangements can exacerbate hostilities and tensions. Good ones can be the basis for building trust. Why is federalism so important
now? There are political reasons: the breakup of the old world order has released resentments and tensions that had been suppressed
for decades or even centuries. Ethnic pride and self-identifica tion are surging in many places around the globe. Add to this the easy
availability of weapons, and you have a potent mixture for discontent, instability, and violence. There are also economic con-
siderations: simply breaking up existing nation-states into separate entities cannot work when economies are interlinked in complex
ways. And there are humane factors, too. No provinces or territories are ethnically pure. Creating an independent Quebec, Croatia,
or Kazakhstan would be uplifting for French Quebecois, Croats, and Kazakhs but terrifying for the large numbers of minorities who
reside in these same territories. The only way to begin to craft solutions, then, is to create structures that preserve necessary
economic links while providing economic independence, to create political autonomy while preserving freedom of movement and
individual rights, and to respect ethnic identity while protecting minority rights. Each country has unique problems that require
different kinds of federal structures, which can range from a federation that is tightly controlled at the center to a confederation
having autonomous units and a loose central authority. The United States pioneered federalism in its Union and its Constitution. Its
invention of a federation that balanced power between a vigorous national government and its numerous states was every bit as
significant an innovation as its instituting a separation of powers was in governance—and defining the federal-state relationship was
far more difficult to work out at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The U.S. federalist structure was, obviously, not sufficient
by itself to eliminate the economic and social disparities between the North and the South. Despite the federal guarantees built into
the Constitution, the divisive questions of states’ rights dominated political conflict from the beginning and resulted ultimately in the
Civil War. But the federal system did keep conflict from boiling over into disaster for 75 years, and it has enabled the United States
to keep its union together without constitutional crisis or major bloodshed for the 125 years since the conclusion of the War Between
the States. It has also enabled us to meliorate problems of regional and ethnic discontent. The American form of federalism fits the
American culture and historical experience—it is not directly transferable to other societies. But if ever there was a time to apply the
lessons that can be drawn from the U.S. experience or to create new federal approaches, this is it. What is striking is the present
number of countries and regions where deep-seated problems could respond to a new focus on federalism.
STP Lab 81
2008
AT: ECONOMY IMPACT TURN
Their impact card is bad. It says unchecked state power would lead to econ collapse. We don’t lead to unchecked state
power. Extend our link: states and federal government would share an equal balance of power.
A. US leadership is preserved by the balance of federalism

Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution, Reviving the American Dream: The Economy, The States, and the Federal
Government, 1992.
The inexorably rising frequency and complexity of U.S. interaction with the rest of the world add to the stress on federal
decisionmaking processes and underline the need for making those processes simpler and more effective. If the United States is to
be an effective world leader, it cannot afford a cumbersome national government overlapping responsibilities between the federal
government and the states, and confusion over which level is in charge of specific domestic government functions. As the world
shrinks, international concerns will continue threatening to crowd out domestic policy on the federal agenda. Paradoxically,
however, effective domestic policy is now more crucial than ever precisely because it is essential to U.S. leadership in world affairs.
Unless we have a strong productive economy, a healthy, well-educated population, and a responsive democratic government, we
will not be among the major shapers of the future of this interdependent world. If the American standard of living is falling behind
that of other countries and its government structure is paralyzed, the United States will find its credibility in world councils eroding.
International considerations provide additional rationale, if more were needed, for the United States to have a strong effective
domestic policy. One answer to this paradox is to rediscover the strengths of our federal system, the division of labor between the
states and the national government. Washington not only has too much to do, it has taken on domestic responsibilities that would be
handled better by the states. Revitalizing the economy may depend on restoring a cleaner division of responsibility between the
states and the national government.
B. US leadership on federalism is essential to democracy worldwide
David Broder, Washington Post, June 24, 2001, “Lessons On Freedom.”
Even more persistent were the questions about the role the United States would play, under this new administration, in supporting
democratic movements around the world. It is sobering to be reminded how often, during the long decades of the Cold War, this country backed (and in
some cases, created) undemocratic regimes, simply because we thought military rulers and other autocrats were more reliable allies against communism. The week of
the Salzburg Seminar coincided with President Bush's first tour of Europe. He was a target of jokes and ridicule for many of the fellows as the week began. But the
coverage of his meetings and, especially, his major address in Poland on his vision of Europe's future and America's role in it, earned him grudging respect, even
though it remains uncertain how high a priority human rights and promotion of democracy will have in the Bush foreign policy. Another great lesson for an
American reporter is that the struggle to maintain the legitimacy of representative government in the eyes of the public is a worldwide
battle. Election turnouts are dropping in almost all the established democracies, so much so that seminar participants seriously discussed the advisability of
compulsory voting, before most of them rejected it as smacking too much of authoritarian regimes. Political parties -- which most of us have regarded as essential
agents of democracy -- are in decline everywhere. They are viewed by more and more of the national publics as being tied to special interests or locked in
increasingly irrelevant or petty rivalries -- anything but effective instruments for tackling current challenges. One large but unresolved question throughout the week:
Can you organize and sustain representative government without strong parties? The single most impressive visitor to the seminar was Vaira Vike-Freiberga, the
president of Latvia, a woman of Thatcherite determination when it comes to pressing for her country's admission to NATO, but a democrat who has gone through
exile four times in her quest for freedom. She is a member of no party, chosen unanimously by a parliament of eight parties, and bolstered by her popular support.
But how many such leaders are there? Meantime, even as democracy is tested everywhere from Venezuela to Romania to the Philippines, a new and perhaps tougher
accountability examination awaits in the supranational organizations. The European Union has operated so far with a strong council, where each nation has a veto,
and a weak parliament, with majority rule. But with its membership seemingly certain to expand, the age-old dilemma of democracy -- majority rule vs.
minority and individual rights -- is bound to come to the fore. The principle of federalism will be vital to its success. And, once
again, the United States has important lessons to teach. But only if we can keep democracy strong and vital in our own country.
STP Lab 82
2008
***ALGEA NEG STRAT***

Run this at the top of all 3 strats
1. _Interpretation: Increase means Augment
Random House Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 2000
Increase v. to make greater, as in number, size, strength or quality, to augment
2. Violation: The plan adds the new incentive of getting rid of the loophole for splash and dash.
3. Standards-
A) Predictability- allowing debates including things that don’t exist in the status quo explodes the number
of topical cases, making it impossible for the neg to prepare for all of them
B) Ground- our definition allows for the best split in ground
C) Education- a debate where the neg can’t prepare for every case makes it so there is little education
D) Fairness- when you give the aff too much ground it creates for a vastly unfair debate.
E) Depth over Breadth
F) Brightline- our interpretation creates a clear brightline of what is and isn’t topical
4. Topicality is a voter for fairness, education, and abuse
STP Lab 83
2008
STRAT 1 DELEGATION AND POLITICS

On the counterplan
TEXT: THe United states congress should delegate the authority to extend the volumetric blender tax credit and
the authority to discontinue providing the tax credit for biofuel made outside of the united states to the
internal Revenue service and the internal revenue service should extend the volumetric blender tax credit
to december 31 2017 and discontinue providing the tax credit for biofuels made outside of the united
states.
Ob. 1: Competition—Net benefits. The C-P solves all of case, but avoids politics.
Ob. 2: Solvency
IRS along can solve—they already offer tax incentives for biodiesals
Bassett, ‘07
[Jesse Bassett, Tax lawyer, J.D. Berkeley, Oil & Gas Journal, 2/19/2007]
US tax credits for biodiesel mixtures can provide significant tax advantages for producers that understand and properly follow the regulations, which continue to be in effect through Dec. 31,
2008. 1 US refiners should understand these benefits if and when they blend biodiesel into final fuel products. Currently, an income tax credit of $1/gal for agricultural biodiesel (agri-biodiesel)
and 50¢/gal of biodiesel is available to producers of biodiesel mixtures. The American Jobs Creation Act signed by Pres. George W. Bush in 2004 established a federal tax credit for production
of biodiesel fuel and biodiesel fuel mixtures produced after Dec. 31, 2004. According to the Internal Revenue Code, producers of biodiesel mixtures are able to receive a payment from the US
Treasury for any biodiesel credits earned in excess of the excise tax attributable to the biodiesel mixture set forth on a quarterly return. Biodiesel is a diesel-equivalent, processed fuel derived
from biological sources, divided into two categories by the Internal Revenue Code: biodiesel and agri-biodiesel. Agri-biodiesel is distinguished from biodiesel in the code and refers to a special
type of biodiesel derived solely from virgin oils, including esters derived from virgin vegetable oils from corn, soybeans, other plant matter, and animal fats. The use of agri-biodiesel in
biodiesel fuel mixtures yields a $1/gal tax credit compared with a 50¢/gal credit for regular biodiesel.
Biodiesel mixture credit A producer of a biodiesel mixture can make a claim for the biodiesel used to make the mixture itself. 1 To receive the credit, the producer must make a "qualified
biodiesel mixture," which is a mixture of biodiesel and diesel fuel determined without regard to any use of kerosine. 1 The producer may only claim the credit if it sells or uses this mixture it
has produced. 1 The credit applies to each gallon of biodiesel used to produce the mixture, but only if the mixture is sold by the blender for use as a fuel or is used in the producer's trade or
business. 1Example: If a refiner uses 1,000 gal of biodiesel to produce 5,000 gal of a qualified biodiesel fuel mixture, that refiner will be entitled to a biodiesel mixture credit of $500 (1,000 gal
x 50¢/gal). If the refiner had used agribiodiesel, the credit would be $1,000 (1,000 gal x $1/gal). The taxpayer may claim the biodiesel mixture credit on a quarterly basis and produce a
Certificate for Biodiesel in order to make a claim. Section 6426 allows a credit against the excise tax imposed on taxable fuel for blenders of biodiesel that qualify for the biodiesel mixture
credit. To the extent that the taxpayer's biodiesel mixture credit exceeds that taxpayer's excise tax liability for any particular quarter, the blender may request an income tax credit or a payment
from the IRS. 1 Each request must include:
* The amount of agri-biodiesel and biodiesel in the biodiesel mixture.
* A copy of a Certificate for Biodiesel.
* A statement by the claimant that it has no reason to believe information contained in the certificate is false.
The IRS also requires that any producer of a taxable fuel mixture containing biodiesel must register as such with the IRS
to claim the biodiesel mixture credit. Additionally, producers of biodiesel mixtures can receive a payment from the US
Treasury for any biodiesel credits earned in excess of the excise tax attributable to the biodiesel mixture set forth on a
quarterly return.
One must only register as a blender if the taxpayer's mixture produces a taxable fuel. If a taxable fuel is not produced, then no blender registration is required To claim the biodiesel mixture
credit, and any corresponding payments for credits that exceed excise tax liability, the producer of the mixture must obtain a Certificate for Biodiesel from the biodiesel producer. The
certificate must identify the product produced and percentage of biodiesel and agri-biodiesel in the product. 2 The biodiesel mixture credits and excise tax operate independently of each other.
This means that a blender of biodiesel fuel can take advantage of the biodiesel credit even if it has not paid any excise taxes for taxable fuel. If a refiner, for example, mixed and sold a blended
biodiesel mixture that contained less than 4% normal paraffins (an excluded liquid), it would not have to pay excise tax on the biodiesel used to create that liquid. The refiner would,
nevertheless, be able to claim the biodiesel mixture credit for any biodiesel used in the mixture.
Agencies can more easily tailor its techniques the citizens or groups affected by the statute
Schuck 99 (Simeon E. Baldwin Professor, Yale Law School)
[Peter H. Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 20:775, http://www.constitution.org/ad_state/ad_state.htm ]
The agency is often a more meaningful site for public partici-pation than Congress, because the policy stakes for
individuals and interest groups are most immediate, transparent, and well-defined at the agency level. One can scarcely
exaggerate the importance of this consideration to the legitimacy of democratic politics and to the substantive
content of public policy. After all, it is only at the agency level that the generalities of legislation are broken down and concretized into discrete, specific issues with which
affected parties can hope to deal. It is there that the agency commits itself to a particular course of action; because only there does it propose the specific rate it will set, the particular emission
level it will pre-scribe, the precise restrictions on private activity it will impose, the exact regulatory definitions it will employ, the kinds of enforce-ment techniques it will use, the types of
information it will collect, and the details relating to the administrative state’s myriad other impacts on citizens and groups. In short,
it is only at the agency level that
the citizen can know precisely what the statute means to her; how, when, and to what extent it will affect her
interests; whether she supports, opposes, or wants changes in what the agency is proposing; whether it is worth her
while to participate ac-tively in seeking to influence this particular exercise of governmen-tal power, and if so, how best to
go about it; and where other citi-zens or groups stand on these questions. God and the devil are in the details of
policymaking, as they are in most other important things--and the details are to be found at the agency level. This
would remain true, moreover, even if the nondelegation doctrine were revived and statutes were written with somewhat greater specificity, for many of the most significant impacts on members
of the public would still be indeterminate until the agency grappled with and defined them.
STP Lab 84
2008
ON ELECTIONS-U
A. Uniqueness
OBAMA WILL WIN- INDEPENDENTS
CILIZZA, 08 CHRIS, staff writer for Washington post.com, Washington post.com, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062601307_pf.html -
Independents, who were widely written off during the 2004 election in favor of appeals by the candidates to their respective party bases, look likely to
play a central role in picking the next president in these four battleground states. And for now, Obama has a clear edge over McCain
among independent voters in all four states. That lead is largest in Minnesota, where Obama takes 54 percent among independents
compared with just 33 percent for McCain. The Democrat's lead was 13 points in Wisconsin, 12 in Colorado and eight in Michigan.
Obama's lead among independents is all the more important given the large number of voters eschewing the two
major parties in each state. In Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, roughly three-in-ten voters identify as independents; in Colorado that
number is closer to four in ten.
The political environment in each state suggests a decidedly uphill climb for McCain in the general election. In Colorado,
just 31 percent of voters approve of the way President Bush is handling his job, while 63 percent disapprove. In
Michigan, the numbers are even more dismal, with a meager 26 percent expressing approval of Bush and a whopping 67 percent
disapproving.
STP Lab 85
2008
ELECTIONS LINK
1. Supporting alternative energy swings the election – it’s the key issue
Young 6/24/08 (Eric, NRDC, PR Newswire)
"Tied into both the economy and the environment, energy will be the defining issue of this election," LCV President Gene
Karpinski said. "The American people demand a new energy policy that breaks our addiction to oil and dirty coal.
Members of Congress who fight for a clean, renewable energy future will be back to fight next year, but those who stand
in the way will have to answer to the voters in November.
A Gallup poll released today indicates that energy is the top issue priority for 51% American voters.
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx).
"Americans are feeling pain at the pump and many experts say high gas prices are here to stay," NRDC's Energy
Advocate Jim Presswood said. "With prices set in the global marketplace and only 2 percent of the world's oil
reserves here at home, there is simply nothing we can do to impact prices by drilling. The real solution is clear: we
must take bold action to break our addiction to oil and transition to a clean energy future. A future where new cars
like plug-in hybrids go farther on a gallon of gas, enhanced public transit systems give Americans more
transportation options, and renewable sources of energy power our communities
2. Increasing Bush’s popularity is the only way for McCain to win – it’s the vital internal link and he can’t distance
himself
Farmer 5/21/08 [John, national political correspondent for the star-ledger of Newark, times of trenton, Lexis]
The most important name in this November's presidential and congressional elections won't be on the ballot in the fall. It's
Herbert Hoo ... oops, it's Bush, George W. Bush. As if more evidence was needed that Bush is the chief issue this year,
Tuesday's election of a Democrat in a deeply conservative and usually reliable Republican congressional district in
Mississippi, of all places, underscores the fact that he has become toxic for his party, as close to a pariah as a president
can get. Bush, whose approval ratings are lower than any previous president's, may be a nice guy, as his admirers insist,
but he has made himself and the GOP label he embodies a liability for all those who'll run under the Republican banner
this fall, from John McCain, the party's presidential standard-bearer, to any number of poor blokes running for sheriff in
the boondocks. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the leaders of the GOP establishment in Washington. Virginia Rep.
Tom Davis, for one, served as the canary in the mine shaft after the stunning victory Tuesday of Democrat Travis Childers
in Mississippi. In a 20-page memo to his House Republican colleagues, Davis wrote that "the political atmosphere facing
Republicans this fall is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006." The GOP lost 30 House seats
two years ago in districts that stretched from coast to coast; it could lose up to 25 more this year, Davis said. Republicans
have gone through this kind of ordeal before, in each case as a result of a national revolt against a GOP president. In 1932,
Herbert Hoover and Republicans suffered a crushing defeat, ushering in the New Deal era under Democrat Franklin
Roosevelt. In November 1974, Republicans paid for Richard Nixon's breach of the public trust even though Nixon had
resigned. Davis was not alone. "The Republican brand is down, and it is going to be hard to get it back," lamented Rep.
Devlin Nunes, a California Republican. And New York Republican Rep. Peter King even suggested that, for safety sake,
Republicans may have to find another identity -- like figures in the witness protection program, say. "You are going to
have to run on who you are," King said, "and establish some independence, and that is going to be tougher for some than
others." What's ironic here is that many of the same Bush Republicans had little or no use for McCain who, because of
his frequent breaks with Republican orthodoxy -- on embryonic stem cell research, campaign finance reform and global
warming -- wears the GOP brand more lightly than most. But even McCain has the Bush monkey on his back, as Mike
Huckabee, his erstwhile rival for the presidency and now a staunch supporter, observed after Childers' victory in
Mississippi. "The Republican brand is badly damaged," Huckabee said. McCain, he said, "can't run on the Republican
brand." How McCain can escape it, however, remains a mystery. He's tied hand and foot to Bush on the president's Iraq
policy. But even more potentially damning is McCain's embrace of the Bush's unwise and unfair tax cut regime, which, if
kept in place, would make it virtually impossible to deal rationally with the country's debt and entitlement spending
problem -- a first step toward restoring the value of the dollar.
STP Lab 86
2008
ELECTIONS IMPACTS
McCain will strike Iran
Clemons, 08 (Steve, editor of Washington note, huffington report, www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-
clemons/john-mccain-maverick-man-_b_84951.html)
On Iran and its nuclear program, McCain has been so flippantly bellicose -- singing "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to the
Beach Boys tune -- that some conservatives have warned that a President McCain would take America to war with Iran.
McCain last Sunday said: "There's going to be other wars... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will
never surrender but there will be other wars."
Presumably, McCain was suggesting his view that a war with Iran was inevitable. When asked by Joe Scarborough about
McCain's statement, Pat Buchanan replied: "That is straight talk... You get John McCain in the White House, and I do
believe we will be at war with Iran." Buchanan said, "That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him,"
adding, "There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president... His whole career is wrapped up in the military,
national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're going to be in Iraq a hundred years."
Strikes cause Syria to retaliate against Israel with smallpox

Corsi ’07 (Jerome,- writer for Wordnet daily, citing Jill Bellamy-Dekker, director of the Public Health Preparedness program for the
European Homeland Security Association under the French High Committee for Civil Defense “Syria ready with bio-terror if U.S. hits
Iran” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54542)
An American biodefense analyst living in Europe says if the U.S. invades Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions, Syria is ready to respond with
weapons of mass destruction – specifically biological weapons.
"Syria is positioned to launch a biological attack on Israel or Europe should the U.S. attack Iran," Jill Bellamy-Dekker told WND. "The
Syrians are embedding their biological weapons program into their commercial pharmaceuticals business and their veterinary vaccine-research facilities.
The intelligence service oversees Syria's 'bio-farm' program and the Ministry of Defense is well interfaced into the effort."
Bellamy-Decker currently directs the Public Health Preparedness program for the European Homeland Security Association under the French High
Committee for Civil Defense.
She anticipates a variation of smallpox is the biological agent Syria would utilize.
The impact outweighs nuke war

Singer ’01 (Clifford,- is a professor of nuclear engineering and director of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and
International Security at the University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign “Will Mankind Survive the Millennium?”
http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/research/S&Ps/2001-Sp/S&P_XIII/Singer.htm)
In recent years the fear of the apocalypse (or religious hope for it) has been in part a child of the Cold War, but its seeds in Western culture go back to
the Black Death and earlier. Recent polls suggest that the majority in the United States that believe man would survive into the future for substantially
less than a millennium was about 10 percent higher in the Cold War than afterward. However fear of annihilation of the human species through nuclear
warfare was confused with the admittedly terrifying, but much different matter of destruction of a dominant civilization. The destruction of a third or
more of much of the globe’s population through the disruption from the direct consequences of nuclear blast and fire damage was certainly possible.
There was, and still is, what is now known to be a rather small chance that dust raised by an all-out nuclear war would cause a so-called nuclear winter,
substantially reducing agricultural yields especially in temperate regions for a year or more. As noted above mankind as a whole has weathered a
number of mind-boggling disasters in the past fifty thousand years even if older cultures or civilizations have sometimes eventually given way to new
ones in the process. Moreover the fear that radioactive fallout would make the globe uninhabitable, publicized by widely seen works such as "On the
Beach," was a metaphor for the horror of nuclear war rather than reality. The epidemiological lethal results of well over a hundred atmospheric nuclear
tests are barely statistically detectable except in immediate fallout plumes. The increase in radiation exposure far from the combatants in even a full
scale nuclear exchange at the height of the Cold War would have been modest compared to the variations in natural
background radiation doses that have readily been adapted to by a number of human populations. Nor is there any reason to
believe that global warming or other insults to our physical environment resulting from currently used technologies
will challenge the survival of mankind as a whole beyond what it has already handily survived through the past fifty thousand
years.
There are, however, two technologies currently under development that may pose a more serious threat to human
survival. The first and most immediate is biological warfare combined with genetic engineering. Smallpox is the most fearsome
of natural biological warfare agents in existence. By the end of the next decade, global immunity to smallpox will likely be
at a low unprecedented since the emergence of this disease in the distant past, while the opportunity for it to
spread rapidly across the globe will be at an all time high. In the absence of other complications such as nuclear war near the
peak of an epidemic, developed countries may respond with quarantine and vaccination to limit the damage. Otherwise mortality
there may match the rate of 30 percent or more expected in unprepared developing countries. With respect to genetic engineering
using currently available knowledge and technology, the simple expedient of spreading an ample mixture of coat protein variants
could render a vaccination response largely ineffective, but this would otherwise not be expected to substantially increase overall
mortality rates. With development of new biological technology, however, there is a possibility that a variety of infectious
agents may be engineered for combinations of greater than natural virulence and mortality, rather than just to
overwhelm currently available antibiotics or vaccines. There is no a priori known upper limit to the power of this type
of technology base, and thus the survival of a globally connected human family may be in question when and if this is
achieved.
STP Lab 87
2008
STP Lab 88
2008
ON SOLVENCY
Reports of success are biased—no actual proof algae can be used on a large scale
Biopact, 07
[Biopact, Towards a green energy pact between Europe and Africa, Jan. 19, 2007, http://biopact.com/2007/01/in-depth-
look-at-biofuels-from-algae.html]
Over the past few years, several companies have issued press releases about technologies they have developed to produce
biofuels from algae. The claims in these stories are that algae yield 'enormous' amounts of biomass that can be turned into
liquid fuels at low cost. Most of the projects involve the use of closed photobioreactors, in which the micro-organisms are
grown in a controlled manner by feeding them CO2 and nutrients. Sadly, after decades of development, none of those
projects have ever demonstrated the technology on a large scale, let alone over long periods of time. This is why it is time
to have a look at the possible reasons as to why algae biofuels are being talked about, but don't seem to get off the ground.
Qualified research proves mass algae fuel production impossible

Biopact, 07
[Biopact, Towards a green energy pact between Europe and Africa, Jan. 19, 2007, http://biopact.com/2007/01/in-depth-
look-at-biofuels-from-algae.html]
The ASP's original aim of genetically manipulating algae so that they produce more lipids did not yield any significant
results. The researchers discovered a lot of information about the genetics and environmental factors that play a role in the
biology of different algae species, but they failed to identify the magic 'lipid trigger' they were looking for. The ASP
concluded that:
"Although much remains to be done, significant progress was made in the understanding of environmental and genetic
factors that affect lipid accumulation in microalgae, and in the ability to manipulate these factors to produce strains with
desired traits. The evidence for a specific lipid trigger is not overwhelming." [page 142]
However, another, non-genetic way of increasing the amount of lipids within the cells was discovered. It consisted of depriving the algae of certain nutrients:
"Interpreting exactly what is happening in the nutrient-deprived cells is difficult, particularly when cells are starved for N, as the lack of an important nutrient is likely
to produce multiple and complex reactions in a cell. However, lipid accumulation in some algal species can be induced by nutrient limitation." [142]
Even though this technique did increase the lipid content of some of the micro-organisms, it also resulted in a decrease of the
overall biomass productivity of the algae. The net-result in terms of total lipid production was negative:
"One of the most important findings from the studies on lipid accumulation in the microalgae is that, although nutrient stress causes lipid to increase in many strains as
a percentage of the total biomass, this increase is generally accompanied by a decrease in total cell and lipid productivity." [143]
Finally, preliminary experiments were also performed within the ASP to use the knowledge obtained on the genetic transformation system in order to "introduce genes
into the algal cells, with the goal of manipulating lipid biosynthesis. Additional copies of the ACCase gene were introduced into cells of C. cryptica and N. saprophila.
Although ACCase activity was increased in these cells, there was no detectable increase in lipid accumulation." [144]
Algae is not reliable—too many factor preclude its effectiveness

Biopact, 07
[Biopact, Towards a green energy pact between Europe and Africa, Jan. 19, 2007, http://biopact.com/2007/01/in-depth-look-at-biofuels-from-algae.html]
NREL's ASP research abandoned photobioreactors alltogether and instead focused on the development of algae farms in desert regions, using shallow saltwater pools
for growing the algae. Using saltwater eliminates the need for desalination, but could lead to problems as far as salt build-up in
ponds. Building the ponds in deserts also leads to problems of high evaporation rates and temperature control (at night, it
can get very cold and heating ponds would be very costly). Moreover, during winter months, biomass productivities
declined sharply, lowering the overal biomass yields per year. Harvesting the algae posed engineering challenges. Finally,
another recurring problem was keeping the algae cultures stable. Cultures that performed well under laboratory conditions
were often lost in the field trials, because they were invaded by stronger algae; the experiments were often halted and new
cultures had to be reintroduced into the ponds.
STP Lab 89
2008
ON THEIR WARMING ADVANTAGE

industry makes co2 use inevitable
Walker and King 8
Gabrielle, PhD in Chemistry, Sir David, Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University
of Oxford, and a senior scientific adviser to UBS, The Hot Topic, pg. 103
even with co2 cuts, can’t prevent warming

Times Online 8
5/23, Copenhagen Consensus: global warming, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3992368.ece
There is unequivocal evidence that humans are changing the planet’s climate. We are already committed to average
temperature increases of about 0.6°C, even without further rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The world has
focused on mitigation — reducing carbon emissions — a close look at the costs and benefits suggests that relying on this alone is a
poor approach. Option One: Continuing focus on mitigation Even if mitigation — economic measures like taxes or trading
systems — succeeded in capping emissions at 2010 levels, then the world would pump out 55 billion tonnes of carbon emissions in
2100, instead of 67 billion tonnes. It is a difference of 18 per cent: the benefits would remain smaller than 0.5 per cent of the world’s
GDP for more than 200 years. These benefits simply are not large enough to make the investment worthwhile.
too much co2 has already been released – can’t prevent warming
Longley 8
Robert, Global Warming Inevitable This Century, NSF Study Finds,
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/climatetochange.htm
Despite efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and a greater increase in sea level are inevitable during this
century, according to a new study performed by a team of climate modelers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. Indeed, say the researchers, whose work was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF),
globally averaged surface air temperatures would still rise one degree Fahrenheit (about a half degree Celsius) by the year 2100,
even if no more greenhouse gases were added to the atmosphere. And the resulting transfer of heat into the oceans would cause
global sea levels to rise another 4 inches (11 centimeters) from thermal expansion alone. The team's findings are published in
this week's issue of the journal "Science." “This study is another in a series that employs increasingly sophisticated simulation
techniques to understand the complex interactions of the Earth,” says Cliff Jacobs of NSF’s atmospheric sciences division.
And on their Airline advantage, their cards go straight from us economic collapse to global economic
collapse equaling nuclear war, they can’t access their impacts while there’s no internal link.
STP Lab 90
2008
STRAT 2: DA’S AND CASE ATTACKS

B. Uniqueness
compared with just 33 percent for McCain. The Democrat's lead was 13 points in Wisconsin, 12 in Colorado and eight in Michigan. Obama's lead
among independents is all the more important given the large number of voters eschewing the two major parties
in each state. In Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, roughly three-in-ten voters identify as independents; in Colorado that number is closer to four
in ten. The political environment in each state suggests a decidedly uphill climb for McCain in the general election. In
Colorado, just 31 percent of voters approve of the way President Bush is handling his job, while 63 percent disapprove.
In Michigan, the numbers are even more dismal, with a meager 26 percent expressing approval of Bush and a whopping 67 percent
disapproving.
B. Link
in the way will have to answer to the voters in November.
A Gallup poll released today indicates that energy is the top issue priority for 51% American voters.
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx).
"Americans are feeling pain at the pump and many experts say high gas prices are here to stay," NRDC's
Energy Advocate Jim Presswood said. "With prices set in the global marketplace and only 2
percent of the world's oil reserves here at home, there is simply nothing we can do to impact prices
by drilling. The real solution is clear: we must take bold action to break our addiction to oil and
transition to a clean energy future. A future where new cars like plug-in hybrids go farther on a
gallon of gas, enhanced public transit systems give Americans more transportation options, and
renewable sources of energy power our communities
STP Lab 91
2008
IMPACTS


scale nuclear exchange at the populations. Nor is there any reason to believe that global warming or other
insults to our physical environment resulting from currently used technologies will challenge the survival of mankind as
a whole beyond what it has already handily survived through the past fifty thousand years.
achieved.
STP Lab 92
2008
ONTO THEIR WARMING ADVANTAGE

we are Currently entering an ice age – means we contol uniqueness, and they can’t access any of their
impacts because it’s only a question of limiting cooling, not actually warming
Kukla 7
George, PhD micropalentologist and Special Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Forget Warming Beware the Next
Ice Age, http://www.iceagenow.com/Beware_The_Next_Ice_Age.htm
In the 1970s, leading scientists claimed that the world was threatened by an era of global cooling. Based on what we've
learned this decade, says George Kukla, those scientists - and he was among them -- had it right. The world is about to enter another Ice Age.
Dr. Kukla, in 1972 a member of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences and a pioneer in the field of astronomical forcing, became a central figure in convincing the United States government to take the dangers of climate
change seriously. In January of that year, he and another geologist, Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened what would become a historic conference of top European and American investigators in Providence, R.I.
The working conference's theme: "The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?" Many today speak with derision of the 1970s global-cooling scare, seeing it as a cautionary false alarm. Others see it as an
embarrassment -- Newsweek magazine, which published a 1975 article entitled "The Cooling World," even corrected the record with a 2006 follow-up to its 1975 article arguing that scientists now have it right. Dr. Kukla
Although the magazine article indicated that the cooling trend would be continuous,
sees it -- and the 1975 Newsweek article -- differently.
scientists knew otherwise. "None of us expected uninterrupted continuation of the trend," he states. Moreover, thanks to new
evidence that Dr. Kukla only recently published, he now knows that global warming always precedes an ice age. That
makes the current period of global warming a mere blip that constitutes additional indication of the ice age to come. To Dr.
Kukla, the fundamental issue here could not be more clear. For millions of years, the geologic record shows, Earth has experienced an ongoing cycle
of ice ages, each typically lasting about 100,000 years, and each punctuated by briefer, warmer periods called
interglacials, such as the one we are now in. This ongoing cycle closely matches cyclic variations in Earth's orbit around the sun.
continued co2 use prevents the onset of an ice age – historically true
Thompson 7
September, Citing a researcher @ University of Southampton, Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age, Online
The effects of burning fossil fuels today will extend long beyond the next couple of hundred years, possibly delaying the onset
of Earth's next ice age, more properly called a glacial period, says researcher Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. For
the past 3 million years, glacial periods have advanced and retreated about every 100,000 years or so as the pattern of Earth's orbit changes with time — called a Milankovitch cycle — and alters the way the sun strikes the
planet's surface.When less solar energy hits a given area of the surface, temperatures become cooler . This is what causes the difference in temperatures
between summer and winter. Long-term changes in Earth's orbit that cause less sunlight to hit the surface can cool down summer temperatures so that less ice melts at the poles. If ice sheets and glaciers don't melt a bit in the
In the most recent glacial period, sheets of ice covered all of Canada and most of the northern
summer, the ice accumulates and starts to advance.
United States, as well as all of Scandinavia and most of Britain and Russia. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may also be an important
factor in triggering glacial periods. In the past, lower carbon dioxide levels, caused by natural processes, helped cool the
Earth and again allowed ice to advance. Rising carbon dioxide levels, as is the case with global warming, can have the
opposite effect.
STP Lab 93
2008
GLOBAL WARMING CONT.

there’s only a risk of our offense – cooling is worse than heating
Asher, 2/26
Michael, 2/26/8,
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans --
Let's hope those factors stop fast.
and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for
civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were
uniformly bad news.
the impact is extinction

Caruba 5
Alan, “An Icy End for Mankind?” http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Ice%20Age-Caruba.htm
It is well known that, in the course of billions of years, the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles. From 1850 to 1940, the Earth gained about one degree Fahrenheit in warmth. It has been warmer in the past --
such as during the millions of years that dinosaurs existed. The earth, however, is not showing signs of significant warming.The Ice Shelf in Greenland and Antarctic is actually
getting thicker. This is not something to be ignored because the earth has been in an interglacial period between ice ages
that lasts about 11,000 years, and we are due another ice age any day now. Just as there is nothing mankind can do to prevent a bogus global warming, there is
likely nothing we can do to avoid the very real prospect of the next ice age. When it comes, it will be extinction time for people, plants and animals in the far
North. That's the way it was the last time. Indeed, in the course of its five billion years, the earth has experienced such extinctions on a regular basis. While the environmentalists have flooded the classrooms and media of
America with endless nonsense about global warming, the fact is that the schedules, i.e. the movement of the earth around the sun, galactic timetables, and ways in which the earth and our solar system function, are well
known to scientists who study these things and, frankly, none if it bodes well for the human race and other critters. At least, that is the conclusion of Robert W. Felix, the author of "Not by Fire, But by Ice: The Next Ice Age
We're beginning to realize that earth is a violent and dangerous
Now" ($15.95, Sugarhouse Publishing, Bellevue, WA). Piling scientific fact upon fact, Felix notes that, "
place to live. We're beginning to realize that mass extinctions have been the rule, rather than the exception for the 3.5
billion years that life has existed on earth."
STP Lab 94
2008
AIRLINE ADV.
And on their Airline advantage, their cards go straight from us economic collapse to global economic
collapse equaling nuclear war, they can’t access their impacts while there’s no internal link.
U.S. Dominance causes globalization.

Sommers and Woolfson 2008 (Sommers, Jeffrey and Woolfson, Charles, 01 April 2008, Debatte: Journal of
Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe, [Director of Cultural and Educational Affairs of the State Department,
University of Glasgow Law faculty], 'Trajectories of Entropy and “the Labour Question”: The Political Economy of Post-
communist Migration in the New Europe' Pg. 60-61)
Yet, the limits to accumulation prevented the continuation of that system. The Clinton era National Security Advisor
Anthony Lake summed up this situation nicely: “Throughout the Cold War we contained a global threat to market
democracies”, but now we can “consolidate the victory of democracy and open markets” (Chomsky 14, emphasis added).
And, Clinton era Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers declared, “Globalist economic policy . . . is the forward defence
of America’s deepest security interest” (Laxer). Thus, Keynesianism’s utility as a politico-economic paradigm was
redundant. By the 1970s it had created overcapacity and competition that proved ruinous to the US economy. With the
end of the Cold War it became an anachronism that obstructed future profitability and resurgent US hegemony. The US
could now pursue an “open market” strategy, which for the rest of the world looked suspiciously like a giant Open Door
policy as advocated by US Secretary of State John Hay a century previously. Indeed, as Henry Kissinger asserted
“globalization is only another word for US domination” (Amin 15). A neoliberal globalization agenda replaced the
Keynesian Bretton Woods Order.
Globalization causes cultural extinction and terrorism.

Smith 2008 (Smith, Paul J., April 1, 2008, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Staff Writer, A Handbook of Terrorism
and Insurgency in Southeast Asia; Book review)
The final section of the book features two essays on counter-terrorism presented by two regionally-based scholars. Rohan
Gunaratna, who has written extensively on Al Qaeda, describes the linkage between local groups and the larger Al Qaeda
movement. Among other things, he argues that "the dispersal of al-Qaeda worldwide into less centralized nodes has
dictated the dramatically altered security environment in Southeast Asia" (p. 437). Renato Cruz De Castro argues that
contemporary terrorism in Southeast Asia can be tied to incomplete or disruptive globalization: "As globalization creates
alienation and religious and cultural extinction, those who are alienated and marginalized may act out their discontent and
grievances through terrorism" (p.
Genocide is Dehumanizing
Stanton 96 (Gregory H. Stanton, 1996, U.S. Department of State, [founder and president of Genocide Watch, founder and
director of the Cambodian Genocide Project, and the founder and Chair of the International Campaign to End Genocide,
And President (2007 - 2009) of the International Association of Genocide Scholars], Eight Stages of Genocide, LN)
One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases.
Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.
At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. In combating this
dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack
constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than in democracies. Hate radio
stations should be shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.
STP Lab 95
2008
AIRLINE EXT.
Dehumanization outweighs everything in this round, its impacts are beyond calculable.
Berube 97 (David M. Berube, 1997, NanoTechnology Magazine, Professor of Communication Studies and Associate
Director of NanoScience and Technology Studies at University of South Carolina David M., NANOTECHNOLOGICAL
PROLONGEVITY: The Down Side, http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm)
This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn:
"its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential
danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the
soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a
dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a
dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact
dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great
opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly
inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war,
environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When
people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch
has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.
American’s grand strategy of preponderance leads to terrorism—9/11 proves

01/15/02, http://people.ku.edu/~schrodt/pols572/04.atlantic.schwarz.layne.html]//jh)
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. grand strategy has revolved around maintaining this country's overwhelming military,
economic, and political preponderance. Until now most Americans have acquiesced in that strategy, because the costs
seemed to be tolerably low. But the September 11 attacks have proved otherwise. Those assaults were neither random nor
irrational. Those who undertook them acted with cool calculation to force the United States to alter specific policies—
policies that largely flow from the global role America has chosen. The attacks were also a violent reaction to the very
fact of America's pre-eminence.
STP Lab 96
2008
AIRLINE EXT.
Unchecked terrorism threatens the survival of humanity.
Alexander 3 (Yonah Alexander, August 28, 2003, The Washington Times, director of the Institute for
Studies in International Terrorism at the State University of New York, Terrorism myths and realities, LN)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically
that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and
implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself.
Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant
rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns.
It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19
al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers.
Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism
triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of
intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements
[hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by
the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"?
There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's
expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of
morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological
warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms
of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future
terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and
cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.
Perception of US military capability will provoke counterbalancing destroying us

hegemony
Layne, 1993 (Christopher, teaches international politics at UCLA., The Unipolar Illusion: Why New
Great Powers Will Rise , International Security, Vol. 17, No.4. (Spring,), pp. 5-51.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=01622889%28199321%2917%3A4%3C5%3A TUIWNG
%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 , PS)
Invariably, the very fact that others believe a state is excessively powerful redounds to its disadvantage by provoking
others to balance against it. It was precisely for this reason that, responding to Sir Eyre Crowe's 1907 "German danger" memorandum, Lord Thomas
Sanderson counseled that London should try hard to accommodate rising great powers while simultaneously moderating its own geopolitical demands. Showing
commendable empathy for other states' views of Britain's policies and its power, he observed that it would be unwise for Britain to act as if every change in
international politics menaced its interests. "It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner ... the British Empire must appear in the light of some huge giant
sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream'" does not downplay the
importance of power as a factor in inducing balancing behavior; he simply says it is not the only factor (p. 21). Indeed, power and threat blend together
almost imperceptibly. Note that two of his threat variables, geographic proximity and offensive capabilities, correlate
closely with military power. When Walt says that states do not necessarily balance against the most powerful actor in the
system he essentially is equating power with GNP. When he says that states balance against threat he is saying that they
balance against military power (coupled with aggressive intentions). Obviously, power is more than just GNP. What states
appear to balance against in reality is actual or latent military capabilities. In a unipolar world, the hegemon's possession
of actual or latent military capabilities will result in balancing regardless of its intentions. If, in a unipolar world,
capabilities matter more than intentions, the Ll.S. monopoly on long-range power-projection capabilities-that is, its
preponderance of military power-probably will be viewed by others as threatening.
STP Lab 97
2008
SPLASH AND DASH ADV.

The competitiveness caused by getting rid of the loophole causes global trade
wars
Krugman in 94 (Paul Krugmen, New York Times Economist, March/April of 1994, Foreign Affairs,
“Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession”, http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/19940301faessay5094-
p10/paul-krugman/competitiveness-a-dangerous-obsession.html)
A MUCH MORE SERIOUS RISK IS THAT THE OBSESSION WITH COMPETITIVENESS WILL LEAD
TO TRADE CONFLICT, PERHAPS EVEN TO A WORLD TRADE WAR. MOST OF THOSE WHO
HAVE PREACHED THE DOCTRINE OF COMPETITIVENESS HAVE NOT BEEN OLD-FASHIONED
PROTECTIONISTS. THEY WANT THEIR COUNTRIES TO WIN THE GLOBAL TRADE GAME, NOT
DROP OUT. BUT WHAT IF, DESPITE ITS BEST EFFORTS, A COUNTRY DOES NOT SEEM TO BE
WINNING, OR LACKS CONFIDENCE THAT IT CAN? THEN THE COMPETITIVE DIAGNOSIS
INEVITABLY SUGGESTS THAT TO CLOSE THE BORDERS IS BETTER THAN TO RISK HAVING
FOREIGNERS TAKE AWAY HIGH-WAGE JOBS AND HIGH-VALUE SECTORS. AT THE VERY
LEAST, THE FOCUS ON THE SUPPOSEDLY COMPETITIVE NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL
ECONOMIC RELATIONS GREASES THE RAILS FOR THOSE WHO WANT CONFRONTATIONAL
IF NOT FRANKLY PROTECTIONIST POLICIES
STP Lab 98
2008
ON THEIR KERNELS OF TRUTH ADVANTAGE

No food shortages – way more food than needed
The Register-Guard 8 (The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR), January 16, 2008, LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG;
Letters Editorial)
In response to Christopher Calder's Dec. 27 letter, "Remember that bio-fuel is food": First, there is no food shortage and
none impending. Throughout the world, we produce two times the amount of calories needed to feed all humans. What we
do have is a money shortage, since food is a commodity and not a right: Whoever can afford it gets to buy it.
No higher food prices – livestock

The Register-Guard 8 (The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR), January 16, 2008, LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG;
Letters Editorial)
Secondly, he claims that ethanol made from corn is increasing food prices. Fact is 87 percent of the corn grown in the
United States is fed to livestock, not humans; and 5 percent is used to produce high fructose corn sweetener, which is not
actually human food.
STP Lab 99
2008
ON SOLVENCY
Biofuels cause deforestation which threatens biodiversity
Science Daily, March 1, 2007, p.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218140448.htm
Some environmentalists criticize the use of biofuels by arguing that planting large quantities of
corn or grass to produce ethanol will require widespread deforestation, which threatens
biodiversity. ''It depends on what acres of land one uses [to plant Miscanthus],'' said Somerville,
who advocates growing biofuel crops on land currently used for food production. ''There's a lot of
deforestation certainly going to take place in tropical regions, because those countries are going
to develop biofuel businesses,'' he said. ''Already in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, the
acreage of palm oil is extending very rapidly because palm oil can be converted to biodiesel with
a quite high efficiency and very low capital investment. But is it worse for the environment than
climate change? That's the question.''
THE IMPACT IS EXTINCTION.

Diner 94
Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 LENGTH: 30655 words ARTICLE: THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT: WHO'S ENDANGERING WHOM? NAME: MAJOR DAVID N. DINER BIO: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army.
[*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist

species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less
diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a
stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a
fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut
anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have
artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the
1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend
continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and
intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new
extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from
an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
STP Lab 100
2008
STRAT 3: STATES CP+OTHER STUFF

The Fifty States of America and United States territories should extend a biodiesel tax credit to cover
algae until December 31 2017 and impose a 2 dollar a gallon fee on each gallon of biofuel that has been
splashed into petroleum.
( ) States can solve any alternative energy mechanism as well as the federal government – they have
experience with everything
Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015
The decisive action of many states — 27 currently have or are developing comprehensive climate action plans — is taking on added
importance for another reason: Innovative state climate and energy policies are showing skeptics in this country and in Congress
that, rather than being a burden, ground-breaking energy conservation and renewable energy programs can create economic
opportunity. Many of the more than 300 climate policies and mechanisms devised by various states will provide new business
opportunities, as all sectors of society — housing, industry, commerce, energy, agriculture, forestry, transportation, waste
management — adopt greater energy efficiencies and move to alternative sources of energy. Against the backdrop of inaction by the
Bush administration and Congress, the states have moved farther and more rapidly than most people realize. Indeed, this September,
ten mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states will begin implementing a cornerstone of effective national or global climate policy: A so-
called “cap-and-trade” system under which emitters of greenhouse gases — in this case, power plants — must begin steadily
reducing carbon emissions and can sell a portion of their emissions allotment once they begin implementing efficiencies. Power
plants that fail to meet their emissions targets could buy allotments from more efficient utilities.
STP Lab 101
2008
DA FEDERALISM
A. Unique internal link – federalism is on the brink, but state rights are winning because of leadership
over energy
Raymond C, Scheppach, Exec. Dir. Of Nat. Gov. Assoc., 7-9-2008, Stateline.org, “Will the 2008 election improve
state-federal relations?”, rks, http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=323921
we are at a major turning point in the role of the states in our intergovernmental system.
While it is always risky to look into the crystal ball, I sense that
Essentially, the long-term trend of increased centralization of authority in Washington, D.C., may slow dramatically or even be
reversed. Two reasons will drive this change. First, the next administration and Congress will have to focus more on international issues, ranging from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
to terrorism, to Iran and North Korea and to global economic issues such as the price of oil and other commodities and the value of the dollar?all in an increasingly fragile international financial system. In short, the
next administration and Congress will face huge international challenges that could dominate the agenda. Second, on many of the
domestic issues such as health care, energy and climate change, states and governors have been providing national leadership over
the last decade.
B. Current federal environmental programs leave a role for the states – the plan reverses this, destroying federalism
Robert B. McKinstry, Philadelphia lawyer, John C. Dernbach, Law Prof @ Widener, and Thomas D. Peterson,
Exec. Dir. Center for Climate Strategies, 11-19-2007, “Federal Climate Change Legislation,” Widener Law,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1031552#PaperDownload
Most major federal environmental laws preserve a significant role for state and sometimes local government. They create overarching federal goals
and minimum standards and provide for implementation by states, often leaving the design of implementation mechanisms to the states. Preservation of a significant state role in federal
programs reflects political reality in the United States. Constitutional limitations on federal power have been reinforced by long
political tradition of local decision-making epitomized by the New England town meeting and concern that centralizing power would undermine political freedoms. There are also
concrete advantages to giving state and local government a significant role in implementation of environmental policies. These are evident
from consideration of the progress of climate change initiatives in the United States to date. As noted by Justice Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), states
have greater flexibility that allows them to innovate with less severe consequences and provide models for future federal legislation.
State and local government programs can allow bottom-up decision-making with greater stakeholder involvement. This allows the development of more precisely focused targets and strategies that are tailored to local
conditions and are more likely to succeed.
C. US federalism is modeled worldwide – continued respect for state’s rights is key

Steven G. Calabresi, Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. “A Government of Limited and Enumerated
Powers,” Michigan Law Review December, 1995
We have seen that a desire for both international and devolutionary federalism has swept across the world in recent years. To a significant extent, this is
due to global fascination with and emulation of our own American federalism success story. The global trend toward federalism is an
enormously positive development that greatly increases the likelihood of future peace, free trade, economic growth, respect for social and cultural diversity, and protection of individual human rights. It depends for
its success on the willingness of sovereign nations to strike federalism deals in the belief that those deals will be kept. 233 The U.S.
Supreme Court can do its part to encourage the future striking of such deals by enforcing vigorously our own American federalism
deal. Lopez could be a first step in that process, if only the Justices and the legal academy would wake up to the importance of what
is at stake.
D. Federalism prevents violence and war

Steven Calabresi, Law Prof @ NWU, December 1995, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 752.
Small state federalism is a big part of what keeps the peace in countries like the United States and Switzerland. It is a big part of the reason why we do not have a Bosnia or a
Northern Ireland or a Basque country or a Chechnya or a Corsica or a Quebec problem. American federalism in the end is not a trivial matter or a quaint historical anachronism. American-style federalism is a
thriving and vital institutional arrangement - partly planned by the Framers, partly the accident of history - and it prevents violence
and war. It prevents religious warfare, it prevents secessionist warfare, and it prevents racial warfare. It is part of the reason why
democratic majoritarianism in the United States has not produced violence or secession for 130 years, unlike the situation for
example, in England, France, Germany, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, or Spain. There is nothing in the U.S.
Constitution that is more important or that has done more to promote peace, prosperity, and freedom than the federal structure of that great document.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that should absorb more completely the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court.
STP Lab 102
2008
ELECTIONS
A. Uniqueness
compared with just 33 percent for McCain. The Democrat's lead was 13 points in Wisconsin, 12 in Colorado and eight in Michigan.
Obama's lead among independents is all the more important given the large number of voters eschewing the two
major parties in each state. In Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, roughly three-in-ten voters identify as independents; in Colorado that
number is closer to four in ten.
The political environment in each state suggests a decidedly uphill climb for McCain in the general election. In Colorado,
just 31 percent of voters approve of the way President Bush is handling his job, while 63 percent disapprove. In
Michigan, the numbers are even more dismal, with a meager 26 percent expressing approval of Bush and a whopping 67 percent
disapproving.
B. Link
in the way will have to answer to the voters in November. A Gallup poll released today indicates that energy is the top
issue priority for 51% American voters. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108331/Obama-Has-Edge-Key-Election-Issues.aspx).
"Americans are feeling pain at the pump and many experts say high gas prices are here to stay," NRDC's Energy
Advocate Jim Presswood said. "With prices set in the global marketplace and only 2 percent of the world's oil
reserves here at home, there is simply nothing we can do to impact prices by drilling. The real solution is clear: we
must take bold action to break our addiction to oil and transition to a clean energy future. A future where new cars
like plug-in hybrids go farther on a gallon of gas, enhanced public transit systems give Americans more
transportation options, and renewable sources of energy power our communities
STP Lab 103
2008
LINK
2. Increasing Bush’s popularity is the only way for McCain to win – it’s the vital internal link and he can’t distance
himself
Farmer 5/21/08 [John, national political correspondent for the star-ledger of Newark, times of trenton, Lexis]
The most important name in this November's presidential and congressional elections won't be on the ballot in the fall. It's
Herbert Hoo ... oops, it's Bush, George W. Bush. As if more evidence was needed that Bush is the chief issue this year,
Tuesday's election of a Democrat in a deeply conservative and usually reliable Republican congressional district in
Mississippi, of all places, underscores the fact that he has become toxic for his party, as close to a pariah as a president
can get. Bush, whose approval ratings are lower than any previous president's, may be a nice guy, as his admirers insist,
but he has made himself and the GOP label he embodies a liability for all those who'll run under the Republican banner
this fall, from John McCain, the party's presidential standard-bearer, to any number of poor blokes running for sheriff in
the boondocks. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the leaders of the GOP establishment in Washington. Virginia Rep.
Tom Davis, for one, served as the canary in the mine shaft after the stunning victory Tuesday of Democrat Travis Childers
in Mississippi. In a 20-page memo to his House Republican colleagues, Davis wrote that "the political atmosphere facing
Republicans this fall is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006." The GOP lost 30 House seats
two years ago in districts that stretched from coast to coast; it could lose up to 25 more this year, Davis said. Republicans
have gone through this kind of ordeal before, in each case as a result of a national revolt against a GOP president. In 1932,
Herbert Hoover and Republicans suffered a crushing defeat, ushering in the New Deal era under Democrat Franklin
Roosevelt. In November 1974, Republicans paid for Richard Nixon's breach of the public trust even though Nixon had
resigned. Davis was not alone. "The Republican brand is down, and it is going to be hard to get it back," lamented Rep.
Devlin Nunes, a California Republican. And New York Republican Rep. Peter King even suggested that, for safety sake,
Republicans may have to find another identity -- like figures in the witness protection program, say. "You are going to
have to run on who you are," King said, "and establish some independence, and that is going to be tougher for some than
others." What's ironic here is that many of the same Bush Republicans had little or no use for McCain who, because of
his frequent breaks with Republican orthodoxy -- on embryonic stem cell research, campaign finance reform and global
warming -- wears the GOP brand more lightly than most. But even McCain has the Bush monkey on his back, as Mike
Huckabee, his erstwhile rival for the presidency and now a staunch supporter, observed after Childers' victory in
Mississippi. "The Republican brand is badly damaged," Huckabee said. McCain, he said, "can't run on the Republican
brand." How McCain can escape it, however, remains a mystery. He's tied hand and foot to Bush on the president's Iraq
policy. But even more potentially damning is McCain's embrace of the Bush's unwise and unfair tax cut regime, which, if
kept in place, would make it virtually impossible to deal rationally with the country's debt and entitlement spending
problem -- a first step toward restoring the value of the dollar.
STP Lab 104
2008
IMPACTS


scale nuclear exchange at the height of the Cold War would have been modest compared to the variations in natural
background radiation doses that have readily been adapted to by a number of human populations. Nor is there any reason to
believe that global warming or other insults to our physical environment resulting from currently used technologies
will challenge the survival of mankind as a whole beyond what it has already handily survived through the past fifty thousand
years.
STP Lab 105
2008
achieved.
STP Lab 106
2008
***PERMITS STRAT***
1NC FRONTLINES- PEAK OIL
1. Peak predictions are false. Predictions about shortages since the 1850’s and
we still have plenty. High prices encourage new exploration for reserves
and reserves exist. At least 500 years remaining.
Fumento, Senior fellow at Hudson Institute, ’04 [Michael, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington and a
nationally syndicated columnist with Scripps Howard News Service, Scripps Howard News Service, May 7, "Is oil spigot
running dry?", l/n]
In 1914, the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted American oil reserves would last merely a decade. In both 1939 and 1951, the Interior Department estimated oil supply at
only 13 years.
"We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade," declared Pres. Jimmy Carter gloomily in 1977.
In fact, the earliest claim that we were running out of oil dates back to 1855 - four years before the first well was drilled.
Still, with gasoline oil prices seemingly rocketing past the moon and towards Mars, and newly-published books like "Out
of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil" and "The End of Oil," it seems fair to ask if the world's fuel tank needle isn't finally
tilting towards "E."
Yet historically prices aren't particularly high. Adjusted for inflation, they're slightly below what they were back
in 1950 when we falsely recall gasoline flowing like water. Then the national average was $1.89 in today's dollars, compared to
$1.84 at this writing. In 1981, gas was almost a dollar more per gallon than it is now when adjusted for inflation.
Further, this is not your father's gasoline. Now it's unleaded and reformulated in other ways to burn cleaner. Or, alas, to pander to the
gasohol lobby. Oil prices have also almost reached an all-time high when not adjusting for inflation, approaching $40 a barrel. But
again, when adjusted the cost is far less than it was from 1973 to the mid-1980s.
But there's no denying the sharp increase over several years. Are we really just experiencing a short-term spike because of voluntary
production cutbacks, political unrest in places like Iraq and Venezuela, and a huge decline in the value of the dollar?
Or are current prices indicating that reality is finally beginning to catch up to the Cassandras' predictions? Certainly supply isn't
declining yet. "Proved" oil reserves increased from 677 billion barrels in 1982 to 1,048 billion in 2002, a 55
percent increase. "Proved" means quantities that with reasonable certainty can be recovered from known reservoirs under existing
economic and operation conditions. Meanwhile worldwide consumption increased only 13 percent. That's not a particularly spooky trend.
Much oil goes to electricity production and home heating, in competition with natural gas and coal. So it's also important to know that
proved natural gas reserves have increased by more than 60-fold since 1982 while coal reserves are also increasing. If necessary,
almost all oil not used for vehicle fuel could be replaced by these other resources as well as nuclear energy.
What about the future? According to a just-released Energy Information Administration report oil production will
continue to steadily increase until the last year of the projection, which is 2025.
But oil consumption will continue to increase. This will be partly from population growth, albeit growth that's leveling, and partly from worldwide improvements in living standards that allow people to trade in
shoe leather and bicycles for cars. Even so, if consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year and not a single new
drop is found, we still won't exhaust proved reserves until 2056 according to a 2003 National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) report.
Further, the "nice aspect" of high oil prices, if those driving around in gas-slurping SUVs will forgive the term , is that they are the greatest motivator for
discovering and exploiting new reserves.
This includes Canada's oil sands, containing a tar-like substance convertible to oil. These hold an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of petroleum, of which 255 billion barrels
(equal to the entire proved oil reserves of Saudi Arabia) is currently considered recoverable. Because of reductions in production costs, some of this goop is already being extracted and sold. But if oil prices remain anywhere near current levels, oil sand development will
replace hockey as Canada's national obsession.
Oil sands worldwide could provide more than 500 years of oil at current usage rates, calculates the writer of the NCPA
report, David Deming. He's a professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Oklahoma in Norman.
Five hundred years? Civilization should be so lucky as to consider this a worry.
STP Lab 107
2008
PEAK OIL
2. Insiders say that peak oil is a myth. More than twice as much oil exists as what the peak
oil theorists say.
Steve Connor June 11, 2008 Canberra Times (Australia) HEADLINE: Oil shortage myth: insider tells of dodgy
calculations
There is more than twice as much oil in the ground as major producers say, according to a former industry adviser who claims
there is widespread misunderstanding of the way proven reserves are calculated. It is widely assumed that oil production
has peaked and proven reserves have sunk to roughly half of original amounts. But former oil industry man Richard Pike, who is
now chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said this idea was based on flawed thinking. Current estimates suggest
there are 1200 billion barrels of proven global reserves, but the industry's internal figures suggest this is less than half of what
actually exists. The misconception has helped boost oil prices to an all-time high, sending jitters through the market and prompting
calls for oil- producing nations to increase supply to push down costs. Dr Pike said there was anecdotal evidence that big oil
producers were glad to go along with under- reporting of proven reserves to help maintain oil's high price. Part of the oil industry
is perfectly familiar with the way oil reserves are underestimated, but the decision-makers in both the companies and
the countries are not exposed to the reasons why proven oil reserves are bigger than they are said to be," he said. Dr
Pike's assessment does not include unexplored oilfields, those yet to be discovered or those deemed too uneconomic to exploit. The
implications of his analysis, based on more than 30 years in the industry,will alarm environmentalists who have exploited the
concept of peak oil to press the urgency of the need to find greener alternatives. "We should not be surprised if oil dominates well
into the 22nd century.
3. Hubbert’s model is the basis for their claims and it’s just wrong. Their claims are just doom-saying
and products of a herd mentality. These predictions are empirically false.
Bailey ‘04 (Ronald, Science Correspondent for Reason Magazine, Feb. 18, “Are We Out of Gas Yet?” Reason
Online, http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021804.shtml)
Once again, the gauge on our national economy is dropping dangerously to the red. So
swears a spate of books and articles in the past few years,
reviving '70s-era fears of impending oil catastrophe. The once-invaluable, now highly political, Scientific American ran an article in March 1998
declaring "The End of Cheap Oil." Fred Pearce similarly declared in a July 1999 New Scientist article, "Dry Future," that "the world is probably only two years off peak
oil production, after which decline is inevitable." In his 2001 book Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage, Princeton University Professor Kenneth
Deffeyes found "that world oil production will peak in this decade—and there isn't anything we can do to stop it. While long-term solutions exist in the form of
conservation and alternative energy sources, they probably cannot—and almost certainly will not—be enacted in time to evade a short-term catastrophe."
More recently, in January Caltech physics Professor David Goodstein upped the ante in his book, Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil, warning that the peak of world
production is imminent and that "we can, all too easily, envision a dying civilization, the landscape littered with the rusting hulks of SUVs."
There is a choirmaster to this chorus of oily doom: the late geophysicist M. King Hubbert. In 1956 Hubbert (correctly) predicted that U.S.
Like Hubbert, current doomsayers reach their grim conclusions of impending octane
oil production would peak in the early 1970s.
depletion by using estimates of the world's recoverable reserves of oil and comparing them with estimates of rates of
future use. From this they derive predictions of when the demand for oil will outstrip the supply, and most suggest that dry pumps will greet us before
the end of this decade.
Once the peak is reached, oil doomsters foresee skyrocketing prices leading to economic ruin and social and environmental collapse. One reviewer of Goodstein's book
despaired, "If he's right, I'm sorry for my kids. And I'm especially sorry for theirs."
But we've heard it all before. "These kinds of doom and gloom energy predictions become popular every 10 years or so,"
says Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, a Massachusetts consulting firm. "In this case there's very little
original research and everybody is citing the same handful of articles. It's an example of how the herd instinct drives the
psychology of scientific consensus." Lynch's new study "The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources," pokes holes in forecasts of imminent oil doom.
Lynch points out that the supply of oil is determined not only by geologic factors, but also by political, economic, and technological ones.
It's true that oil discoveries peaked in 1982, but Lynch argues that's because of politics, not geology. "The big factor in the decline in oil discoveries is that Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran all nationalized their oil industries in the 1970s. Plus Iraq and Iran went to war and essentially stopped exploring for more oil," explains
Lynch. "They have so much oil, why would they bother looking for more?" He adds dryly that Scientific American doomster Colin Campbell has been
predicting that the peak of oil production is three to four years away for the past 15 years.
STP Lab 108
2008
OIL PEAK
4. New off-shore drilling tech, new management tech and new synthetic oils will
decrease costs and will solve Peak in Status Quo
Schoen ‘04 (John, MSNBC, “Can Technology Help Find Oil Fast Enough,” 09/23, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6072980/)
Advances in drilling techniques do hold the promise of further lowering the cost of producing new oil and extending the
industry’s reach. That’s especially true in deepwater offshore fields where many promising discoveries are turning up.
Aside from the huge cost of conventional steel drilling platforms, operations on gigantic rigs are subject costly interruptions from hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and
typhoons in the Pacific rim.
“Ten years from now they’re going to become obsolete,” said Barton Smith, an economics professor at Rice University in Houston. “What they’re moving toward is
robotics -- in which you literally have submarine operations. The drilling activity all occurs at the bottom of the ocean. And these robotics will have all the capabilities
of being able to fix anything down there.”
Long-range communications technology is also helping to cut the cost of managing oilfields -- in some cases halfway
around the world, Smith said.
“With a lot of these oilfields the trick is not just finding the oil and pulling the oil out of the ground,” he said. “But the trick is then -- through vast pipelines and so forth
-- getting it to some deliverable point. And those pipelines require all sorts of types of monitoring. They’re going to monitor that from Houston.”
Technology is even expanding the definition of oil. Vast deposits of oil shale and tar sands –- formations of oil-saturated rock and
sand –- haveuntil recently been uneconomic to produce. But as recovery methods improve, and oil prices rise, production of
this so-called “synthetic” oil has increased. New technologies are also being developed to extract natural gas from coal -– which remains plentiful in the
U.S.
5. No impact to the peak. The transition away from oil will be smooth, not a
crash. Previous transitions prove this.
Bailey ‘04 (Ronald, Science Correspondent for Reason Magazine, Feb. 18, “Are We Out
of Gas Yet?” Reason Online, http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021804.shtml)
If demand for oil begins to outstrip the supply, prices will rise, signaling companies and consumers to use less, develop
new technologies, switch to other fuels, increase their insulation, and so forth. "Demand for energy is going to move away from heavy
hydrocarbons," Lynch predicts. "Coal is first, oil is next." He expects that our old hydrocarbon friends will be replaced in our affection by
natural gas, nuclear, and other forms of energy as those technologies improve. "It will be much like the transition in the 20th
century from coal to oil in the residential heating and transportation sectors or like the transition from horses to cars," he says. The Oil Age will
end, not with a horrific screech leading to a destructive crash, but with a barely perceptible, well-lubricated, smoothly
braked halt, one that is merely a prelude to moving smoothly and rapidly forward again.
STP Lab 109
2008
PEAK OIL
6. Market forces solve the peak. The status quo is self-correcting. Peak oil
predictions are false, they ignore the basic principles of Economics 101.
Consumers will adjust their behavior to limited supply
Moffat, Economist, University of Western Ontario, ‘04 (Mike, Microeconomist @ The Richard Ivey School of Business
@ University of Western Ontario, “We Will Never Run Out of Oil,”
http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm)
Predictions that we will run out of oil after a certain period of time are based on an ignorance of the economic way of thinking. The typical
way to estimate the number of years it will take us to run out of oil is to consider the following factors: The number of barrels we can extract with existing technology.
The number of barrels used worldwide in a year.
The most naive way to make a prediction is to simply do the following calculation:
Yrs. of oil left = # of barrels available / # of barrels used in a year.
So if there are 150 million barrels of oil in the ground and we use 10 million a year, this type of thinking would suggest that the oil supply will run out in 15 years. If the predictor realizes that with new drilling technology we can gain access to more oil, he will
incorporate this into his estimate of #1 making a more optimistic prediction of when the oil will run out. If the predictor incorporates population growth and the fact that demand for oil per person often rises he will incorporate this into his estimate for #2 making a more
pessimistic prediction. These predictions, however, are inherently flawed because they violate basic economic principles. By using economic principles, we will see that: WE WILL NEVER
RUN OUT OF OIL
At least not in a physical sense. There will still be oil in the ground 10 years from now, and 50 years from now and 500
years from now. This will hold true no matter if you take a pessimistic or optimistic view about the amount of oil still
available to be extracted. Let's suppose that the supply really is quite limited. What will happen as the supply starts to
diminish? First we would expect to see some wells run dry and either be replaced with new wells that have higher
associated costs or not be replaced at all. Either of these would cause the price at the pump to rise. When the price of
gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean
that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, or cars that run on alternative fuels. Each consumer will react to the price change differently, so we would expect to
see everything from more people bicycling to work to used car lots full of Lincoln Navigators.
If we go back to Economics 101, this effect is clearly visible. The continual reduction of the supply of oil is represented by a series of small shifts of the
supply curve to the left and an associated move along the demand curve. Since gasoline is a normal good, Economics 101
tells us that we will have a series of price increases and a series of reductions in the total amount of gasoline consumed.
Eventually the price will reach a point where gasoline will become a niche good purchased by very few consumers, while
other consumers will have found alternatives to gas. When this happens there will still be plenty of oil in the ground, but
consumers will have found alternatives that make more economic sense to them, so there will be little, if any, demand for
gasoline.
7. China and India are growing consumers of imported oil – your domestic plan cannot solve the peak
New York Times ‘05 [by Keith Bradsher, “2 Big Appetites Take Seats at the Oil Table,” February 18,
http://www.energybulletin.net/4427.html download date: 2-21-05]
India, sharing a ravenous thirst for oil, has joined China in an increasingly naked grab at oil and natural gas fields that has
the world's two most populous nations bidding up energy prices and racing against each other and global energy
companies.
Energy economists in the West cannot help admiring the success of both China and India in kindling their
industrialization furnaces. But they also cannot help worrying about what the effect will be on energy supplies as the 37
percent of the world's population that lives in these two countries rushes to catch up with Europe, the United States and
Japan. And environmentalists worry about the effects on global warming from the two nations' plans to burn more fossil
fuels.
With engineering expertise and equipment more available around the world, one result is that oil executives and drillers in remote spots increasingly speak Mandarin or Hindi, not English.
Their newfound commercial confidants live in pariah states like Sudan and Myanmar, one sign that the political dynamics of the world oil market pose a difficult challenge for the Bush
administration.
The prospect of China's consuming ever growing lakes of oil has been noted over the years, although it is gaining new
urgency as Chinese consumption continues to soar. China's oil imports climbed by a third last year as its oil demand exceeded
Japan's for the first time.
Now India is joining China in a stepped-up contest for energy, with both economies booming recently just as
their oil production at home has sagged. China trails only the United States in energy consumption; India has
moved into fourth place, behind Russia.
STP Lab 110
2008
1NC FRONTLINES- TERRORISM
1. Dependence on the Middle East for energy security is inevitable. We should participate and compete
in the market. The link to the advantage depends on being able to withdraw from the Gulf.
Fox News Tuesday, June 08, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122099,00.html Exxon Chief: Energy
Independence Impossible
WASHINGTON — The idea of American energy independence is a myth and the United States must maintain "constructive
relationships" with oil-producing countries for its own prosperity, the head of petroleum giant Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) said
Monday night."We do not have the resource base to be energy independent," Exxon Mobil chairman Lee R. Raymond (search)
said in a speech in which he outlined some of what he called the "hard truths" about global energy markets.Raymond, who
runs the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said that while other countries, including Russia, will play a growing role
in supplying oil to the world, the Middle East will remain the center of supply because it holds as much as half of the world's oil
reserves."We simply cannot avoid significant reliance on oil and gas from the Middle East because the world's supply pool [of oil] is
highly dependent upon the Middle East," Raymond said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
(search).The fact that the United States and the rest of the world will have to depend increasingly for its oil and also for natural gas
from Middle East, "is not a matter of ideology or politics," he said. "It is simply inevitable. Raymond scoffed at suggestions — heard
commonly among politicians in Washington — of energy independence."We periodically hear calls for U.S. energy independence as if
this were a real option," he said. "The fact is, the United States is a part of the world energy market and we must participate and
compete in that market."At a time when relations with some major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are strained,
Raymond said the United States must work to "maintain appropriate and constructive relationships with oil-rich countries in the
future. They will be very important for our prosperity and our security."
2. Chance of terrorist use of nuclear weapons or even attacking US is exaggerated

John Mueller (Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University) 1/15/2008 “The Atomic Test: Assessing the
likelihood”, Prepared for presentation at the Program on International Security Policy
A terrorist atomic bomb is commonly held to be the single most serious threat to the national security of the United States. Assessed in
appropriate context, that could actually be seen to be a rather cheering conclusion because the likelihood that a terrorist group will
come up with an atomic bomb seems to be vanishingly small. Moreover, the degree to which al-Qaeda--the chief demon group and one of the
few terrorist groups to see value in striking the United States--has sought, or is capable of, obtaining such a weapon seems to have
been substantially exaggerated.
3. Terrorist will not use wmd’s- they prefer conventional weapons due to the availability
John Mueller (Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University) 1/15/2008 “The Atomic Test: Assessing the
likelihood”, Prepared for presentation at the Program on International Security Policy
Keller suggests that "the best reason for thinking it won't happen is that it hasn't happened yet," and that, he worries, "is terrible logic" (2002). "Logic" aside, there
is another quite good reason for thinking it won't happen: the task is bloody difficult. The science fiction literature, after all, has been spewing out
for decades--centuries, even--a wealth of imaginative suggestions about things that might come about that somehow haven't managed to do so. We continue to wait,
after all, for those menacing and now-legendary invaders from Mars. Meanwhile, although there have been plenty of terrorist attacks in the world
since 2001, all (thus far, at least) have relied on conventional destructive methods--there hasn't even been the occasional gas bomb. In
effect the terrorists seem to be heeding the advice found in a memo on an al-Qaeda laptop seized in Pakistan in 2004: "Make use of that
which is available...rather than waste valuable time becoming despondent over that which is not within your reach" (Whitlock 2007).
That is: Keep it simple, stupid. In fact, it seems to be a general historical regularity that terrorists tend to prefer weapons that they know
and understand, not new, exotic ones (Rapoport 1999, 51; Gilmore 1999, 37; Schneier 2003, 236). Indeed, the truly notable innovation for terrorists over the
last few decades has not been in qualitative improvements in ordnance at all, but rather in a more effective method for delivering it: the suicide bomber (Pape 2005,
Bloom 2005).
STP Lab 111
2008
TERRORISM EXT.
4. Middle east conflict won’t escalate – leaders won’t get involved; self
preservation and lack of national interest
Maloney, Cook and Takeyh 6-28-2007. International Herald Tribune, “Why the Iraq War
Won’t Engulf the Mideast.”
Yet, the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to war either to protect their own sect or ethnic group or to
prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in Iraq.
The reasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle Eastern leaders, like politicians everywhere, are primarily interested in one
thing: self-preservation. Committing forces to Iraq is an inherently risky proposition, which, if the conflict went badly, could threaten domestic political stability.
Moreover, most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather than
projecting power and thus have little capability for sending troops to Iraq.
Second, there is cause for concern about the so-called blowback scenario in which jihadis returning from Iraq destabilize their home countries, plunging the region
into conflict.
Middle Eastern leaders are preparing for this possibility. Unlike in the 1990s, when Arab fighters in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union returned to Algeria,
Egypt and Saudi Arabia and became a source of instability, Arab security services are being vigilant about who is coming in and going from their countries.
In the last month, the Saudi government has arrested approximately 200 people suspected of ties with militants. Riyadh is also building a 700 kilometer wall along
part of its frontier with Iraq in order to keep militants out of the
kingdom. Finally, there is no precedent for Arab leaders to commit forces to conflicts in which they are not directly involved. The Iraqis
and the Saudis did send small contingents to fight the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but they were either
ineffective or never made it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Arab countries other than Syria, which had a compelling interest in establishing its hegemony over Lebanon, never
committed forces either to protect the Lebanese from the Israelis from other Lebanese. The civil war in Lebanon was regarded as someone else's fight.
5. The U.S. and china won’t go to war

Banning Garrett (Director, asia programs, the atlantic council of the us) November 2003 “strategic straightjacket’: the
united states and china in the 21st century.” http://www.acus.org/docs/0310-
Strategic_Straightjacket_United_States_China_21st_Century.pdf
Neither China nor any other state whose power rests on its success in a globalizing world will conclude that its strategic interests are
best served by trying to militarily confront the United States, although sometimes even U.S. allies would like to see the “arrogant” United States
brought down a notch or two. Unlike the Soviet Union and its client states, all the major powers today depend on the health of the U.S.-led
international economic system for their prosperity and often their security. Other nations, including China, need the United States. America also needs
these ties (especially with a large and economically important country like China) to help maintain U.S. prosperity and security. As Richard Haass has noted, “war
between the great powers” is “almost unthinkable.
STP Lab 112
2008
1NC FRONTLINES- CENTRAL ASIA/CASPIAN SCENARIO
1. There’s no great power competition in Central Asia—no risk of conflict & no

tradeoff
Richard Weitz, senior fellow and associate director of the Center for Future Security
Strategies at the Hudson Institute, Summer 2006, The Washington Quarterly, p. 165
Fortunately, the fact that Central Asia does not represent the most important geographic region for any external great power also
works against the revival of a traditional, geopolitical great-game conflict. Russia, China, and the United States have strong reasons
to cooperate in the region. Al- though each country has extensive goals in Central Asia, the resources they have available to pursue
them are limited, given other priorities. As long as their general relations remain nonconfrontational, Moscow, Beijing, and
Washington are unlikely to pursue policies in a lower priority region such as Central Asia that could disrupt their overall ties. Most
often, they will find it more efficient and effective to collaborate to diminish redundancies, exploit synergies, and pool funding and
other scarce assets in the pursuit of common objectives. Unfounded fears or overtly competitive policies could undermine these
opportunities for cooperation and should be avoided.
2. Central Asian conflict won’t escalate

Olga Oliker, Senior International Policy Analyst at RAND and David Shlapak, acting director for strategy and doctrine
for RAND, 2005, “U.S. Interests in Central Asia,” http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG338.pdf, p.
41-42
Broadly speaking, there are two primary military reasons the United States would seek to maintain a long-term military presence on
foreign shores. The first has already been mentioned: the existence of an imminent threat to key U.S. interests. For half a century,
for example, the United States has kept Army and Air Force units stationed in South Korea to deter a second North Korean attack
and to help defeat it, should deterrence fail. Putting aside the question of whether or not U.S. interests in Central Asia are sufficient
to justify an American defensive shield, even if an external threat to the area existed, the facts appear to support the conclusion that
no such danger exists. Although Russia is certainly angling to restore its influence in these ex- Soviet territories, there is no hint of a
serious military threat. The new Russian base in Tajikistan, which evolved from many years of presence by its 201st Motor Rifle
Division, will keep some 5,000 troops in the country, including an air component. Russian border guards have now left the mission
in Tajik hands, leaving only an advisory presence. Moreover, Russian forces in Tajikistan are seen by many as bolstering the
Dushanbe regime. Similarly, the air base outside the Kyrgyz town of Kant does not appear to threaten Kyrgyz sovereignty.4 China,
the neighborhood’s other heavy hitter, is also anxious to enhance its relationships with the Central Asian republics; it is the lead
nation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and has participated in multiple military exercises with various Central
Asian countries. Beijing’s military attention is focused elsewhere and its designs on the region are economic and political—they do
not threaten the Central Asian states militarily.5 While aggression among Central Asian actors is sometimes touted as a possibility,
none of the region’s militaries appear capable of mounting serious offensive operations and there are few if any issues at stake
between Central Asian nations that would warrant large-scale military action
3. Russia won’t fight over Central Asia

Dr. Svante E. Cornell, Deputy Director, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Johns Hopkins
University-SAIS, 2005, Eurasia in Balance, sp. 59
Since President Putin came to power, Russia has adopted a more pragmatic position toward Azerbaijan, leading to an improvement
in relations and a more constructive attitude in the Minsk Group negotiations; Russia has also been less vocal toward expanded
American and Turkish influence in the region. However, continued strong-arm policies toward Georgia generate doubt as to what
Moscow’s strategic intentions are. With respect to the stalemated conflicts of the region, Russia’s policies have given abundant
evidence that Russia finds the present status quo convenient, and does not desire a resolution to any of them.
STP Lab 113
2008
ASIA/CASPIAN SCENARIO CONT.

4. China won’t fight over Central Asian oil
Adiljon Umarov and Dmitry Pashkun, Senior Lectures of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences
of the National University of Uzbekistan, February 2005, CEF Quarterly,
http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/CEF_Quarterly_Winter_2005.doc.pdf, p. 14
It seems rather doubtful that China will use its full political and military might to achieve its interests in Central Asia. Presently,
China achieves all it needs through political and economic diplomacy; and Central Asia is still not a top priority for decision makers
in Beijing. Moreover, given the limits of China’s armed forces and the current focus in China on modernizing those forces needed
for a Taiwan invasion before any interior ground forces modernization, it unclear if China could even exert strong military pressure
in the region in the future. Additionally, Russian forces still present in the region act as a continuing deterrent to any unauthorized
Chinese military advance in the region. It is not in Beijing’s interest to upset China’s relationship with Russia for limited gains in
Central Asia. vii The U.S. military presence in Central Asia also limits China’s option as well. As with Russia, it is not worth
upsetting the overall Sino-American relationship by actively challenging American forces in Central Asia. Only in the direst
situation would China be inclined to engage U.S. regional forces in a conflict over worldwide energy resources.
5. The Caspian is insignificant for oil security

Alec Rasizade, senior associate at the Historical Research Center, April 2005, Journal of Southern Europe and the
Balkans,
In recent years the Middle East OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries have supplied 40 per cent, and
would supply 52 per cent of the world consumption by 2010. The most optimistic reserve estimates for Caspian oil pale in
comparison with those for the Middle East, which holds over 680 billion barrels or some 66 per cent of the world's proven reserves.
Caspian reserves, which have been depleted over the past 100 years of industrial oil production, are certainly not another Persian
Gulf or Siberia, and even not a new North Sea. The North Sea's proven oil reserves were 60-70 billion barrels (compared to the
Caspian's 20-30 billion), of which about 17 billion barrels still remain.17 The combined Caspian output will never rival that of Saudi
Arabia or Russia, which produce 8.8 and 7.1 million barrels of oil per day (mbd), respectively. The estimates of the IEA are the most
often cited sources for projections of world oil consumption and production. Table 1 provides a comparison to Caspian potential.
Production in 2003 from all four Caspian countries amounted to 1.65 mbd, or about 2 per cent of the world's total production. Using
the projected levels of production, the Caspian Basin is expected to contribute no more than 3 per cent to the world's total oil supply
by 2010, and even less thereafter.
6. Several alternate causes will create Central Asian conflict

Sean L. Yorn. (Research Analyst at the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs in New York City) "Power
Politics In Central Asia." 2002. Harvard Asia Quarterly. Autumn 2002. http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/129/
Since the end of the Cold War, Central Asia has acquired a reputation as a volatile, unpredictable region.1 Economic instability,
weak civil societies, and repressive political climates have shrouded the post-Soviet states since their independence eleven years
ago. Indeed, the World Bank has called the last decade a "triple-transition" for the Central Asian countries: they simultaneously
faced the macroeconomic shock of the Soviet disintegration, the abrupt shift from centralized state governance to more democratic,
market-driven strategies, and the sudden shift in geographic position to being in the middle of two much larger nuclear powers.
STP Lab 114
2008
ASIA/CASPIAN SCENARIO CONT.

7. Russia can’t go to war with the United States.
Zbigniew Brzezinski. (National Security Adviser Under the Carter Administration). "US Russia: Zbigniew Brzezinski
Assesses US Russia Relations." Radio Free America. 11 May 2005.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/05/b62307e1-832c-4fbc-ab91-ba8fa7a0eb24.html
There can be no cold war because Russia is in no position to wage either a hot or a cold war. It's a brutal effort to wage war in
Chechnya which verges on genocide; it's at the same time a testimony to the incompetence of the Russian military. Russia's in no
position to wage a cold war with America, either. Because Russia is essentially right now in a very serious social and demographic crisis.
So a real cold war is not possible. Some issues are likely to continue being conflictual. In a broader sense, the American-Russian relationship is probably
going to be described in less euphoric terms than has recently been the case, but the basic reality of a mixed relationship -- partially antagonistic, partially cooperative
-- I think is going to endure. Former 'Sphere Of Influence' RFE/RL: Unlike in the rest of the world, where as you noted the United States is
increasingly isolated and politically unpopular, the former Soviet sphere of influence embraces the United States. Seventy-two percent of
Georgians approve of President Bush's visit on [9 April] there.... Under the circumstances that you outline, and given that this policy is bound to exacerbate tensions
with Moscow, what do you think is the U.S. plan in that region, and what do you think it should be? Brzezinski: The United States is supporting and de
facto promoting geopolitical pluralism in the space of the [former] Soviet Union. That is to say, it is supporting the independence of the post-
Soviet states without seeking to turn them into American satellites -- but with the objective of making them viable as independent states. Part of
the dilemma that Russia faces is that its nostalgia for an imperial status creates sustained and extensive hostility with all of its
neighbors. It is impossible to mention a single neighbor of Russia with whom Russia has genuinely good relations. It is impossible to
mention a single neighbor of Russia that likes Russia. And that is a problem which only the Russians can correct; it cannot be corrected for them by the
Americans
STP Lab 115
2008
1NC- SOLVENCY FRONTLINE
1. Tradable gas rights don’t solve – they fail to specify a “benefit function” for curbing the use of
gasoline
Arnold Kling June 5, 2006 Feldstein vs. Nordhaus http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/06/feldstein_vs_no.html
If you want to reduce gasoline consumption or carbon emissions, should you use a tax or tradable rights? Martin Feldstein argues for
tradable gasoline rights (TGR's). The government would decide how many gallons of gasoline should be consumed per year and would give out that total number of TGRs. In 2006, Americans will buy about 110 billion gallons of
gasoline. To keep that total unchanged in 2007, the government would distribute 110 billion TGRs. To reduce total gasoline consumption by 5%, it would cut the number of TGRs to 104.5 billion.
William Nordhaus argues for a carbon tax. If the curvature of the benefit function is small relative to the curvature of the cost
function, then price-type regulation is more efficient; conversely, if the benefit functions are highly nonlinear while the cost
functions are close to linear, then quantity-type regulation is more efficient.
While this issue has received little attention in the design of climate-change policies, the structure of the costs and
damages in climate change gives a strong presumption to price-type approaches.
Feldstein's article does not really specify a "benefit function" for curbing the use of gasoline. One gets the feeling that his main
concern is to fend off fuel economy regulations, which are indeed exercises in moral vanity--they do little to reduce gasoline consumption but they do help to brand auto companies as villains.
2. Tradable gas rights will not produce the same success as other tradable permit program. The system
is too much like WII ration cards and is subject to too large transaction costs and much political
manipulation
Lynne Kiesling Martin Feldstein in WSJ on "Tradeable Gasoline Rights"
http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/001635.html June 5 2006
Martin Feldstein has a column in today's WSJ (subscription required) in which he recommends
that the government issue tradeable gasoline rights (TGRs) instead of either raising CAFE standards or
imposing a gasoline tax.In a system of tradeable gasoline rights, the government would give each adult a TGR debit card. The gasoline pumps at service stations ... would be modified to
read these new TGR debit cards... Buying a gallon of gasoline would require using up one tradeable gasoline right as well as paying money. The government would decide how many gallons of gasoline should be
consumed per year and would give out that total number of TGRs. In 2006, Americans will buy about 110 billion gallons of gasoline. To keep that total unchanged in 2007, the government would distribute 110
billion TGRs. To reduce total gasoline consumption by 5%, it would cut the number of TGRs to 104.5 billion.The government could distribute TGRs to reflect geographic differences in driving patterns. ... Businesses
that use trucks would also get TGRs.Feldstein goes on to argue that because they are tradeable, they will provide dispersed
benefits to individuals, rather like cap-and-trade pollution markets. I am not convinced. My initial thought
was that, notwithstanding the tradeability, this scheme sounds like WWII ration cards, digitally updated.
Should the government be in the business of gasoline rationing? Isn't this option more transaction-cost-laden and prone to political
manipulation at state and federal levels (allocations, who sets the cap, where the cap is set, etc.) than a gasoline tax?I can see his logic, although he doesn't say it this way
in the piece: isn't a TGR scheme a way to define property rights and then enable parties to trade? But it is so potentially prone to political manipulation, and over such a large number of possible stakeholder
organizations, that I think it would distort decision-making enough to generate bad outcomes and entrench special interests. If it's meant to be a CAFE substitute, why not have a cap-and-trade system that applies
to automobile fleets? Could be much less fiddly, much lower in transaction costs. But as stated in his piece, I think Feldstein's recommendation is too Rococo in its design.In any case, such a policy has to start from
a primary objective: is the primary objective here to reduce emissions, or simply to reduce the use of gasoline? I contend that those different objectives have different policy implications.
3. Oil conservation vouchers are impractical. Feldstein doesn’t account for problems with distribution
Steve Stein, 2006 August 1, 2006 HEADLINE: Breaking the oil habit. Policy Review
It's impossible to find a way of pairing increased gasoline taxes with offsetting reductions that would be absolutely fair. Taxpayers
who have to drive long distances and cannot form carpools would get the short end of this arrangement, but it's hard to imagine any
solution that would be more equitable. Martin Feldstein, when he was director of the National Bureau of Economic Research, did
suggest an interesting alternative: oil conservation vouchers. Feldstein's idea was to distribute to every household, each year,
vouchers that would entitlethe holder to purchase a gallon of gasoline at the market price.(The total number of vouchers distributed
would be substantially less than the gallons consumed before the system took effect, thus assuring a sizable overall reduction in
consumption.) Since the vouchers couldbe traded on an open market, people who chose to drive less than their allotment would incur
a monetary benefit. Those who drove more than their allotment would have to pay more—how much more would be determined by
the market. But Feldstein glossed over the difficulties of establishing a fair initial allocation. His basic unit of distribution--the
"household"--doesn't seem practical, nor does his approach solve the problem of varying population density.
STP Lab 116
2008
SOLVENCY CONT.
4. Plan won’t work – will just be viewed as gas rationing, and the public hates that.
Amy Ridenour · 17 June 2006 · Energy ~Energy Independence/National Security ~Environmental Economics
World War II Gasoline Rationing Redux?
Project 21 Senior Fellow Deneen Moore has a letter in today's Wall Street Journal:
Regulate Gasoline, Create a Nightmare In regard to the June 5 editorial-page commentary 'Tradeable Gasoline Rights' by
Martin Feldstein: Mr. Feldstein believes that the government should be the arbitrator of individual liberty by allowing government
authorities to design an economic scheme to regulate drivers' behavior and thereby control the amount of gasoline used in the nation
each year.
Let's not be deceived -- tradeable gasoline rights is socialism cleverly disguised as a free-market mechanism. Why not
suggest 'tradeable calorie rights' to address the obesity issue. The surgeon general can declare an ideal weight for
American citizens and obese individuals can buy calorie rights from thin people.
Dr. Feldstein is a reputable fellow, to say the least, but his idea in this case sounds awful. Reminds me of World War II gasoline
rationing. (Yes, I know we won that war.) I suspect an unintended consequence of Dr. Feldstein's idea, should it ever be
implemented, would be to teach a generation of young people to hate the federal government ("sorry, junior, we can't go,
Mommy used up her TGRs"). However, surrendering freedom to teach people to love freedom would be throwing the
baby out with the bath water.
5. TGRs fail for three reasons – correct consumption levels, allocation fairness, and entitlement program
dependence.
Robert Carbaugh, professor of economics, and Charles Wassell Jr., assistant professor of economics at Central
Washington University, Challenge, "Reducing American Dependence on Oil" November/December 2006
Because it includes a market-based element, a TGR system has some advantages over a nontradable coupon rationing system. However, both
systems share several implementation problems. First is that the government would have to decide what the "correct" level of gasoline
consumption is. In order to know that, the government would need to know the marginal social cost and marginal social benefit of
using gasoline, which includes both externalities as well as costs and benefits that are internal to gasoline buyers and sellers. Such
exhaustive knowledge is difficult and expensive to obtain. In contrast, to establish a gasoline tax the government would need to know only the marginal
external costs and benefits of gas consumption and production. A second problem concerns the allocation of TGRs. For example, why should a
wealthy person with two registered autos receive more TGRs than a poorer person with one registered auto? Why would members of
Congress from Texas agree to have their residents receive lower TGR allocations than residents of New York or Chicago? Why might a farmer receive more TGRs
than a truck driver? Indeed, there would be much bickering about the allocation of TGRs. Also, the creation of TGRs would result in a new
government entitlement program to millions of people, who would never be willing to give it up. These would be all those individuals who
found it preferable to sell their TGRs rather than use them. They could receive significant amounts of money from the sale of their TGRs and soon look upon the
proceeds as a regular part of their incomes. As noted above, it is likely that many of these people would be lower-income households. This group would have a
vested interest in keeping the system forever, even though rationing operates best during a short- term national emergency. Finally, the TGR system
is similar to an increase in the gasoline tax, with the tax revenue rebated in a lump sum to the public. However, the administrative
and transaction costs of running the TGR system would be very high compared to running a tax-and-rebate system. Do we need to create a new
administrative bureaucracy because politicians are afraid to promote conservation by raising the gas tax?
STP Lab 117
2008
SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS- TERRORISM
Energy independence is not possible. Even with conservation measures we will still be dependent for
many years
Carl Etnier, director of Peak Oil Awareness, Is oil independence an illusion?Published Jul 6 2008 by Barre Montpelier
(Vermont) Times Argus Archived Jul 8 2008 Is oil independence an illusion? http://energybulletin.net/node/45777
The newly seceded United States took seven year to move from the 1776 Declaration of Independence to the Treaty of
Paris, in which Great Britain ceded control of the land east of the Mississippi to the young country. In 1973, Richard
Nixon set another seven-year challenge: the U.S. would achieve independence from foreign sources of energy by the end
of the decade.
Thirty five years later, the U.S. energy dependence has dramatically increased. Crude oil imports, for example, have more
than tripled.
In a new book, journalist and author Robert Bryce argues that the hope for energy independence is fraught with
“dangerous delusions.” Bryce’s arguments in “Gusher of Lies” provide a refreshing counterpoint to many simplistic,
political discussions about energy, but in the end, his blithe optimism about fossil fuel availability, U.S. financial
resources, and global warming’s consequences leaves his arguments as dangerously deluded as those he criticizes.
Bryce pulls no punches in criticizing dreams of energy independence: “Energy independence is hogwash. From nearly any
standpoint — economic, military, political, environmental — energy independence makes no sense. Worse yet, the inane
obsession with the idea of energy independence is preventing the U.S. from having an honest and effective discussion
about the energy challenges it now faces…
“Regardless of the ongoing fears about oil shortages, global warming, conflict in the Persian Gulf, and terrorism, the
plain, unavoidable truth is that the U.S., along with nearly every other country on the planet, is married to fossil fuels. And
that fact will not change in the foreseeable future, meaning the next 30 to 50 years.”
Bryce contends that commonly touted paths to energy independence just don’t cut the mustard. Efficiency, he says, won’t
reduce U.S. energy consumption; we will just do more with the energy we have.
Idea of energy independence is a myth; we will always be highly dependent on the Middle east for oil.
This means we should maintain the relationships and recognize the areas significance.
Fox News Tuesday, June 08, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122099,00.html Exxon Chief: Energy
Independence Impossible
Raymond predicted that fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — will continue to provide most of the energy for many decades, even
if there are improvement in conservation and efficiency and expansion of other energy sources.As for global warming, Raymond
expressed -as he often has — his skepticism about the science and predicted that in the decades ahead "carbon dioxide
emissions from greater fossil fuel use will climb."Carbon dioxide is the leading "greenhouse gas" that many scientists
believe eventually will cause a warming of the earth if allowed to continue to grow."We simply do not yet have the economic
solutions or technologies that would permit us to meet future energy demands without carbon emissions growth," Raymond said.
Renewable sources can’t provide enough energy for energy independence

Carl Etnier, director of Peak Oil Awareness, Is oil independence an illusion?Published Jul 6 2008 by Barre Montpelier
(Vermont) Times Argus Archived Jul 8 2008 Is oil independence an illusion? http://energybulletin.net/node/45777
Solar and wind-generated electricity cannot be ramped up fast enough to create energy independence, Bryce says, and they don’t
produce liquid fuels to displace oil use.Increasing U.S. oil production by drilling more offshore or in an Alaskan wildlife
refuge, according to Bryce, requires so much foreign expertise and equipment that they cannot be seen as true energy
independence.Bryce envisions a world in which the U.S. continues to consume large amounts of fossil fuel and lives
comfortably with international interdependence. He sees a role for increased use of solar, wind, nuclear power, and efficiency,
but none of them leads to independence.
STP Lab 118
2008
SOLVENCY- CENTRAL ASIA/CASPIAN SCENARIO
Central Asian countries will check great power domination—they balance influence
Brian G. Carlson, an M.A. student at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, Spring
2007, Journal of Public and International Affairs, “The LimiTs of sino-Russian sTRaTegic PaRTneRshiP in cenTRaL
asia,” http://www.princeton.edu/~jpia/, p. 175
Finally, a Sino-Russian partnership in Central Asia is likely to be limited by the Central Asian countries’ desire to play the great
powers off against each other in order to preserve their sovereignty. This tendency can be seen in Kazakhstan’s “multi-vectored”
foreign policy (Tokayev 1997; Tokayev 2006; Blank 2005; Olcott 2002, 50), Uzbekistan’s entreat- ies to both Russia and China
following the souring of relations with the United States, Kyrgyzstan’s delicate balancing act in which it joined the SCO declaration
but reaffirmed U.S. access to the base at Manas airport, Tajikistan’s close relations with the United States, and Turkmenistan’s
stubborn neutrality. Russia has been unable to create an effective collective security organization under the CIS because no Central
Asian country is willing to trade its sovereignty for protection by Moscow (Olcott 2005a, 187). Nor do these countries wish to
endure a crippling economic dependence on Moscow that limits their sovereignty. For example, Kazakhstan has sought multiple
export routes for its energy resources in order to prevent a Russian monopoly (Christoffersen 1998, 26-28).
Caspian hydrocarbons are negligible—its insignificant as a site of competition with Russia

Alec Rasizade, senior associate at the Historical Research Center, April 2005, Journal of Southern Europe and the
Balkans,
It is hard to think of an industry that has a hype machine as phenomenal as the Caspian energy potential industry. But it is now
becoming increasingly clear that the hydrocarbon deposits in the Caspian Basin are much lower than it has been believed in the West, that the
Caspian's energy promise has been deliberately exaggerated and that production from the area will not make a major contribution to the world's energy supplies and
its energy security.2 Whatever the final size of deposits, it is now obvious that much of the talk of Caspian oil was a spectacular bluff. Moreover, the costs
of producing and geographic challenges of moving the Caspian oil and gas are high and the political risks are great. The Caspian states, still run by totalitarian-era
leaders, are authoritarian, destitute and totally corrupt; their goal is to preserve the power. With virtually all opposition prohibited and export revenues being siphoned
off to the ruling few's foreign bank accounts, the populations at large have seen decline instead of improvement in their living standards during the 'oil boom' decade,
and consequently the potential risks of political extremism and terrorism in this predominantly Muslim region are horrifying. At the outset, the Caspian oil rush was
akin to a high-stakes game of cards. There was a lot of bluffing.3 It was complicated further by the fact that the cards were being played within another strategic game
of chess, with other rules, played by the great powers at a large geopolitical chessboard. With a relative consolidation of the chessboard into patterns, at least
temporarily, the Caspian oil game is now more or less settled. Although the bluffing survives from the old days of the card game, strategy as opposed to tactics has
become the conditioning environment in the region, as in a chess game.4 The officials who created a 'great game' with Caspian oil rush and pipeline strategies also
played a numbers game, largely ignoring industry experts who argued that the Caspian would never affect the oil market as much as the Middle East. Such claims of
great Caspian oil potential made by officials, whose proposals promoting the export pipelines that would avoid crossing Russia and Iran, were based more on
geopolitics than economics. All post-Soviet geological explorations have as yet failed to find sufficiently large new deposits, except for the
Kashagan field in the Kazakstan sector of the sea discovered by the Italian state energy concern ENI. After drilling of many dry wells, the area that had been pushed
by the US Department of State as an alternative to the Persian Gulf was dismissed as a product of Washington's propaganda. Instead of the politically bloated
appraisal of 200 billion barrels in ostensible Caspian oil reserves (compared with Saudi Arabia's 262 billion) valued at 4 trillion dollars, exuberantly cultivated for the
past decade by the Department of State to justify its own strategy there,5 we are talking now about only 18-31 billion barrels of reserves, according to another US
government agency, the Energy Information Administration (EIA).6 The estimates by the OECD's (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
International Energy Agency (IEA) of proven oil reserves in the region range from 17 to 30 billion barrels, 7.8 billion of which are believed to lie under the
Kashagan. For natural gas, there is an agreement that proven reserves are about 6.5 trillion cubic metres, with Turkmenistan holding the largest deposits (outside of
Russia).7 There is now emerging a question as to whether this region is of major strategic importance, despite much of the rhetorical
level that the West has given to it in public statements, or its interest in this peripheral region is derivative of broader security and energy concerns,
those having to do with the Middle East, Russia, Iran, China, and Islamic radicalism in Central Asia?
STP Lab 119
2008
SOLVENCY
No risk of major central asian war now
Weitz 2006 Richard Weitz is a senior fellow and associate director of the Center for Future Security Strategies at the
Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. Averting a New Great Game in Central Asia The Washington Quarterly 2006
Summer.
Central Asian security affairs have become much more complex than during the original nineteenth-century great game between
czarist Russia and the United Kingdom. At that time, these two governments could largely dominate local affairs, but
today a variety of influential actors are involved in the region. The early 1990s witnessed a vigorous competition between
Turkey and Iran for influence in Central Asia. More recently, India and Pakistan have pursued a mixture of cooperative
and competitive policies in the region that have influenced and been affected by their broader relationship. The now
independent Central Asian countries also invariably affect the region's international relations as they seek to maneuver
among the major powers without compromising their newfound autonomy. Although Russia, China, and the United States
substantially affect regional security issues, they cannot dictate outcomes the way imperial governments frequently did a century ago.
Concerns about a renewed great game are thus exaggerated. The contest for influence in the region does not directly challenge the
vital national interests of China, Russia, or the United States, the most important extraregional countries in Central Asian
security affairs. Unless restrained, however, competitive pressures risk impeding opportunities for beneficial cooperation
among these countries. The three external great powers have incentives to compete for local allies, energy resources, and
military advantage, but they also share substantial interests, especially in reducing terrorism and drug trafficking. If
properly aligned, the major multilateral security organizations active in Central Asia could provide opportunities for
cooperative diplomacy in a region where bilateral ties traditionally have predominated.
No great power war over energy resources in central asia

Weitz 2006 Richard Weitz is a senior fellow and associate director of the Center for
Future Security Strategies at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. Averting a New
Great Game in Central Asia The Washington Quarterly 2006 Summer.
Fortunately, the fact that Central Asia does not represent the most important geographic region for any external great power also
works against the revival of a traditional, geopolitical great-game conflict. Russia, China, and the United States have strong reasons to
cooperate in the region. Although each country has extensive goals in Central Asia, the resources they have available to pursue
them are limited, given other priorities. As long as their general relations remain nonconfrontational, Moscow, Beijing, and
Washington are unlikely to pursue policies in a lower priority region such as Central Asia that could disrupt their overall ties. Most
often, they will find it more efficient and effective to collaborate to diminish redundancies, exploit synergies, and pool
funding and other scarce assets in the pursuit of common objectives. Unfounded fears or overtly competitive policies
could undermine these opportunities for cooperation and should be avoided.
STP Lab 120
2008
SOLVENCY ALT. CAUSES- CENTRAL ASIA/CASPIAN SCENARIO
Water, border disputes, poverty, extremism

Radio Free Europe August 24, 2006. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/B19110DC-7965-41FD-A5D1-
816EABC2A177.html
A U.S. nongovernmental research group says Central Asia is home to long-standing water disputes that have the potential to further
destabilize the region. In a report released on August 22, the Chicago-based Power and Interest News Report (PINR) says regional countries have failed
to implement an effective water-management mechanism in the years since the breakup of the Soviet Union. PINR says that, combined with
other problems, this failure has the potential "to tip the region into conflict." The group cites in particular the lack of an agreement on
the legal status of the Caspian Sea among its five littoral states (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan). It also notes that more
than 90 percent of Central Asia's water resources are concentrated in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, while Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan
are the region's main water consumers. PINR says other potential sources of tension include border disputes, competition over energy
reserves, instability tied to rising poverty, authoritarianism, and religious extremism.
Ethnic Disputes
Elisa Schaar. "Central Asia's Dead Sea: The Aral Sea's Slow Demise." Harvard International Review. Vol. 23 Fall 2001.
http://www.harvardir.org/articles/934/
Central Asia’s current propensity for interethnic tensions has historical roots. When the Soviets set up their Central Asian republics,
they did so arbitrarily, without paying much attention to ethnicity, cultural heritage, or religion. In the process, ethnic and religious groups
were haphazardly split, united, or forced to move southwards to give way to the Russian expansion. But in Soviet times ethnic tensions or conflicts
between different Muslim and Eastern or Russian Orthodox Christian groups did not escalate, since Moscow served as an authority in
resolving any disputes. Furthermore, order was maintained through strict water consumption quotas that Moscow dictated. Since independence,
however, unrestrained transnational border fighting and ethnic tensions continue to destabilize Central Asia, especially since
resources are scarce and populations are growing at roughly two percent per year. Water shortage in an area as ethnically and religiously
diverse as Central Asia will almost inevitably lead to political disputes or even violence, unless the international community steps in to rescue
the remains of the Aral Sea.
Several alternate causes to Central Asia conflict

Dianne L. Smith. "Central Asia: A New Great Game?" 17 Jun. 1996.
http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/centasia/cenasap1.htm
Serious political, economic, ethnic, religious, and social challenges confront the five new Central Asian states in this quest for
regional security. How each state is able to confront and resolve these problems will determine its ability to emerge as a viable force
in this struggle for influence, in this new "Great Game." Instability might seem to provide opportunities for states such as Iran or China to expand their
influence, but the risks that such instability would ricochet back on them are too great. Thus, Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia and China each seek, in their own way, to
promote stability within Central Asia while expanding their own regional influence.
STP Lab 121
2008
CASE TURNS- BACKSTOPPING

A. Slow shift towards renewables now- no impact on oil consumption
The Associated Press, Business News “Renewable energy use to grow rapidly”. December 5, 2006. Lexis.
Energy markets will shift further toward alternative sources in the coming years, driven primarily by higher prices for
traditional fossil fuels and recently enacted public policy, according to a Department of Energy report released Tuesday.
But despite rapid growth projections for renewable sources, as well as expectations for a nuclear renaissance, the
department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted in its annual energy outlook that oil, coal and natural gas
will still account for the same 86 percent share of the U.S. energy market in 2030 that they did in 2005. Total energy
demand is anticipated to grow 1.1 percent annually between now and 2030.
B. OPEC will flood the market with oil, lowering prices if renewables become an immediate
threat, making it impossible for them to compete
Salon.com October 22, 2007 BYLINE: Amanda Griscom Little interview with U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo
HEADLINE: Tancredo pushes for more nuclear energy R&D
Would you fund R&D for emerging technologies like wind and solar? Yes, and it can be broader than that. It can be
R&D into biotechnology and biofuels. There are two reasons I am willing to do that: One, the national-security thing.
The other is that we have OPEC, so there isn't truly a free market. You have to have some degree of government
involvement in this
because the OPEC nations can and do control the market to a certain extent. When emerging technologies become a threat to oil,
OPEC can [ flood the market with oil], driving the price down to make it impossible to compete, and that new technology goes
down the toilet.
C. Turns the case- renewable will flop and dependency will increase
Maugeri 2003 (Leonardo, oil and gas journal, Time to debunk mythical links between oil and politics, lexis)
In short, the world is not running out of oil, and there's no current problem of oil security in today's world market.
However, the problem is that many Western observers speak about "oil security" when what they have in mind is "stable
and cheap oil supplies," thus confusing two very different things -- a confusion that usually stems from public hysteria
when oil prices soar; then, when prices drop, oil matters are completely forgotten. Few remember that in 1998-99, when
oil prices plummeted below $ 10/bbl, the general refrain was "bad for oil companies and producing countries, good for
everyone else." No one spoke about problems such as oil security, energy alternatives to oil, etc., back then.
Hysteria aside, cheap oil has always been and remains a curse for industrialized countries and the most elusive enemy of
oil security. It hampers any possibility of dealing with new energy alternatives to oil -- which are all very expensive -- or
with the development of new oil regions. It maintains Western habits -- and particular those of the US -- of not promoting
any form of energy-saving. Finally, it increases consumer dependence on a limited group of countries with the lowest
production costs, which today still are those in the Persian Gulf. However, cheap oil is a curse for them too.
STP Lab 122
2008
LINK EXTENSIONS- BACKSTOPPING

Attempts to shift to renewables cause OPEC to flood the market
Bob Williams, Executive Editor, Oil and Gas Journal, 2004, http://ogj.pennnet.com/articles/edpro_article_display.cfm?
Section=Archives&Article_Category=EdPro&ARTICLE_ID=201727&KEYWORD=opec%20capacity%20flood
We have acted on our policy statement that we want stable oil markets. We want fair prices. We have maintained capacity to do so.
We have done everything possible we know, other than just produce to flood the market, which would be damaging to the objective
of a stable oil market." Threats to oil Al-Naimi addressed two key threats to future oil market stability: a shift away from oil owing
to concerns over postulated catastrophic climate change and a return to competition for market share among major producing
countries. He contends that, regarding which solutions are implemented to combat the perceived threat of global warming,
"whatever the world does should not be prejudiced against oil."
OPEC controls prices. They will lower prices in response to alternative energy exploration.
Steve Yetiv June 24, 2008 HEADLINE: Calculating peak oil's due date The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.)
In the past, OPEC, and especially Saudi Arabia, have often increased oil production to try to prevent prices from rising high
enough to trigger alternative energy exploration; a Western political backlash; and the ire of the gendarme of the Persian
Gulf -- the United States. When I visited OPEC headquarters in May 2003, OPEC researchers underscored how the
organization was keeping the price of the OPEC oil basket around $22-$28 per barrel (roughly $25-$31 on the New York
Mercantile Exchange). OPEC succeeded in doing so more than 80 percent from June 2001 to June 2003.
OPEC will push to flood the market leading to a drop in prices
Discuss Economics 2008 (OPEC’s response to Alberta oilsands market share,

http://www.discusseconomics.com/energy/opecs-response-to-alberta-oilsands-market-share-part-3/)
If the parameters stated above hold true, what particular market reactions could one expect from OPEC? If Alberta displaces the exports of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia,
this will account for just over 4% of total OPEC production. Therefore the new question is: will OPEC attempt to recover their lost market share?
Or is it possible that emerging markets elsewhere such as India or China will substitute for the lost market. It is impossible to speculate what future market trends will
be, whether developing markets will in fact meet expectations when it comes to crude oil demand. One thing, however, is certain: OPEC will attempt to
recover any losses if the US market was the most profitable market for them, and if it was the most accessible. Venezuela may be
concerned with their diminished share; 2002 US exports accounted for about 37% of total national production. This number reaches almost 50% with the increase in
future US demand, however, diminishes to about 42% once the oilsands 'steals' their share. Finding alternate markets with ease may be difficult for Venezuela in
comparison with Saudi Arabia due to geographic location. Despite ideas OPEC may be willing to forego production in 2012 for future production, the loss of the
Venezuelan market share may be enough to elicit a response from OPEC.
Any firm, or in this case cartel, rarely relinquishes established market shares without concern. What type of actions might OPEC take in attempt to recapture market
share? As previously noted, the production cost of oilsands is much higher than conventional production with many OPEC members, namely those in the Middle East.
It may be appealing for OPEC to flood the world with too much supply thereby reducing market prices, assuming the market
responds the increase supply. If the market price were to decline to a point that expansion for oilsands ventures were no longer profitable, one would see oilsands
development grind to halt. Not only would development slow with lower market prices, yet output would slow as well. Producers
will only produce until their MC=MR. If expected MR declines due to a lower market price, production quotas will be adjusted to reflect the new break-even point. This
will reduce the amount of supply the oilsands producers will export to the world market. (I will also assume that there are adequate world reserves to justify erroneously
increasing supply simply to crowd out competitors.) The lost export supply from oilsands would be compensated by the new supply provided by OPEC. This now
suggest that excess supply on the world market would be consumed by those, in our case the United States, who were once relying on the once cost effective oilsands
supply. The market would adjust, substituting competitive supply with uncompetitive; downward pressure on the price would cease as the market returns to equilibrium.
Although market price for crude will diminish, supply provided by OPEC will increase. If the increase in production accounts for the lost revenue from the reduction in
price, then OPEC will support and favour the move. This is one method
OPEC may attempt in order to recapture lost market share.
STP Lab 123
2008
LINK EXTENTIONS CONT.
Threat of alternative energy means OPEC will respond with slowing supply then
flooding the market driving down prices
McCarthy 2007 (shawn, OPEC warns of fall in oil demand, the globe and mail, lexis)
OPEC ministers are increasingly concerned about growing momentum among consuming countries to find ways to reduce
oil demand, and warn they may respond by limiting supply growth.
As the U.S. Senate prepared to debate legislation aimed at slashing gasoline consumption by 20 per cent from forecast
demand in 10 years, Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said the drive to conserve fuel could slow investment by
members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Producers worry about a repeat of the mid-1980s, when sky-high prices triggered a slump in demand and a flood of new
supply into the market, eventually driving down crude prices to rock bottom levels.
Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, is expanding its production capacity to 12.5 million barrels per day, from
11.3 million, but Mr. al-Naimi said further expansion plans could be shelved.
"Our feeling now with this thrust and push for conservation, efficiency and the use of alternatives is that we probably need
not go beyond 12.5 million barrels per day," he said.
New alternative energy sources will cause OPEC to flood the market
Kolle 2007 Despite rising prices, OPEC appears to be in no rush to raise its output targets,
http://nwitimes.com/articles/2007/09/08/business/business/doc7e79bb33cb7ec6f28625734f00723bfd.txt)
" If you remember what happened in the 1970's (look it up if you don't) you will find the biggest fear OPEC has. It is that
oil prices will go up and stay high long enough to fuel investment into conservation and alternative energy sources to the
point that a critical mass is reached and the need for their oil is greatly diminished or replaced by other energy sources
they don't control. That's exactly what started happening in the 1970's and it took OPEC opening up the tap to make oil
cheap again over a decade to reverse the trends. The result was that interest in conservation and alternative energy waned
and investments dried up in the face of cheap oil again. We are once again nearing that point and you can expect to see
OPEC flood the market again if they see us getting serious with conservation and alternative energy sources that compete
with, or worse yet, actually replace demand for their oil. OPEC walks the fine line between price and demand and wants
to keep us hooked up to their oil like a bunch of junkies on drugs while making as much money as possible... "
Increased renewable means OPEC will flood the market- they fear loss in profits
Phil 2007 (http://www.philforhumanity.com/The_End_of_Cheap_Oil.html, the end of cheap oil)
However, the oil cartel, called OPEC, is keeping a very close eye on the costs of these alternative sources of energy.
Because of greed, OPEC tries to regulate the supply of oil to ensure the highest price of oil while also limiting interest in
developing alternative sources of energy. This is a delicate balance, since the costs of other sources of energy are much
more chaotic than oil and especially since OPEC does not regulate the large oil reserves of the United States of America
or Russia.
In most countries of the world, cartels are illegal, since they use their monopolies to fix the prices of their goods. In other
words, cartels artificial control supply and demand of any product to maximum their profits with no regard to actual
supply and demand of a free market. Yet OPEC only has a semi-monopoly on the supply, and therefore the price, of oil.
However, this is enough of a reason why other countries need to stop being dependent on expensive oil and develop other
sources of energy. Preferably, countries should invest only in pollution free power sources.
Therefore, the cost of oil will remain forever high, unless other sources of energy have a sudden price drop so that they
are significantly cheaper than oil. Only at that point in time would OPEC flood the world with a large supply of cheap oil
in an attempt to bankrupt any competition.
STP Lab 124
2008
LINK EXTENTIONS
OPEC can flood the market in response to renewable development

John Goff July 2006 CFO Magazine HEADLINE: Power Source
Clean-fuel executives know they can't avoid every risk. OPEC could flood the market with cheap oil. Big-oil
companies could jump into the renewable-fuels business, pushing smaller players aside in the process. (The former British
Petroleum is now BP Plc, and brands itself as "Beyond Petroleum.") Or, they could take their massive cash reserves and buy alternative-
power technologies -- and then let them wither.
OPEC sees renewables as a direct threat to their market share

Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers,2004, The End of Oil, pg. 282
Not everyone at Johannesburg was pleased by such talk. Whereas European states would gain from such a commitment to
renewables (most wind-powered technology, for example, is manufactured in Europe), other countries saw the proposal as an
economic disaster. Diplomats from OPEC oil states, for example, made it clear that they regarded any measure to boost renewable
energy as a direct threat to their own market share. Delegates from developing nations, meanwhile, complained that such a com-
mitment might reduce available supplies of cheap hydrocarbon energy, which many poorer nations now depend on.
Fluctuations in US energy demand send oil prices into a tailspin

Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers,2004, The End of Oil, p 14-15
In writing this book, I have focused on all aspects of the energy economy — the past and present of energy, the technology and business of energy, and the major
players. I’ve studied the big energy producers, like Saudi Arabia and Russia, who control most of the world’s oil reserves and who will play a critical role in the
transition to a post-oil economy. I’ve looked in depth at China and India, two energy paupers whose enormous populations and growing economies will nonetheless
make them the biggest energy players of the twenty-first century. I have examined Japan and Germany, countries that, lacking their own domestic oil supplies, have
adopted energy-efficient policies and have fostered a culture that accepts if not embraces a low-energy way of life. But by necessity, much of this book will focus on
the United States. For all that the new energy economy is an international issue, no nation will play a greater role in the evolution of that economy than ours. Ameri-
cans are the most profligate users of energy in the history of the world: a country with less than 5 percent of the world’s population burns through 25 percent of the
world’s total energy. Some of this discrepancy is owing to the American economy, which is bigger than anyone else’s and therefore uses
more energy. But it is also true that the American lifestyle is twice as energy-intensive as that in Europe and Japan, and about ten times the global average. The
United States is thus the most important of all energy players: its enormous demand makes it an essential customer for the big energy states like
Saudi Arabia and Russia. Its large imports hold the global energy market in thrall. (Indeed, the tiniest change in the U.S. energy
economy — a colder winter, an increase in driving, a change in tax law —can send world markets into a tailspin.) And because American
power flows from its dominance over a global economy that in turn depends mainly on oil and other fossil fuels, the United States sees itself as having no choice but
to defend the global energy infrastructure from any threat and by nearly any means available — economic, diplomatic, even military.
STP Lab 125
2008
IMPACT EXTENSIONS-BACKSTOPPING
Cheap oil increases demand leading to US increased dependence and causes oil
shocks
This brings us to the first paradox: Oversupply drove down oil prices in real terms (and during the 1960s in nominal terms
as well), which in turn fed the upsurge in oil consumption worldwide and exacerbated Western dependence on Middle
Eastern oil. In the early 1970s, there was no spare oil capacity in the US (until then considered a cushion for Western
security) because every producer had been allowed to pump without restriction in order to fulfill ever-growing demand.
At the same time, low prices made reserve replacement unattractive, thus eroding American oil stocks. This shortsighted
pattern of Western consumption and the policies that favored it were responsible for progressively transferring an
extraordinary power to the Middle East countries -- i.e., the ability to use oil as an economic sanction to achieve political
ends -- which, once wielded, led to the first oil shock in 1973.
Low cost means no new technology or renewable

Given current oil consumption levels, every additional percentage point of recovery means 2 more years in terms of the
life-index of existing reserves. Overall, cost and price are the pivotal variables for increasing reserves. Cheap oil (i.e., oil
with a price that does not significantly exceed the breakeven cost of producing and marketing oil in the long term) leads to
a reduction of investment in both new exploration and technology, thus undermining future additions to existing reserves.
All of these factors may explain why the life-index of world reserves has constantly improved, even as major new oil
discoveries have been decreasing since the 1960s. In 1948, the ratio between proven oil reserves and current production
indicated a remaining life of 20 years for existing reserves; in 1972, the life index rose to 35 years; today it stands at about
43 years.
STP Lab 126
2008
CASE TURN- HEDGE
A. Predictions of high oil prices through 2010 are driving up massive hedge
fund investments
Fusaro and Vasey 2004
PETER FUSARO , chairman of energy and environmental financial advisory Global Change Associates and DR. GARY VASEY is Vice President for Utilipoint, a leading
energy and utility industry analysis firm. December 2004 “Energy Hedge Funds: Why Have They Appeared Now?” <http://www.global-
change.com/articles/energy_hedge_funds.pdf>
Continued High Energy Prices in Prospect? Next year’s energy markets promise to actually be more volatile than ever before. One reason for this is the sustained lack of investment in the upstream productive
capacity by OPEC over the past 20 years as well as a hesitancy by the oil majors to invest because they have been hurt by prior oil price collapses. This
time they are reluctant to step up with new drilling programmes and instead have collected their rent cheques as prices continue to appreciate. They make money by maintaining a business-as-usual approach. Rather than using profits to expand exploration and
production budgets, many have been returning money to shareholders through increased dividends and stock buy-backs. Expect more great quarters for the majors and a rise in their stock prices. Many securities analysts have been slow to grasp this fundamental
change i.e. the lack of new investment except for some independent drillers who’s activities are unlikely to do much to quench the increased demand . Led by the US and China once again, oil demand
promises more of the same in 2005. Due to these market driven factors, the funds are scaling up their oil trading operations; particularly in Europe and Asia as
well in North America. In the US, the latest play by the investment banks and hedge funds is to buy physical oil and gas reserves in the ground. This action has not
only pushed out the forward curve and created greater open interest in the back months on the NYMEX WTI contract, but also suggests that higher prices through 2010 are to be
the order of the day. What our research has also demonstrated is that the hedge funds are now investing in the energy complex in growing numbers and with a
longerterm viewpoint. They are, and always have been, involved in distressed asset securities – both debt and equity – but now increasingly seem to be taking a longer-term view with
respect to these investments. This has been evidenced by the funds flexing their shareholder muscle at British Energy and in other situations. Buying oil and gas reserves in the ground is just part of a picture in which hedge funds are
acquiring assets across the energy value chain in the upstream, midstream and downstream energy sectors. The global oil markets
have now reached a new plateau in oil prices. The majors have been slow to react to this phenomenon, but are now studying the longe -term price affects. Another factor that has brought hesitancy to stepping up oil and
gas drilling by the majors is that other commodity prices have also increased this year which has ballooned their exploration and production budgets this year and next. What is different this time in the energy complex is that the entire sector is
benefiting by higher prices. We see higher prices in the upstream, downstream oil and gas markets but also a bull market in tankers, storage and every conceivable part of the energy supply chain. That has never
happened before. Usually, when the upstream is making money, downstream refining is losing money. It wasn’t so long ago (only two years) that refining margins were depressed. Today they are robust.
B. Even a small hedge fund collapse would ripple through the financial world and cause a massive credit
collapse
Henry C.K. Liu, chairman of a New York-based private investment group and writes for The Asia Times, 19 Sept 2006, “The Coming Showdown” <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2006w38/msg00010.htm>
A major showdown is shaping up between hedge funds, investment banks and commercial banks. Unlike LTCM, whose trouble was one fund being too big to exit
without massive loss, the current Achilles heel is the proliferation of funds all imitating each other, with aggregate sums that defies orderly liquidation. Instead of one big fat man on a small
row boat, no matter which side he moves, the boat overturns, we now have three thousand guys all moving together from side to side on a ferry boat in a storm, each
move rocking the boat harder until its capsizes. The investment bank power houses are looking to make a killing from the demise of
the hedge funds on the theory that someone's loss is someone elses' gain in any market. The do this by having more capital than any one single hedge fund. The commercial banks are looking to high
profits from trading credit derivatives derived from the debts. The game is a three-legged stool that needs a cooperative symbosis among the three components to stay afloat. When anyone
of the three starts to seek gains at the expense of the other two, the game implodes and quickly transforms into a game of survival of
the earlier exit, which in financial terms is a systemic rout. When the hedge fund industry loses $100 billion, that money goes to the
parties betting against them, which are the investment banks. The flow of funds is intermediated by commercial bank loans. The hedge fund
investors as a group loses $100 billion and the investment bank share holders get $100 billion less investment bankers' take. No big deal in the macro picture. The trouble is leverage. Most hedge fund strategies
rely on leverage to reap high profit and a loss of over 10% can be fatal, leaving the other two components in the game with
uncollectable collectables. And the meltdown begins with margin calls that distorts the flow of funds. The housing bubble burst, while a heavy
load, is not going to be the straw that will break the camel's back. The straw will be the hedge funds.
C. Credit liquidation means extinction

Norman Bailey 1990 (Senior director of International Economic Affairs) The World and I,
The thirties, after all, began three months after the inception of the Great Depression arid ended four months after the start
of World War II. This was not a coincidence. Tens of millions were killed and maimed in the Second World War. If another
historical credit liquidation cycle is allowed to take place in the usual chaotic fashion the chances of another global armed conflict
will be greatly increased-this time not only would hundreds of millions (rather than tens of millions) be killed or wounded, but
the very hopes and the future of [hu]mankind*.
STP Lab 127
2008
LINK EXTENSIONS- HEDGE
Hedge funds have upwards of 145 billion invested in crude oil

Wall Street Journal, January 3 2008 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119930154139162791.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>
While finding oil in the ground has been getting harder, it became a lot easier to buy oil on paper. The New York Mercantile Exchange started round-the-
clock electronic trading of its main crude benchmark in September 2006, and improved access to previously restricted energy-trading markets. Financial
institutions created new vehicles for making bets on the price of oil without having to manage futures holdings. It was the Nymex where
the historic $100-a-barrel price was recorded yesterday at 12:09 p.m. EST. That was the price in a single floor trade of the benchmark February crude-oil futures
contract. A Nymex spokeswoman said the trade was legitimate. The benchmark price settled at $99.62, up $3.64. The ease of trading has helped attract a
flood of new money. Oil markets were once dominated by physical traders -- firms that needed to take delivery of the crude oil to run through refineries or trade
with partners. Most of the new market entrants have no interest in ever taking delivery of a barrel of oil. The new money comes from hedge funds
seeking profits in sharp oil-price moves, pension funds seeking diversification and a hedge against inflation, and Wall Street commodity desks risking their
own capital. The number of oil-futures bets outstanding on Nymex has quintupled since 2001. Because oil has been rising at the same
time, the dollars at stake in the main oil-futures benchmark, not including options, rose from roughly $7 billion in 2001 to more than $145
billion, calculates Ben Dell, energy analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
Hedge market stumble causes global econ collapse as investors rush capital
away from the US
Rex Nutting, writer for MarketWatch, July 26, 2007 “Subprime could create global crisis, economist says”
<http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/economist-world-one-hedge-fund-collapse/story.aspx?guid=%7BC9E3B6A4-A22E-43D2-
BA2A-EC4A8F61D2E4%7D>
"Unlike the financial crisis of a decade ago, however, global capital would likely flow away from U.S. markets, not to them, as the
genesis for the crisis lies within the U.S. financial system." After Bear Stearns was forced to write off the value of two large hedge funds that had invested heavily in
securities backed by subprime debt, it could take just one more "Bear-like event" for the financial system to freeze up, "If there's another major hedge fund
that does stumble, that could elicit a crisis of confidence and a global shock," Zandi said. The potential "is quite high," he said. He gave it a
one-in-five chance. Zandi said global financial conditions have been supported by strong growth and substantial liquidity,
supercharged by "unprecedented risk tolerance." But that's changing. Global liquidity is drying up, with central banks tightening. And risk is being re-
priced.
STP Lab 128
2008
IMPACT TAKEOUTS- PEAK OIL
Transition away from oil will be smooth, not a crash. Previous transitions prove
this.
Bailey ‘04 (Ronald, Science Correspondent for Reason Magazine, Feb. 18, “Are We Out of Gas Yet?” Reason Online,
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021804.shtml)
If demand for oil begins to outstrip the supply, prices will rise, signaling companies and consumers to use less, develop
new technologies, switch to other fuels, increase their insulation, and so forth. "Demand for energy is going to move away from heavy
hydrocarbons," Lynch predicts. "Coal is first, oil is next." He expects that our old hydrocarbon friends will be replaced in our affection by
natural gas, nuclear, and other forms of energy as those technologies improve. "It will be much like the transition in the 20th
century from coal to oil in the residential heating and transportation sectors or like the transition from horses to cars," he says. The Oil Age will
end, not with a horrific screech leading to a destructive crash, but with a barely perceptible, well-lubricated, smoothly
braked halt, one that is merely a prelude to moving smoothly and rapidly forward again.
Transition from the peak will be smooth – No depression, No wars, No crash

Schafersman, Professor of Geology, Miami – Ohio, ’02 (Steven, prof. of geology @ Miami University, Oxford, OH,
“Be Scared; Be Very Scared,” http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/badgeology/energy/commentary.htm)
Furthermore, when the peak and decline are reached--as must inevitably occur sometime in the future-- why
shouldn't the decline be gradual and
steady, thus allowing economies to slowly but steadily transition to alternative and renewable energy resources? The
doomsayers predict, again with no or little evidence, that when the decline begins the price surge will be enormous and
chaotic, thus leading to political upsets and territorial wars. The alarmists apparently believe that there are no buffering
effects in national and global economies, such as, for example, when the supply of oil decreases with a constant demand,
the price will rise proportionately, causing demand to decrease until supply and demand are once again in equilibrium. Of
course, some will experience a decrease in their standard of living, but major depression and war? I don't think so.
Transition from the peak will be smooth – No depression, No wars, No crash

Schafersman, Professor of Geology, Miami – Ohio, ’02 (Steven, prof. of geology @ Miami University, Oxford, OH,
“Be Scared; Be Very Scared,” http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/badgeology/energy/commentary.htm)
Furthermore, when the peak and decline are reached--as must inevitably occur sometime in the future-- why
shouldn't the decline be gradual and
steady, thus allowing economies to slowly but steadily transition to alternative and renewable energy resources? The
doomsayers predict, again with no or little evidence, that when the decline begins the price surge will be enormous and
chaotic, thus leading to political upsets and territorial wars. The alarmists apparently believe that there are no buffering
effects in national and global economies, such as, for example, when the supply of oil decreases with a constant demand,
the price will rise proportionately, causing demand to decrease until supply and demand are once again in equilibrium. Of
course, some will experience a decrease in their standard of living, but major depression and war? I don't think so.
STP Lab 129
2008
OIL TAKEOUT CONT.
The Current Oil dependency levels aren’t threatening to the world economy
John Mitchell et all, Chairman of the Energy and Environment Programme at the Royal Institute of International
Affairs, Koji Morita, Norman Selley, and Jonathan Stern, Fellows at the Energy and Environment Programme at the
Royal Institute of International Affairs, The New Economy of Oil, 2001 pg.191
Economics matter for national security because the strength of the economy affects the ability of a country to sustain a military defense policy and to support its
foreign policy with economic and, if necessary, military means. But from the security point of view the important question is not whether the risks of energy
trade with the Middle East can be avoided, but whether importing countries which are industrial or political rivals will be differently affected, and how big the effects
might be in relation to the alternatives. Figure 7.4 gives a broad picture of the importance of Middle East oil in terms of world energy and oil supplies, and in the
international oil trade now and in the ‘conventional vision’ for 2020 taking the ELA reference (International Energy Outlook 2000) view of Middle East oil
production capacity. In absolute numbers, the Middle East supplies about 26% of the world’s liquid fuel supplies and about 10% of the
world’s energy supplies. By 2020, using rather positive assumptions about growth in oil demand, these percentages could grow to about 36% of
oil supplies and about 13% of world energy supplies.8 Today the Middle East oil accounts for about 5% of US energy consumption and
about 10% of European energy consumption. For 2020 the proportions will be roughly the same. In the long run, this level of dependence should
not be regarded as life-threatening to the world economy or as carrying intolerable economic risks to energy users.
Link Turns-U.S. Presence in the Caspian
U.S. presence in Caspian and Central Asia key to prevent Russian

monopolization, instability and major war outbreak
Strachota 2 Krzysztof Strachota is the Director of Central Asia and Caucuses Section
at the Center at the Center for Eastern Studies in Warsaw, Stefan Batory
Foundation (Warsaw), and Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe
(Washington, DC). “Russian Policy in the Caucuses and Central Asia” Toward an
Understanding of Russia: New European Perspectives, Council on Foreign
Relations, New Yorkm p. 132-133.
The process of reconstructing Russia’s influence in Asia gained in intensity after September 11, 2001, because of Russia’s
importance in the antiterrorist coalition and strong political factions in Afghanistan (especially after the defeat of the Taliban) and
the surrounding region. Russia’s most important entry point for the future is its position in the south of the CIS in Central Asia
and the southern Caucasus. This is the region that will decide Russia’s superpower potential. So far, as a result of traditions
and weak economic tools, Russia has been building its influence in this region by playing on weaknesses and local conflicts. This
destabilizes the region and hinders its development, but this policy seems to be successful in the short term. In the longer term,
it may have catastrophic results beyond the region. The great threat for this policy after September 11, 2001 is strong military,
political and economic engagement on the part of the United States (and the European Union in the economic sphere) in Central
Asia and the Caucasus. This calls into question Russia’s monopoly, gives a geopolitical alternative for the region, strengthens the
independence of the new states, and encourages growth in terms of regional stability. These opposing tendencies—U.S.
involvement in Russia’s sphere of influence and growing role of Russia in the coalition, Russia’s particular influence in
Central Asia and Afghanistan with Russia flexibility in Moscow-Washington relations—create a completely new style of
policy for Russia in the south of the CIS. Thanks to its position in the region, Russia has become an important player in
global (Asiatic) policy and a kind of partner and ally for the United States. Though thus far it is symbolic, the breaking of
Russia’s monopoly in Central Asia by the United States seems to be a good price to pay for the change in Russia’s position,
particularly as Moscow has been keeping fairly tight control of political processes in the region. Russia’s biggest problem
will be keeping these political instruments and finding solutions for the region’s social, economic, and cultural problems.
STP Lab 130
2008
OIL PEAK CONT.
U.S. presence in Central Asia is essential—leaving russia in control leads
terrorism, pakistani coups, and major war outbreaks
Strachota 2002 Krzysztof Strachota is the Director of Central Asia and Caucuses Section at the Center at the Center for
Eastern Studies in Warsaw, Stefan Batory Foundation (Warsaw), and Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe
(Washington, DC). “Russian Policy in the Caucuses and Central Asia” Toward an Understanding of Russia: New
European Perspectives, Council on Foreign Relations, New Yorkm p. 131.
As the antiterrorist coalition has expanded, the new era of U.S. involvement in the south of the CIS has become fact. Never
before has the United States had a direct military presence here. This creates both enormous opportunities and enormous
dangers. The presence of the United States in the region seem inevitable: a state that wants to play the role of a superpower
cannot allow itself to be absent from a place where the influences of the greatest power of Asia (at once partners and rivals of the
United States) clash, four of which have nuclear weapons (Russia, China, Pakistan, and India). This is especially true as
Pakistan, hitherto the linchpin of U.S. support, is undoubtedly experiencing immense internal tensions that threaten destabilization
with far-reaching results beyond the region’s borders. Thus, it becomes key to provide enormous and constant support—both political
and economic—for building independent and efficient states in the region. U.S. involvement also seems beyond debate in a region
where the Islamic fundamentalism that given birth to terrorism plainly has perfect conditions for development (both in
Afghanistan and Tajikistan, the entire Fergana Valley, and the Northern Caucasus, Chechnya, and Dagestan). The
problems that accompany (and frequently precede) fundamentalism include uncontrolled trade in drugs and arms, as well
as problems both social and humanitarian (such as refugees). Despite its rhetoric, Russia is not able to solve these problems,
and even seems to generate them (considering the example of Chechnya, and indirectly Tajikistan). The current Russia-
centered defense system therefore requires fundamental revision; otherwise problems will snowball out of control.
Abrogating US leadership in the Caspian leads to regional conflict.

Major Adrian W. Burke, USMC, Recent Graduate of the Naval Command and Staff College, Student at the Marine Corps’ School of
Advanced Warfighting, logistics officer, Strategic Review, Fall 1999 p. 29
The President detailed US. national policy for the Caspian Sea region in the National Security Strategy. The combined Middle East
Central Asia "energy field" contains the single largest concentration of hydrocarbon reserves in the world and warrants US.
attention. Ensuring the U.S. corporate lead on development of the region's resources and nullifying Russian and Iranian influence on
oil field exploration and development and pipeline export routes form the basis of this policy. In order to maintain influence in the
Caspian basin, the United States must engage the regional heads of state, work cooperatively with US. industry, advance US.
military cooperation, and all the while, address the complex challenges of access and energy security. The recommended Framework
forms the basis for a Caspian Sea Basin Strategy that positions the US. as a regional leader and takes the bold step toward
normalization of relations throughout the region. Regional leaders are in pursuit of economic independence and sovereignty.
Abrogating a leadership role would leave a vacuum that would exacerbate regional conflict. The U.S. can be a regional stabilizer. It
is in the best interests of the United States, diplomatically, economically, and militarily, to be involved in the development of the
countries and the resources of the Caspian Sea basin.
STP Lab 131
2008
OIL TAKEOUT CONT.

US hegemony in Eurasia is vital to prevent massive international instability.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former United States National Security Advisor, "The Eurasian Balkans," The Grand Chessboard, 1997,
online at http://www.treemedia.com/cfrlibrary/library/geopolitics/brzezinski.html
Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia -- and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how
effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. Obviously, that condition is temporary. But its duration, and
what follows it, is of critical importance not only to America's well-being but more generally to international peace. The sudden
emergence of the first and only global power has created a situation in which an equally quick end to its supremacy -- either because
of America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival -- would produce massive
international instability. In effect, it would prompt global anarchy. The Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington is right in
boldly asserting: A world without U.S. primacy will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic
growth than a world where the United States continues to have more influence than any other country in shaping global affairs. The
sustained international primacy of the United States is central to the welfare and security of Americans and to the future of freedom,
democracy, open economies, and international order in the world.(1) In that context, how America "manages" Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the
globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and
economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's
subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 percent of the
world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia
accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources (see Tables). Eurasia is also the
location of most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six
biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world's overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are
located in Eurasia. The world's two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political
and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for
America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one. Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played.
Although geostrategy -- the strategic management of geopolitical interests -- may be compared to chess, the somewhat oval-shaped Eurasian
chessboard engages not just two but several players, each possessing differing amounts of power. The key players are located on the
chessboard's west, east, center, and south. Both the western and the eastern extremities of the chessboard contain densely populated
regions, organized on relatively congested space into several powerful states. In the case of Eurasia's small western periphery,
American power is deployed directly on it. The far eastern mainland is the seat of an increasingly powerful and independent player,
controlling an enormous population, while the territory of its energetic rival -- confined on several nearby islands -- and half of a
small far-eastern peninsula provide a perch for American power.
STP Lab 132
2008
LINK TURNS- PREVENTS SHOCKS

Limiting oil imports makes us more vulnerable to supply disruptions
Diane Katz, director of science, environment, and technology policy with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 4/1,
2002, http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=4129
The fact is that oil imports per se pose no threat to national security. There is more oil to be had today from a wider variety of
sources than ever before. According to economist Donald Losman of the National Defense University, the United States now is
actually far less dependent on Middle East oil supplies than three decades ago. Venezuela and Saudi Arabia alternate as our No. 1
and No. 2 suppliers, while Mexico and Canada rank third and fourth, respectively. Moreover, world oil reserves have increased
dramatically thanks to technological advances in locating and extracting fuels at lower cost. Robert L. Bradley Jr., president of the
Institute for Energy Research, has calculated that known world oil reserves are more than 15-times greater than when record keeping
began in 1948. Gas reserves are almost four-times greater than in the 1970s, and coal reserves have risen 75 percent in the past two
decades. If the United States limits oil imports it will become more dependent on its remaining sources, thereby increasing its
vulnerability to supply disruptions. Artificial conservation measures, meanwhile, actually invite increased consumption, as
demonstrated by the doubling of vehicle miles traveled since the federal fuel efficiency regime began in 1975.
Oil shocks cause economic depression and war.

Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers, 2004, The End of Oil, pg.12-13
Suppose, for example, that worldwide oil production hits a kind of peak and that, as at Ghawar, the amount of oil that oil companies
and oil states can pull out of the ground plateaus or even begins to decline — a not altogether inconceivable scenario. Oil is finite,
and although vast oceans of it remain underground, waiting to be pumped out and refined into gaso¬line for your Winnebago, this is
old oil, in fields that have been known about for years or even decades. By contrast, the amount of new oil that is being discovered
each year is declining; the peak year was 1960, and it has been downhill ever since. Given that oil cannot be produced without first
being discovered, it is inevitable that, at some point, worldwide oil produc¬tion must peak and begin declining as well — less than
ideal circumstances for a global economy that depends on cheap oil for about 40 percent of its energy needs (not to mention 90
percent of its transportation fuel) and is nowhere even close to having alternative energy sources. The last three times oil production
dropped off a cliff — the Arab oil embargo of 1974, the Iranian revolution in 1979, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War — the resulting
price spikes pushed the world into recession. And these disruptions were temporary. Presumably, the effects of a long-term
permanent disruption would be far more gruesome. As prices rose, con¬sumers would quickly shift to other fuels, such as natural
gas or coal, but soon enough, those supplies would also tighten and their prices would rise. An inflationary ripple effect would set in.
As energy became more expensive, so would such energy-dependent activities as manufacturing and transportation. Commercial
activity would slow, and segments of the global economy especially dependent on rapid growth — which is to say, pretty much
everything these days — would tip into recession. The cost of goods and services would rise, ultimately depressing economic
demand and throwing the entire economy into an enduring depression that would make 1929 look like a dress rehearsal and could
touch off a desperate and probably violent contest for whatever oil supplies remained.
STP Lab 133
2008
LINK TURNS- U.S. PRESENCE IN MIDDLE EAST
Oil dependence is the reason for the strong US presence in the Middle East.
Press TV, 2007 US hunts for oil in Persian Gulf Wed, 23 May 2007 20:13: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?
id=10775&sectionid=351020206
"The presence of US troops in the region has nothing to do with the security of Arabs, but it is in the framework of
Washington's greed to access oil reservoirs in the region," he stressed. "Our Arab brothers well understand this reality," he
said.
Al-Sharaa underlined that Arabs know very well that the United States is in need of oil and is the world's largest oil consumer,
adding that the US therefore intends to dominate the oil rich Persian Gulf region.
U.S. withdrawal from the gulf leads to war

Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and raq have, in the past, both
sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf ooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their
independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran
controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained
hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other
oil importing nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its
influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace
process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. The extension of instability,
conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to
avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living.
Middle East war goes global nuclear.

John Steinbach 2002 Israeli Nuclear weapons: a threat to piece, 3/3 http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mat0036.htm
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament
negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire
missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar
Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and
before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying
for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own
satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control
negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their
actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity)
is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."
STP Lab 134
2008
LINK TURNS-MIDDLE EAST
Oil is the reason for our military presence in the Middle East
Irfan Asghar The Nation (Pakistan) March 4, 2008 HEADLINE: ARTICLE: The real motive
The salience of oil in the US policy can be gauged from the fact that it has unleashed forces of war in the Middle East
to control its oil reserves. The Middle East not only has the world's largest oil reserves but also the cheapest to produce. If
the Middle East did not have the major energy reserves of the world, then policymakers today wouldn't care much about it. If
we read every strategic document regarding the Middle East produced by Washington for decades, it stresses oil as the
major factor behind the importance of the area. In the early 1930s, US companies obtained a foothold in Saudi
Arabia.Dependence on oil from the Middle east also explains our need to send troops to that area.
Reducing our oil dependence will eliminate our reason for sending our troops there
George Heitmann, Special to The Morning Call – Freelance Morning Call (Allentown, Pennsylvania) May 13, 2008
HEADLINE: Focus on energy efficiency, not energy independence
Sen. John McCain, addressing an approving audience, has indicated that his energy independence plan, by reducing our
reliance upon Middle East oil, will eliminate future needs for sending U.S. troops into that troubled area. Some
observers, such as Chris Matthews of "Hardball," have taken his remarks as a gaffe, revealing his acceptance of Alan
Greenspan's expressed "inconvenient truth" that the Iraqi war is about oil. Of course, the Middle East is important
because of oil, and Israel. Whatever the proximate cause of the Iraqi war, a fundamental reason for U.S. interest in the
Middle East is oil. That should not
come as surprise to any thinking person.
STP Lab 135
2008
LINK TURNS- TERRORISM
Decreasing oil dependence encourages terrorist aggression

The Union Leader, 2/14/2002
Leftist critics of American involvement in the Middle East are urging the United States to raise federal fuel efficiency standards to reduce dependence on foreign
oil. They claim that our purchasing of oil from that region is angering radical terrorists who would leave us alone if only we removed our presence and never again
set foot on their sand-swept shores. Conservative critics of foreign oil dependency say the United States must discover and use additional
domestic sources of oil because buying oil from Arabs indirectly funds Middle Eastern terrorist organizations. Once we have these new sources of oil, we can
stop writing checks to Mohammed and let that region alone. Either way, the result is the same: Scared by the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States will
have pulled out of the Middle East and turned inward. If this happens, the unavoidable conclusion that all Islamist jihad warriors will
come to is that terrorism against the United States works. There is another answer, however. The United States does not have to turn tail and run.
Instead, we could solve the problem. And dependence on oil from the Middle East is not the problem. The problem is the theocratic Middle
Eastern regimes that control the oil and use Western dollars to fund terrorist organizations. This includes “friendly” countries like Saudi Arabia.
Bioterrorism causes extinction

John Steinbruner, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the committee on international security and arms
control of the National Academy of Sciences, Foreign Policy, December 22, 1997
That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The
aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it
is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military
planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological
agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few
pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the
risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be
capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918
influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
STP Lab 136
2008
PEAK OIL EXTENSIONS
No such thing as peak oil – the world can run on oil for another 200 years.
Neil Reynolds, The Globe and Mail (Canada), "'Peak oil' doomsayers fall silent as reserves grow ever larger" April 11,
2007 lexis
The "peak oil" hypothesis, relentlessly propounded for decades, holds that the world has passed (or will momentarily pass) the highest point it can ever reach in
oil production - at the halfway mark in the depletion of global oil resources. It holds that this imminent peak necessarily marks the start of an irreversible decline in
production. It holds, in other words, that the end of oil is nigh. The principal problem is that the hypothesis is demonstrably wrong - and is vigorously
proven wrong year after year. In 1979, the "life-index" of global oil reserves was calculated as 35 years - suggesting, superficially, that
known oil reserves could support the current level of production only through 2007. In 2003, after decades of accelerated production, this index had risen to 40 years.
It has now risen further to 45 years - moving us safely through mid-century. Indeed, the record-setting oil production last year marked the umpteenth
consecutive year that "peak oil" theorists have found it necessary once again to run the numbers and once again to postpone the end
time of oil. It was in 1989 that Colin Campbell, the prominent Irish champion of "peak oil," proclaimed that the global peak had already occurred - a declaration he
found it expedient, almost immediately, to amend; "peak oil," he said, would instead occur in 1995. He now opts for 2010. Yet global oil production, since 1989, has
risen by 20 per cent (13.8 million barrels a day), global oil supply by 28 per cent (18.9 million barrels a day). The production records set last year were significant for
a number of other "peak oil" prophets, including Marion King Hubbert himself, the American geophysicist who devised "peak oil" analysis in the mid-fifties and who
accurately predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in 1979. In 1956, he determined that global oil would peak "in about 50 years" - in other words, 2006. At the
pinnacle, he said, the world would consume 12 Gb of oil a year. In 2004, Mr. Campbell increased this number, almost doubling it, to 23 Gb. For his part, Texas
oilman T. Boone Pickens has held that oil would peak at 30 Gb - a level exceeded last year. Yet the world's most comprehensive measure of oil
resources keeps right on growing - higher, yes, but at a faster pace as well. TrendLines, the Canadian statistical research company, confirms this
assertion in its February report on URR - "ultimate recoverable reserves." In an analysis of optimum reserves, TrendLines concludes that the world's URR is now
increasing, depending on the period you select for comparison, at twice or thrice its historical pace. From 1957 through 2006, it says, URR grew at an average annual
rate of 2.4 per cent. From 1979, it grew at an average annual rate of 4.2 per cent. From 2000, it grew at an average annual rate of 6 per cent. "Peak oil" prophet Mr.
Campbell, TrendLines says, has underestimated the actual rise in URR by tenfold. In 2000, the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) calculated that
global URR would increase by 2.4 per cent a year for the foreseeable future - rising from 1,669 billion barrels in 1995 to 3,345 billion barrels in
2025. (A billion barrels - one Gb - is roughly the amount of oil that the U.S. keeps in its Strategic Petroleum Reserve.) "Peak oil" proponents dismissed the USGS
analysis as impossibly optimistic. As with all apocalyptic manifestations, peaks must necessarily be imminent. Yet the forecast has proven significantly understated.
Driven by smart technology, global URR now increases each year at unprecedented rates. It has now (December, 2006) reached 3,288 Gb, not
far off the USGS calculation for 2025. It increased last year by 114 Gb, compared with a historical annual average increase of 47 Gb. Sustained at this rate for
another 20 years, the world's ultimately recoverable oil could increase by another two-thirds to 5,568 Gb, or three times the resource
when "peak oil" proclamations began. Assuming consumption of 30 Gb a year, this URR could sustain production for something
approaching 200 years. Once again, the end is not nigh.
STP Lab 137
2008
PEAK OIL EXTENSIONS
Decades of oil and gas in current reserves; and more is being discovered constantly
Wingrove ’04 [Martyn, Lloyd’s List, Issue #58687, Insight & Opinion, June 25, l/n]
WITH oil and natural gas demand continuing to climb, higher this year than anyone predicted, the question of the volumes
of reserves is gaining importance. BP's leading analysts estimate that the world now holds 1.15trn barrels of oil in proven
reserves, which is enough to carry on producing at current levels for 41 years. The picture for natural gas is even rosier
with 176trn cu m of proven reserves, which would provide 67 years of production. While there is enough oil to cover
more than 40 years of production, in both cases the Middle East and former Soviet Union hold the majority of these
resources. This may be good news for these nations, but is less than pleasant for countries heavily dependant on oil
imports. And security of supply will continue to be a major geopolitical issue for perhaps the next four decades, so
political stability in the Middle East will remain important.
"Reserves have grown over time and it is clear that the issue of energy security is driven not by a physical shortage of
supply, but by the challenges of ensuring that there will be sufficient traded oil and gas to meet rising demand," says BP's
group chief executive Lord Browne of Madingley. "On recent trends there appears to be considerable scope for proved
reserves to keep rising in Russia and elsewhere." There is also clear evidence that the international oil companies, who
have only limited access to resources in the Middle East and FSU, need to raise their exploration levels to find new
reserves not held in these regions. "Despite those who say we are about to run out of oil and gas, the figures in our review
confirm there is no shortage of reserves," says Peter Davies, BP's chief economist.
The British oil major has released its annual Statistical Review of World Energy, providing a timely reminder that the
only issue when it comes to reserves is access. BP's review has incorporated data from national statistics and other
secondary sources to compile the reserves figures. BP's review also provides production, consumption, pricing, trade
movement and refining margin data back for the past 10 years. There are also sections for nuclear power, hydroelectricity
and renewables. On oil reserves, the review shows globally that they have increased by 10% since 2002, although part of
this is through new data gathering work. The figures also include 11bn barrels of resources in Canadian oil sands that are
under active development and a better informed data series for Russia. "1.15trn barrels represents 41 years of world oil
production at current rates," says Mr Davies. "This does not mean that oil will run out in 41 years time; more oil will
inevitably be proved before then while production is unlikely to be flat of constant." This is in contrast to 1980, when BP's
review showed there were only 29 years of production with 700bn barrels of oil resources. "The world has since produced
80% of the proved reserves of 1980 and we are still left with 70% more reserves than when we started, as a result of
exploration success and new technologies," says Mr Davies.
STP Lab 138
2008
PEAK OIL EXTENSIONS

Unconventional petroleum sources remain abundant
Schafersman, Professor of Geology, Miami – Ohio, ’02 (Steven, prof. of geology @ Miami University, Oxford, OH, “Be Scared; Be
Very Scared,” http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/badgeology/energy/commentary.htm)
Next, the doomsayers universally ignore petroleum resources other than oil. Coal and natural gas remain abundant in the
world, and the former can be converted to oil (synthetic fuels) and the latter is now replacing it on ever greater scales. No one
is predicting that these will run out soon. But in addition, oil can be profitably produced today using modern technologies from
oil sands and heavy oil deposits (tar sands), and proven reserves of these in Canada, Venezuela, and Russia equal or exceed
all the crude oil produced until the present. In addition, liquified natural gas (gas liquids) resources are believed to be enormous and their exploitation
only just begun. That leaves gas hydrates (clathrates) in oceanic sediments and oil shale (actually, kerogen in shale that can be converted to oil). These
petroleum resources are simply colossal, although they cannot be exploited with today's prices or technology, but that
could change. All of the doomsayer arguments rest on the decline in crude oil alone, and their arguments fail to the extent
that other petroleum resources are able to replace oil as an energy source. Since the amount of these additional petroleum
resources is many times greater than the proven crude oil reserves, the doomsayers' arguments fail quite readily, indeed.
Former oil industry executives argue that we have double the amount of
recoverable oil as we think
Sarah Barmak, staff-Toronto Star June 21, 2008 S The Toronto Star HEADLINE: Oil, oil everywhere? Well, just
maybe; An English industry insider says we've grossly underestimated our reserves. Could he be right?
Ask him about oil, and Dr. Richard Pike has a rather sunny outlook. Oil and gas, he says confidently, will be around well into the next century. Pike can maintain his optimism because he knows something no one else knows. He
believes that a simple mathematical error - the sort made by first-year university statistics students - is causing much of our panic over a worldwide oil shortage.
It's an error that oil companies, riding high on skyrocketing crude prices, may want you to believe. "This might be hard for some of your readers to take," he warns. With oil at $132 a barrel yesterday, tensions over gas prices are at a boiling point. But listen, he
says: at 1.2 trillion barrels, we have grossly underestimated the world's proven oil reserves. If he's right, we likely have double the amount
of recoverable oil that we think we have in the ground, or perhaps even more.
The argument is attracting attention at a time when many governments are looking for new sources of oil; U.S. President George W. Bush reversed his long-held position against offshore drilling this week.
Skeptics say Pike is just recycling an old argument: that companies underreport reserves on purpose to keep prices up. He claims the problem is more systemic than a few corporations playing with the stats, however.
Pike is an oil industry insider, an engineer by training. An employee of British Petroleum for 25 years, he is now the chief executive of England's Royal Society of Chemistry. He explains the world's most epic math mistake patiently, like a vaguely bemused
schoolteacher going over a problem with a dull student.
He first realized there was a problem two years ago, when he saw alarming discrepancies between figures the oil industry uses to
estimate the world's crude and those used by everyone else. Calculating the amount of oil in a field is notoriously difficult, so companies issue a probability figure, called their proven reserves, to shareholders
and outside bodies. It represents the amount of oil that has a 90 per cent chance of being met or exceeded by the field's actualproduction (giving it its name, P90). Apparently, no one bothered to let us know that oil companies have long been generating an entirely
different number for their own internal use. Not content with the hard certainty of P90, which in practice is almost always exceeded by a field's output, oil companies use more sophisticated measurements to yield numbers often two or even three times as high, helping
them decide things like how many wells they drill. Very often, those higher estimates are more accurate. Too bad they don't make it into the public domain. Instead, in order to get a picture of how much oil we have left, international organizations often simply add up
the conservative, proven reserve estimates for every field in the world. That's when the real headaches begin. "Because it's a probability-based set of numbers, you can't add them like that," says Pike. "That's completely wrong." Think of estimating oil fields like rolling
a pair of dice, Pike says. If youthrow just one die, the probability that you will roll higher than a one is five out of six. But if you throw two dice, the probability that you will roll higher than two - snake eyes - is not five out of six, it's 35 out of 36, since there are 36
different possible outcomes of a single throw of two dice. With two dice, you have a five-of-six chance of rolling not a two, but a four. "It's an interesting case where ... one plus one equals four," says Pike.Sooil is at $132 a barrel all because of ... a math screw-up?
"There are some very interesting mind games going on," he muses. Oil companies,
That, says Pike, and the fact that oil companies are likely turning a blind eye.
particularly those in the Middle East, are happy to let our shoddymath stand if it helps push crude prices ever higher.
STP Lab 139
2008
PEAK OIL EXTENSIONS

Hubbert’s Model is misinterpreted, misapplied, and it been proven wrong.
Schafersman, Professor of Geology, Miami – Ohio, ’02 (Steven, prof. of geology @ Miami University, Oxford, OH, “Be
Scared; Be Very Scared,” http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/badgeology/energy/commentary.htm)
M. King Hubbert's analysis and curve has been consistently misinterpreted and misapplied by the doomsayers (for their
interpretation, go to http://www.energycrisis.com/hubbert/). Hubbert's
curve is not a normal curve, but a plot of oil production plotted over
time; therefore, predictions from statistical tests applied to this curve are invalid. While Hubbert correctly predicted the
peak and decline of U.S. oil production with his curve, his attempts to do the same with both U.S. natural gas production
and world oil production failed. Fisher points out that a major flaw in using a symmetrical life cycle curve to predict future
production is its static nature: it assumes a known amount of an ultimate resource, and does not allow for resource
expansion due to technological advances or economic demand pressures. Ahlbrandt advocates a production-plateau model of oil resources
rather than the traditional Hubbert curve, because the former better represents the real-world conditions as we understand them now.
Doom-saying claims of peak oil are proven empirically false. This is complex issue but their research is weak,
stemming from the same old model by Hubbert. They can fool editors but the historical record and better
studies show that their model and their pessimistic claims are repeatedly wrong.
Lynch, Director, Asian Energy and Security, Center for International Studies, M.I.T., ‘98
[Michael, download date: 2-15-05, http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html ]
In the past two years,a number of articles have appeared warning not only of a new oil crisis, but of the end of the oil era, as oil production inevitably peaks and declines due to
inexorable geological forces. These include "Mideast Oil Forever?" by Joseph J. Romm and Charles B. Curtis and "Heading Off the Permanent Oil Crisis," by James J. MacKenzie, among others.
The profusion of articles on the subject is unfortunate, since the casual reader (and policy-maker) might conclude that the
large number of articles have an equally large amount of research behind them. In truth, most of these are not actually about oil, but take
the assumption that oil scarcity is imminent, especially outside the Middle East, and nearly all rely on a few pessimistic
quotes from oil men, or recent work by one or two geologists using what is known as a "Hubbert approach." Most notable are the recent
publication of the book The Coming Oil Crisis by Colin Campbell and the March 1998 Scientific American article "The End of Cheap Oil" by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrere.
The gist of their argument is that most of the world's oil has already been found, as evidenced by the alleged lack of recent giant discoveries; Middle East reserves have been overstated for political reasons; actual total recoverable resources are only about 1.8 trillion
barrels, not the 2.4 trillion barrels that others have estimated; existing fields will not continue to expand in size and production as others suggest; and most oil producing countries outside the Middle East are said to be near, if not past, their point of peak production,
which occurs when 50% of total oil resources have been produced. Production is predicted to drop off steeply afterwards. Thus, they forecast that "The End of Cheap Oil" is at hand and prices will be rising shortly. Understanding Forecasts (Good and Bad) These
issues are hugely complex. A wide variety of political, economic and geological factors affect oil production, and analysis requires an enormous amount of data, much of which is either not readily available or is unreliable. Few observers have the capacity to analyze the
forecasts of others, let alone make their own forecasts. Thus, as Vannevar Bush realized, when an expert, particularly with a scientific background, comes forward with detailed work and large quantities of (albeit hidden) data, it gains almost instant respectability,
particularly among editors who are not familiar with the subject.
But there are several methods of judging research that don't involve time-consuming or labor-intensive analysis. For one thing, analysts who don't acknowledge either data or research which contradicts their theories are implying they can't explain inconsistencies or
weakness in their work. Because in a complex system like world oil production, there is always some data which can support alternative viewpoints. Dry holes are always being drilled and new fields are always being found, and citing one or the other to support
pessimism or optimism proves nothing.
A better way to test forecast validity is to look at the historical record, and particularly, examine work done by the person making the forecast in question. In 1992, I did precisely this to
improve long-term oil price forecasting. The realization that the previous errors were due to forecasters assuming a 3% per year increase in real oil prices over the long-term made it possible to produce much more accurate forecasts.
In 1996, I published a piece discussing the various methods which were used to forecast oil supply, and argued that they,
too, were flawed by certain repetitive errors, namely: 1) bias, and especially pessimism, since nearly every forecast has
been too low since 1978, despite relying on price assumptions that were much too high; 2) similar forecasts for every
region, despite different fiscal systems, drilling levels and/or the maturity of the industry, suggesting omitted variables; 3)
misinterpretation of recoverable resources as total resources by using a point estimate instead of a dynamic variable,
growing with technology change, infrastructure improvements, etc.; so that 4) there is a tendency for all national, regional
or non-OPEC production forecasts to show a near-term peak and decline, which was always moved outward and higher in
later forecasts (the opposite of price forecasts).
As an example, note the behavior of the U.S. Department of Energy's production forecasts for the non-OPEC Third World, a region which, in aggregate, has experienced very little drilling and shows no sign of peaking, causing the forecasts to be repeatedly revised
upwards. I have numerous other such examples, for various countries and regions, as well as the globe. Few, if any, have been too optimistic.
The Case in Question: Campbell
Thus, an examination of the history of forecasts performed by these gentlemen is in order. First,the company Petroconsultants, which both men have been associated with in the past and which published Campbell's 1997 book,
published a nearly identical forecast in 1986, which showed regional production to 1995, at $25/barrel (equal to about $35/bbl in 1997$). The forecast incorrectly put non-
OPEC, non-Communist production at 20 mb/d in 1995 and dropping, when in reality it was 28 mb/d and rising. (Figure 2) Figure 3 shows the regional forecasts, normalized to
1986=100 to show the rates of change. Note that all regions peak within the time horizon of the forecast. It is not clear if either Campbell of Laherrere was involved in producing this forecast, however, they are employing the same
database of oil fields, and their results are suspiciously similar.

STP Lab 140
2008
Subsequently, Campbell published an article in the December 1989 Noroil which stated that "Most economic forecasts see relatively stable prices over the near future followed by a ramp of modest increase to the end of the century. But Figure 3 suggests that the
slope of declining supply will become a precipice if production is held at present levels, never mind increasing. When that happens, a major leap in prices seems inevitable unless the major exporting governments exercise deliberate restraint....Shortages seem to be
inevitable by the late 1990s, but knowledge of an impending supply shortfall may trigger an earlier price response, as foreseen in the Figure." His figure shows world oil production (including the Middle East) peaking in the late 1980s, and dropping sharply, from about
58 mb/d to 45 mb/d, with the comment that "Any short-term increase steepens subsequent decline." He also shows prices rising to the low $20s (about $27 in 1997$) as "increasing probability" with an "anticipated price leap from increased perception of declining
reserves, falling non-Middle East production, and falling exports, esp. from USSR." He predicted this might cause oil prices to reach $50/bbl (about $65 in 1997$) by 1994, then fluctuate around that level to the end of the century.
That same year, my Oil Prices to 2000 was published, taking the contrary view. I argued that most forecasts were too pessimistic about non-OPEC production and predicted that inflation-adjusted prices would fall to 2000, which the September 1989 Petroleum
Economist correctly noted was "heretical". Yet this proved quite accurate, as a comparison of forecasts from that period shows (Figure 4). (Later figures will compare production forecasts.) Since Campbell (1989) includes only a graph of his price forecast, it is
not shown here, but by the mid-1990s, he showed prices fluctuating around $50/bbl, about 200% too high.
The 1991 Forecast: Deja vu all over again?
Campbell's 1991 book is more illuminating, and damning, since he provides detailed production tables for most countries, including 32 non-Middle East, non-FSU producing countries which account for 36.8 mb/d in 1996. The aggregate error by 1996 is 7.9 mb/d, or
21.5% of production in those countries, as Table 1 shows. Twenty-four of the forecasts are too low, and eight are too high. An examination of the particular countries' errors is instructive about their nature.
,
For example, except for Italy, Tunisia and Oman in all of the countries where Campbell's forecast is too high, the upstream sector is controlled by national oil companies. This shows the importance of policy and economics, refuting the argument that geology alone
,
determines long-term production profiles. If Campbell is said to be projecting possible, not actual production, so that his error on these countries should be disregarded, then it leaves a total "optimistic" error of only 106 tb/d a trivial amount. This demonstrates clearly
that his method is biased in a scientific sense, always producing forecasts which will tend to be too low.
Additionally, the enormous error in countries like Canada and the United States indicates the inability of this measure to produce
accurate results. He argues that these are mature producing areas, where no more giants are to be found and cause surprise increases in oil production, and the oil field database he employs corrects for the conservative bias due to SEC reserve
reporting requirements. Since the oil resources are thus so well-known, the production curve should be extremely accurate. Yet even without any giant field discoveries, both countries have outperformed his
forecast far beyond levels conceivable to him. If this method doesn't work in mature regions with high-quality data, it is
hardly likely to be reliable elsewhere.
Similarly, the enormous predictive failure in the North Sea shows that extrapolation of discovery size does not produce accurate predictions of either future field size or resource estimates, since the error should be due more to underestimating new discoveries than
pessimism about the role of older fields, as is the case for the U.S.
considering individual countries in the Third World, his method seems to always generate a bell curve with imminent
Finally,
peaks for everyone outside the Middle East. Examples include Argentina, Egypt and Malaysia. As Table 1 showed, he was repeatedly too low for Third World
producers, especially those with relatively open upstream investment. In fact, what is remarkable is the similarity between Campbell's 1989, 1991 and 1997/98 forecasts (if one ignores the dates). Always, the peak is
imminent. But this precisely conforms to the argument in Lynch (1996), namely that this method almost always produces a near-term
peak, no matter when or where it is applied, and thus constantly needs to be revised upwards.
Broader Comparison
It might be thought that Campbell has simply reproduced the poor forecasts so often seen in the oil industry, but his errors are larger than most. As a test of the validity of my own 1989 forecast, I had earlier assembled other forecasts from that period for comparison, and
to these I add Campbell's projections. The fact that his work was done two years later than the others (although EMF11 was also 1991), should provide him with an advantage, since he has two more years of data to observe and any inherent errors in his work will have
less of an impact because of the shorter test period. Again, the forecasts are all normalized to common starting points, and some points are interpolated.
InFigure 12 , the forecasts for non-OPEC, non-FSU are shown, and Campbell's is clearly the worst of the lot. The same is true for OECD oil production, although for non-OPEC Third World, his inability to predict the impact of state-owned companies' lower
exploration levels leaves him in the middle of the forecast group, at least to 1996. Clearly, this method does not produce accurate results.
1997/98: Deja Vu All Over Again Again
In 1997 and 1998, C. J. Campbell published a book and two Oil and Gas Journal articles which argued that the price of oil is about to increase, since most major oil producing nations outside the Middle East are reaching their depletion midpoints, after which production
will decline, and decline sharply. Essentially this is the same argument from his 1989 and 1991 work, namely that oil production will imminently peak in all major countries outside the Middle East and global production cannot go much higher than the present amount.
Since he is clearly using precisely the same methodology, and does not explain the failure of his earlier predictions, it appears that all he has done is update his data, increase his resource estimates and production forecasts, and move his production peaks higher and
further out, exactly as Lynch (1996) contended would be necessary with this method.
Specifically, he increased his estimate of global oil resources from 1650 billion barrels to 1800 billion barrels, close to the amount of oil produced during that period. The 1997 book contains only a few regional tables, so his predictions for individual nations cannot be
analyzed. However, the world total is published, and as Figure 15 shows, it has increased dramatically from the 1991 publication. Also, W. Europe and the U.S. were published in his 1997 book, and they too show the same pattern of increasing.
Table 2
In his 12/29/97 OGJ article, he did present a number of small graphs showing bell curves for a variety of countries, some which he described as being past their depletion midpoint, some of which had not yet reached it. These are shown in , along with the
depletion midpoint which he gave in his 1991 book, and they reaffirm my earlier arguments. The fact that all of these countries are predicted to peak by 2001 implies that there is a pessimistic bias (#1 and 2 from Lynch 1996 above). And his having to move the
depletion midpoint out an average of 4 years for the countries which haven't peaked supports the argument (#4 from Lynch 1996 above) that this method always requires correction, and that the peak constantly needs to be revised to a higher, later level.
Conclusion
If Campbell's estimation methods produce accurate, rather than conservative, resource estimates, overcoming the objections about field and resource growth made by Adelman and Lynch, and if the Petroconsultants field size estimates are accurate because they don't
have to conform to SEC rules requiring conservative field size reporting, why have his production forecasts been much too low and why have his resource estimates increased?
Hubbert method fails because it takes recoverable (not total) resources as fixed, and assumes that to be the
Lynch (1996) argued that the
area under the curve of total production. When the estimate of the area under the curve (resources) is increased, the entire
increase must be applied to future production. This is exactly what is happening with Campbell, as Figure 15 shows. The errors in his 1991 forecast and the adjustments he has made in his latest work are thus
predicted by Lynch (1996). Campbell has not provided an alternative explanation, merely ignored them. And as Figure 18 shows, his forecast is well outside the mainstream.
Short-term prices will certainly fluctuate, and we will surely have more oil crises, since they are short-term events. Unfortunately, there is little doubt that the certain failure of the current Cassandras will be forgotten within a few years and a new round of alarms will be
sounded. Hopefully, it will not receive the attention that the current (and previous) ones did, and even more hopefully, most governments and companie s have already learned their lesson from the tens of billions of dollars wasted when others cried wolf during the
1970s.
STP Lab 141
2008
PEAK OIL EXTENSIONS
New technologies are developing quickly and will solve the impacts of the peak
Schafersman, Professor of Geology, Miami – Ohio, ’02 (Steven, prof. of geology @ Miami University, Oxford, OH, “Be Scared; Be Very
Scared,” http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/badgeology/energy/commentary.htm)
alternative and renewable energy sources--wind, solar, biomass fuels, etc.--and modern energy technologies--hybrid
Now we come to
are slowly but steadily increasing their importance in the energy mix of our
gasoline/electrical engines, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.--that
country. Yes, these are proportionately small now, but they are increasing faster than most people are aware. In fact, they are
increasing so rapidly that many energy experts believe that they will significantly supplant fossil fuels in specific circumstances in the coming decade. The unit energy
per cost factor of these alternative and renewable energy sources already equals coal and will soon equal petroleum in many cases. Once again, a decline in oil
availability would not significantly affect total energy availability, as other energy sources replace the use of oil. This will
happen naturally now, even before there is a decline in oil availability, since the alternative energy sources are cleaner and
potentially less expensive.
STP Lab 142
2008
NEGATIVE STRATEGY AGAINST THE TRADEABLE GAS RIGHTS AFF:

The Strategy: To begin, the TGR Aff has the following plan: The United States federal government should increase
alternative energy incentives in the United States by establishing a system of Tradable Gasoline Rights. A series of annual
targets will be set requiring the continued reduction of non-governmental oil consumption with the goal of a fifty-percent
reduction in oil consumption. The initial distribution of Tradable Gasoline Rights should limit the consumption of
gasoline by twenty-five percent. We’ll clarify.
Because of the way this plan is worded, it is crucial to understand that their plan is a mandate to reduce non-governmental
oil consumption in the US, not a way to increase alternative energy incentives. Their definition of incentives is obviously
the negative side of the word. So when running Topicallity on this plan, you should refer to the T Core and use the
Incentive= positive action Violation.
There are two choices for counter-plans to run against this aff, States or Gas Tax, the states CP is arguing that states could
do the aff plan better based on the fact they have more experience on the matter. Next is the Gas Tax CP. This CP is
extremely effective against the TGR aff although if you do decide to run (which is what I suggest) you have to be careful
about the T argument you make. The aff could easily argue that the neg mandates there plan as well as the aff, this kills
the T argument so be ready to defend why the Gas Tax CP solves in a more positive manner in comparison to the aff’s
way of doing the plan, show why you solve better specific to that argument for it’s necessary for the T argument to work.
The Gas Tax is the preferred CP, but if you feel like running the States CP there are some things to know.
When running the States CP you have more choice on T. You can run either the Incentives NOT Mandatory, or the
Incentive= Positive action with this CP from the T Core. The States CP is easier to defend than the Gas Tax CP yet it does
not address the TGR aff as effectively as the Gas Tax does because it isn’t that specific to the affirmative plan.
Next for this block’s effectiveness is the K. Now as most know this is a very difficult K to run if you do not understand it.
Whereas it is extremely affective to run if you do understand it, I strongly deter anyone from running it if you do not
understand what it entails. It is not crucial to the case so do not think that you will lose the debate if you don’t run it.
Next on this block is the Politics DA, it is provided for you in the TGR neg file and proves that the aff TGR plan is wrong
because:
1. Energy independence is popular.
2. There is public support for rationing-type proposals, making sacrifices, support rationing to help the less fortunate.
3. TGR causes political fights, politically unpopular, oil and auto lobbies hate aff plan, destroys political capital.
4. Unpopular with public.
5. Oil/Auto lobbies hate aff plan because it leads to fuel efficiency
STP Lab 143
2008
GAS TAX CP (1NC)
Text:
The United States federal government should increase the federal gasoline tax in
the United States to 50 cents a gallon. We will clarify.
The counter plan solves --
Increasing the gas tax would increase conservation, increase fuel efficiency and decrease oil
dependence
Andrew Sullivan Sunday, Apr. 11, 2004 By http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040419-610080,00.html The Case
aqfor a War Tax — on Gas
worst knock against a gas tax is that it is, well, a tax. Who likes that? But with soaring deficits and a war to pay for, taxes
are not an option — they're a necessity. The only relevant question is, Which taxes? The case for a gas tax is a straightforward
one. Gas prices are strikingly lower in America than anywhere else in the world; such taxes are relatively easy to collect; since an
overwhelming majority of Americans drive, few avoid the tax; and by adding a cost to the wanton consumption of gasoline, you
actually encourage conservation, accelerate fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, cut traffic and help wean Americans off the oil that
,
requires the U.S. to be so intimately involved in that wonderful cesspool of rival hatreds the Middle East. So what's not to
like?
Gas tax will reduce reliance on oil and spur technological innovation
Christopher Farrell AUGUST 19, 2005

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2005/nf20050822_3636_db013.htm Higher Gas Tax? Smart Move
What sort of action should government take in response to high energy prices? How about hiking the federal tax on
gasoline? Yes, you read that right. Washington should raise the federal tax on gasoline from its current 18.4 cents a gallon
to 50 cents -- or even $1.
STUFFED WITH PORK. The payoff from a steep gas tax could be huge, ranging from reduced reliance on Persian Gulf
oil producers to a surge in technological innovation in energy. What's more, an audacious gas-tax initiative would give
comfort to our allies and unsettle our enemies -- two big pluses during the war against terror and the fighting in Iraq.
STP Lab 144
2008
GAS TAX CP – SOLVENCY XT
Higher gas tax will spur technological innovation and solve oil dependence

Perhaps more important than economic efficiency: The incentive higher taxes could give to technological innovation. A
steep gas price will make consumers far more likely to try biodiesel and plug-in hybrids that until recently haven't been
price-competitive. It can also spur inventors to come up with ever more energy-frugal devices. Taken together, the price
for technological innovation will fall as the market for alternatives technologies grow.
Of course, a gas tax could exacerbate the financial pain many consumers feel today. But any cut in disposable income is
likely to be short-lived. The reason, quite simply, is that markets work. Oil and gas prices will come down as demand
declines and conservation grows. Foreign producers of oil would also realize that it's in their interest to keep prices down.
A gas tax would put a floor under the price of oil to accomplish the goals of lessening America's dependence on the
Middle East.
Gas tax is efficient and the best tool for getting consumers to choose fuel efficiency

Why wait? A gas tax is efficient. High pump prices are already dampening consumer demand for gas-guzzling SUVs and
spurring sales of fuel-thrifty hybrids such as the Toyota (TM ) Prius.
One reason for embracing a tax over, say, tightening the Corporate Automobile Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards is that a
tax unleashes the power of the market rather than relying on bureaucratic rulemaking. The price of gas goes up.
Consumers then decide how to spend their money rather than Congressional barons and high-paid petro- and auto-
lobbyists negotiating over minimum mileage standards, truck weights, or any of the other controversial issues that dog
CAFE. Get rid of CAFE. A high gasoline tax is a far superior tool for encouraging consumers to choose fuel efficiency.
And if someone really wants to own a giant SUV, that's fine -- so long as they're willing to pay the pump price.
STP Lab 145
2008
GAS TAX CP
Gas tax would solve by changing consumer behavior, spurring innovation and decreasing oil
dependence.
Jonathan V. Last: Our oil obsession needs gas tax Published 12:00 am PST Wednesday, December 19, 2007
http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/576417.html
Imagine a steep gas tax that was a pure consumptive tax -- that is, all of its revenue was funneled back to taxpayers in the
form of income tax cuts. That might stand a chance of (a) changing consumer behavior; and (b) spurring innovation by business,
hence; (c) costing us less blood and treasure in our attempts to ensure the stability of the Middle East.Taxes might be bad
economics generally, but when a market needs interfering with (a rare instance, and this is one), the least intrusive way
is ... it's hard to say this ... a tax. If the goal is some alternative form of energy or a technological development that solves the
problem, the government should not be in the business of trying to pick the winner (as it seems to be trying to do with ethanol).
Governments are, again as a rule, not good at that sort of thing.A gas tax wouldn't pick the next technological step. It might,
though, goose the development process a bit. And it would be nice if we could prod the market into finding an answer, say, before we
have to fight larger wars involving Saudi Arabia or Iran.
STP Lab 146
2008
GAS TAX IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO DECREASE

CONSUMPTION
Roger Ballentine and Jan Mazurek, March 2004, Progressive Policy Institute Report,
www.ppionline.org/documents/clean_cars_0304.pdf, clean cars: kicking America's habit
Most economists agree that the most efficient way to curb gasoline consumption is to raise prices at the pump by upping federal fuel
taxes.7 In December 2003, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that compared options for reducing U.S. oil
consumption. The report found, not surprisingly, that an increase in the gasoline tax would achieve the goal at a significantly lower
cost than those associated with increasing CAFE standards.8 Directly raising prices would also better reflect the hidden costs of using
oil: tailpipe pollution and greenhouse gas, congestion, and overseas military deployments.
Gas tax is better than “tradable gas rights”-
Greg Mankiw I am a professor of economics at Harvard University, where I teach introductory economics (ec 10)
among other coursesMonday, June 05, 2006 Feldstein on Gasoline
My Harvard colleague Martin Feldstein is clever. In today's Wall Street Journal, he is too clever by half.
Marty proposes that the government set up a system of "tradeable gasoline rights" to reduce gasoline consumption. Here is how he
describes it:
In a system of tradeable gasoline rights, the government would give each adult a TGR debit card. The gasoline pumps at
service stations that now read credit cards and debit cards would be modified to read these new TGR debit cards as well.
Buying a gallon of gasoline would require using up one tradeable gasoline right as well as paying money.
The government would decide how many gallons of gasoline should be consumed per year and would give out that total
number of TGRs....
A key feature of these gasoline rights is that they are tradeable. Individuals with more TGRs than they need could sell the
excess, while those who want to use more gallons than their allocation would have to buy extra TGRs. The gasoline
companies could act as clearing houses for these trades, using their gasoline pumps to sell TGRs in the same way that they
sell gasoline or to buy TGRs in exchange for the cash needed to purchase gasoline. Other institutions like banks could also
trade TGRs for cash.
As I am sure Marty would agree, this system is functionally equivalent to an increase in the gasoline tax, with the tax revenue
rebated lump-sum to the public. I have said many times that I like the idea of higher gasoline taxes, but Marty's scheme leaves me
cold. Do we need to create a new administrative bureaucracy because politicians are afraid to use the word tax? I hope not.
STP Lab 147
2008
States CP 1NC
Plan:
The Fifty States of America and United States territories should increase alternative energy incentives in the United States
by establishing a system of Tradable Gasoline Rights. A series of annual targets will be set requiring the continued
reduction of non-governmental oil consumption with the goal of a fifty-percent reduction in oil consumption. The initial
distribution of Tradable Gasoline Rights should limit the consumption of gasoline by twenty-five percent. We’ll clarify.
States can solve any alternative energy mechanism as well as the federal
government – they have experience with everything
Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015
The decisive action of many states — 27 currently have or are developing comprehensive climate action plans — is taking on added
importance for another reason: Innovative state climate and energy policies are showing skeptics in this country and in Congress
that, rather than being a burden, ground-breaking energy conservation and renewable energy programs can create economic
opportunity. Many of the more than 300 climate policies and mechanisms devised by various states will provide new business
opportunities, as all sectors of society — housing, industry, commerce, energy, agriculture, forestry, transportation, waste
management — adopt greater energy efficiencies and move to alternative sources of energy. Against the backdrop of inaction by the
Bush administration and Congress, the states have moved farther and more rapidly than most people realize. Indeed, this September,
ten mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states will begin implementing a cornerstone of effective national or global climate policy: A so-
called “cap-and-trade” system under which emitters of greenhouse gases — in this case, power plants — must begin steadily
reducing carbon emissions and can sell a portion of their emissions allotment once they begin implementing efficiencies. Power
plants that fail to meet their emissions targets could buy allotments from more efficient utilities.
STP Lab 148
2008
ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT K – 1NC
The ideology of the market has infiltrated discussions of both climate and
renewable energy – the affirmatives endorsement of economic incentives
maintains social hegemony and dismisses discussions of non-economic
evaluations – this makes criticisms of capitalism impossible
Lastly the discourse of both state and business needs taking seriously – not only its cynicism but also in its indifference for the chief victims, present and future.
Undemocratic modern politics cannot be understood without the opiate role of discourse. The destruction of energy policy and the
timidentry of RE into politics is happening as the modes of policy formulation and implementation are themselves
evolving in undemocratic ways. The discursive turn to politics both masks and distracts from the material interests
involved. The dangerous de-materialisation of climate change policy serves to hide increasing total energy emissions,
relentlessly polluting energy and increasing waste. Practices which obscure hegemony produce complicity with it. This
discourse co-exists with the devaluation and dismissal of non economic value-based discussion. Globally institutionalised
and politically rewarded, cognitive dissonance, denial and hypocrisy protect the practices of capital, workers and
consumers. They also protect a new phase of commodification creating intermediaries, financiers and producers of
environmental displacement services. They have long protected the privatization of control over the energy economy, and
are now being employed in a new phase of commodification of all aspects of policy: the agenda, the making of regulative law,
resourcing, and the mechanics of access. The state thus loses to a diffuse set of private interests the capacity to steer public debate and the privatization of the ‘public
good’ of policy is naturalized and little contested.
Coda: The British state is now almost completely saturated by the ideology of the market, a soft prey to capital. It has reached a point in its development where it is
being disembowelled. In the energy field, a mix of market-driven politics and state capitulation has undermined the framework of
systematic regulation, stripped the state of its capacity to make the long term plans necessary for capital to invest, let
alone the conditions for capital realisation. It has engineered a sector populated by firms with a tendency to crisis. It is unable even to satisfy
reasonable needs for long term policy or to provide the infrastructural and regulative security required by capital for its
energy investments. Even the private sector working party on the regulation of RE has no plan for the network. The state also abdicates its minimalist role as
co-ordinator of last resort/ mediator between interests / linker of policy between sectors, and has subcontracted these roles to capital (which capital cannot perform). It
has been stripped of any capacity to define the general interest or the public good, also subcontracting to capital the competence to mediate between conflicting
interests. It is insisting on - and vesting the remoralisation of politics in - civil society organisations the shape of which is dominated by the state, and in a culture of
individual responsibility that is wholly inadequate for the task of transforming the technological and political structure of the energy economy. Indispensible to every
aspect of society, the ‘energy sector’ is much more dangerously vulnerable than the public is led to imagine; and, while retail prices are currently rising, by themselves
neither price nor information is making mass social behaviour and the energy economy move towards de-carbonification at the pace necessary to stabilise climate
change in 50 years’ time – or perhaps ever.
STP Lab 149
2008
K CONT.
affirmative’s strategy of environmental protection is another tactic of a larger transnational campaign of
global capital, the use of incentives to produce meaningful ecological reform simply shifts consumerist
ideology into the environment which renders everything into capital to be consumed
Luke, Department of Political Science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1997 Timothy W., The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of
Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized Consumerism? http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.htm
All of these environmentalizing initiatives reveal different aspects of Nature's infrastructuralization in the disorganized
and incomplete transnational campaigns of environmentalized capital's terraforming programs. The actions of the Worldwatch
Institute, the Nature Conservancy, or the World Wildlife Fund, or the Sierra Club are frameworks within which a new habitus with its own
As
environmentalized social relations of production and consumption can come alive by guarding habitat as the supremely perfect site of habitus.
Baudrillard observes, "the great signified, the great referent Nature is dead, replaced by environment, which
simultaneously designates and designs its death and the restoration of nature as simulation model....we enter a social
environment of synthesis in which a total abstract communication and an immanent manipulation no longer leave any
point exterior to the system."115 Rendering wildlife, air, water, habitat, or Nature into complex new systems of rare goods
in the name of environmental protection, and then regulating the social consumption of them through ecological activism
shows how mainstream environmentalists are serving as agents of social control or factors in political economy to
reintegrate the intractable equations of (un)wise (ab)use along consummational rather than consumptive lines.
Putting earth first only establishes ecological capital as the ultimate basis of life. Infrastructuralizing Nature renders
everything on Earth, or "humanity's home," into capital--land, labor, animals, plants, air, water, genes, ecosystems. And, mainstream
environmentalism often becomes a very special kind of "home eco nomics" to manage humanity's indoors and outdoors
household accounts. Household consumption is always home consumption, because human economics rests upon terrestrial ecologics. Here the
roots of ecology and economics intertwine through "sustainable development," revealing its truest double significance: sustainably managing the
planet is the same thing as reproducing terrestrial stocks of infrastructorialized green capital. Whether or not
environmentalists prevent the unwise abuse or promote wise use of natural resources is immaterial; everything they do
optimizes the sign value of green goods and serves to reproduce global capital as environmentalized sites, stocks or
spaces--an outcome that every Worldwatch Institute State of the World report or Club Sierra ecotour easily confirms. Likewise, the scarcity
measures of Nature Conservancy or World Wildlife Fund scare campaigns show how everything now has a price, including wildlife preservation or
ecological degradation, which global markets will mark and meet in their (un)wise (ab)use of environmentalized resources.
STP Lab 150
2008
K CONT.
Resisting this reliance on economic evaluation is the ultimate ethical responsibility – the current social
order guarantees social exclusion on a global scale
Zizek and Daly 2k4 (Slavoj and Glyn, Conversations with Zizek page 14-16)
our ethico-political responsibility
For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that
is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the
millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties
concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with
these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal
capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost istic economism that has tended towards political
morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence
of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite . That is to say, the
prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as
a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of
contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears).
This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the
systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook
Marx’s central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-
discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals
such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose ‘universalism’ fundamentally
reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. In this way, neo-
liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply
a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place.
Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in
terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-
chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified
and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through
capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to
absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political
boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle.
Against this Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of
social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it
will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it
would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound
matrix.
STP Lab 151
2008
K CONT.
Our alternative is to completely withdraw from the ideology of capital – this is essential to destroy the
that allows capital to survive
Johnston, interdisciplinary research fellow in psychoanalysis at Emory University, 2004
Adrian, Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, December v9 i3 p259 page infotrac
Perhaps the absence of a detailed political roadmap in Zizek's recent writings isn't a major shortcoming. Maybe, at least for
the time being, the most important task is simply the negativity of the critical struggle, the effort to cure an intellectual
constipation resulting from capitalist ideology and thereby to truly open up the space for imagining authentic alternatives
to the prevailing state of the situation. Another definition of materialism offered by Zizek is that it amounts to accepting the internal
inherence of what fantasmatically appears as an external deadlock or hindrance (Zizek, 2001d, pp 22-23) (with fantasy itself being defined as the
false externalization of something within the subject, namely, the illusory projection of an inner obstacle, Zizek, 2000a, p 16). From this perspective,
seeing through ideological fantasies by learning how to think again outside the confines of current restrictions has, in and
of itself, the potential to operate as a form of real revolutionary practice (rather than remaining merely an instance of negative/critical
intellectual reflection). Why is this the case? Recalling the analysis of commodity ism, the social efficacy of money as the universal medium of
exchange (and the entire political economy grounded upon it) ultimately relies upon nothing more than a kind of "magic," that is, the belief in
money's social efficacy by those using it in the processes of exchange. Since the value of currency is, at bottom, reducible to the belief that it has the
value attributed to it (and that everyone believes that everyone else believes this as well), derailing capitalism by destroying its essential financial
substance is, in a certain respect, as easy as dissolving the mere belief in this substance's powers. The "external" obstacle of the capitalist
system exists exclusively on the condition that subjects, whether consciously or unconsciously, "internally" believe in it--
capitalism's life-blood, money, is simply a istic crystallization of a belief in others' belief in the socio-performative
force emanating from this same material. And yet, this point of capitalism's frail vulnerability is simultaneously the source
of its enormous strength: its vampiric symbiosis with individual human desire, and the fact that the late-capitalist cynic's
ism enables the disavowal of his/her de facto belief in capitalism, makes it highly unlikely that people can simply be
persuaded to stop believing and start thinking (especially since, as Zizek claims, many of these people are convinced that they already have
ceased believing). Or, the more disquieting possibility to entertain is that some people today, even if one succeeds in exposing them to the underlying
logic of their position, might respond in a manner resembling that of the Judas-like character Cypher in the film The Matrix (Cypher opts to embrace
enslavement by illusion rather than cope with the discomfort of dwelling in the "desert of the real"): faced with the choice between living
the capitalist lie or wrestling with certain unpleasant truths, many individuals might very well deliberately decide to
accept what they know full well to be a false pseudo-reality, a deceptively comforting fiction ("Capitalist commodity ism or
the truth? I choose ism").
STP Lab 152
2008
POLITICS LINKS – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE POPULAR
Energy independence is popular. People believe we are “addicted to oil” and

fear dependency on other nations.
Tsvi Bisk January 1, 2007 The Futurist HEADLINE: The Energy Project: independence by 2020; Breaking free
from oil
imports is critical for world peace. Here's how it will be done.
There is reason to believe that an energy-independence movement would enjoy considerable support in the United States. More than
85% ofU.S. citizens polled believe that the nation is "addicted to oil." More importantly, 82% want increased federal funding
for research on wind, solar, and hydrogen technology, and 78% would favor tax cuts to energy companies researching
these kinds of alternative energy sources. Although opinions may differ about these particular
technologies, it is clear that the American public is ready for radical solutions and is far ahead of its leadership on this
issue.
In addition, because of the current security and political climate, such a movement would also enjoy support from segments of the
population not traditionally associated with the alternative fuel cause. Energy independence could appeal to organized labor, as it
would produce hundreds of thousands of well-paying domestic jobs. Veterans' groups are beginning to appreciate how vulnerable oil
dependency makes their respective nations. Energy is the primary strategic resource of the industrial world. Yet, more than 30% of
U.S. energy needs and 50% of petroleum needs depend on unstable countries such as Iraq;
undemocra
tic countries such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Libya; and overtly hostile countries such as Venezuela and Iran. This security
lapse is a cause of great concern.
STP Lab 153
2008
POLITICS – PUBLIC SUPPORT
People assume that rationing-type proposals are politically infeasible, but that is
not true. Rationing has empirically been viewed in highly positive terms.
Sharon Astyk 2007 http://sharonastyk.com/2007/06/15/could-rationing-be-made-palatable/

Could Rationing Be Made Palatable?
Could a system of energy rationing, or even rationing of high energy goods and foods work in the US? The conventional answer
is that it is politically impossible to even consider it, and that the public would never go along with it. But a closer look at the history
of rationing during the second World War suggests that it might not be so unthinkable, and that in fact, rationing has historically been
viewed as highly positive, pro-democratic and good public policy by the general populace. Now there are obvious historical
differences between now and the past, but the framing of rationing may be more important than the exact historical
context - in World War II, for example, where few real risks of famine or severe shortage existed, rationing was quite
popular. Now, facing actual shortages and potential crisis, rationing is probably not as hard to sell as many people
believe.This is important because there are a number of public policy initiatives that include rationing plans. Among the most
important are Richard Heinberg and Colin Campbell’s Oil Depletion Protocol, discussed in Heinberg’s book of the same
title and George Monbiot’s proposal for carbon credit cards described in _Heat_. These are excellent and highly rational
programs that create just responses to difficult issues, and they deserve to be given more attention than they have. I believe that in part,
they have been underestimated because of the assumption that rationing is politically infeasible.
Public is willing to make sacrifice to address climate issues.
Brad Knickerbocker Christian Science Monitor November 8, 2007 HEADLINE: Many 'Green' mayors fall
short
According to a BBC poll released this week, most people around the world say they are willing to make sacrifices in order to
address climate change. "This poll clearly shows that people are much more ready to endure their share of the burden than most
politicians grant," said Doug Miller, director of Globescan, the polling company that conducted the survey in a BBC
story. But the message from Seattle is that, for all the local efforts, it will still be up to Uncle Sam to take the lead.
Its not true that people hate rationing / historically it has been viewed positively

One of the assumptions people make about rationing is that it was always resisted and resented. In fact, that’s not the case - generally
speaking, rationing, if instituted fairly, has been viewed fairly positively, as patriotic and necessary, a chance for everyone to
contribute in whatever national crisis is being averted. As Amy Bentley documents in her excellent book _Eating for Victory:
Food Rationing and the Politics of Domesticity_, in February 1942, rationing had a two to one approval rating. More than
60 percent of those responding to a poll asking what the government ought to have done differently during the first year of
World War II responded that they felt that rationing should have been instituted sooner, and the OPA, which regulated
prices and rationing had extremely high approval ratings (Bentley, 23)
STP Lab 154
2008
POLITICS PUBLIC SUPPORT

People will support carbon/oil rationing programs. They have a desire to help those that are less
fortunate and preserve relations with allies, especially women.

Americans, for example, have in the past been willing to make do with less so that others will be less hungry. Again, this is a
powerful iconography, one that argues strongly against the notion that only personal suffering would make the case for
rationing. This is a strategy that might well be deployed by advocates of the ODP and Carbon rationing programs - the notion that
Americans have to do with less to preserve the lives of their allies is not merely rhetoric any more - with global warming and the
tragic consequences of rising fuel prices for poor nations, this might, in many ways be a more compelling argument than peak oil itself
for a national rationing program.In fact, in 1946, shortly after rationing was finally lifted, when it became obvious that 800
million people world wide were in danger of starvation because of disrupted food supplies and war related crop failures,
more than 70% of Americans, in three separate polls, indicated that they would prefer to have rationing reinstated.
Historians make a great deal of the orgy of consumerism of the 1950s, perceived as a response to war rationing. But it is
perhaps even more significant that at the end of the war, most Americans were not only willing but enthusiastic about
cutting back on their own new supplies of meats and sweets so that others would not go hungry. Bentley quotes a Mrs.
E.H. Gembel as writing to Truman, “Sir, we support any measure necessary to provide for the starving people of the
world. Get tough.” (Bentley, 146). In fact, it was the US government, led by Herbert Hoover again, that resisted citizen
calls for rationing. Women especially expressed their willingness to go back to rationing and eat less in order to serve the hungry.
Again, addressing discussion of rationing to women may bear more fruit than discussing it before congress.This flies in the
face of the oft assumed notion that Americans would not be subject to arguments that are mostly about other people’s needs. Now it
is true that we live in a different era - but that works in more ways than one. We are, of course, less accustomed to
privation. But we also have much more leeway to give. Again, what has been done can often be done again.
STP Lab 155
2008
POLITICS LINKS-FIGHTS IN CONGRESS

A proposal for tradable gas rights will cause endless political fights in Congress
Mark Thomas Department of Economics University of Oregon June 05, 2006
Tradeable Gas Rights http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/06/tradeable_gas_r.html
while
Getting over my surprise at the Feldstein's call for government intervention in the marketplace, particularly for the government to set a national cap, I'm not fully convinced. Would the cap on gasoline usage be as easy to lift as the debt limit? In addition,
this proposal does provide the correct incentive at the margin, I can envision an endless political fight over the allocation of credits.
Should LA residents get more credits than NY or SF in the zero-sum allocation? Will cities or regions with more credits per person relative to average distance traveled see people moving in to take advantage of the chance to earn extra income? If I don't own a car, am I
? Over time, will the credits per

out of luck? Is it per person as in Feldstein's proposal, or will it be changed to per household? Do households with more kids get more coupons? Will rural residents get more credits? If so, how much more
person be decided based upon political considerations rather than economics? This may well be better than other proposals in a lot of
dimensions and I am not opposed to it, but unless I missed something on the allocation part, it doesn't seem so obvious that it would
sail through congress.
Tradable gas rights are politically unpopular

Alexanders Gas and Oil Connections, March 18, 2003 “How OPEC keeps America hooked on imports of oil” Source: Wall
Street Journal http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm31691.htm
All seven presidents of the past 30 years, Democrat and Republican alike, have tried to wean the US off imported oil. All have failed.
In 1973, President Nixon pledged to end oil imports by 1980 through Project Independence. The US imported 40 % of its
oil that year. In 1979, President Carter said imports wouldn't ever rise again. They did. Today, with the US importing 60
% of its oil, President Bush says hydrogen power will lead to energy independence. Mr Bush is almost certain to be
proved wrong, at least in the next couple of decades. Despite an increasingly energy-efficient economy, the US remains
hooked on foreign oil for two reasons. OPEC, especially Saudi Arabia and its neighbours, is skilful in its management of
oil prices to maintain America's dependence. And the US lacks the political will to do what's necessary to weaken the cartel or
reduce the American appetite for oil. With American troops poised for war in the Persian Gulf, which dominates oil exports
and has two-thirds of global reserves, the consequences of oil dependency are starker than ever. The US relies on some of
the world's most volatile countries to supply a component that is critical to American society. Political turmoil in the
region, in 1973 and 1979, produced oil-price jumps that ravaged the US economy. In 1991, the US sent 500,000 troops to
the region to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait to ensure that he didn't grab an even-larger share of Gulf oil. The
primary issue is price. OPEC manages production to try to keep prices higher than they would be if set in a free market,
but low enough to make alternative fuels and technologies uncompetitive. "If we force Western countries to invest
heavily in finding alternative sources of energy, they will," Saudi Arabia's influential oil minister, Sheik Ahmed Zaki
Yamani, said in a 1981 speech at a Saudi petroleum university. "This will take them no more than seven to 10 years and
will result in their reduced dependence on oil as a source of energy to a point which will jeopardize Saudi Arabia's
interests." The US could make rules to force Americans to use less oil or achieve the same end by raising the price
through tariffs or taxes. Of the 19.5 mm barrels of oil Americans consume every day, about 11.5 mm are imported.
Roughly half the oil consumed in the US goes for cars and trucks.
Some economists are reviving old proposals to boost the gasoline tax. Others are crafting new ones. One of President
Bush's favourite economists, Harvard University's Martin Feldstein, suggests that the government cap overall gasoline sales and
distribute fuel vouchers electronically. Owners of gas guzzlers would buy vouchers from owners of fuel-efficient cars, creating an
incentive to use less gasoline and develop fuel-efficient technologies without pumping money into the government's pockets. But
neither the White House nor the Democratic opposition is interested.
The lowest gasoline prices in the industrialized world boost auto sales, tourism and suburban construction. Lower
dieselprices reduce trucking costs and help businesses along the supply chain.
STP Lab 156
2008
POLITICS LINKS
Gas rationing would create such a firestorm that there aren’t politicians willing to put it on the
table
Martin Dyckman September 18, 2005 HEADLINE: We need white-market gas rationing St. Petersburg Times
(Florida)
Let's please hear no more about cutting or suspending gasoline taxes. That would be literally pouring gasoline on the
fire, the exact opposite of market discipline. The more gasoline costs, the more we have to think about driving less,
driving slower, and "downgrading" to a smarter car. What we need most of all is gasoline rationing. But of course it won't
happen. There's nobody in current politics who would dare to put it on the table, least of all in an administration whose footprints
are as oil -soaked as those of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Oil and auto lobbies oppose anything more than token
adjustments to the nations oil addition – they would hate the plan.
The Register-Guard (Eugene, OR) May 30, 2006 HEADLINE: An empty CAFE;
Editorials; Few support higher fuel-efficiency standards;
Meanwhile, Republican leaders in Congress continue to myopically insist that the nation's oil addiction can best be
addressed by feeding it. On Thursday, the House voted yet again to open the Alaska refuge to drilling, even though the resulting oil would have negligible
impacts on the cost of gasoline and U.S. dependence on foreign oil suppliers - and would not be available for nearly a decade.
Democrats are also missing in action. In the Senate, they recentlyintroduced their plan to reduce U.S. oil imports through
an ambitious national conversion to vehicles burning 85 percent ethanol. Glaringly absent was any call for higher fuel
economy standards, which wouldnot have conflicted with the proposal to expand ethanol use or othergas-saving
initiatives.
To be sure, there are a few gutsy voices crying out in the wilderness. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Sherwood
Boehlert, R-N.Y., have introduced a bill to raise CAFE standards from 27.5 miles per gallon to 33 mpg over the next
decade. In the Senate, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, have introduced a slightly more
ambitious version that would raise standards by 10 miles per gallon overthe the same period. (A similar bill lost 67-28
last year, with bothHillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John Kerry, D-Mass.,
voting against raising standards.) The reason politicians are so reluctant to increase CAFE standardsis the pervasive and
powerful influence of automotive and oil lobbies, which vehemently oppose anything more than token adjustments. Few
lawmakers are willing to incur their wrath, especially in a crucial mid-term election year.
STP Lab 157
2008
POLITICS LINKS
Any move towards gas rationing would destroy political capital – powerful lobbies and history confirm it
would harm bush’s capital
National Public Radio May 21, 2001
This debate in Congress will be nothing like what came before. In late 1973, Senator Henry Scoop Jackson was calling for
gasoline rationing. Jackson was a conservative Democrat, one of the most respected voices in the Senate. He predicted
what would happen if Washington didn't restrict gasoline sales. Senator HENRY SCOOP JACKSON (Democrat):
And that is a catastrophic situation,
along in February or early March, in which we will have sections of the country that simply will not have gasoline
available. OVERBY: The government did impose gasless Sundays and even and odd day purchases and lower speed
limits. But real rationing never happened. It won't happen this time, either. In this energy crunch, most of the remedies that
would come from an activist government aren't even being discussed. Partly that's because supply shortages haven't paralyzed the
nation the way they did in the '70s. The debate so far is about the cost of energy, not about getting enough of it.
Demur True is a partner in True Oil Company in Wyoming, and vice chairman of the Independent Petroleum
Association of America. He says governments can't fix markets, and this time politicians know that. Mr. DEMUR
TRUE (True Oil Company): The call for windfall profit taxes, nationalization of the industry, long-term price controls--I
just don't hear people saying that. And yet that was the clarion call in the '70s. OVERBY: This time, it's hard to say what
the clarion call is. Leon Billings says that's because Capitol Hill has changed. Billings was there the first time Congress
tried to make energy policy. He worked for Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie. Mr. LEON BILLINGS: Campaigns
didn't cost as much. Members spent more time in Washington and less time in their states. Committees met largely in
secret, not
in public, so that you didn't have the same dynamics. You didn't have television in the Senate. You had an era in which
you could have deliberate consideration. None of that exists today. OVERBY: When President Bush presented his
energy plan, he had an idea for
dealing with this. President GEORGE W. BUSH: Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also
a new tone in discussing energy and the environment, one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We've
yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to listen to each other, and to act. OVERBY: But on Capitol Hill there's always
time for something else important: raising campaign cash. The energy industry gives heavily to Republicans. On Tuesday night, the party
has its biggest money event of the year, a black-tie gala starring the president. Later in the week, some $ 10,000 donors get to
talk energy with GOP senators and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The unrelenting pressure to raise money is new since the '70s. It
means that lobbyists, with checkbooks out, will be asking Congress to rewrite the plan
developed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Again, Leon Billings.
STP Lab 158
2008
POLITICS LINKS – UNPOPULAR WITH PUBLIC
Majority of Americans do not support rationing sales of gas in any way, they just want gas to
be cheaper
Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist May 28, 2008 Majority of Americans Support Price Controls on Gas Nearly 8 in 10
Americans oppose gas rationing USA Business and Economy Energy Gas Prices Americas Northern America
When Americans are asked what steps should be taken to reduce gas prices, no consensus appears, but somewhat
surprisingly, a majority favor imposing price controls, by a 53% to 45% margin. Americans also support releasing
supplies from the federal government's strategic petroleum reserve (58%) and drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas
now off limits (57%). On the other hand, a majority oppose rationing gasoline (79%), re-instituting the 55 mph speed limit
(56%), and suspending the federal tax on gasoline for the summer (52%).
Public hates limits on gas consumption / gas rationing
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research Most Americans Oppose Gas Rationing
May 09, 2006 http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/11819
Many adults in the United States believe their federal administration should not regulate or set limits to the consumption
of fuel, according to a poll by Opinion Dynamics released by Fox News. 55 per cent of respondents think gas should not
be rationed, and prices should be allowed to go up or down based on market supply and demand.
STP Lab 159
2008
POLITICS – LOBBIES HATE (OIL & AUTO)
Oil lobby is hugely influential in Washington. They would obviously hate the plan.
Amy Hansen 2006 Lobbyists and the Gas Price Problem http://www.article
outlet.com/article.download.php/10867
The high price of gas is on everyone’s mind. On May 10, 2006, the price of crude rose $1.19 to settle at $73.72 a barrel on
the New York Mercantile Exchange. This has many people wondering how high gas prices will go and what is behind the
continued rise. The price of gas is linked to the price of oil. This cost can be determined by a ratio of 2.1 cents for every
dollar a barrel of oil costs. With current refining and distribution costs and federal and state taxes, even if oil were free,
gas would cost about $1.00 per gallon. Add that to the ratio calculated price of gas, which is $1.55 at the current price of
oil, and you get $2.55 per gallon. This is an underestimate of the average national price of gas today, May 12, which is
$2.93 per gallon. Big business has a lot of buying power in Washington.
The top ten oil companies reported spending $33,173,092 lobbying Congress and the Executive branches in 2005. Members of the
Senate, Commerce and Transportation committee received the most money, $155,450. They were followed by the House
Energy and Commerce Committee at $153,050. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee received $139,600.
The oil lobby has been buying policy in Washington for years. In 1999, the Senate voted to allow the oil industry to continue its
policy of not paying royalties owed to American taxpayers for drilling on public and Native American lands. This allowed
big oil companies to avoid paying $66 million in royalty payments annually. Some consumer organizations refer to the oil
companies as a cartel. Most products follow the law of supply and demand. Consumer groups accuse oil companies of
reducing supply and demanding more money. Oil companies have an incentive to produce less. Only about 10% of gas retailers
are independently owned and the rest are distributors for the oil companies. This allows them to easily manipulate the spot
market for gasoline. Big oil companies have shut down 25 refineries in California alone since 1983. They blame this on
environmental groups and regulations. This is not the case. They don’t want to build new refineries because that would
increase supply and lower the cost of gas. There are no plans to build more refineries and there will not be because of this.
Oil lobby is powerful, and would oppose congressional action counter to the
industry
Bangor Daily News (Maine) May 10, 2006 Converting to synfuel

L O B B Y! That's what is going on. The oil lobby is so powerful by virtue of the enormous sums the oil behemoths have
been dumping into lobby war chests that nothing can be achieved in the Congress that would be counter productive to that industry.
Is there little wonder that 34 percent of the population thinks the Congress is corrupt (according to the latest NBC poll
of two days ago)?
Auto lobby hates emissions caps and congressional action toward greater fuel efficiency-
would take political capital to counter them
Brad Knickerbocker Christian Science Monitor November 8, 2007 HEADLINE: Many 'Green' mayors fall
short
The Los Angeles Times reported from the mayors' meeting: "Vehicle tailpipes, a huge source of carbon dioxide and other
planet-warming gases, are regulated by Congress, which is reluctant to mandate strict fuel efficiency in the face of a strong auto
manufacturers lobby. And except when they own utilities, cities have little control over power plants....
STP Lab 160
2008
POLITICS
Plan would result in greater fuel efficiency, upsetting the auto lobby.
Shawn-Patrick Stensil The Toronto Star February 16, 2004 HEADLINE: Automakers must change their ways
Since 1985, however, the U.S. auto lobby has managed to block Congress from increasing fuel- efficiency standards.
Automakers have also learned to circumvent fuel-efficiency standards by marketing SUVs, which have less rigorous standards, as
passenger vehicles.
Like their U.S. cousins, Canadian automakers have been stonewalling-efficiency standards, pleading for Canadians to
be patient and accept the"harmonized" nature of the North America auto industry. They argue that Canadians should wait
until the U.S. auto lobby loses its grip on Congress before we can act on climate change.
The Bush administration has no commitment to Kyoto or fighting climate change and is, seemingly, set on consuming
as much of Canada's oil reserves as possible.

STP Neg File For Mini Tournament

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

STP Neg File For Mini Tournament

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

STP Lab 1

FLEX-FUEL STRATEGY SHEET

2. This is for if they don’t run the oil spill advantage.

FOOD PRICES DA—FLEX-FUEL MANDATE LINK

FOOD PRICES IMPACT – BILLIONS

Food blips will kill more than a billion

FOOD PRICES IMPACT – TERRORISM

Failed states allow terrorists to breed

Unchecked terrorism will cause extinction

"Given how important it is for this nation to cut carbon emissions,

OIL DEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE ANSWERS

AIR POLLUTION ADVANTAGE ANSWERS

OIL SPILLS ADVANTAGE ANSWERS

POVERTY ADVANTAGE ANSWERS

OFFSHORE DRILLING CP—1NC SHELL

The counterplan isn’t topical—it doesn’t increase alternative energy incentives—

And the counterplan solves—

OFFSHORE DRILLING CP—LIFTING OFFSHORE BAN IMMEDIATELY

Stuttaford 7/1/08 (Andrew, Columnist @ National Review, "Getting it Right,"

OFFSHORE DRILLING CP—CP LOWERS OIL PRICES/A2 DRILLING

Supply must be increased, and that will require more drilling.

PHEV CP—1NC SHELL

The counterplan avoids OPEC flood—

And the counterplan solves—

Incentivizing the commercialization of plug-in hybrids achieves significant

PHEV CP—2NC EXTENSIONS

Incentivizing the commercialization of plug-in hybrids achieves significant

OPEC FLOOD DA—1NC SHELL

Southeast Farm Press 12/19/01 (lexis)

OPEC FLOOD DA—UNIQUENESS—SPARE CAPACITY NOW

allAfrica.com 6/1/08 ("Nigeria: OPEC to Spend $160 Billion to Increase Capacity,"

OPEC has plenty of spare capacity

OPEC spare capacity continues to increase

OPEC FLOOD DA—UNIQUENESS—REFINING CAPACITY ↑ NOW

Steelguru 6/7/08 ("Saudi Arabia approves 2 refining ventures," http://steelguru.com/news/index/2008/06/03/NDg2Mjc

OPEC FLOOD DA—UNIQUENESS—A2 US GIVING ALT ENERGY

OPEC FLOOD DA—LINKS—RENEWABLES/ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Jeffords 91 (Jim, US Senator, 3/21, FNS, lexis)

OPEC FLOOD DA—LINK MAGNIFIER—PERCEPTION OF HIGHER

OPEC FLOOD DA—IMPACTS—LOW OIL PRICES UNDERMINE

Low oil prices undermine renewable energy developments and incentives to

Renneris 03 (Michael, Worldwatch Institute, UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, February 6, 2003)

IPI PIPELINE GOOD—1NC IMPACT MODULE

Hindustan Times 4/26/08 (lexis)

IPI PIPELINE GOOD—1NC IMPACT MODULE

--South Asian instability risks global nuclear winter

Washington Times 7/8/01 (lexis)

IPI PIPELINE GOOD—UNIQUE INTERNALS—HIGH OIL PRICES → IPI

IPI PIPELINE GOOD—IMPACTS—KEY TO SOUTH ASIAN STABILITY

IPI PIPLINE GOOD—IMPACTS—KEY

BBC 4/29/08 ("Indian leader upbeat on pipeline," http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7372646.stm)

For the neg block

LIQUID COAL STRAT

CP - By securing supplies of Oil, the US will solve it's oil problems . . .

Coal to Liquid Strat 2

CP - The States should enact the plan.

Military Coal to Liquid Negative Strategy Sheet 3

AT: HEG SOLVES TERRORISM

American’s grand strategy of preponderance leads to terrorism—9/11 proves

Imperialistic wars breed terrorists against the U.S.

AT: HEG SOLVES PROLIF.

Unilateral military engagement can not solve for proliferation of nuclear