Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1AC………………………………………………………………………………………..2-17
ECON ADV EXT…………………………………………………………………..……..18-21
GLOBAL WARMING ADV EXT……………………………………………………..…22
POLITICS LINK TURNS……………………………………………………………........23-24
SOLVENCY EXT……………………………………………………………………....…25
CASE NEG……………………………………………………………………………...…26-39
1
INHERENCY
3
INHERENCY
Senate rejection of cap and trade further causes global warming and the greenhouse effect.
U.S. legislation that would have set up a cap-and-trade system to limit climate-warming
carbon emissions died on Friday after a procedural vote in the Senate. The bill, which had
bipartisan support but not enough to overcome opposition, aimed to cut total U.S. global
warming emissions by 66 percent by 2050. Opponents said it would cost jobs and raise fuel
prices in an already pinched American economy. Known as the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, the
bill's chances of passage were always slim. Even if Congress had approved it, President George W. Bush
had vowed a veto. Bush has consistently opposed any economy-wide program to curb the carbon
dioxide emissions that spur climate change, arguing that this would hurt the U.S. economy.U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions would drop by about 2 percent per year between 2012 and 2050, based
on 2005 emission levels, under a summary of the measure by its Senate supporters.Carbon
dioxide, which contributes to the climate-warming greenhouse effect, is emitted by fossil-fueled
vehicles, coal-fired power plants and natural sources, including human breath. Senators John
McCain and Barack Obama, the respective Republican and Democratic presidential
nominees, were not present for Friday's vote, but both support limiting human-generated
emissions that spur climate change.
4
CONTENTION ONE: THE ECONOMY
Unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world
wars and the Great Depression, a British government report said yesterday, as the country
launched a bid to convince doubters that environmentalism and economic growth can
coincide.Prime Minister Tony Blair said unabated climate change would eventually cost the
world the equivalent of between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product
each year. He called for "bold and decisive action" to cut carbon emissions and stem the worst of
the temperature rise."It is not in doubt that, if the science is right, the consequences for our planet
are literally disastrous," he said. "This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction
future many years ahead, but in our lifetime."The report emphasized that global warming
can only be fought with the cooperation of major countries such as the United States and
China, and represents a huge contrast to the Bush administration's wait-and-see global
warming policies. Sir Nicholas Stern, the senior government economist who wrote the report, said that acting now to cut
greenhouse gas emissions would cost about 1 percent of global GDP each year. He recommended a "low-carbon global economy"
through measures including taxation, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon trading. "That is manageable," he said.
"We can grow and be green."President Bush kept America - by far the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed
for global warming - out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, saying the pact would harm the U.S.
economy. The international agreement was reached in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 and expires in
2012.Blair has made it clear that when it comes to the environment Bush's policies on climate
change are unacceptable.The prime minister made that clear when he signed an agreement this
year with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to develop new technologies to combat the
problem. The measure imposed the first emissions cap in the United States on utilities,
refineries and manufacturing plants in a bid to curb the gases that scientists blame for
warming the Earth.
5
CONTENTION ONE: THE ECONOMY
T.E. Bearden LTC U.S. Army (ret) Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists and Fellow
Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to
Solve It Quickly, 6-24-2k, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic
collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to
the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25
nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea
launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a
spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China, whose long-range nuclear missiles
(some) can reach the United States, attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the
mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict,
escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such
extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries
are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of
the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective
defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-
emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the
studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the
WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself . The
resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades
6
CONTENTION TWO: THE ENVIRONMENT
Global warming leads to global disease and water shortage, and famine and extinction.
New York Times, Published: March 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 11
The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a
couple of decades hundreds of millions of people will not have enough water, top scientists
are likely to say next month at a meeting in Belgium.At the same time, tens of millions of
others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the earth reels from rising
temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific
report by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Tropical diseases
like malaria will spread, the draft says. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos,
their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive. For a time, food will be plentiful because of
the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people
could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised. The draft
document, the second of a series of four being issued this year, focuses on global warming’s
effects. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still
must be edited by government officials.But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it is issued in
early April in Brussels, where European Union leaders agreed Friday to work to cut greenhouse gas emissions substantially by
2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit meeting in June. The draft report offers
some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it says what has been happening has not been
encouraging. “Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every
continent,” the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international
group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report mentioned only
scattered regional effects. “Things are happening and happening faster than we expected,” said
Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., one
of the many co-authors of the new report. The draft document says scientists are highly confident
that many current problems — change in species’ habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss
of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs and increases in allergy-inducing pollen — can be attributed
to global warming. For example, the report says North America “has already experienced
substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes,” like
hurricanes and wildfires. But Ms. Romero Lankao said that global warming soon would “affect
everyone’s life,” and added that “it’s the poor sectors that will be most affected.” Another co-
author, Terry Root of Stanford University, said, “We truly are standing at the edge of mass
extinction” of species. The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was
established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the earth’s environment. The draft report
says that hundreds of
\millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be
short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than a billion people in Asia could face water
shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people,
depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.
It says that death rates for the world’s poor from conditions worsened by the changes
7
global warming brings, like malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. By 2080, 200
million to 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming’s effects, it says. It
also says that Europe’s small glaciers will disappear, with many of the continent’s large glaciers
shrinking sharply by 2050. And half of Europe’s plant species could be vulnerable, endangered
or extinct by 2100. The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm
also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America,
Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects. “In most parts of
the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate
change,” the draft report said. “Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more
likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and
gradual.” Many, though not all, of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down
its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that is the
case, the report says, “most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely
to occur.”
8
CONTENTION TWO: THE ENVIRONMENT
And, Even if we can't SOLVE warming we must slow the rate of change to give humans the
time to adapt.
Smithsonian Institute, March 3, 2008. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution
(STRI) in Panama, is a bureau of the Smithsonian Institution based outside of the United
States, is dedicated to understanding biological diversity.
<http://www.stri.org/english/about_stri/headline_news/scientific_advances/article.php?id=7
61>
The following information was released by the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Planet
Earth is only a few degrees away from experiencing drastic changes that will affect human
lifestyles. Measures to delay some of the most dangerous but already unavoidable effects of
climate change will allow humans to prepare and maybe adapt to the most foreseeable of
these changes. Soon, we will face great challenges. Increased number of hot days and exposure
to pests and diseases. Melting permafrost followed by sea level rise and increased erosion, in
particular on islands and coastlines. Decreased ice cover (later freeze and earlier breakup) will
allow increased erosion in beaches and coastal cliffs. Increased water temperature and
subsequent decreased dissolved oxygen: disease among fish; reduction in the productivity of
marine ecosystems. Glacial retreat and decreased snow cover will disrupt hibernation patterns
with an increase in predators in urban areas. Droughts and flooding will result from changes in
precipitation regimes. The frequency of extreme climatic events will bring habitat loss and
mortality to all organisms including (hum)man(ity). Sea level rise and salt water intrusion in
coastal wetlands is expected to change species distribution and cause[s] the extinction of
many species vital to the food chain, as we know it. Decreased freshwater availability will
require new land and property ownership policies and new freshwater treatment everywhere.
9
CONTENTION THREE: OIL DEPENDENCE
America imports almost 60% of its oil today and, at this rate, we’ll import 70% by
2025. Where will that oil come from? Two-thirds of the world’s oil is in the
Middle East, primarily in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. The United States has less
than 3% of global oil. The Department of Energy predicts that North American
oil imports from the Persian Gulf will double from 2001 to 2025. Other oil
suppliers, such as Venezuela, Russia, and West Africa, are also politically
unstable and hold no significant long-term oil reserves compared to those in the
Middle East.Bottom line: our economy and security are increasingly dependent on one of
the most unstable regions on earth. Unless we change our ways, we will find
ourselves even more at the mercy of Middle East oil and thus more likely to get
involved in future conflicts. The greater our dependence on oil, the greater the pressure to
protect and control that oil. The growing American dependence on imported oil is the
primary driver of U.S. foreign and military policy today, particularly in the Middle East,
and motivates an aggressive military policy now on display in Iraq. To help avoid similar
wars in the future and to encourage a more cooperative, responsible, and multilateral
foreign policy the United States must significantly reduce its oil use. Before the Iraq war
started, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said:
“Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we
will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60
percent of all the world's oil reserves.” Unfortunately, he was right.
In fact, the use of military power to protect the flow of oil has been a central tenet
of U.S. foreign policy since 1945. That was the year that President Franklin D.
Roosevelt promised King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia that the United States
would protect the kingdom in return for special access to Saudi oil—a promise
that governs U.S. foreign policy today.
10
CONTENTION THREE: OIL DEPENDENCE
The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure (leaders, recruitment,
funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control) will only increase
terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably
will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail,
particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby
encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The
prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For
example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb."
The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab -- a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly
responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem -- disrupted
potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a
state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated
by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however
long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival." "This constant dependence on oil is
something that leaves this country vulnerable every day," Bloomberg said on his weekly
WABC radio show."Two reasons. One, what happens if it gets cut off overseas? And we're
never going to have enough capacity domestically," he said. "And, two, where are these
petro dollars going? They are going to buy arms for terrorists who are going to attack
freedom around the world and, as 9/11 showed, they can attack here as well." Earlier in the
show, Bloomberg specifically linked the nation's dependence on foreign oil to the funding of
the Al Qaeda terrorist network.The mayor said the country's "dependency on foreign oil" goes
straight to "funding Al Qaeda. I don't think there's any argument about where these petro dollars
are going," Bloomberg declared."It's unfortunate that a mayor of his stature would make such statements," said Nail
Al-Jubeir, a spokesman for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington. "I urge him to read the 9/11 report, which should
answer his concerns."Saudi Arabia, considered an ally of the United States, is this country's third largest supplier of oil. Al-
Jubeir said he was very disappointed that Bloomberg would make such a "blanket" and "unfounded" allegation."I don't know
what the intent of it was," Al-Jubeir said. "But the mayor - with his background in business - should know better than that."Asked
if he understood how Bloomberg's comments could be deemed offensive, Wayne White, former deputy director of
the State Department's Middle East intelligence office during the Bush administration, said, "Oh,
dear God, yes.""There are good petro dollars and bad petro dollars - lots of good ones and some
bad ones," White explained.White said he and others believe that some of the petro dollars Iran
gets go to fund Hezbollah in Lebanon. But according to government figures, the United States
imports no oil from Iran, and less than 1% from Syria.White described the mayor's remarks as
"unhelpful" because "it diminishes the awareness of the extent to which a lot of petro dollars are
going into many important efforts by the governments that are getting them."According to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States currently imports less than 17% of its
crude oil from the Persian Gulf. The top suppliers of oil to the U.S. are Canada, Mexico, Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria.In fact, since 1999, Canada has been the largest supplier of oil to
the United States."There's a very strong energy relationship between the two countries, and we're
hoping to get that message out," said Bernard Etzinger, a spokesman for the Canadian Embassy
in Washington.Stu Loeser, Bloomberg's press secretary, conceded yesterday that not everydollar
11
spent on foreign oil is funding a terrorist organization."Nevertheless, there are oil producing
entities that have direct ties to terrorist organizations, and that's what the mayor was
talking about," he said.Asked if the mayor wanted to apologize to the Saudis and others
who may have taken offense by his statement, Loeser declined to comment."He speaks his
mind," Loeser said. "Most people who were listening know what he was talking about."
12
CONTENTION THREE: OIL DEPENDENCE
Today the future is murkier and the role of Saudi oil less certain. Oil
prices have not been a problem and they do not become a problem
in the likely case scenario just described. But we have to consider
less likely but worse scenarios as well. These will inevitably have an
air of unreality about them, but then so would the September
terrorist attack on the United States had anyone described that in
advance. These worse scenarios can illustrate the magnitude of
problems that could arise and the usefulness of remedies that are
available to oil consuming nations.
Unfortunately, such scenarios are easy to construct. Currently 28 percent of
the world’s crude oil comes from the Organization of Arab Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OAPEC) consisting of Arab Muslim nations, some of
which are not part of the OPEC cartel (table B). If extremists who sponsor
terrorism had their way, they would control all these sources of oil. How far
fetched is that? Bin Laden has said the oil price should be $144 a barrel. The
governing regimes in all the countries are at some risk, so their oil supply
provides a basis for examining hypothetical changes in the control of oil
resources.
13
CONTENTION THREE: OIL DEPENDENCE
Oil prices are at an all time high now, and at this rate will collapse american economy,
change is needed for there to be an efficent to alternative fuel.
Edmund L. Andrews - The New York Times Media Group, November 29 2007
As oil prices flirt with record highs, hovering around $94 a barrel Wednesday, the
Democratic and Republican U.S. presidential candidates are offering few quick fixes but
profoundly different long-term approaches to energy policy.Over the next decade or two,
the differences could have a major effect on billions of dollars in U.S. government
spending, on the relative prices of gasoline versus renewable fuels and on the efficiency
of American cars and trucks.For Democrats, the goal of energy policy is largely about reducing oil
consumption and has become inseparable from the goal of reducing the risk of climate change.For the Republican
candidates, energy policy is primarily about producing more energy at home - more oil and gas drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; more use of American coal to produce liquid fuel; and, as
with Democrats, more renewable fuels like ethanol.By contrast, all of the Democratic candidates would
repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies, spend billions more each year to
develop alternative fuels and require cars and trucks to be far more fuel-efficient.Indeed, most
of the Democratic rivals are proposing plans that are more aggressive than the bills that Democratic leaders in Congress are
hoping to pass before Christmas. The disparity raises questions about whether the candidates' plans
are politically realistic.The candidates, however, are quietly acknowledging limits to what
they can offer in the way of immediate relief, aside from putting more money into a program
that helps low-income people with heating oil costs.''There are no short-term solutions,'' said
Leo Hindery, the chief economic adviser to John Edwards, a former senator from North
Carolina who has positioned himself to the populist left of his principal Democratic
rivals.The Republican contenders, maintaining the traditional conservative approach of
relying on market forces, are much more reluctant to impose change through restrictions on
oil and coal or mandates for alternative fuels.''The truth is that the answer to high prices is
high prices,'' said R. Glenn Hubbard, a top economic adviser to Mitt Romney, a former
Republican governor of Massachusetts. ''This is one area where the public expects more
from politicians than politicians can deliver.''
14
THUS, THE PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD
IMPLEMENT A CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM TO REDUCE EMISSIONS BY 80%
BELOW 1990 LEVELS 2050
15
CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY
Carbon Tax will reduce the missions by 2050 by 80 percent below the
levels in 1990
The New York Times, October 9, 2007
17
CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY
18
"likely to have much greater generalized economic impact with a carbon
dioxide cap" than caps on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides; and the
international dimension of greenhouse gases and climate change.
19
CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY
20
weeks and months as we move the bill forward to the Senate floor.
21
CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY
DuPont joined nine other major industries and four environmental groups on Monday in calling on
Congress to impose this year a stringent, mandatory greenhouse gas emissions control program in the
US. DuPont president and CEO Charles Holliday, along with representatives of other manufacturing
firms, electric utilities and energy companies said Congress should act quickly to implement a
mandatory control system with a carbon cap-and-trade program as its cornerstone. Other
industry representatives included top executives from Alcoa, BP
America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, General Electric and PG&E.
"Climate change is a serious issue that has to be addressed through
concrete action," Holliday said. Other than calling for a mandatory
cap-and-trade system, the industry and environmental coalition,
called the US Climate Action Partnership (USCap), did not propose
or endorse any specific legislative measures. Instead, the group called
on Congress to pass a carbon emissions control law that would recognize the
global nature of climate change, the importance of potential technological
responses and the potential for economic opportunity and advantage in a
mandatory emissions control program. The group also said any legislative
response by Congress "must be fair to sectors disproportionately impacted"
by a mandatory limit on carbon emissions. Under a cap-and-trade
system, the federal government would grant individual companies
specific carbon emissions licenses that would limit or cap the
amount of carbon they could release to the environment annually.
Those companies that emitted less carbon than allowed could sell
carbon credits on the open market to those firms that exceed their
carbon allotments. Asked whether a mandatory emissions control
system would perhaps harm the US chemical industry by driving up
electric power costs and increasing demand and costs for natural
gas, Holliday said the plan recognizes that some industrial sectors might be
hit harder than others. "We think there are unique regional and industrial
sectors that must be taken into account by Congress," Holliday said. He
added, however, that a mandatory cap-and-trade system would help
stimulate technological advances - such as carbon capture and storage - that
would help meet needs of industry and the environment. Holliday also said a
mandatory emissions program should be accompanied by greater access to
US domestic energy.
22
CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY
23
A/2: ECONOMY
24
second phase, which corresponds with the Kyoto Treaty's first
commitment period of 2008-2012, member states may auction or
sell up to 10% of allowances. In the greenhouse gas initiative
launched by Northeast states, states will be required to auction a
minimum of 25% of allowances. Five states have said they would auction
100%. Anne Smith, a vice president with the consulting group CRA
International, said cap-and-trade programs can be "extremely effective at
delivering efficient emissions reductions." However, they must be "tailored to
fit particular features and complexities of each emission problem."
Representative Joe Barton of a Texas, the senior Republican on the full House
Energy and Commerce Committee, said he is skeptical that a carbon cap-
and-trade program "would be of any benefit to the environment and would
be of no benefit to the economy." Barton was critical of the cap-and-trade
carbon market in the European Union, which is the largest in the world. "I
hope that nobody tries to say that what's been tried in Europe is a positive
since its raised wholesale electricity rates in Germany 30 to 40%," he said.
25
A/2 ECONOMY
26
SOLVENCY EXTENTIONS
A carefully designed program to begin lowering carbon dioxide emissions "would produce
greater benefits than costs," according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office
released last week.
"In particular, an incentive-based approach for curbing CO2 is substantially more
economically efficient than alternative command-and-control policies, which might dictate
specific technologies or set standards for particular products," CBO Director Peter R. Orszag told
a hearing of the House Budget Committee.
"An incentive-based approach to lowering CO2 emissions could be implemented by regulating
the price of emissions (by taxing emissions), or by adopting a market-based system to
regulate the quantity of emissions by establishing a cap-and-trade program
27
A/2 ECONOMY
Alan Durning 2008, Author of How much energy is enough: the consumer society and the
future of the earth. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/30/17554/0835
U.S. Congressional Budget Office's rigorous analysis of the different approaches to climate pricing estimates that a carbon charge
steep enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 15 percent would take about 3.3 percent of low-income families' after-tax
money. James Boyce and Matthew Riddle of the University of Massachusetts peg the cost to working families (PDF) even
as many energy interests
higher."Grandfathering" carbon-emissions permits -- giving them away to historic polluters,
propose to do -- would write this redistribution of wealth into law. Under this version of
cap-and-trade (Boyce and Riddle call it "cap-and-giveaway"), fossil fuel prices would rise.
(They will rise under any firm cap; in fact, they're likely to rise even without a cap, as they
have done in recent years.) Families would pay more for their energy -- and their food and
other energy-intensive consumer goods. Energy companies, flush from high prices, would
reap huge windfall profits. These windfalls would ultimately accrue to the shareholders of
energy companies, who are mostly rich families. (This scenario already played out in
Europe.)Under cap-and-giveaway, the richest fifth of families would pay more for their
energy, just like everyone else. But their stock portfolios would get so much fatter that the
net effect would be an additional $1,200 a year per person, according to Boyce and
Riddle.Yep, under cap-and-giveaway, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. This chart
from Boyce and Riddle shows roughly how much. (Unlike the previous chart, this one reflects
the impacts of massive windfalls for energy company stockholders and various other side effects
of cap-and-giveaway, and expresses losses and gains as shares of total household expenditures
rather than income.)I don't know about you, but I can't abide a future like that, where the rank
injustice of climate change sitself is compounded by a system that takes money from working
families and gives it to rich ones. It's Robin Hood in reverse. It's the New Deal's evil twin. Think about it:
cap-and-giveaway means that the orderlies in our hospitals will hand hundreds of dollars a year to the surgeons they clean up
after; that farmworkers in our vineyards will hand piles of cash to the people who drink their most-expensive vintages; that the
janitors in our airports will deliver annual checks to airplane owners; that retired grocery store clerks will pay the moorage fees
28
A/2 GLOBAL WARMING GOOD
Global warming is creating an in-balance in the natural world which will causes massive
species extinction.
World Climate Report, 2005.
Whenever we read a story about some plant or animal showing up where they usually
weren’t or disappearing from where they usual are, global warming always shows up in the
list of the usual suspects.And, of course, global warming is up to no good. Usually, “bad”
species are showing up where they are unwanted, while “good” ones are being
endangered.For instance, here is a sample of the plants and animals that have been
reported as expanding their ranges because of planetary warming:In fact, Google “global
warming” and the cute, cuddly animal of your choice is guaranteed to show up as endangered or
disappearing, while yucky jellyfish take over the Gulf of Mexico.With this in mind, we were not
surprised to read the August 5th AP story describing how a green sea turtle (one of the several
sea turtles that are on the Endangered Species list and thus universally loved) that recently
became the “first documented case of the protected turtle laying its eggs in Virginia” failed to
mention global warming as possibly being the cause. After all, green sea turtles typically nest
in the warm climate of southeastern Florida (very occasionally nesting as far north as the
Outer Banks of North Carolina). So, the Virginia egg-laying event marks pretty big
northerly departure from what is typical. Yet not a single mention of the possibility that the
turtle is expanding its nesting grounds northwards due as a response to rising
temperatures. Global warming may do good for good things? Never! Not that we are
suggesting that anthropogenic global warming has anything to do with the event, for it is
impossible to place isolated events such as this one into the context of climate change. We
are merely pointing out that given the opportunity to link global warming to some sort of
species shift, the opportunity is not taken when the species that may be broadening its
habitat (and thus benefiting from a climate shift) is a well-loved symbol of environmental
struggle—such as the endangered green sea turtle.Conservative think tanks are often singled out
for selective use of data to make the issue of climate change seem less certain than others
(presumably less conservative) believe it is. See, for example, the column to this effect in the
August 5th issue of the New York Times by Paul Krugman (or here for another take on the
article).At the same time, the press ignores the environmentalists who do the opposite, making
the issue of disastrous climate change seem much more certain and catastrophic than evidence
and observations suggest. Some argue that it’s OK for the environmentalists to exaggerate,
because, after all, they are trying to save the earth. The green sea turtle might not agree.
29
A/2 POLITICS: LINK TURN
Senator Obama endorses cap and trade on oil emissions and international agreements.
Sunday Herald Sun, pg 41, February 10, 2008
US presidential hopeful Barack Obama promises to start working on an international pact to reduce
global warming if he becomes his party's nominee. The Democrat said his plan to reduce US emissions was
stronger than that of Republican front-runner John McCain. Global warming has become a key issue in the race
for the White House, with the top candidates in both political parties seeking to put a cap on
greenhouse gases. Senator Obama, battling New York senator Hillary Clinton to be their party's
presidential nominee, said he would start developing the US position on a pact to replace the
Kyoto Protocol before the general election in November. ``I think we need to start reaching
out to other countries ahead of time,'' he said after consultations with former vice president
Al Gore. Almost 200 nations, including the US, agreed at UN-led talks in December to
launch negotiations on a new pact to fight global warming. Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain
support building a so-called ``cap and trade'' system that would issue big polluters such as oil companies and power producers
permits to emit carbon dioxide. Under such a system, companies that exceeded their emission limits
would buy more permits to pollute, while those that came in beneath their limits would sell
permits on a market. Senator Obama said his plan was superior to Senator McCain's
because it required companies to buy all of those permits up front -- a process known as
``auctioning''.
30
A2:POLITICS LINK TURN
Senator Mc.Cain enduces cap and trade on oil and gas emmissons.
Chemincal News and Intelligence, Monday May 12, 2008
The presumptive Republican candidate for president Mc.Cain, said on Monday that if elected he
would work with Congress to create a cap and trade emissions mandate to combat climate
change. Cap and trade legislation is opposed by many in the US petrochemical industry for fear that it would cause a run on
domestic natural gas stocks and deplete feedstock supplies. McCain, who is expected to get the Republican
Party's formal endorsement as its 2008 presidential candidate in September, told an audience in
Portland, Oregon, that evidence of global warming is sufficient and US policymakers cannot
hesitate to impose an emissions cap He said that as president he would work with Congress
to [2]initiate climate change legislation that would reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions to 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. "Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or
the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters and all the
endless troubles that global warming will bring," McCain said in a speech at a wind technology company. He cautioned,
however, that a government mandate on global warming should not impose restrictions on the marketplace. "We
must do
this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of
just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow," he said. "The most direct way to
achieve this is through a system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also
allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions," he said, adding: "This is the proposal I will
submit to Congress if I am elected president - a cap and trade system to change the
dynamic of our energy economy."
Under a cap and trade system, emissions of greenhouse gases would be capped and the
government would auction permits that would be traded among companies whose pollution
releases exceed allowed limits. Legislation [3]now pending in the US Senate would impose such a cap and trade
system, but that approach has been widely criticized by many in the [4]US chemicals industry and the [5]broader manufacturing
sector as detrimental to the country's production and economy.McCain said his cap and trade plan would require
"sensible reductions in greenhouse gases" but also "allow full flexibility in how industry meets
that requirement." He said he would work with European allies and other nations seeking climate
control measures to impose environmental cost equalization mechanisms to essentially force
climate compliance by developing nations such as [6]China and India if they otherwise fail to
cooperate.
31
NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE AFF
32
NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE AFF
33
NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE AFF
NEG Cap and trade schemes put constant strains on the economy, Europe proves.
Laffer and Wineguard, September 2007. (Aurthur and Wayne, “The Adverse Economic
34
NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE
NEG Cap and trade schemes put large economic burdens on the working class
Laffer and Wineguard, September 2007. (Aurthur and Wayne, “The Adverse Economic
Impacts of Cap and Trade Regulations. Lexis)
35
NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE AFF
Emperically proven by Europe that cap and trade programs cripple the economy
Laffer and Wineguard, September 2007. (Aurthur and Wayne, “The Adverse Economic
Impacts of Cap and Trade Regulations. Lexis)
36
NEG: NO SOLVENCY
37
NEG CP State cap and trade programs can maintain the environment and create a stable
economy
Burtraw et al. 07 (Dallas, The California Climate Change Center at UC Berkeley. “Chapter 5:
Lessons for a cap-and-trade program. Lexis)
38
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille
Poor Cap and Trade schemes would cripple the nation’s economy
Fordney, 08 (Jason, Global Power Report. “Cap-and-Trade system for carbon dioxide
tantamount to tax: Midamerican chairman.
<http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=tr
ue&risb=21_T4270819267&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4270819273&
cisb=22_T4270819272&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8146&docNo=7>)
39
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille
NEG C/T systems too expensive to enforce with very little benefits
Myers, 08 (Todd, Director, Center for the Environment.”How Incentives to Cheat
Undermine Cap-and-Trade.” The Washington Policy Center.)
40
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille
Cap and Trades don’t work Brian Costin, 2008. Research & Commentary
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
41
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille
42
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille
you what brand of laundry detergent to use because it has a vested interest
in that particular brand’s success, you would probably say that the
government is interfering with your rights as a customer. A biodiesel
mandate is not much different because it automatically eliminates options
for consumers and strips away the competition in the industry. It is creating
an artificial demand for a product and representing a backwards thought
process by forgetting the consumer’s role in the marketplace. You are a customer, not a
captive, and the government should not treat you like a captive. The biodiesel industry
should have to prove itself by building a relationship with you, the customer, just as any
other fledgling business would do. If the biodiesel mandate takes effect, Missouri would
be the sixth state to enact such a law — and would have the highest biodiesel standard
in the country. I recognize the need to assert our dependence from foreign
oil and look to other sources for our fuel, however, I do not support a
mandate that takes away consumer choice, significantly increases food
prices, and halts the innovation of other possibilities for alternative fuel. It is
also important to note that producing biodiesel is not cheap, resulting in the
fuel typically being priced a couple cents higher per gallon or at the same
price as regular diesel. Cost-effectiveness is not a compelling argument in
this case. As a state, we would not only be providing subsidies to another
industry, but we would be guaranteeing the industry will have a ready-made
market. If that is not the polar opposite of free market philosophy, I am not
sure what is. True fiscal conservatives would not support this legislation or
any other that overreaches the bounds of government. Unfortunately, this
wrong-headed legislation passed the Senate and is now headed to the
House for consideration. I hope you will write your legislators in the House
and ask for them to oppose this mandate.
43