Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
NEG - U.S. Ethanol Policy PRO [Improved]

NEG - U.S. Ethanol Policy PRO [Improved]

Ratings: (0)|Views: 107 |Likes:
Published by Preston Black
This is minus Ethos and RC evidence. E-mail me if you are on the RC and have Ethos, and I'll e-mail you the full brief. Also, I know the index will be messed up, so please e-mail me if you want the fully-formatted version, and I'll e-mail it to you as well. My e-mail is prestonblack@embarqmail.com

Hope you like the brief. Kill any case that changes ethanol policy -- please.
This is minus Ethos and RC evidence. E-mail me if you are on the RC and have Ethos, and I'll e-mail you the full brief. Also, I know the index will be messed up, so please e-mail me if you want the fully-formatted version, and I'll e-mail it to you as well. My e-mail is prestonblack@embarqmail.com

Hope you like the brief. Kill any case that changes ethanol policy -- please.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Preston Black on Mar 16, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/14/2010

pdf

text

original

 
 NEG ± U.S. Ethanol Policy PROPage|
1
 Preston Black PSDC
NEG ± U.S. Ethanol Policy ± PRO
TOPICALITY ± Sugarcane Tariff = Trade Policy
.............................................................. 2
TOPICALITY ± Ethanol Subsidies = Energy Policy
........................................................... 4
INHERENCY
........................................................................................................................ 9
1. The U.S. is working with Brazil to Develop better Ethanol
..................................................................... 9
2. Obama is Pursuing Cellulosic Ethanol
.................................................................................................. 10
3. The Cellulosic Ethanol Industry is Taking Off 
...................................................................................... 12
SIGNIFICANCE
................................................................................................................. 13
1. Cellulosic Ethanol Pollutes Less
............................................................................................................ 13
2. Cellulosic Ethanol Contributes more to Energy Dependence
............................................................... 14
3. Cellulosic Ethanol doesn¶t Use Food Sources to Produce Fuel
............................................................. 15
4. The only Difference between Different Types of Ethanol is the Process
............................................... 16
DISADVANTAGES
............................................................................................................ 17
1) Monoculture in Brazil
............................................................................................................................ 17
2) Foreign Dependence
.............................................................................................................................. 21
3) U.S. Economic Loss
................................................................................................................................ 24
COUNTERPLAN TEXT ± Increase Cellulosic Funding and Research
............................ 29
 
 NEG ± U.S. Ethanol Policy PROPage|
2
 Preston Black PSDC
TOPICALITY ± Sugarcane Tariff = Trade Policy
A. Interpretation
1. Resolution
The Unites Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy
2. Definitionsa. Reform
- Reform is defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as:
 
³To amend or improve by change of form.´
 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform
b. Environmental Policy
- According to Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya, Professor of Environmental Policy, and Dr. William Ascher, Professor of Government and Economics:³A government policy that explicitly intends to promote environmental protection, conservation, and rational use of natural resources.´
 Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya [Ph.D. in Economics from the Russian Academy of Sciences; visiting Professor of Environmental Policy at DukeUniversity] & Dr. William L. Ascher [Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University; Professor of Government and Economics at Claremont  McKenna College], ³The Guide to Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development,´ Book Published by the Duke University Press, 2001, pg. 186 [Google Books]
 
c. Trade Policy
- The Word Web Online Dictionary defines trade policy as:³A government¶s policy controlling foreign trade.´
Word Web Online, © 2005-2009, http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/TRADEPOLICY [PB]
3. Conclusion
The Policy that the affirmative team changes must be one that is passed with the clear intent of environmental protection. If the policy is concerned with limiting trade for economic reasons rather than protecting theenvironment, then it is trade policy ± not environmental policy.
B. Standard
Brightline between Environmental and Trade Policy
Our interpretation provides a clear bright line that determines without a doubt whether the affirmative is upholdingthe resolution. It draws a line between trade policy and environmental policy. A bright line provides clarity andclash, and avoids confusion over the meaning of the resolution.
C. Violation
The violation of the affirmative team is clear. The tariff on Brazilian ethanol is a trade policy, because its purpose isto limit the trade of Brazilian ethanol in the U.S. in order that our own ethanol can compete and so our economy canretain its strength. The tariff is also clearly not environmental policy, because the government did not pass it with theintent of helping the environment. Therefore, the tariff is not environmental policy, and the affirmative team cannotreform it.
 
 NEG ± U.S. Ethanol Policy PROPage|
3
 Preston Black PSDC
D. Impacts
1. Fiat Power
The resolution states that the affirmative team must be resolved to reform as U.S. federal government environmental policy. This means that their fiat power only extends to the realm of USFG environmental policy. Fiat power is thetool that the affirmative team uses to assure you as the judge that if you vote for their plan then it will beimplemented in the imaginary world of debate. However, if the affirmative team¶s plan is not a reform of environmental policy, then even if you vote affirmative at the end of this round, they cannot implement their planeven in the imaginary world of debate. Since the tariff on Brazilian ethanol is trade policy, the affirmative team hasno fiat over that policy, and they cannot change it. Therefore, there is no reason for you to vote affirmative.
2. Burden of Proof Unmet
The affirmative team was supposed to prove to you that environmental policy should be reformed. This is witnessedthrough the resolution and the fact that the affirmative team is supposed to affirm the resolution. However, since theaffirmative team has not proved that environmental policy should e reformed (rather, that
trade policy
should bereformed), they have not done their job in this round, and they have not upheld their 
burden of proof!
Therefore, my partner and I strongly urge you to vote negative.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->