Climate DA

Climate Politics
Page 1 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Climate Politics
Climate Politics.............................................................................................................................................................................................1
Climate Good 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................................6
Climate Good 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................................8
2NC Impact Calc – Warming Quick...............................................................................................................................................................9
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Longer Version of 1NC Card.................................................................................................................................10
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Bro Card for 1NR..................................................................................................................................................12
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Committees .........................................................................................................................................................13
Uniqueness: Will Pass – House And G8......................................................................................................................................................14
Uniqueness: Will Pass – AT: Mccain............................................................................................................................................................15
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Vote Count...........................................................................................................................................................16
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Odds.....................................................................................................................................................................17
AT: Healthcare Prevents Climate Passage.................................................................................................................................................18
AT: Healthcare First....................................................................................................................................................................................19
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Senate .............................................................................................................................................................20
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Democrats .......................................................................................................................................................21
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Healthcare First................................................................................................................................................22
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Recession.........................................................................................................................................................24
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – China ...............................................................................................................................................................25
Uniqueness: Nuclear Concessions =/= Passage........................................................................................................................................26
AT: Senate Will Use Reconciliation.............................................................................................................................................................27
Climate Bill Inevitable................................................................................................................................................................................28
Climate Bill Inevitable................................................................................................................................................................................29
I/L: Political Capital Key..............................................................................................................................................................................30
I/L: Bipartisanship Key................................................................................................................................................................................31
Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power........................................................................................................................................................32
Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power........................................................................................................................................................33
AT: Not Enough Loan Guarantees..............................................................................................................................................................34
AT: Obama Won’t Push Nuclear Power......................................................................................................................................................35
AT: Nuclear Power Still Too Expensive.......................................................................................................................................................36
AT: Loan Guarantees Now..........................................................................................................................................................................37
AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees.............................................................................................................................................................38
AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees.............................................................................................................................................................40
Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics
Page 2 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Bad...............................................................................................................................................................................41
AT: Nuclear Power Bad...............................................................................................................................................................................42
AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive................................................................................................................................................................43
AT: No Workforce/Manufacturing Capacity................................................................................................................................................44
Federal Government Key To Nuclear Leadership.......................................................................................................................................45
Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (1/2).......................................................................................................................................................46
Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (2/2).......................................................................................................................................................48
Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (1/2).................................................................................................................................................49
Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (2/2).................................................................................................................................................50
Nuclear Power Good—Poverty...................................................................................................................................................................51
Nuclear Power Good—Water Wars.............................................................................................................................................................52
AT: Nuclear Power Overuses Water...........................................................................................................................................................53
AT: Cap And Trade Not Kt Warming...........................................................................................................................................................54
AT: Wind Solves..........................................................................................................................................................................................56
AT: Solar Solves..........................................................................................................................................................................................57
AT: Stimulus Solves....................................................................................................................................................................................58
AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe.............................................................................................................................................59
AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe.............................................................................................................................................60
AT: State Cap And Trade Solves.................................................................................................................................................................61
C&T Good—Extinction................................................................................................................................................................................62
Ext. C&T Solves Warming...........................................................................................................................................................................63
Cap And Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................67
Cap and Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................71
China Key To Solve Warming.....................................................................................................................................................................72
Positive Feedbacks.....................................................................................................................................................................................73
AT: Current Emission Levels Too High.......................................................................................................................................................74
AT: G8 Solves.............................................................................................................................................................................................75
AT: Free Market Solves/Government Control Bad......................................................................................................................................76
AT: Carbon Leakage...................................................................................................................................................................................77

2

Climate Politics
Page 3 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: EPA Regulation Solves.........................................................................................................................................................................78
Climate Models Good.................................................................................................................................................................................79
Warming Anthropogenic............................................................................................................................................................................80
AT: Recent Events Disprove Climate Change............................................................................................................................................81
AT: Recent Events Disprove Climate Change............................................................................................................................................82
AT: Climate Change Theory Inconsistent...................................................................................................................................................83
AT: Negative Feedbacks.............................................................................................................................................................................84
AT: Solar Radiation Cuases Warming.........................................................................................................................................................85
AT: Natural Temperature Cycles................................................................................................................................................................86
AT: Satellite Data Proves No Warming.......................................................................................................................................................87
Warming Bad—Sea Level...........................................................................................................................................................................88
Warming Bad—Economy............................................................................................................................................................................89
Warming Bad—Environment......................................................................................................................................................................90
Warming Bad—Disease (1/2).....................................................................................................................................................................91
Warming Bad—Disease (2/2).....................................................................................................................................................................92
Warming Bad—Water Wars........................................................................................................................................................................93
Ext. Warming Causes Water Scarcity.........................................................................................................................................................94
Warming Bad—Forests...............................................................................................................................................................................95
Warming Bad—Systemic Death/Poverty....................................................................................................................................................96
AT: Trade Turn............................................................................................................................................................................................97
AT: Trade Turn............................................................................................................................................................................................98
AT: Trade Turn..........................................................................................................................................................................................100
AT: WTO Checks Trade Wars....................................................................................................................................................................101
AT: C&T Kills Economy.............................................................................................................................................................................102
AT: Climate Bill Kills Economy..................................................................................................................................................................103
AT: Climate Bill Kills Economy..................................................................................................................................................................105
AT: C&T Kills Economy – Auctions ...........................................................................................................................................................106
C&T Good—Hegemony.............................................................................................................................................................................107
Ext. Climate Kt Leadership.......................................................................................................................................................................108
AT: Competitiveness Turn........................................................................................................................................................................110
AT: Cap And Trade Fails/Economy Turns.................................................................................................................................................111
EIA Indict (Electricity Prices)....................................................................................................................................................................112
***Climate Bad***....................................................................................................................................................................................113
Nuclear Power Decreasing.......................................................................................................................................................................114

3

Climate Politics
Page 4 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Bad – Extincion.................................................................................................................................................................115
AT: Nuclear Power Leadership.................................................................................................................................................................116
Nuclear Power Bad – Prolif ......................................................................................................................................................................117
AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif.................................................................................................................................................................118
AT: Nuclear Power Solves Water Wars.....................................................................................................................................................119
C&T Bad – Warming ................................................................................................................................................................................120
C&T Can’t Solve Warming........................................................................................................................................................................121
C&T Fails – Warming ...............................................................................................................................................................................127
AT: C&T Solves Warming..........................................................................................................................................................................128
AT: Sea Levels..........................................................................................................................................................................................130
AT: Disease Spread..................................................................................................................................................................................131
AT: Drought..............................................................................................................................................................................................132
AT: Forests...............................................................................................................................................................................................133
Greenhouse Theory Flawed......................................................................................................................................................................134
Climate Models Bad..................................................................................................................................................................................135
C&T Bad – Economy ................................................................................................................................................................................136
Ext. C&T Kills Economy............................................................................................................................................................................138
Ext. Can’t Solve Warming/Economy.........................................................................................................................................................142
AT: C&T Solves Economy.........................................................................................................................................................................143
AT: C&T Solves Economy – Green Jobs....................................................................................................................................................144
2NC Trucking Industry Module.................................................................................................................................................................145
Trucking Industry Brink............................................................................................................................................................................146
Ext. Trucking Key to Economy.................................................................................................................................................................147
C&T Bad – Competitiveness (1/2)............................................................................................................................................................148
C&T Bad – Competitiveness (2/2)............................................................................................................................................................150
Ext. C&T Kills Competitiveness................................................................................................................................................................152
C&T Bad – Free Trade...............................................................................................................................................................................154
C&T Bad – Poverty ...................................................................................................................................................................................155
Healthcare Kt Climate..............................................................................................................................................................................156
4

Climate Politics
Page 5 of 156
7WJ – HPSW

Climate Politics
Page 6 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Climate Good 1NC
Climate bill will pass – but it’ll be a tough fight
Samuelsohn, 7/27 (Darren, Interview with Senator John Kerry, “We’re Going to Get It Done,”
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2174)
Yale Environment 360: I remember watching you last year in the Senate debate on the floor as [you] were voting on the Lieberman-Warner [climate] bill, working with your senators. President Bush was waiting at
that point with a veto pen. Now you have President Obama, who would sign a bill. Can you talk a little about the [changed]
dynamics?
This time there’s a reality to it, because the science is more compelling, because we
John Kerry:
have a Democratic president, because we have 60 votes, because we have a responsibility to people, to
Copenhagen, and the United States needs to lead. So there’s a very different dynamic, and I think a lot of
communities have already moved — I mean, the electorate is way ahead of some of our colleagues here, in terms of energy efficiency projects, other kinds of things mayors have done, some of the governors, the
as people
state compacts in the Midwest, in the West, in the Northeast. Over half the American economy has already voluntarily put itself under mandatory [carbon] reduction schemes. So I think
begin to analyze the realities here, there are greater possibilities this time around. Doesn’t mean
it’s going to be easy — it’s not, it’s a very complicated issue, and it will be hard fought.
Obama’s political capital key – passage now is vital to global action that will solve
warming
Guardian 9 (From Yale Environment 360, part of the Guardian Environment Network, 2/3,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/03/network-obama-climate-meeting-copenhagen)
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says that emissions
must be stabilized by 2015 and in decline by 2020. Science, in its rightful place, can tolerate no further
delay. For Obama, the political winds at his back are now as favorable as they will ever be. He is in a
position to seize 2009 and do three things to meet the climate challenge: properly educate the American public about climate change and the need for immediate action; exercise the full might of his
executive powers and regulatory discretion under the Clean Air Act to jump-start action; and spend freely from his enormous store of political
capital to lead the government to enact comprehensive federal climate legislation. If he does,
the United States will reclaim the mantle of global leadership when it takes its seat in
Copenhagen. After eight years of U.S. inaction on climate change, American leadership offers the only hope of
success. Even if President Obama himself decides to attend the talks — and hopefully he will — his mission will fail unless he carries with him a year's worth of demonstrated results to lend weight and
credibility to the promise he made in his inaugural address to "roll back the specter of a warming planet." In Copenhagen, his inspiring oratory alone will not be sufficient; he must demonstrate how science has
been restored "to its rightful place" in America in strong climate regulation and law. For almost a decade, Americans have been purposefully led astray about the reality of global warming and about the positive
. The new president must use the bully pulpit of his

relationship that exists between sustainable economic prosperity and environmental stewardship
office to provide quick and remedial education. Obama has well chosen his scientific team in John Holdren, the White House science adviser; Jane
Lubchenco, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and he should empower them and other government scientists to speak loudly, unequivocally, and
frequently to the American public about the true science of climate change and the urgency of our present circumstances. The latest science only underscores the need for immediate action, given the acceleration
of global ice melt, extreme weather events, dangerous feedback loops, and potentially irreversible changes. The president must also instruct his cabinet to clarify the impact of global climate change on each of
their respective portfolios. Global warming has been crammed into a "green" box for the sake of political expediency. Instead, it must be appreciated for its cross-cutting immensity — it is fundamental to national
security, global commerce, economic recovery, energy security, public health and safety, agricultural policy, land-use planning, and environmental protection.
Obama must also make a prime-time, televised address to the nation about the climate crisis and the need for immediate action and U.S. global leadership. Such a speech would send a clear signal to the American
, the president must

public and the political establishment and prepare them to come together with the nations of the world in Copenhagen to meet this grave challenge. Simultaneously
travel to Copenhagen with real regulatory and legislative achievements. Signs are good that
Obama genuinely means business. He is talking frequently about energy and climate change, and his economic recovery package makes important commitments toward
green jobs, clean energy, and energy efficiency — $54 billion worth. This is more than a third of the $150 billion he promised over the next 10 years for clean energy investments, so if the package survives its
passage through Congress, he will be ahead of schedule on that score. By itself, though, this investment inside a trillion dollar package merely colors the economic recovery with a pale green hue. It is not an energy
and climate plan, and Obama will still face heavy regulatory and legislative lifting to turn promise into reality
before Copenhagen. Expectations are high that he will exercise the executive authority he already has under the Clean Air Act to achieve some quick victories and put pressure on Congress to act boldly. With former EPA chief Carol Browner heading up his climate
team in the White House, Obama has tapped the talent he needs to implement a powerful regulatory strategy. As expected, the EPA's first order of climate business is already moving forward: granting a long-delayed waiver to California to allow the state to impose
more stringent auto emissions rules, which 13 other states are poised to adopt as well. Manufacturers will soon have to deliver higher mileage vehicles on an accelerated schedule. By approving the waiver after a formal review process, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson
will guarantee steep future emissions reductions from the transportation sector, and allow the thorny bailout of Detroit to proceed without any doubt as to where the industry must head, despite currently low fuel prices. The boldness of Obama's regulatory strategy,
however, really hinges upon the fate of coal-burning power plants under the Clean Air Act. Since the Supreme Court affirmed in Massachusetts v. EPA that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant under the law, it has become an open question as to how
existing coal plants and permits for new ones will now fare under the act. The EPA plainly has the right to control CO2 emissions, and the real issue is how aggressively the law will be applied. In the short term, the question of coal rests largely in Obama's hands, and
he has the authority to stop new dirty coal plants cold. He proved it his first week in office when the EPA revoked an air permit for the Big Stone II coal plant in South Dakota, pending further review. If that first signal gets amplified, it will certainly change the tone of
what happens with coal in Congress longer-term, where powerful lobbies have held science at bay. The president's executive action on coal will invigorate Copenhagen and bring seriousness to bilateral discussions with China, the world's coal juggernaut. At his
direction, the Clean Air Act can jump-start climate action by speeding aggressive federal standards for building and appliance efficiency and placing limits on other carbon-intensive sources of pollution — steel mills, cement plants, other heavy industries, and shipping.
Coming to Copenhagen with the necessary legislative accomplishments — in addition to regulatory ones —
will be harder still, but it is essential to Obama's success. The proposed economic recovery package has been disappointing to advocates of public transit, light
rail, and smart growth, with sparse dollars allocated to those needs. But with the federal Transportation Bill up for reauthorization in 2009, Obama has another chance to redirect land use away from highway sprawl
and in a low-carbon, mass-transit direction. The administration should also strengthen energy efficiency incentives and clean energy tax credits, adopt a mandatory federal renewable energy target, and increase
, Obama must expend political capital in Congress and work with leaders
investment in a clean energy grid. To secure his crowning achievement
thereto complete passage of science-based federal legislation capping greenhouse gas emissions. The
legislation must be signed into law this year, as delay into 2010 will wreck it on the shoals of mid-term
6

Climate Politics
Page 7 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
elections, a time when political courage disappears. There will not be another political opportunity as ripe as
now; nor will there be another financial context more sensitive to a strong new signal. As the global economy starts to rise from collapse, it must do so with a price on carbon as part of its cure. There
is considerable debate about the form which a cap and a price signal should take — in recent weeks a
carbon tax has even been a topic of renewed discussion. None of the options is perfect, but one of them is rising as a preferred choice because
it protects low-and middle-income families from rising energy prices. It's called "cap-and-dividend." Under this program, permits to pollute the air with greenhouse gases would be auctioned and the proceeds
returned to citizens. The extra income, which should be targeted especially to the poor, will protect the most vulnerable American families from rising energy prices and will help build a long-term constituency for
climate action. In the present economic crisis, the prospect of sending monthly dividend checks to families is a political winner. It makes a cap-and-dividend plan largely immune from criticism that it will be costly to
the public, and it increases the chances of passage this year. Many believe it may be necessary to reserve some portion of the auction revenues for investments in clean energy programs at home and in adaptation
and technology transfers abroad. Whether the allocations should be shared and what the right ratios ought to be will be the subject of intense political negotiation on Capitol Hill. Still, cap-and-dividend provides the
best point of departure because it creates a fundamental break with business-as-usual. It establishes a new, winning, cognitive frame of reference: the democratic principle that an equal share of the sky belongs to
each person. Indeed, Peter Barnes, who originally formulated this concept and has championed it tirelessly, began by asking a simple question: Who owns the sky? Without a price signal, nobody does, and global
warming pollution will proceed essentially unchecked. With cap-and-dividend, everybody owns the sky and the emissions cap then becomes universally comprehensible as it begins to turn us toward a low-carbon
. This American accomplishment, brought by President Obama to Copenhagen along with

future
other concrete actions, would set the stage for passage of a comprehensive
international treaty to slow global warming. Now is the year for President Obama to act,
while the window of opportunity is wide open.

Climate Politics
Page 8 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Climate Good 1NC
Warming guarantees multiple positive feedbacks triggering extinction – adaptation
cannot solve
Tickell, 8 (Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is
extinction”, 8/11http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like
wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd
and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words
that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning
of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term
sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities,
transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography
would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel,
the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe
The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would
droughts, floods and hurricanes.
undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned
that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable
understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer
The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the
melting of the Arctic sea ice.
more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a
greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under
way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global
temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as
methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than
today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event
may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a
similar hothouse Earth.

Climate Politics
Page 9 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
2NC Impact Calc – Warming Quick
The impact is quick – 81 months to extinction
Guardian Weekly, 8 (Andrew Simms, “Guardian Weekly: Just 100 months left to save Earth: Andrew
Simms on a New Green Deal that could forestall the climate change tipping point”, 8/15, L/N)
In just 100 months' time, if we are lucky, and based on a conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for
the beginnings of runaway climate change. Let us be clear exactly what we mean. The concentration of carbon
dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, is the highest it has been for the past 650,000 years. In
just 250 years, as a result of the coal-fired Industrial Revolution, and changes to land use such as the growth of cities and the felling
of forests, we have released more than 1,800bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Currently, approximately 1,000 tonnes of CO2
are released into the atmosphere every second, due to human activity. Greenhouse gases trap incoming solar radiation, warming the
atmosphere. When these gases accumulate beyond a certain level - a "tipping point" - global
warming will accelerate, potentially beyond control. Faced with circumstances that threaten human civilisation,
scientists at least have the sense of humour to term what drives this process as "positive feedback". In climate change, a
number of feedback loops amplify warming through physical processes that are either triggered by the initial warming, or the
increase in greenhouse gases. One example is the melting of ice sheets. The loss of ice cover reduces the ability of
the Earth's surface to reflect heat and, by revealing darker surfaces, increases the amount of heat absorbed.
Other dynamics include the decreasing ability of oceans to absorb CO2 due to higher wind
strengths, linked to climate change. This has already been observed in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic, increasing the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and adding to climate change. Because of such self-reinforcing feedbacks, once
a critical greenhouse concentration threshold is passed, global warming will continue even if we
stop releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If that happens, the Earth's climate will shift into a more volatile
state, with different ocean circulation, wind and rainfall patterns, the implications of which are potentially
catastrophic for life on Earth. This is often referred to as irreversible climate change. So, how do we
arrive at the ticking clock of 100 months? It's possible to estimate the length of time it will take to reach a tipping point. To do so you
combine current greenhouse gas concentrations with the best estimates for the rates at which emissions are growing, the maximum
concentration of greenhouse gases allowable to forestall potentially irreversible changes to the climate system, and the effect of
those environmental feedbacks.

Climate Politics
Page 10 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Longer Version of 1NC Card
Climate bill will pass and solve the economy – but it’ll be a tough fight – Obama’s
political capital is key
Samuelsohn, 7/27 (Darren, Interview with Senator John Kerry, “We’re Going to Get It Done,”
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2174)
Yale Environment 360: I remember watching you last year in the Senate debate on the floor as [you] were voting on the Lieberman-Warner [climate] bill, working with your senators. President Bush was waiting at
that point with a veto pen. Now you have President Obama, who would sign a bill. Can you talk a little about the [changed]
dynamics?
This time there’s a reality to it, because the science is more compelling, because we
John Kerry:
have a Democratic president, because we have 60 votes, because we have a responsibility to people, to
Copenhagen, and the United States needs to lead. So there’s a very different dynamic, and I think a lot of
communities have already moved — I mean, the electorate is way ahead of some of our colleagues here, in terms of energy efficiency projects, other kinds of things mayors have done, some of the governors, the
as people
state compacts in the Midwest, in the West, in the Northeast. Over half the American economy has already voluntarily put itself under mandatory [carbon] reduction schemes. So I think
begin to analyze the realities here, there are greater possibilities this time around. Doesn’t mean
it’s going to be easy — it’s not, it’s a very complicated issue, and it will be hard fought.
e360: As an advocate without President Bush around, though, is it hard to push this?
Kerry: We don’t want [to be] divisive, we don’t want anything partisan out of this. It’s not a partisan issue.
This is an issue that ought to be based on science, on facts, on economics, and on good environmental policy — good economic
policy, may I add significantly. I mean,this bill is really a bill for the transformation of the American
economy. This bill is about jobs — clean energy jobs that stay here in America, that pay people
decent salaries. It represents one of the fastest growing sectors of many of our states, including North Dakota. North Dakota, it has been determined by the
[American Wind Energy] Association, is the number one potential state for wind in the country. It could produce ten thousand times its own electricity needs just from wind. So,
there are many reasons for people to embrace what is going to be done here. It is an anti-pollution bill that protects children from all the impacts of bad air, and it is a huge step
forward for energy independence for our country.
e360: Some say that the House bill is too weak, that it was watered down too much in the negotiations. You have the Europeans calling for stronger targets. What’s your opinion?
Kerry: I introduced legislation several years ago that had higher levels of reductions. But we’re going to have to find a level of compromise here that works for people. I know that
the House started at a higher level and had to move backward somewhat, but it got the votes, and we’re going to have to negotiate here — obviously intelligently — and get the
the
votes. I can’t tell you what the level will be in the bill, because those are decisions that will be made down the road here as we get together in the next weeks. I think
House bill is actually a very good bill, a very strong bill, [with] enormous positive assets, and
there may be several things we feel we can tweak, make stronger. We met with Markey and Waxman, and they
encouraged us to do that if we can in various places, even gave us some ideas about things they would have liked to have done but weren’t able to. So the key here is to build as
broad a coalition as is possible.
e360: In [the 2004 presidential] campaign, you didn’t win West Virginia and Montana and the Dakotas and these states that are the swing states. Are you concerned that you might be too polarizing as a senator
representing Massachusetts now?
Kerry: I really don’t think so. You have to be reasonable — West Virginia has huge unemployment, a lot of folks who are on the lower end of the economic income scale, and a major coal interest, and I respect that.
We’re trying to find a way to save the coal industry. In fact, coal has a better opportunity for its future if it comes on board this bill, because if it doesn’t, it’s going to be regulated by the EPA, without the assistance
that we’re going to put in this bill to help them. So, our commitment to clean coal technology is in fact a huge incentive for coal states to recognize that this is a good moment. Again, this is legislating, this is not a
campaign, this is not a race for the presidency. This is about how do we meet those interests.
e360: From a political standpoint, after every single House amendment vote that took place in the Energy and Commerce Committee, reporters’ e-mail inboxes were flooded with press releases from the National
Republican Congressional Committee attacking the House Democrats who voted on those amendments. Kerry: Well, there’s a huge grassroots effort going on right now that will support the people who are involved
with this. Al Gore, the Climate Action Partnership. Different people are raising money, hiring people involved with grassroots organizing, putting advertisements together, and they’re going to run ads in support of
people where they do this, and they’re also going to run ads describing this challenge appropriately in certain states to encourage people to change their mind. But they’re going to try to educate the public about it.
So this will be hard fought, it’ll be a very big deal, it’ll be very tough. I have no illusions about it, I know it’s tough. It’s taken a lot of time to try to get health care through here. And we’re still fighting that. But there
this is a growing recognition of a major challenge to Americans’ security and economic interests.
e360: Republicans think they can take the House and Senate back with this vote. I’ve also talked to Newt Gingrich. He says President Obama, in a run for a second term, could be in trouble because of this cap-and-
trade bill. Do you think there’s any truth to that?
Kerry: I don’t agree. This is an economic jobs bill. This is a jobs bill, we will show. We had Governor Bill Ritter from Colorado here, Governor Christine Gregoire here, two days ago, talking about how many jobs they
created in their states as a consequence of their moves on environmental policy, and what they’re doing, and they can dispute and completely discredit any arguments that they’ve lost jobs because they’re doing
those things. So as the evidence comes in, people who look at the facts are going to realize what’s really happening here. You have to take risks. The Republicans, what’s their plan? What plan do they have for
anything? Do they have a plan for heath care? No. Do they want to fix the system? No. Their “no” is a vote for the status quo, and the status quo hurts Americans. What’s their energy, what’s their global climate
change policy? To stick their heads in the sand and pretend it isn’t happening? And risk catastrophe for our nation and the planet? I think people will recognize the importance of these issues as we go forward. Let
this debate be joined. I look forward to it.
e360: At the press conference after Lieberman-Warner last year you talked about how this was one of the first times that the senators had had to grapple with the issue. What’s changed from last year to this year?
Kerry: I think our colleagues are well aware of the problem and concerned about it. They’re just trying to figure out what’s the best way to try to deal with it. I think what’s changed is that the science is coming back
major
dramatically faster — and in greater affirmation of the predictions — than anybody had thought, and so scientists are deeply alarmed. That’s one thing that’s changed. Secondly ,
businesses and corporations have signed up realizing that this is critical to their economic future,
and so you have DuPont and Siemens, and various power companies, like Florida Power and Light and American Electric
Power, who believe that we’ve got to do this. You’ve got tech companies, different kinds of entities,
all of whom believe that this is a big deal for America’s economy, that we’re going to create jobs
that don’t go overseas, that provide a higher standard of living. I think that that realization is striking home with people. Thirdly, you’ve
got global climate change impacts hitting states all across the country. Less rainfall, stronger drought, fire risks, beetle pine nut bugs that are eating forests in Colorado and Montana. Things are happening to the
negative because of climate change, and local populations are perceiving those things. So I think that the public is ahead of some of the politicians in Washington on this, and we’ve just got to get it caught up.
e360: What specifics are you going to add to the bill from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Kerry: I can’t tell you what we will do or not do. We may just put them into the bill with [Environment and Public
Works Committee Chairwoman] Barbara [Boxer]. We may mark it up ourselves. That decision has yet to be made. e360: Can you talk about what general issues you intend? Kerry: The kinds of things are offsets,
adaptation technology transfer, potential goals for Copenhagen... e360: How much does the health care debate influence the climate debate — success on health care breeds success on climate and failure on
when you fail at

health care could be trouble? Kerry: Well you know how this place works, any time you’re successful it opens up the opportunity to go out and be successful again. But
something it also doesn’t end the opportunity to get something done. People make too much of all that
stuff. These issues are going to rise and fall based on how well they are addressed. I think this bill
10

Climate Politics
Page 11 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
is already better than a lot of people think it is or know it is, because they don’t know yet really
what’s in it. But when they learn that there are billions of dollars there to help develop clean coal technology, when they learn there are incentives for energy efficiencies or new technologies, that
we’re helping to mitigate any kind of cost increase against the individual homeowner or electricity user, which we do very effectively in this. CBO [Congressional Budget Office] — and the EPA — has demonstrated
that the cost to the lowest quintile of Americans is actually no cost, it’s $40 in their pocket, and the cost to others is a range, between 75 dollars and a hundred and something, over an entire year for a family of
four. But that’s without taking into account energy efficiencies or taking into account the new technologies. So that’s now being scoped into it, and it also doesn’t take into account the final things in the House when
they voted. That was on the Waxman-Markey original bill, and I think that as people learn that this is actually a winner, it’s a jobs winner, it’s a jobs creator, it’s a significant engine of growth for the economy, as
well as an improvement in the health of children because you’re reducing pollution. And also increasing the security of the United States because you’re reducing energy dependency, a lot of people are going to
say, “Wow, this is not the scary thing people have described it as.” e360: What level of specificity do you think the United States needs going into Copenhagen? Kerry: Well I think what the House has done,
and if we get a bill out of committee here, that’s pretty good, that’s a good level to go in with. Would it be better if we finished the job here and got it passed? Absolutely, that’s our goal. But we have to see what
happens to the Senate schedule, and just where we are, overall, budget issues, health care, and everything else. Hopefully we’ll have time to do it. e360: Senator Reid has said that he would like it signed into law
by Copenhagen, and Speaker Pelosi has said the same. Kerry: We’d all like it — ideally you’d get a November signing. e360: And going into Copenhagen, if you had a law, does that tie the United States’ hands,
negotiating with China and with other countries? Kerry: Not at all. I think that China is doing a lot more than people know or think. Is it sufficient yet to deal with what we have to deal with going into Copenhagen?
Not yet, but that is what has to be fleshed out in the negotiating process. e360: How do you convince senators here to vote for a bill knowing that China hasn’t yet signed on the dotted line? Kerry: We have to
do what we have to do no matter what. I think people understand that. And if you want to enhance China’s prospects of signing onto [a treaty], we’re better off passing something. That puts pressure on China and
India and everybody else. So if your interest is in getting something done, we should pass something. You know, what people ought to understand is that legislation isn’t forever. If evidence came in in a few years
showing we could slow it down, we can always react. If evidence came in saying we’ve got to speed it up, we can react. This is not a static process. Things don’t end with Copenhagen, the issue doesn’t suddenly go
away. Whatever we achieve in Copenhagen is a first major step, among many, that are going to be necessary, with some adjustment as we go along to the realities of science and economics and other things as
they come at us. e360: Do we leave Copenhagen with a document that is the Copenhagen Protocol? Kerry: I hope so. I’m optimistic about the capacity to do it. But it’s going to take leadership, and a bona fide
effort by the United States, to do what we need to do. e360: When you look at the G8 meetings that just happened, or Secretary Clinton’s trip to India, there was some pretty harsh reaction toward the United
States, and you have the House bill at that moment, too.
Kerry: It’s been overblown — the Indians are repeating what they’ve always been saying, and the Chinese likewise. I thought the 2 degrees C goal [temperature increase target] they came out of [the G8 meetings]
with is pretty significant, because a 2 degrees goal carries with it certain obligations. It also carries with it some requirements with respect to what you do, domestically, to achieve that. e360: What happens if this
can’t pass this year — does this go on the shelf like health care?
This is going to grow in significance and importance, and regrettably it’s going to get
Kerry:
actually more expensive, because it is harder to take more [CO2] out of the atmosphere the
more you delay, and that gets more expensive. So in fact delay hurts the American consumer,
and we need to show them exactly how.
11

Climate Politics
Page 12 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Bro Card for 1NR
Cap and trade will pass the Senate because of Obama’s political capital and solve for
warming– but it will be a tough fight
BMI 7/1/09 (Americas Oil and Gas Insights, Climate Bill To Face Tough Time In Senate)
The US House of Representatives voted 219 to 212 in favour of the 'American Clean Energy and Security
Act' on June 26 in a hard won victory for one of President Barack Obama's key legislative policies.
The passage of the bill, also referred to as the Waxman-Markey Bill after its authors, will face a far tougher
time in the Senate, where the upper chamber's composition makes the polarisation of regional
interests far more pronounced.
The bill ratified by the House would create a cap-and-trade system intended to curb emissions while
creating a market for trading pollution permits and funding investment in new energy sources. It
aims to cut fossil fuel emissions from power plants, factories, oil refineries and vehicles to 17%
below 2005 levels by 2020. The bill's cap-and-trade programme allocates 85% of credits to industry without cost, with the
remaining 15% to be auctioned. Revenue from the auction will be redistributed to low-income households. The Waxman-
Markey Bill would also require that at least 15% of US electricity production by 2020 come from
renewable sources. Having gained approval from the lower house, the bill now passes to a
sceptical Senate for ratification.
Senators from Midwestern and industrial states are concerned that a cap-and-trade system could raise energy costs for consumers,
including farmers, while forcing US companies to comply with stricter environmental standards than their overseas competitors.
Attempts to water down the bill could, however, risk the support of senators, such as Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, who
support more stringent environmental standards.
Obama has asked Congress to pass a bill before December's UN climate change conference in
President
Copenhagen but gaining Senate support for the Waxman-Markey Bill will be a key test of his
legislative pull. Key members of Obama's administration, including energy secretary Steven Chu and foreign relations
committee chairman John Kerry, have been working on securing Senate support for the bill since January. Even with Obama's support,
Senate agriculture and forestry committee chairman senator Tom Harkin of Iowa said passage of the bill would be tough. Indeed, with
at least six of the Senate's 20 committees working on alternative legislation, according to Bloomberg, the bill is unlikely to survive in
its current form.
Further political horse-trading is inevitable, but the passage of the Waxman-Markey Bill
through the House of Representatives is a landmark victory for Obama's energy policy, which is predicated
on a transition away from dependence on fossil fuels and significant investment in renewable technologies. With Obama
clearly willing to expend significant political capital to secure the passage of
legislation which will, for the fist time, put a price on US greenhouse gas emissions, passage of a wide-ranging
climate change bill before the end of 2009 now seems assured.
12

Climate Politics
Page 13 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Committees
This year’s version of the bill will pass—all key committees support it
Hotakainen 7/12/2009 (Rob, Miami Herald, "Boxer faces challenge of a lifetime' on climate change bill",
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/v-print/story/1138238.html, WEA)
Last year, Boxer's standalone climate-change bill fell to defeat, but there's a new strategy this
year that will make it harder for senators to reject it. Six committees - Environment and Public Works, which
Boxer heads, Finance, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture and Foreign Relations - will have jurisdiction over the bill. Those
committee heads have been meeting for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who'll
help combine their work into one massive bill this fall.
Boxer said the approach was unlike any she'd experienced since she joined the Senate in 1993, and she predicted that it will simplify
passage.
"It's a different dynamic, and it will make it easier," she said in the interview. "There will be so much in this bill.
There will be investments in transportation. There will be great opportunities for agriculture. There will be great incentives for energy
efficiency. There will be so much in there. There will be help for areas that need flood control. It should have a broader appeal. Having
said that, it's all difficult."
While vote counts vary, most observers say the bill's fate will lie with 15 or so Democratic moderates, many of whom fear that a vote
Boxer is trying to round up some Republican
for climate change legislation could hurt their re-election chances.
votes to offset opposition from the likes of Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of
Nebraska.
Boxer has been telling audiences for years that Congress must act, and that it will. After years of battling with the Bush
administration, Boxer figures she has the best odds ever of getting a bill signed into law.
13

Climate Politics
Page 14 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – House And G8
We control momentum—House passage and G8 meeting.
Bishu 7/17/2009 (Deswta, Ethiopian Review, "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill, Now Heads to Senate",
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/14962, WEA)
The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a sweeping climate change bill today that will significantly change
the way Americans use and produce energy.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which passed on a 219-212 vote, now moves to the Senate, where
experts predict another battle.
Environmental groups hailed the bill's passing.
"This vote was a major hurdle, and we've cleared it," Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a
prepared statement. "President Obama can walk into the G8 summit of world leaders in Italy next week
with his head held high. Now we have momentum to move and improve legislation in the Senate
and put it on President Obama's desk so he can go to December's international summit in Copenhagen with the full backing
of the Congress and the American people."
Before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told her colleagues "we cannot hold back the future." She offered four words that she
said represent the meaning of the legislation.
"Jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs," she said.
14

Climate Politics
Page 15 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – AT: Mccain
McCain will give in despite his frustration over the bill.
Yarow 7/16/2009 - economics degree at University of Delaware and master's in journalism from NYU (Jay, The Business
Insider, "What Will John McCain Do With The Climate Bill?", http://www.businessinsider.com/what-will-john-mccain-do-with-the-
climate-bill-2009-7, WEA)
With the cap and trade bill sitting in the Senate awaiting proper debate, E&E Daily takes a very long look at John McCain's record on
climate trade and tries to come up with an idea about how he'll vote.
Until Waxman and Markey put their names on the front page of the climate bill, McCain
dominated any discussions about cap and trade legislation. He's tried introducing the legislation
three different times and each time he's been shot down, pretty handily.
Now that there's a piece of legislation with some popular support, some momentum, surely he's happy? Well, not really.
And try as they might E&E can't really provide much insight as to how McCain will vote. They've
got Republican Senator George Voinovich implying that McCain would vote against the
bill because he knows it will hurt Americans. Opposing that point of view is John McCain
himself, sort of:
In contrast with GOP comments during last month's House debate, McCain argued that a cap-
and-trade bill would work during the country's historic recession, citing the economic
opportunities from a climate bill and questioning modelers who do not consider
technological innovation and other ways to lower the policy's costs. He also held firm in
his opposition to a "safety valve" limit on price limits, a point environmentalists say
would stymie development of low-carbon energy sources.
And McCain trumpeted the science, citing congressional delegation trips he had led to Antarctica,
the North Pole and Alaska.
McCain thinks the bill has a lot of crap in it (who doesn't?) but when push
Our reading of the article: John
comes to shove, he'll exercise his influence on the debate, shape it so he's happy, hold his nose
and vote yes.
15

Climate Politics
Page 16 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Vote Count
Nate Silver says it’ll get to 60 votes – but it will be a close call
Yarow, 7/6/09 (Jay, The Business Insider, Nate Silver: Enough Votes In The Senate To Pass The Climate Bill)
Political wonk and stats guru, Nate Silver says there's enough yes votes available in
the Senate to get the climate bill passed but there will be probably be more compromises.
After the House approved the climate bill, Silver created a regression model to determine how a
Representative would vote. His model was pretty accurate, so he applied it to the Senate to
see how it will vote. The model factors in ideology, partisan nature of a state, carbon
emissions per capita, poverty, lobbying and employment in carbon intensive
industries.
Overall, Silver's analysis finds there are 52 voters likely to be in favor of the bill, but thinks there
are 62-66 votes up for grabs. Here's the breakdown:
* Silver sees 44 highly likely yes votes, all Democrats, and 34 highly likely no votes, all Republicans.
* In the middle there are 6 democrats that Silver deems "likely" yes votes. That would be 50 yes votes, enough for Biden to cast a
deciding vote in favor of the legislation.
* There are 3 more "possibly maybe" votes from Mark Begich (D-AK), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) putting the
total yes votes at 53.
* There are 9 "problematic Democrats" that include: Evan Bayh (D-IN), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mary Landireu (D-
LA), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Ben Nelson (D-NE). These folks can
expect calls from Rahm Emmanuel as the vote draws near.
* There's four long shot Republicans: John McCain (R-AZ), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
While this should be assuring to any climate bill supporter, the real number that matters in the whole debate is 60.
That's the number needed to bring the bill to vote and shut off filibustering. On major pieces of legislation, like the climate bill, Silver
says the votes in favor of the bill usually fall in line with the votes against filibustering.
the bill isn't a slam dunk. There's going to be lots of compromising to get from 53 possibly
So,
approving Senators into 60 Senators definitely willing to have a vote on the bill. Once the bill is
put to a vote, it looks likely it will be approved, unless the compromises kill the bill. As Silver puts it, "The
question is how many ornaments the Democrats could place on the Christmas Tree before it starts to collapse under its own weight.
Climate bill will pass with compromises – Nate Silver’s statistical analysis proves
Doremus, 7/7/09 (Holly, Legal Planet: The Environmental Law and Policy Blog, Forecasting climate votes in the Senate)
Nate Silver, the statistician who gained prominence in the last election cycle with his predictions for the presidential race, has
modeled the prospects of the Waxman-Markey climate bill in the Senate. The analysis is necessarily based
on a number of assumptions, such as that the bill doesn’t change in its progress to the Senate floor. So its an artificial exercise, but
an interesting one.
Silver’s model finds 51 votes with a reasonably high probability (75% or higher) of voting in
favor of the bill (that’s not how Silver divides up the probabilities, but there’s a clear split in his model between Mark Begich of
Alaska (77.98%) and the next highest Senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine (55.13%)). That would be barely enough to
pass the bill, but not nearly enough to break a threatened filibuster. Silver sees 9 problematic votes in the
Democratic caucus and only 2 Republicans (Snowe and Collins of Maine) with a double-digit probability of breaking ranks with their
party.
Overall, this is a slightly better assessment than I expected. Although the model considers only
52 Senators to be more likely than not to vote for the bill, there are somewhere between 62-
66 votes that are perhaps potentially in play. But . . . further compromises would almost
certainly be needed, some of them designed to placate as few as one senator. The question is how
many ornaments the Democrats could place on the Christmas Tree before it starts to collapse under its own weight.
16

Climate Politics
Page 17 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Odds
Climate bill has better than even chances of passing
Cappiello, 7/27/09— (Dina Cappiello, San Francisco Examiner, ”AP Interview: Lieberman, despite past
rifts with Dems, still fights for global warming law”,
http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/ap/51807187.html)
Lieberman still thinks that cap-and-trade is the best way to control global warming emissions. He also says it would raise the money
needed to make "revolutionary investments" in cleaner forms of energy, and to "ameliorate some of the pain associated with an
enormous societal change" in how Americans power their homes, vehicles and businesses. "That's the thing I like most and why I
This year, however, Lieberman says the odds for
feel comfortable operating in the context of the House bill," he said.
passage "are better than even" — thanks to a president who is behind the bill, the House passing
global warming legislation for the first time and a looming December deadline for international
talks on a new treaty to reduce heat-trapping gases. The science, he said, also has gotten
more compelling since he wrote his first global warming bill more than a decade ago. "Every year the
problem gets worse, the threat of real damage gets worse, even catastrophic damage," said Lieberman, sounding like his 2000
presidential running mate, Vice President Al Gore, who went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming.
17

Climate Politics
Page 18 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Healthcare Prevents Climate Passage
Obama doesn’t have a one-track mind—pushing healthcare doesn’t rule out progress
on climate.
WSJ 7/23/2009 (Wall Street Journal, "Team Obama: why farmers should love the climate bill",
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/23/team-obama-why-farmers-should-love-the-climate-bill/tab/print/, WEA)
The fact that President Obama focused on health care to the near-total exclusion of his energy and climate
push in his press conference last night has some folks wondering: “Should we get over ourselves and concede that health
care takes priority over climate action?”
Not so fast. The Obama administration continued its offensive on the climate bill, but from a different
quarter—trying to assuage the fears of the all-important farm-state senators who can make or break the
climate push in the Senate.
A number of administration heavyweights—Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, EPA administrator Lisa
Jackson, and science advisor John Holdren—told the Senate Agriculture Committee to relax. Farmers will make out a
lot better with climate legislation than without it, enjoying “significant net benefits.”
Secretary Vilsack brandished a new report from the Agriculture Department. The upshot? Thanks to all the last-minute goodies
included in the House climate bill, farmers stand to rake in a fortune from so-called carbon offsets. That extra income will more than
compensate higher energy prices, he said.
Still on track for climate passage – Senators can walk and chew gum at the same time
Samuelsohn, 7/23/2009 (Darren, senior reporter, “Senate health care delay won't change cap-and-trade schedule, Dems
say,” E&E News, Lexis)
Top Senate Democrats insisted today that their plans for moving a global warming bill this fall
will not slip despite delays on President Obama's health care reform package. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
today acknowledged that the Senate would not begin floor debate until after the August recess on health care legislation. But that
shift in schedule does not affect Reid's Sept. 28 deadline for six Senate committees to complete
their pieces of a climate bill, according to his spokesman, Jim Manley. "Not aware of any change," Manley said of the Sept.
28 target. Reid had previously wanted to pass the health care bill before the summer break and then return in September to start a
conference with the House. That schedule was abandoned after House and Senate Democrats struggled this week to find consensus
in several committees. For now, Reid's goal is to resolve health care differences in the key committees in time for a September floor
debate, alongside several fiscal 2010 appropriations bills. And Senate Democrats still expect to meet Reid's timetable for the global
warming bill. "Ithink the idea of marking up in late September is viable, and something we ought to
do," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who sits on both the Environment and Public Works and Finance committees. "And we may
be doing that, literally, while we're debating on the floor health care legislation. But we can walk
and chew gum. Mostly." An aide to EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) confirmed that the plan still remains for
committee action in September. And Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said he planned to meet Reid's deadline for moving
his parts of the climate bill.
Baucus agrees – they’ll get climate done in September

Samuelsohn, 7/28/2009 (Darren, senior reporter, “Baucus pledges to meet late Sept. deadline for cap and trade,” E&E
News, Lexis)
Baucus (D-Mont.) will meet a late September deadline for clearing global
Senate Finance Chairman Max
warming legislation despite the all-out push for a health care bill that has dominated the
congressional agenda, he said today. "Yes, we'll meet it," Baucus said of the Sept. 28 target that Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-Nev.) has set for six committees to sign off on their pieces of a sweeping climate bill. More than any other lawmaker, Baucus has
been engulfed in negotiations on health care reform, with prospects for Senate success resting in large part on a small set of
bipartisan negotiations he is leading in the Finance Committee. At the same time, Baucus
said he is gearing up for
September, when he will also be tackling some of the core pieces of a climate bill, including the
distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in emission allowances, as well as provisions
dealing with international trade. "We're going to, in the Finance Committee, have hearings on and fully intend to mark up
allowances, which allowances are free allowances, as well as what allowances are auctioned," Baucus told E&E. "We'll be taking that
up."
18

Climate Politics
Page 19 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Healthcare First
The vote will come soon despite the push for health care
Samuelsohn, 7/28/09, (Darren, E&E News PM, CLIMATE: Baucus pledges to meet late Sept. deadline for cap and trade)
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) will meet a late September deadline for
clearing global warming legislation despite the all-out push for a health care bill that has dominated
the congressional agenda, he said today.
"Yes, we'll meet it," Baucus said of the Sept. 28 target that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has set for six committees to sign off
on their pieces of a sweeping climate bill.
More than any other lawmaker, Baucus has been engulfed in negotiations on health care reform,
with prospects for Senate success resting in large part on a small set of bipartisan negotiations he is leading in the Finance
Committee.
At the same time, Baucus said he is gearing up for September, when he will also be tackling
some of the core pieces of a climate bill, including the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in
emission allowances, as well as provisions dealing with international trade.
Obama is still lobbying Congress on a daily basis for climate

GLG 7/27/2009 (Gerson Lehrman Group, “Cap and Trade Enactment Likelihood Fading; Utilities Shouldn’t Get
Complacent,” http://www.glgroup.com/News/Cap-and-Trade-Enactment-Likelihood-Fading-Utilities-Shouldnt-
Get-Complacent-41899.html)
Administration officials and environmental groups continue to push Congress for quick action,
however. The White House is actively lobbying Congress for climate change legislation on an almost
daily basis. The administration is also working through the Environmental Protection Agency on a parallel strategy. Earlier this
year, EPA issued an “Endangerment Finding” that greenhouse gas emissions constitute a threat to human health – thereby enabling
EPA to develop regulations under the Clean Air Act with no further action by Congress. Implementation of such regulations would no
doubt be delayed by years of litigation by industry, but the development of such regulations keeps the heat on industry and Congress
to come to a legislative solution.
19

Climate Politics
Page 20 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Senate
The Senate will be substantially harder than the House.
Dlouhy 7/11/2009 (Jennifer A., Houston Chronicle, "Energy-climate overhaul an uphill battle in Congress",
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6524623.html, WEA)
Where the House membership is distributed by population — with delegations from green-friendly
California and New York having 82 members — the Senate's equal distribution of seats means that
coal-reliant Ohio has the same voting power as California.
“Regional issues tend to blow up in the Senate,” observed Frank Maisano, a Washington-based energy specialist
with Bracewell & Giuliani. For supporters, “the largest problem is the regional nature” of the debate.
20

Climate Politics
Page 21 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Democrats
Won’t pass—no Democratic unity.
SFC 7/12/2009 (San Francisco Chronicle, "Climate-change challenge shifts to the U.S. Senate", http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/12/ED5618I1CC.DTL&type=printable, WEA)
Obama hailed the package, but it's nowhere near a done deal. Collecting the 60 votes the Senate will
need to stop a filibuster and win passage is no certainty. For all of its lofty intentions, the House bill was larded with so many
giveaways and complexities that several environmental groups denounced it.
Adding to the bewilderment is the political reality that climate change doesn't necessarily follow
partisan lines. Midwest states worry about job losses if smokestack rules change. Coal states fear
that generating plants will cut back on their favorite fuel. Farm groups want ag-friendly sweeteners to
promote biofuels and allow the sale of pollution credits to outside industries. The moribund nuclear industry wants a chance to
rebound. Included in the House version is a tariff on imports from countries that don't play by the U.S. rules, a worrisome invitation to
a protectionist trade war. The present Democratic majority doesn't stick together on global warming
policy.
Supermajority isn’t enough to get it through Senate.

Garber 7/10/2009 (Kent, US News & World Report, "Climate change bill faces hurdles in the senate",
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/07/10/climate-change-bill-faces-hurdles-in-the-senate.html, WEA)
But the Senate presents special challenges. "Because there is such an overwhelming Democratic
majority in the House, you could more or less enact the bill almost entirely on Democratic votes," says
Nikki Roy, who monitors Congress for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "That's not remotely an option in the
Senate, because you have to look beneath the partisan levels."
Roy counts at least nine Senate Republicans who have expressed some support for tackling climate change and more than 20
Senate Democrats from manufacturing or oil-producing states who worry about how the emissions
limits would affect their state's industries. "These Democrats will have a hard time voting for this unless they see the
Republicans in a serious bipartisan engagement," says Roy.
21

Climate Politics
Page 22 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Healthcare First
Healthcare coverage is pushing climate off the agenda.
Walsh 7/23/2009 - founder of EnergyWorks Community Relations, founder of LinkedIn, Suffolk University Law School (Joe,
Red Green and Blue - environmental politics news site, "Three Ways Obama Wins Republicans on Climate Change",
http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/07/23/three-ways-obama-wins-republicans-on-climate-change/, WEA)
Energy didn’t get a sniff in last night’s Obama press conference. That wasn’t really a surprise given the way that
health care has elbowed its way into the political spotlight. You can count climate change among
the “priorities” now in the shadows. Health care is all touch-and-feel…it plays with everyone.
Climate change? Not so much. If Jon Stewart is snoozing, we know that the rest of America - a goodly percentage of which is far
across the spectrum from Stewart and outwardly hostile to climate change arguments - is tuned all the way out. That is partly
becauseclimate change, energy and the environment still are considered Birkenstock and granola
issues. The Obama operatives that are still engaged on climate change have finally started to tweak the
message in a way that might help sell a bill even to science skeptics and the generally apathetic.
Messaging is a start, but they will also need to tweak the policy. After all his arm-twisting on the F-22s,
Sotomayor, health care, and the stimulus, Obama has precious little political capital to bring reluctant Senate Blue Dog
Dems or GOPs over to support of comprehensive climate change legislation (whether one can put the husk of Waxman-
Markey that passed the House in that category is another question).
With no soft power left, Obama will need to combine a new message with new concessions, and this is his best formula:
Make the National Security Case for Energy Reform
Climate change efforts are being put off—healthcare is a higher priority.

Palmer 7/11/2009 (Avery, CQ Politics, "Health bill now, climate change later", WEA)
health care is the top priority for leaders on Capitol Hill and the bills intended to deal
At least for now,
with climate change will have to wait.
Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer , D-Calif., said this week that she no longer
intends to move an energy bill out of committee before the Senate leaves for its summer recess
Aug. 7. Instead, she said, the committee will debate amendments and vote on a bill in early September. Several senators said they
need the extra month to negotiate with moderates in both parties to reach agreement on a large and complicated bill. And they said
the time demands of health care legislation need to be taken into account.
“Health care swallows up everything else for a while,” said Sherrod Brown , D-Ohio. Although the committees can
still move on energy, he said, “I think in terms of floor time, the health care bill’s going to
consume our attentions and our passion.”
“Health care is a huge, complicated issue and critical that it be done, and so is climate change,” added Debbie Stabenow , D-Mich.
“Many of us are deeply involved in both, so at some point, you have to decide what we’re going to focus on.”
Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., has agreed to extend by 10 days a deadline for all committees to finish their work on the climate
change bill, giving them until Sept. 28.
Climate bill got delayed.

Goldenberg 7/9/2009 - US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne, the Guardian, "Senate Democrats push back
deadline on Obama climate change agenda", http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/09/congress-climate-change/print, WEA)
Barack Obama hit a snag in his ambitious climate change agenda today when Senate Democrats pushed
back their deadline to product a draft bill until September.
Barbara Boxer, the chair of the environment and public works committee who is spearheading the Obama environment agenda,
said she had scaled back plans of writing a first draft of a climate change bill before Congress
goes on its August recess.
"We will do it as soon as we get back," she told reporters.
She insisted that the delay would not jeopardise chances of getting climate change legislation through Congress this year. But the
move comes amid signs of rising opposition to the bill in the Senate from moderate Democrats
as well as Republicans.
Boxer would not guarantee that Congress would be able to pass legislation before December,
when Obama is due to attend an international summit on climate change at Copenhagen.
"I want to take this as far as we can take it," she said. "The more we can do the better."
22

Climate Politics
Page 23 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
The downshifting in the Democrats' agenda comes a day after a meeting of Obama's energy and climate change team at the White
House, and marks an acknowledgement by the Administration of the daunting challenge of getting enough votes for the bill in the
delicately balanced Senate. Boxer tried and failed a year ago to pass a climate change bill.
23

Climate Politics
Page 24 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Recession
Cap and trade won’t pass—recession makes it too unpopular.

Norington 7/25/2009 (Brad, the Australian, "Popular faith in Obama dwindles amid setbacks",
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25830885-7583,00.html, WEA)
He also predicts the heart of Obama's climate change plan on carbon emissions -- a cap-and-trade scheme -- could go
missing from legislation that ultimately passes in the Senate.
"I think the President had a terrific vision and grand plans on where to go with health and climate change, and if
we were not
left with this budget deficit and the recession was not as deep, it might have worked out," Cook tells The
Weekend Australian.
"He can look to getting a third to a half of what he wanted, rather than 60, 70, or 80 per cent. The challenge as a most
strategically gifted politician is selling a disappointing result as a victory : we've made a down payment, health and
climate change as a journey, not a destination."
Obama, meanwhile, is trying to brush off suggestions of setback, saying it is OK with him to delay considering health care until the
end of the year.
Obama cannot escape the realities of the US economy. But if his health and climate change policies
don't work, he may have to tread that well-worn path of US presidents whose domestic fortunes
wane: concentrate on foreign policy and hope for peace in the Middle East.
24

Climate Politics
Page 25 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – China
China is refusing to cooperate on climate—this undermines support for the Senate
bill.
Rushing 7/11/2009 (J. Taylor, the Hill, "Climate bill takes hit in Senate from China", http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/climate-bill-
takes-hit-in-senate-from-china-2009-07-11.html, WEA)
The refusal of China and other emerging economic powers to agree to emissions limits this week will
make it tougher for key Senate Democrats to support a global warming bill.
Both Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) say they are skeptical of the climate
change bill that passed the House last month. The legislation has an uncertain future in the Senate, and Environment
and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that she is delaying the bill until after the
August recess.
Brown, Lincoln and other Democrats say the reluctance of China and India to agree to emission restrictions clearly
complicates the party’s effort to pass the bill, given the likelihood that Republicans will lock down against it. Brown
said it will naturally be difficult to persuade the public to support a bill that could increase costs for businesses if there’s a
fear competition in China will gain an advantage.
25

Climate Politics
Page 26 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Nuclear Concessions =/= Passage
Nuclear power concessions not enough
Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine, ClimateWire, New York Times, additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren
Samuelsohn, "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top",
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/17/17climatewire-nuclear-title-may-not-be-enough-to-push-sena-19318.html?
pagewanted=print, WEA)
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from
North Dakota -- a heavy coal-production state -- Dorgan simply said, "We'll see."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support
but also more for biomass, natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach, Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning
Niebaum said.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a key potential Republican supporter, told reporters this week including a
nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. But McCain has also roundly criticized many
other parts of the House climate bill, which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. McCain
said the "1,400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests
and trade protection measures (E&E Daily, July 16).
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), another possible supporter, said the money or free allocations flowing
to special interests is "offensive."
"Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day, but it is not going
to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill," Corker said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, (R-Alaska), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would welcome a stronger
nuclear title in the climate bill but there are several other problems, such as the cost of the bill, said spokesman Robert Dillon.
is not supporting a cap-and-trade bill," Dillon said. "No one can give us a clear estimate
"At this point she
about the cost. ... There are more questions than answers that people need to have before they are going to say they are going
to start supporting this bill."
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who was also thought by many to be a possible supporter of a climate
change bill, said this week no amount of nuclear incentives would tempt him to support a climate bill that
involved cap and trade (E&ENews PM July 13).
"The bill needs to be junked," Alexander said at a press conference this week unveiling a "blueprint" for constructing 100
nuclear power plants in 20 years. Alexander said he would be pursuing his goal in separate legislation to boost loan guarantee funds,
increasing resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and more money to nuclear research and development.
26

Climate Politics
Page 27 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Senate Will Use Reconciliation
No reconciliation—the Senate will have to get 60 votes to block a filibuster.
Mitchell 7/2/2009 (Jim, Dallas Morning News, "Why the energy bill faces a tough Senate fight",
http://energyandenvironmentblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/07/why-the-energy-bill-has-faces.html, WEA)
Here are a few things to look for as the Senate deliberates the cap-and-trade energy bill as pointed out by former Bush advisor Keith
Hennessey.
As a reminder, there were two important Senate climate change votes in April on the Senate budget
resolution:
*67 Senators, including 27 Democrats, voted against creating fast-track reconciliation protections for a
cap-and-trade bill, meaning that supporters need 60 votes to pass a bill, rather than 51.
*54 Senators, including 13 Democrats, voted for an amendment that would allow any Senator to initiate a vote to block any climate
change provision which "cause[s] significant job loss in manufacturing or coal-dependent U.S. regions such as the Midwest, Great
Plains, or South."
27

Climate Politics
Page 28 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Climate Bill Inevitable
Delay on climate bill is good—it will still pass and gives more time to get additional
votes.
Palmer 7/11/2009 (Avery, CQ Politics, "Health bill now, climate change later", WEA)
Advocates Approve
Members of several interest groups pushing for a climate change bill said the new schedule is a
positive step, allowing more time for the Senate to reach a consensus.
“It’s a very good thing,” said Manik Roy, director of congressional affairs at the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change. “It’s very, very important that we succeed in this effort to enact
this law in this Congress. There’s no benefit to noble failure here.”
Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner said the Senate still has plenty of time to finish its work: “It doesn’t really change the
overall schedule for getting the bill done.”
The Senate also has a narrow window to pass energy legislation before the United Nations climate change negotiations this
December in Copenhagen, in which countries will try to reach a global agreement to lower emissions of greenhouse gases. Boxer said
Congress already sent a strong signal internationally with the passage of the House bill.
“I want to take this as far as I can take it,” she said. “Just having the House bill passed was a big boost, according to the
administration. So the more we can do, the better.”
Advocates for a climate treaty say the United States needs to show progress toward enacting a new law. “The further along we are on
that path, the more credible we are in the final negotiations,” said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
In addition to Boxer, five other committee chairmen will share jurisdiction over the bill. Boxer said the
Agriculture and Foreign Relations committees may draft legislative text for her to incorporate into the bill. Meanwhile, the Finance
and Commerce, Science and Transportation panels could hold separate markups.
The measure will also incorporate a bill that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
approved in June, which would set a renewable-electricity mandate and open more of the Gulf of Mexico to
oil and gas drilling.
28

Climate Politics
Page 29 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Climate Bill Inevitable
Cap and Trade inevitable – now is not key
Looker, 3/13/09- Successful Farming Magazine Business Editor (Dan, “Cap, trade legislation will take
back seat to health care reform, congressional leaders say”
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?
storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1236946503706.xml)
With President Barack Obama and Congress tackling many big issues this year -- health care
reform, education, climate change -- the effort on climate change could be delayed, along with
possible legislation to cap greenhouse gasses and allow trading of offsets. That's what two influential Democrats in Congress
Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Agriculture
told Agriculture Online Thursday.
Committee, said he doubts that cap and trade legislation will be completed in the Senate
this year. "Our number one priority right now is health care reform," Harkin said. Harkin, who has
long favored farm programs that make "green payments" for long term practices such as planting trees and grasses, said he
still has questions about exactly how a cap and trade program would work. Under cap and trade, large factories and power
plants that put out greenhouse gasses would be required to buy offsets. Europe already has mandatory cap and trade
legislation that allows big sources of greenhouse gases to buy offsets from industries that are reducing greenhouse gas
pollution. But that system does not include offsets like capturing carbon in soils on farms and in forests, something that
advocates say has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% or more. Harkin said he still has questions about
how a cap and trade law would work. "The sticking point is the inspection regime. How do you make sure people are actually
complying?" Harkin wondered Thursday. "If you're going to have agricultural offsets, you've got to make sure they're
complying. Whoever sequesters carbon, you've got to make sure it's actually happening." Harkin said that the best way to
capture carbon may be in pastures and trees, practices that take a commitment of many years. In the Senate, Californian
Boxer, head of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has indicated interest in getting a
Barbara
climate change bill passed this year. In the House, Representative Henry Waxman, another Californian who
heads the Energy and Environment Committee, has outlined a goal of getting a bill out of his committee by Memorial Day.
Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota told Agriculture Online Thursday, "I think thats a very aggressive
schedule." Herseth Sandlin repeated an assertion made earlier this week that she would not support cap and trade if it doesn't
include agricultural offsets that would be paid to farmers and landowners under the program. And she's concerned about how
caps on emissions might affect coal-fired power plants that supply electricity to rural areas. Besides serving on the House
Agriculture Committee, Herseth Sandlin is on a the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which
was formed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007. "I would agree with Senator Harkin's assessment that it's
not likely
that climate change legislation would be signed into law before the end of the year," she said
Thursday. According to published reports, other congressional leaders, including Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, still want to get climate change legislation passed this year. That makes this
issue crucial for agriculture, says Laura Sands, coordinator of the Ag Carbon Market Working Group, which represents a
coalition of farm leaders from commodity groups. In an e-mail message to Agriculture Online, Sands said, "Farmers know that
it is critical that members of Congress with agricultural interests are stepping up to ensure that the interests of their
constituents are represented and protected. We realize that some in the leadership of Congress have established an
aggressive schedule for cap and trade. We think a bill will pass in the next several years and what happens to
offset proposals this year could set the precedent for any type of cap and trade policy that evolves in the future. What is
important right now for farmers is that agricultural and rural members of Congress establish a strong offsets provision that
reduces the cost to the economy and develops a significant, multi-billion dollar carbon market for farmers."
29

Climate Politics
Page 30 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
I/L: Political Capital Key
Political capital key to passage – Democratic majority and action now is key to solve
warming
Walsh 7/23/2009 - founder of EnergyWorks Community Relations, founder of LinkedIn, Suffolk University Law School (Joe,
Red Green and Blue - environmental politics news site, "Three Ways Obama Wins Republicans on Climate Change",
http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/07/23/three-ways-obama-wins-republicans-on-climate-change/, WEA)
The science says we’re at a tipping point, there is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until the
end of the session, Copenhagen is just five months away. If Obama wants policy reform, now is the time to take
these three steps. His political courage today will dictate whether tomorrow’s environment will benefit
from an abandonment of yesterday’s energy consumption habits.
Political capital is key to get the climate bill passed—House pressure proves.
Sidoti 09 LIZ SIDOTI- Associated Press Writer- 6-28, 2009 (“Analysis: Obama scores major, much-needed victory,” Associated
Press, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8581478)
Facing a rare defeat, President Barack Obama put a big dose of political capital on the line and scored a major victory just when he
needed one. In private telephone conversations and last-minute public appeals, Obama leaned heavily on House
Democratic holdouts to support the first energy legislation ever designed to curb global warming. The
measure ended up passing in dramatic fashion. In the end, the president's furious lobbying â€”
coupled with a final push by allies including former Vice President Al Gore â€” carried much weight. To a certain extent, the
victory validated Obama's governing style â€” and that could bode well for his other top domestic priority, health care. He faces
an even more difficult test in shepherding the energy and climate legislation through the Senate.
Obama recognizes as much. "Now my call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future.
And we must not be prisoners of the past," Obama said in his weekend Internet and radio address. He scrapped his talk on his original
topic, health care, and recorded the climate bill speech shortly after the Democratic-controlled House backed the measure on a 219-
212 vote late Friday. It was a win Obama certainly needed. Congress was getting ready for a weeklong holiday break and already
health care was hanging in the balance. While his popularity remains strong, Obama's overall ratings have slipped a bit. This restive
nation also is wary of some of his proposals, including deficit spending as Obama pumps an enormous amount of money into the
economy and elsewhere. The narrow House suggests potential trouble ahead with the Democratic rank-and-file as the White House
seeks to tackle more big-ticket issues in Obama's first year in office; health care tops the list. As Congress tackles that contentious
issue, Obama's left flank is beating up him and his allies over the effort to overhaul the costly and complex U.S. medical system.
Moderate Democrats are looking to forge compromises to pass a measure; liberal critics are dug in over elements they want to see in
any legislation. Liberal groups are running ads against senators who won't publicly support a government program to compete
against private insurers. Democrats have a comfortable House majority. But the climate legislation pitted Democrats who represent
East Coast states that have been cleaning up their act against Democrats in the Mideast and other places that rely heavily on coal
and industry. They have a longer, more expensive path to meet requirements in the measure. Senate
passage is far from
certain, given that Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off a likely filibuster. Obama's
personal touch â€” and another dose of his political capital â€” will be required again.
30

Climate Politics
Page 31 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
I/L: Bipartisanship Key
Bipart key to the climate bill
Washington Independent, 7/16/09 (A Boxer-Snowe Climate Bill?
http://washingtonindependent.com/51380/a-boxer-snowe-climate-bill)
Via Climate Progress, E&E News reports that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is
planning to introduce a climate bill Sept. 8, with a Republican co-sponsor: Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara
Boxer (D-Calif.) plans to unveil a major global warming bill immediately after Congress returns from
the August recess, she said today…. Boxer predicted she would have at least one Republican co-
sponsor on her bill, though she would not name names. This last piece of news is potentially huge.
Democrats have started giving up hope for bipartisanship on health care — to the chagrin of Republicans — but
because a number of conservative Democrats are unlikely to vote for a cap-and-trade bill, it will
be necessary to bring a few Republicans on board, at least to break a filibuster. A Republican co-
sponsor could give cover to moderate Republicans — and fence-sitting Democrats — to vote for
cloture, even if they have concerns about the political impact of a “yes” vote in the final tally. If there is a GOP co-sponsor, it will
most likely be Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, the two moderates from Maine.
More evidence
Washington Post, 7/6/09 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/07/06/AR2009070603514_pf.html)
Obama's climate-change legislation begins a daunting march through the Senate this
President
week, with supporters acknowledging they are as many as 15 votes shy of victory and well
aware that deals to attract more votes could erode the bill's environment-friendly objectives.
Senators will weigh a slew of potential compromises -- everything from allowing more offshore drilling for oil and natural gas to increasing funding for
nuclear energy -- that they think would inch the package closer to passage. But environmental activists warn that the 1,400-page House version of the bill already includes so many giveaways to corporate America
that more horse-trading in the Senate could lead them to oppose the final version. Four of Obama's cabinet secretaries will kick-start the push for the climate bill when they appear today before the Senate's
Environment and Public Works Committee, which is drafting its portion of the climate legislation. Obama will be promoting the effort to limit greenhouse gases at the Group of Eight meeting in Italy on Thursday,
when the leaders of the world's largest economies are slated to focus on efforts to slow global environmental change. But the political realities of the Senate, where supermajorities of at least 60 votes are needed
for practically any major piece of legislation, are weighing heavily on the chamber's leaders as they push to pass some version of the bill before the end of the year. "As a legislator, everything is negotiable,"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview yesterday. Reid has tasked a handful of committee chairs with completing their portions of the legislation by Sept. 18, at which point he hopes to
cobble together the pieces and get the package to the floor late in the fall. As outlined, the bill would create a "cap-and-trade" system placing the first national limit on greenhouse-gas emissions, gradually
tightening those limits over the next four decades with a goal of reducing emissions 83 percent by 2050. Major emitters of greenhouse gases -- including any business that burns fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas
Reid can count on the support of

or coal -- would have to reduce their emissions or buy allowances, which would be traded on markets like commodities. As of today,
about 40 to 45 senators for that basic premise, according to aides and outside activists backing
the legislation. Supporters are targeting a pool of roughly two dozen lawmakers -- including
about 15 of Reid's Democrats -- who will determine the legislation's fate . The battle ahead differs from many on Capitol Hill in that ideology
is considered to be less influential than geography. Even some of the chamber's most liberal members have resisted signing on as they await the best deal possible for key industries in their states. Democrats from the Rust Belt states of West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana
and Michigan are pushing for more incentives to help their depressed industries shift to alternative energy sources. The same senators also will likely want more funding for carbon capture and sequestration, a controversial and still-evolving technology described by
its developers as "clean coal" but derided by many environmentalists. The technology is already slated for $10 billion in government-funded research in legislation that passed the House. A trio of Democrats from the Dakotas want more funding for wind power. Sen.
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) won approval in the energy committee last month for the inclusion of new exploration for oil and natural gas as close as 45 miles off of Florida's coast on the Gulf of Mexico. That measure might help attract moderate Democrats and some
Even after making

Republicans, but it would almost certainly lose the vote of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who has regularly vowed to help filibuster any bill that brings drilling within the current limit of 125 miles.
additional compromises to win over wavering Democrats, Reid could find himself a few votes
short and desperately searching for Republican support. Maine's moderate Republicans, Sens. Susan
Collins and Olympia Snowe, are the only likely GOP backers of the legislation at this point, and if Obama needs more Republicans,
he may have to authorize Reid to give in for more funding for the construction of the nation's first new nuclear power plants in a generation. The environmental lobby has rigorously opposed any new nuclear plants, but several GOP senators, including Lamar Alexander
(Tenn.) and John McCain (Ariz.), have made their case that nuclear power is the best for cleaning the skies of carbon emissions. The narrow 219 to 212 victory on June 26 in the House has given Senate backers some level of hope, despite the concessions they might
be forced into accepting. "I am very optimistic. As a legislator and a chairman, I don't deal in hypotheticals, I don't think negatively. I think positively, especially after the House vote," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the environment committee, said
yesterday. Some outside activists supporting the bill are taking a wait-and-see approach, acknowledging that they cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. "Senate leaders will likely be compelled to expand the political and policy appeal of the bill to reach
key moderates in both parties," said Paul W. Bledsoe, director of communications and strategy for the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. But others question the worthiness of legislation designed to reduce the effect of the oil-and-coal-drive
manufacturing sectors if it includes giving more breaks to just those industries. "It goes a little in all directions," said Anna Aurilio, director of the Washington office for Environment America.
31

Climate Politics
Page 32 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power
Cap and trade will include nuclear power provisions if it passes.
Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine, ClimateWire, New York Times, additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren
Samuelsohn, "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top",
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/17/17climatewire-nuclear-title-may-not-be-enough-to-push-sena-19318.html?
pagewanted=print, WEA)
Bothsupporters and critics of a climate bill agree that some sort of nuclear title is likely to be included in
the measure taken up by the Senate in the fall. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear
industry is unclear, making its potential role in climate negotiations muted.
"I expect there
will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to
that on the floor," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee, told reporters earlier this week. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public
Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), he said.
Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with
senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but, "we just have to do it the right way."
"I think there will be a nuclear title, yes," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. "I think there will be a
nuclear title on incentives for R&D ... but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear," Romm said. The
industry is waiting
to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications
for new reactors, he said.
An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is
to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the
industry.
Climate legislation will be a boon to the nuclear industry—Republicans and nuclear

lobbies have hijacked it.
Goldenberg 6/11/2009 - US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne, "US nuclear industry tries to hijack
Obama's climate change bill", http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/11/us-nuclear-industry-plans-new-reactors/print,
WEA)
America's nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress have moved to hijack Barack Obama's
agenda for greening the economy by producing a rival plan to build 100 new reactors in 20 years, and staking a claim
for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank.
Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change
bill this week, calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. The 152-page
Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change, and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants.
In the Senate, Republican leaders, including the former presidential candidate John McCain, also called this
week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18.5bn (£11.2bn) to $38bn. Other
Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors, whose applications are
now under review by the department of energy.
"If you care about climate change ... 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start," said Lamar
Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate.
Another crucial element of the Republicans' "nuclear renaissance" are two rival proposals for a "clean energy bank" now before
Congress. One version, under consideration by the
Senate, envisages almost unlimited federal loan
guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and, nuclear proponents hope, new reactors.
32

Climate Politics
Page 33 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power
Cap and trade is a boost to nuke power regardless of extra provisions.
Snyder 6/21/2009 (Jim, The Hill, "Nuclear lobby presses for more loan guarantees", http://thehill.com/leading-the-
news/nuclear-lobby-presses-for-more-loan-guarantees-2009-06-21.html, WEA)
Nuclear power utilities should receive a boost from the climate bill now under discussion in the
House because nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas. Legislation that
caps carbon emissions could make nuclear power more economical relative to other sources of
electricity such as coal, which is a big emitter of CO2.
Obama will include nuclear incentives to help it pass Senate.

Gardner 2009 (7/7, Timothy, Rueters, "Nuclear could benefit from U.S. climate bill", http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-
GreenBusiness/idUSTRE56677B20090707, WEA)
The U.S. climate bill, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's green agenda, could
NEW YORK (Reuters) -
stall in the Senate unless it contains incentives to help the nuclear power industry build the next
generation of reactors.
The House of Representatives narrowly approved its version of the bill late last month and it included little
mention of nuclear energy.
But that looks set to change as a group of moderate Democratic and Republican senators who
strongly back nuclear power tries to wrest industry concessions.
A key question is whether the industry and its allies can convince enough lawmakers that nuclear power, long seen as an
environmental headache due to its radioactive waste and potential safety risks, is actually a solution to worsening global warming.
25 of the 60 Senate Democrats are just as concerned about what the recession is
As many as 20 to
doing to manufacturing, and the coal and oil industries, as they are about global warming. Concessions for nuclear
could help win them over, said Manik Roy, a vice president for government outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change.
Moderate Democrats from Midwestern states are especially anxious to see nuclear get incentives because
utilities there could get slammed by greenhouse gas regulations.
because Midwestern utilities mainly burn coal -- the fossil fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide -- and
That's
incentives to build nuclear plants could help them deal with the expenses and provide new jobs.
"There's a whole group of senators that if you wanted to seriously engage them on the climate issue you would have to show them
that you are doing everything you can to advance nuclear power in this country," Roy said.
33

Climate Politics
Page 34 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Not Enough Loan Guarantees
The current bill has enough nuclear power provisions, additional incentives aren’t key
Hughes 7/16/2009 (Siobhan, Dow Jones Newswires, "US Sen Boxer:House Climate Bill Already 'Boon' To Nuclear Pwr",
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907161530dowjonesdjonline000943&title=us-sen-
boxerhouse-climate-bill-already-boonto-nuclear-pwr, WEA)
Nuclear power would be encouraged under a climate- change bill that has passed the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the U.S. Senate doesn't need to go beyond that to encourage nuclear power, a top
U.S. Senate lawmaker said.
"I don't know that we need to have more than that," Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told reporters after a Senate hearing. The House bill is "a huge
boon to the nuclear industry."
34

Climate Politics
Page 35 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Obama Won’t Push Nuclear Power
Obama wants nuclear power.
Cardinale 2008 (12/17, Inter Press Service, "Obama faces hungry nuclear industry", CommonDreams,
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/17-4, WEA)
Obama appears unlikely to throw the nuclear industry under the bus entirely, however. He was one of
the most supportive candidates in terms of nuclear power during the Democratic primary and he
has given mixed messages at best regarding his stance on the issue.
'I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix,' Obama said during the
CNN/Youtube Presidential Debate on Jul. 23, 2007. 'There are no silver bullets to this issue... But we're gonna have to try a series of
different approaches.'
Obama was asked again about nuclear power during a meeting with the Editorial Board of the Keene Sentinel newspaper in New
Hampshire, on Nov. 25, 2007.
'I'm not somebody who says nuclear is off the table no matter what because there's no perfect
energy source,' Obama said.
'There are a whole set of questions and they may not be solvable, and if they're not solvable I don't want to invest in it,' Obama
continued. 'But if they are solvable, why not? I don't think there's anything we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. We just dislike
the fact that it might blow up and radiate us and kill us; that's the problem.'
35

Climate Politics
Page 36 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Still Too Expensive
Mass production creates economies of scale that solves cost concerns.
Spencer and Loris 2008 - *research fellow in nuclear energy, **research assistance in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies (6/19, Jack and Nicolas, Heritage Foundation, "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point",
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961.cfm, WEA)
Furthermore, assiging all of the costs of the first few nuclear plants to future plants is inaccurate. As
more orders are placed, economies of scale will be achieved. Today, it is very expensive to produce nuclear-
qualified components and materials because steep overhead costs are carried by only a few products.
Additional production will allow these costs to be spread, thus lowering costs overall. Further savings
should be achieved by applying lessons learned from initial construction projects. Because nuclear plants could have an
operating life of 80 years, the benefit could be well worth the cost.
36

Climate Politics
Page 37 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Loan Guarantees Now
Now is key—the stimulus did NOT include loan guarantees for nuke power.
Galbraith 2009 - former Economist writer and Nieman Fellow at Harvard (5/20, Kate, New York Times Green Inc, "Renewable
Energy Industries Ask Obama to Speed Loan Guarantees", http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/renewable-industries-ask-
obama-to-speed-loan-guarantees/?pagemode=print, WEA)
Worried that an important loan-guarantee program has ground to a standstill, renewable energy
industry associations sent a letter on Wednesday to President Obama urging him to speed the
program along.
The signers represented virtually every type of clean energy — wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear,
combined heat and power, and biomass — and reflected the industry’s concern that a loan guarantee
program for clean energy projects approved in the stimulus package was stuck in the federal
bureaucracy, as has been a similar loan program that predates the stimulus.
The letter, seen by Green Inc, cited “disagreements” between the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget
over regulations to carry out the loan guarantees. Three months have gone by since the stimulus packaged passed, the letter stated,
we have little confidence that ongoing discussions between D.O.E. and the Office of
“and
Management and Budget over these regulations will produce a satisfactory result in a timely
manner.”
“With access to these loan guarantees,” the letter continued, “our member companies will be able to start construction of planned
projects that would otherwise need to be delayed or canceled due to current capital market conditions.”
37

Climate Politics
Page 38 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees
States are doing their part already—only strong federal action can solve.
Bowman 2008 - President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (6/19, Frank L, Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and
Air Quality, "Greenhouse gas emission reduction", Lexis Congressional, WEA)
one of the most significant financing challenges is the cost of

In terms of new nuclear plant construction,
these projects relative to the size, market value and financing capability of the companies that
will build them.
New nuclear power plants are expected to cost at least $6 to 7 billion. U.S. electric power
companies do not have the size, financing capability or financial strength to finance new
nuclear power projects on balance sheet, on their own-particularly at a time when they
are investing heavily in other generating capacity, transmission and distribution
infrastructure, and environmental controls. These first projects must have financing
support-either loan guarantees from the federal government or assurance of investment
recovery from state governments, or both.
The states are doing their part. Throughout the South and Southeast, state governments have
enacted legislation or implemented new regulations to encourage new nuclear plant
construction. Comparable federal government commitment is essential.
The modest loan guarantee program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act was a small step in the right direction, but it does not
represent a sufficient response to the urgent need to rebuild our critical electric power infrastructure. We believe the United States
will need something similar to the Clean Energy Bank concept now under consideration by a number of members of Congress-a
government corporation, modeled on the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to provide loan
guarantees and other forms of financing support to ensure that capital flows to clean technology deployment in the electric sector.
such a financing entity should be an integral component of any climate change
Creation of
legislation. Such a concept serves at least two national imperatives.
First, it addresses the challenge mentioned earlier-the disparity between the size of these projects relative to the size of the
companies that will build them. In the absence of a concept like a Clean Energy Bank, new nuclear plants and other clean energy
projects will certainly be built, but in smaller numbers over a longer period of time.
federal loan guarantees provide a substantial consumer benefit. A loan guarantee allows
Second,
more leverage in a project's capital structure, which reduces the cost of capital, in turn reducing the
cost of electricity from the project. Electricity consumers-residential, commercial and industrial-are already struggling with increases
in oil, natural gas and electricity prices. The high cost of energy and fuel price volatility has already compromised the competitive
position of American industry. We know that the next generation of clean energy technologies will be more costly than the capital
stock in place today. In this environment, we see a compelling case for federal financing support that would reduce consumer costs.
If it is structured like the loan guarantee program authorized by Title XVII of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, in which project sponsors are
expected to pay the cost of the loan guarantee, such a program would be revenue-neutral and would not
represent a subsidy.
The public benefits associated with a robust energy loan guarantee program-lower cost electricity, deployment of clean energy
technologies at the scale necessary to reduce carbon emissions-are significant. That is why the U.S. government routinely uses loan
guarantee programs to support activities that serve the public good and the national interest-including shipbuilding, steelmaking,
student loans, rural electrification, affordable housing, construction of critical transportation infrastructure, and for many other
purposes.
Achieving significant expansion of nuclear power in the United States will require stable and sustained
federal and state government policies relating to nuclear energy. The new nuclear power projects now in the early stages of
development will not enter service until the 2016-2020.
Like all other advanced energy technologies, continued progress requires sustained policy and
political support.
In closing let me assure you that the U.S. nuclear industry is moving forward as quickly as we are
able to license, finance and build new nuclear plants in the United States. Seventeen
companies or groups of companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31
new reactors. Nine applications for construction and operating licenses are currently
under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a total of 15 new plants.
We expect four to eight new U.S. nuclear plants in operation by 2016 or so. Assuming those first plants are meeting their construction
schedules and cost estimates, the rate of construction would accelerate thereafter. With the necessary investment stimulus and
financing support, we could see approximately 20,000 MW of new nuclear capacity (that would be about 15 plants) on line in the
38

Climate Politics
Page 39 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
2020 to 2022 time frame, and 65,000 to 70,000 megawatts (or 45 to 50 plants) by 2030.
These plants will produce clean, safe, reliable electricity, around the clock, at a stable price, immune to price volatility in the oil and
natural gas markets.
39

Climate Politics
Page 40 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees
Utilities won’t be able to access capital markets without the backing of the federal
government – banks are waiting for a federal symbol of support
Roy et al 2007 - *Managing director of Export and Agency Finance Group for Citigroup, **also written with the managing
directors for Goldman, Sachs & Co. as well as Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley ("Loan Guarantees for Advanced Nuclear Energy
Facilities", http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment29.pdf, WEA)
Summarized below are the consensus views of the six banks named above regarding the minimum conditions necessary for a
workable loan guarantee program as authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that can achieve the twin goals of
supporting the financing of new nuclear plants in the United States while adequately protecting the U.S. taxpayer.
We believe many new nuclear construction projects will have difficulty accessing the capital
markets during construction and initial operation without the support of a federal
government loan guarantee.
Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of
political, regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power, including the possibility of delays in
commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. We believe these risks, combined
with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to
other generation facilities, will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to
such projects in a form that would be commercially viable.
A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves regulatory uncertainty surrounding

federal policy that would otherwise prevent investment
Sands 2008 (4/28, Derek, Platts Inside Energy, "Investors urge loan guarantees for nuclear plants", Lexis, WEA)
Despitenew licensing regulations meant to streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants,
uncertainty over the rules and questions about nuclear waste still worry investors, and may make loan
guarantees essential to attracting them, a nuclear investment expert told a House panel last week.
In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee, lawmakers pressed six representatives of the nuclear industry, an
environmental group and nuclear research community on the future of nuclear power.
James Asselstine,a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as a retired managing
told lawmakers that the changes made so far are still
director of the investment giant Lehman Brothers,
untested, and that investors remain wary.
"Some factors, such as magnitude, complexity, and large initial capital investment, including
engineering design costs, of a new nuclear project, and residual uncertainties associated with the new, but as yet
untested NRC licensing process, will likely require federal financial support to allow the companies and investors to
move forward with new nuclear plant commitment," Asselstine said.
Some of the more controversial aspects of new nuclear power include government support for new plants, a point that investors are
watching, he said.
"The federal loan guarantee can help to facilitate the availability of debt financing for up to 80% of the
total cost of the plant," Asselstine said. "Given
the magnitude for a new nuclear plant investment, this can
be a substantial benefit for all the companies, including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project."
40

Climate Politics
Page 41 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Bad
Nuke power inevitable--Asia.
Flavin 2006 - President of the WorldWatch Institute (July/August, Christopher, World Watch, "Brave Nuclear
World?/COMMENTARY: Nuclear Revival? Don't Bet on It!", ProQuest, WEA)
With the nuclear construction business virtually dead in North America and Europe, energy-starved
Asia is where a nuclear revival is more likely to begin. Indeed, India and China both have ambitious
nuclear plans. Up to 30 nuclear plants are planned in each country over the next two decades-which sounds
impressive until you do the math. Even if their nuclear dreams are realized, neither country will be getting even 5 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power in 2020. This is simply not a significant commitment for countries with populations of well over a billion
and electricity demand growing at 10 percent annually.
Nuke power inevitable in Europe and Japan.

Loris and Spencer 2008 - *research assistance @ Heritage, **research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic
Policy Studies (7/2, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1977, "Nuclear energy: what we can learn from other nations",
France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence after
the oil shock of the 1970s. It now receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is a
net exporter of electricity.[1] Germany, alternatively, decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some
of this energy.[2]
Japan is another country that has looked to nuclear power as a clean, safe and reliable form of
energy. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the country's electricity; however, Japan is
working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017.[3]
Finland, ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption, has a significant incentive to secure long-term
energy solutions. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources,
Finland has begun constructing a modern 1,600-megawatt reactor, which will likely be a model used
throughout the United States. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and a possible sixth reactor would
increase that amount substantially.
Presently, the U.K. has 19 reactors that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. Because
the U.K. is already a net importer of energy and all but one of its coal-fired and nuclear plants are scheduled to be decommissioned
by 2023, building new reactors is a must for the U.K. if it is to avoid creating increased energy dependencies. The British government,
while providing long-term politically stable support for nuclear power, has made it clear that it would not subsidize the industry. The
U.S., on the other hand, continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some subsidies to the industry. As a
result, the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward, while the U.S. model could
create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and industry.
41

Climate Politics
Page 42 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Bad
Nuclear power plants aren’t dangerous --- their evidence is from recycled hippie
rhetoric and a misleading media
Spencer 2008 - Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at Heritage (2/1, Jack, Heritage Foundation, "Nuclear safety paranoia",
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/020108a.cfm, WEA)
On January 4, The Washington Post ran a front-page story about guards found asleep at a nuclear power plant. The article also
contained accusations that a whistle-blower had been ignored. Scary stuff, eh? Until you realize it's the same old story New York's
WCBS-TV broke four months earlier.
Even when new, the story wasn't exactly front-page material. The plant was never in jeopardy, nor was anyone endangered.
The media's continued fixation on this story suggests alarmism, at best, and bias against nuclear
power at worst. At the very least, such reporting misleads the public about the safety of nuclear power.
Let's be clear. Some guards were sleeping on the job. They should not have been sleeping. When the company that runs the plant
found out, it promptly fired the contractors in charge of security. In short: A problem arose; it was identified, and it was solved. That
should have been the end of the story. But it wasn't.
In the months since the sleeping-guards story first aired, numerous articles have been printed -- and not just by The Post. USA
Today ran the story in September, editorialized on it in October, and revisited it again in
December. Each article included independent, third-party analysis giving credibility and legitimacy to
alarmist views. The problem is that the analysis always comes from the same anti-nuke crowd that's been "crying wolf" about
nuclear power since the 1960s.
So why have they been more vocal lately? Well, with rising energy prices and growing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions,
nuclear power is enjoying a comeback.
Awkwardly, for the people who railed against nuclear energy in the past under the auspices of environmentalism, the best way to
reduce CO2 is to produce more emissions-free nuclear energy. The obvious contradiction has forced even ardent activists to make
some accommodation for nuclear power in their anti-CO2 rhetoric.
nuclear power has proven extraordinarily safe over the
One of the least expensive forms of energy production,
past four decades. The worst commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history, the 1979 partial meltdown at
Three Mile Island, caused no fatalities or casualties.
Although nuclear power's safety record means that activists can no longer play on "China Syndrome" fears, three decades of anti-
nuclear propaganda have left their mark. Many Americans remain concerned about nuclear safety, and the anti-nuclear movement's
updated message is calculated to play upon that anxiety.
Increasingly, the anti-nukers preach acceptance -- but with a catch. Their conditions generally hinge on safety concerns. What seems
reasonable, however, quickly becomes ridiculous. Their formula includes overstating the safety concerns, misstating the information
used to support their positions, and then demanding an unattainable set of stipulations to meet their conditions. This allows them to
avoid being overtly anti-nuclear while advancing an anti-nuclear agenda.
Their arguments are then fed to major media outlets that use them to frame nuclear-related articles. The result: stories that often
portray nuclear power as inherently unsafe. Some recent examples include incidents at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio and the
Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont.
At the Davis-Besse plant, safety inspections revealed a hole forming in a vessel-head. An inch of steel cladding prevented the hole
from opening. Although the problem was fixed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that the plant could have
operated another 13 months without incident, and that the steel cladding could have withstood pressures 125 percent above normal
operations, the incident was portrayed as a safety failure.
A partial cooling tower collapse at the Vermont Yankee plant was far less serious than the Davis-Besse incident. Non-radioactive
water was spilled in the collapse, but no radiation was released. Nonetheless, activists cite it as example of the risks posed by power
reactors.
Safety should remain a priority at nuclear power plants, but exploiting fears about safety to advance an anti-nuclear agenda helps no
one.
there are great, newsworthy stories to be written about nuclear power: No
The unfortunate thing is that
one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U.S.; terrorists have never
attacked a nuclear power plant; nuclear power is clean, affordable and emits nothing into the
atmosphere. The list goes on.
A handful of guards taking a 15-minute nap on company time does not fairly reflect the
industry's level of safety. For a news story, it's pretty thin gruel. Yet that's what leading media
are feeding the public. Repeatedly.
42

Climate Politics
Page 43 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive
Loan guarantees pay for themselves.
Andrews and Wald 2007 (Edmund L. and Matthew L., New York Times, "US energy bill aids expansion of atomic power",
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/01/2910, WEA)
That is a big change. Under current law, the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by
Congress. Last year, Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during
the 2007 fiscal year.
Mr. Domenici, who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees, has
argued that there is no need for limits on the loan volume because power companies will be required
to pay an upfront fee to cover the estimated cost of the guarantee. In essence, the "credit subsidy"
payments would be used as a kind of insurance premium that could be used to cover the cost of
any defaulted loan.
"It is very clear that this is a self-financing program," Mr. Domenici told James Nussle, Mr. Bush's nominee to become the
White House budget director, at Mr. Nussle's confirmation hearing last week. "There should already be $25 billion to
$30 billion in the loan guarantee fund."
43

Climate Politics
Page 44 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: No Workforce/Manufacturing Capacity
Capability arguments are irrelevant- it will develop with the industry
Howard 7- Vice President, Office of the President Nuclear Energy Institute (Angie, 02-15-7, “Achieving Excellence in Human
Performance: Nuclear Energy Training and Education”,
http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/americannuclearsociety/)
Finally, we are seeing the first signs of revival in the supply chain for new nuclear plant construction. In manufacturing, for instance,
Babcock & Wilcox recently renewed its federal accreditation for manufacturing nuclear-grade components. And there
is
manufacturing capability overseas in Japan and France. U.S. nuclear companies have already placed
orders with Japanese companies for long-lead, heavy-forgings for reactor components. The supply chain will respond as
market demand dictates. The more it looks like new nuclear plants will be built, the more U.S.
capability will be developed. Today, 14 companies and consortia have announced that they are
preparing to submit license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build up to 32 new
reactors. These companies are selecting technologies from two NRC-certified reactor designs, and two more designs that are under
review by the NRC. These application submittals are expected beginning in 2007. Every
major nuclear fleet operator is
involved in some way, as well as some newcomers to the industry. Different companies are
moving at different speeds, but the momentum is real.
44

Climate Politics
Page 45 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Federal Government Key To Nuclear Leadership
A federal commitment to nuclear power is the vital internal link to restoring U.S.
nuclear power leadership
Fertel 2005 - Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (4/29, Marvin S., Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy
and Resources,
Nuclear power's place in a national energy policy", CQ Congressional Testimony, WEA)
Industry and government will be prepared to meet the demand for new emission-free baseload nuclear plants in the 2010 to 2020
time frame only through a sustained focus on the necessary programs and policies between now and then.
strong Congressional oversight will be necessary to ensure effective and efficient
As it has in the past,
implementation of the federal government's nuclear energy programs, and to maintain America's
leadership in nuclear technology development and its influence over important diplomatic
initiatives like nonproliferation. Such efforts have provided a dramatic contribution to global
security, as evidenced by the U.S.-Russian nonproliferation agreement to recycle weapons-grade material from Russia for use in
American reactors. Currently, more than 50 percent of U.S. nuclear power plant fuel depends on converted Russian warhead material.
45

Climate Politics
Page 46 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (1/2)
Overhauling domestic nuke power is vital to technological leadership – both to
support technological innovation and reduce risks of proliferation
Bengelsdorf 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with
international nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD, “THE U.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S.
NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”, White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May,
http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.pdf)
The U.S. has and should continue to be able to influence the nonproliferation regime as a superpower in
the years ahead. However, a policy that significantly strengthens the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure
will not only help the United States to build new nuclear power plants, but will also enhance its
ability to advance its nonproliferation agenda. The U.S. will need to actively pursue several key objectives
New Nuclear Plant Orders Consumer countries are likely to turn for support and assistance to those
states possessing the most vigorous domestic nuclear power programs that are placing new power plant
orders, extending international fuel cycle services, and maintaining leadership roles in supporting innovative improvements in advanced
technologies. This suggests that the influence of the United States internationally could be
enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able to achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and
place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. Conversely, if the 2010 initiative falters, or if U.S. companies only are given subordinate roles
in processing new plant orders, then this can only further weaken the U.S. nuclear infrastructure as well as the stature of the U.S. in the international
nuclear community. Experts believe that the U.S. nuclear infrastructure is capable of sustaining the goals of the 2010 program, but this will require the
resolution of a number of formidable problems, including arrangements for the acquisition of long lead time components and coping with anticipated
shortages of experienced personnel.
Maintaining the U.S. as a Significant Global SupplierThe health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will also be
crucial to the success of U.S. efforts to play a significant role as a nuclear supplier and to
advance its nonproliferation objectives.
There is a clear and compelling upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world that is
independent of U.S. policy and prerogatives. As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in these
programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will
need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps
more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation
policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to
and partner in the evolution of those programs.
Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation
regime is facing some direct assaults that are unprecedented in nature. International
confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear export controls was shaken by the disclosures
of the nuclear operations of A.Q. Khan. These developments underscore the importance
of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions
applied by the major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S.
maintaining effective policies to achieve these objectives. Constructive U.S. influence
will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. is perceived as a major technological
leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology.
As the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the international
nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear
export market. However, if the U.S. nuclear infrastructure continues to erode, it will
weaken the ability of the U.S. to participate actively in the international nuclear market.
If the U.S. becomes more dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the
international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability of the U.S. to influence
nonproliferation policy will diminish.
It is, therefore, essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor, uranium enrichment, and
spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote
effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation other countries. The U.S. should establish a high
priority goal to rebuild an indigenous nuclear industry and support its growth in domestic and international markets. U.S. nuclear exports can be used
to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-called consent rights over
46

Climate Politics
Page 47 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear
materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied.
The percentage of nuclear materials, including separated plutonium, that are subject to U.S.
consent rights will diminish over time as new suppliers of nuclear materials and facilities take a
larger share of the international nuclear market. Unless the U.S. is able to compete effectively
in the international market as a supplier of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology, the quantity of the nuclear
materials around the globe that the U.S. has control over will diminish significantly in the future.
This may not immediately weaken the effectiveness of the nonproliferation regime since all the major suppliers have adopted the export guidelines of
the Nuclear Supplier Group. However, only the U.S., Australia and Canada have consent rights over enrichment and reprocessing of the nuclear
materials subject to their agreements. Consequently, if there is a major decline in the U.S. share of the international nuclear market, the U.S. may not
be as effectivbeen in helping to ensure a rigorous system of export controls.
47

Climate Politics
Page 48 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (2/2)
Extinction
Utgoff 2 (Victor, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for
Defense Analyses and former Senior Member of the National security Council Staff, Survival,
“Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, Vol. 44, No. 2, Summer, p. 87-90)
Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the
participants beforehand.8 Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum,
widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and
that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction
possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror
the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all
gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
48

Climate Politics
Page 49 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (1/2)
New nuclear construction is vital to advancing the U.S. reprocessing agenda
Bowman 2006 - CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (9/13, Frank L., Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development", http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/bowmantestimony91306extended, WEA)
This worldwide nuclear expansion also suggests that the once-through or “throw-away” nuclear fuel
cycle now used in the United States is not a prudent or sustainable course for the long-term future.
Closing the nuclear fuel cycle—reprocessing used nuclear fuel, recovering the fissile materials that can produce more energy,
fabricating those fissile materials into fresh fuel, and recycling that fuel into advanced nuclear reactors designed to handle these
fuels without creating concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—is a global
imperative in the long term. This vision underpins the president’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which combines nuclear
fuel supply, used nuclear fuel management and non-proliferation policies into a single, integrated initiative.
The U.S. nuclear energy industry strongly supports research and development of advanced fuel cycle
technologies, like those incorporated in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. Given the prospect of major expansion
of nuclear power in the United States and globally, it is appropriate to continue the long-term
research and technology development necessary to realize this longer-term vision of a nuclear fuel cycle
optimized to extract maximum value from nuclear fuel and reduce the radiotoxicity and volume of the waste products requiring long-
term isolation.
Any such program must, however, have at least two defining characteristics.
First, a reprocessing/recycle program must be sustainable over the relatively long period of time necessary to develop advanced fuel
processing technologies and advanced reactor systems. Continuity is essential. In order to be sustainable, any such program must
enjoy broad-based, bipartisan support and endorsement within the policy community and among our nation’s political leaders. That
policy and political support must proceed from a clear-eyed and realistic understanding of the investment and time required to
develop advanced fuel cycle technologies, which is measured in tens of billions of dollars and decades. It is not clear to the U.S.
nuclear industry that the president’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or other similar initiatives now being discussed, have
achieved the degree of sustainable support necessary to ensure long-term continuity and success.
Second, a reprocessing/recycling program must be flexible enough to accommodate technological successes and failures (and there
will be both), with clearly-defined success criteria, decision points and exit strategies.
The nuclear energy industry fully supports an aggressive, continuing effort to define, develop
and finance the technology development program necessary to close the nuclear fuel cycle,
including deployment of appropriate technologies that meet policy goals, in order to position nuclear
energy as a sustainable source of energy. But, again, regardless of reprocessing technologies and the fuel cycle selected, Yucca
Mountain is needed for the waste by-product.
The industry’s major priority, however, is the immediate imperative to address the significant challenges facing construction of the
The nuclear energy renaissance depends on the industry’s
next nuclear power plants in the United States.
success in working with the U.S. Congress, the executive branch and state governments to address the significant
challenges described above. These challenges include timely completion of the joint government-industry NP 2010 program
to develop detailed designs and firm cost estimates for advanced reactors; ensuring an efficient, stable licensing
process, and demonstrating our ability to finance these capital-intensive projects, including workable implementation of the loan
guarantee program created by the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
Addressing these near-term challenges to new nuclear plant construction is, and must remain, job one. If we do
not succeed with this near-term task, discussions of longer-term reprocessing and recycle
strategies are largely irrelevant. If the United States does not build new nuclear power plants,
the policy basis and technological rationale for a reprocessing and recycle program quickly
erodes, because a single repository at Yucca Mountain is clearly capable of handling all the used nuclear fuel that will be produced
by all existing U.S. nuclear reactors.
49

Climate Politics
Page 50 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (2/2)
This is key to solve prolif and waste management.
Spurgeon 2007 - Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy (11/14, Dennis, Hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, "Global nuclear energy partnership", Federal News Service, Lexis Congressional, WEA)
Thiscooperation will be pursued with the following objectives: Expand nuclear power to help meet
growing energy demand in a sustainable manner and in a way that provides for safe operations of
nuclear power plants and management of wastes. In cooperation with the IAEA, continue to develop enhanced
safeguards to effectively and efficiently monitor nuclear materials and facilities to ensure nuclear
energy systems are used only for peaceful purposes. Establish international supply frameworks to enhance
reliable, cost effective fuel services and supplies to the world market, providing options for generating nuclear
energy and fostering development while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation by creating a viable alternative to acquisition of
sensitive fuel cycle technologies.
Develop, demonstrate, and in due course deploy
advanced reactors that consume trans-uranic elements
from recycled, spent fuel. Promote the development of advanced, more proliferation resistant
nuclear power reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries and regions.
Develop and demonstrate advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel for deployment in facilities that do not separate
pure plutonium with a long-term goal of ceasing separation of plutonium and eventually eliminating stocks of separated civilian
plutonium.
Suchadvanced fuel cycle technologies, when available, would help substantially reduce nuclear waste,
simplify its disposition, and draw down inventories of civilian spent fuel in a safe, secure, and
proliferation resistant manner. Finally, take advantage of the best available fuel cycle approaches for the efficient and
responsible use of energy and natural resources.
Seventeen nations have now signed the Statement of Principles and have become GNEP partners. Eighteen other nations and three
international organizations are participating as observers, and several of these nations are expected to join as partners. The
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Technology, Research and Development Program outlined in my written statement is designed to
provide the technology advancements needed in order to make the vision of GNEP and its objectives a reality.
The secretary of Energy often remarks that there is no silver bullet to our energy challenges or to climate change. However,
he is quick to note nuclear power's potential of meeting the growing demand for energy without
producing greenhouse gasses. GNEP comes at a crucial time in the burgeoning expansion of
nuclear power and a crucial time for the nation's energy security. It is the only comprehensive
proposal to close the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States and engage the international
community to minimize proliferation risks, as well as provide and benefit from cooperation in policy formulation,
technical support, and technology and infrastructure development.
Extinction
Utgoff 2 (Victor, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for
Defense Analyses and former Senior Member of the National security Council Staff, Survival,
“Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, Vol. 44, No. 2, Summer, p. 87-90)
Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the
participants beforehand.8 Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum,
widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and
that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction
possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror
the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all
gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
50

Climate Politics
Page 51 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Good—Poverty
Nuclear power key to check poverty
Robinson and Orient 04 - *Professor of Chemistry and Founder of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine AND **
executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (Arthur and Jane, The New American, “Science, Politics and
Death”, 6/14, http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/358)
Easily usable energy is the currency of human progress. Without it, stagnation, regression and
untold human deaths will result.
The lamentations of the popular press notwithstanding, there is no shortage of energy. Scientists define everything that man can
perceive in the natural world as forms of "energy," including all physical objects. These forms of energy differ, however, in how easily
mankind can make use of them by means of current technology.
Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is, by far, the
safest, cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. Its use improves
the standard of living, increases the quality and length of human life, and maximizes technological
progress.
The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued, our country
and our world would be very different. Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place. Moreover,
large portions of the world's poor and underdeveloped people would have been able to lift
very
themselves from poverty — provided they had a laboratory of liberty in which to do so — and to escape the horrible
conditions in which they lead lives of desperation, constantly at the edge of death.
Many people strongly desire to help humanity. They spend their lives in efforts to increase the quantity and quality of human life.
Most other people, even though they do not work actively toward these goals, share the same values. They passively support things
that improve human life.
Those who understand energy production and its link to technological progress and who have positive humanitarian values support
nuclear power. They are also in favor of hydrocarbon power derived from coal, oil and natural gas, and of hydroelectric power. Their
interest in solar power, biofuel power, wind power and other alternatives is less because those methods cannot yet generate large
quantities of inexpensive useful energy.
51

Climate Politics
Page 52 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Good—Water Wars
Global energy demand is skyrocketing – radical expansion of nuclear energy is vital to
desalination and preventing systemic death and global war.
Beller 2004 - Dr., Department of Mechanical Engineering at UNLV, Chair of the Public Information Committee of the American
Nuclear Society (Denis E., Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law, "Atomic time machines: back to the nuclear future", 24 J.
Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, Lexis, WEA)
Our global neighbors need much more energy to achieve the standards of living of the developed
world. One-third of the six billion people on Earth today lack access to electricity. n3 Another two billion
use just 1000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, which is barely enough to keep a single 100-watt light bulb lit. n4 In addition, one
billion people have no sanitary water, n5 which could [*43] be provided easily and inexpensively
if energy were available to operate desalination and/or purification plants. Energy is needed for development,
prosperity, health, and international security. The alternative to development, which is easily sustained with ample energy, is
suffering in the form of poverty, disease, and death. This suffering creates instability and the
potential for widespread violence, such that national security requires developed nations to help
increase energy production in their more populous developing counterparts.
The relationship between energy use and human well being is demonstrated by correlating the United Nations' Human Development
Index (HDI) with the annual per capita use of electricity. The UN compiles the HDI for almost every nation annually. It is a composite
of average education level, health and well being (average life expectancy), and per capita income or gross domestic product. One
such correlation that was done a few years ago showed that electric consumption first increases human well being, then people who
are well off increase their electric consumption. n6 Figure 1 illustrates this for almost every nation on Earth (the data includes more
than 90 percent of the Earth's population). Note there is a threshold at about 4000 kWh per capita. Below this threshold, human
development increases rapidly with increases in available electricity (there are, of course, exceptions to every rule). Above this
threshold, use of electricity increases rapidly as people become more healthy, wealthy, and educated. A deeper investigation into the
data underlying the HDI reveals the effects of what Dr. Eric Loewen, a delegate to the United Nations 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, now calls "energy apartheid." n7 People in the Western world, who have and
use large amounts of energy, have a life expectancy of about eighty years, while those on the lower left side of this graph,
Thus, billions of our global
undeveloped nations where most people have no access to electricity, will die decades earlier.
neighbors without sufficient electricity die decades before they should. Those who live in poverty
live in the most dangerous of conditions.
Without substantial increases in electricity generation, the proportion of the Earth's population
without sufficient electricity will increase in the next fifty years as it grows by 50 percent to near 9 billion people. n8
Preventing global conflict will require even more addition of electricity. The product of increased population
and increased per capita energy usage by people who today have access to nearly none is a great growth in global electricity usage.
Estimates [*44] for future increases in energy and electricity use, even with substantial efficiency improvements and conservation
efforts, range between doubling and tripling in the next fifty years. n9 Even with conservation, "energy star" appliances and homes,
mandated fuel economy, massive government purchases of "renewables," and energy saving and efficiency measures, our use of
electrical energy has been growing faster than total energy usage; electricity use in the United States increased 57 percent between
1980 and 2000, while total energy use increased just 27 percent. n10
Water wars go nuclear

Weiner in ’90 (Jonathan, Pulitzer Prize winning author, “The Next One Hundred Years”, p. 270)
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then wemay destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the
Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East,
from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling
water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A
climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some
of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.
52

Climate Politics
Page 53 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Overuses Water
Nuclear power uses small amounts of water that can be safely returned to the water
cycle.
NEI 2008 (July, Nuclear Energy Institute, "Water consumption at nuclear power plants",
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/factsheets/waterconsumptionatnuclearpowerplants, WEA)
Power plants circulate significant volumes of water in the process of generating electricity, but actually
consume a small amount of water relative to other uses in the modern world.
Of all the freshwater consumed in the United States, electricity generation accounts for 3.3 percent—less than
half of the freshwater consumed by residential use (6.7 percent), according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Nuclear power plants circulate water to cool equipment. This water continuously is returned to its
source and never is exposed to radioactive material.
Nuclear power plants consume less water per unit of electricity produced than some forms of
renewable energy.
Nuclear power plants have a small environmental impact and produce reliable electricity in a wide range of weather conditions.
53

Climate Politics
Page 54 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Cap And Trade Not Kt Warming
Climate bill solves warming – reducing reliance on fossil fuels and switching to
renewables is key – alternatives don’t account for net heat emissions
ScienceDaily 7/13/2009 ("Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enough To Solve Global Warming
Problem, Experts Say", http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090713085248.htm, WEA)
Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power
will not solve the problem of global warming, according to energy calculations published in the July issue of the
International Journal of Global Warming.
Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Luleå University of Technology in Sweden have calculated the
total energy emissions from the start of the industrial revolution in the 1880s to the modern day. They have worked out that using the increase in
average global air temperature as a measure of global warming is an inadequate measure of climate change. They suggest that scientists must also
take into account the total energy of the ground, ice masses and the seas if they are to model climate change accurately.
The researchers have calculated that the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere 6.6% of global warming, while the
remaining heat is stored in the ground (31.5%), melting ice (33.4%) and sea water (28.5%). They point out that net heat emissions between the
industrial revolution circa 1880 and the modern era at 2000 correspond to almost three quarters of the accumulated heat, i.e., global warming, during
that period.
Their calculations suggest that most measures to combat global warming, such as reducing our
reliance on burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables like wind power and solar
energy, will ultimately help in preventing catastrophic climate change in the long term.
But the same calculations also show that trapping carbon dioxide, so-called carbon
dioxide sequestration, and storing it deep underground or on the sea floor will have very
little effect on global warming.
"Since net heat emissions accounts for most of the global warming there is no or little reason for
carbon dioxide sequestration," Nordell explains, "The increasing carbon dioxide
emissions merely show how most net heat is produced.
The "missing" heat, 26%, is due to the greenhouse effect, natural variations in climate and/or an underestimation of net heat emissions, the researchers
say. These calculations are actually rather conservative, the researchers say, and the missing heat may be much less.
Although nuclear power does not produce carbon
The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument.
dioxide emissions in the same way as burning fossil fuels it does produce heat emissions
equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates and so contributes to global
warming significantly, Nordell adds.
Global carbon trading is our only hope at controlling emissions.

eGov Monitor 7/20/2009 - the US Department of Energy and Climate Change ("Carbon trading vital to climate change
success – PM Report", http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/26497/print, WEA)
A global carbon trading network will be vital to preventing dangerous climate change, a new
report commissioned by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded today.
The report makes clear that without a global system for carbon trading, the ability of countries to avoid
dangerous climate change will be limited and the costs of action increased.
The report follows the Prime Minister’s recent proposal on how developed and developing countries can agree new ways to pay for
tackling climate change. He urged countries to work together on a global figure of $100 billion a year needed by 2020 to help developing countries
reduce their emissions, tackle deforestation and adapt to the climate change already being experienced. The carbon market could provide a significant
proportion of that sum.
The Global Carbon Trading report, by the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Carbon Trading, Mark Lazarowicz
MP, looks at the role that cap and trade systems can play as part of the global response to preventing dangerous climate
change – and the steps needed to expand and link trading systems over the next decade.
Carbon markets themselves will not however be sufficient to successfully tackle climate change and are needed alongside strong domestic action to cut
emissions. The UK Government is committed to meeting its required 34% cut in emissions by 2020 through domestic action alone, apart from emissions
covered under the EU Emissions Trading System where limits on offsetting are set at EU level. The UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan, published on 15 July,
sets out the domestic actions required to meet its carbon budgets.
Mark Lazarowicz MP said:
“Climate change is an international threat that needs international action. The evidence shows
that global carbon trading can deliver substantial cuts in greenhouse gases rapidly and cost-
effectively.
“Cap and trade should be combined with targeted regulation, taxation and public finance for comprehensive action. This report proposes action in
54

Climate Politics
Page 55 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
developed countries at two levels - ambitious national targets and a network of linked cap and trade systems for emitters.
55

Climate Politics
Page 56 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Wind Solves
Wind fails—it requires backup generators.
wind is intermittent, producing electricity only about a third of the time. This means that power
First,
plants are needed to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing. If one is going to rely on
wind and the additional power-generating capacity that is needed when the wind is not blowing,
those additional costs should be assigned to wind power as well.
56

Climate Politics
Page 57 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Solar Solves
Solar is too intermittent and costly.
Solar energy projects are also running into trouble. Like wind, solar is intermittent: It produces
electricity only when the sun is shining. The general economic problems of solar power were recently described in a
study by Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business and director of the UC
Energy Institute. He looked at the costs of 26,522 photovoltaic solar panel installations, equal to 103 megawatts of capacity, that
have received state support from California and found that their cost ($86,000–$91,000) far outweighed their value ($19,000–
$51,000).[6]
Other problems have arisen as well. For example, Solar, Inc., the world's largest solar company,
recently told investors that its largest market, the European Union, may ban its solar
panels because they contain toxic cadmium telluride.[7] To replace the cadmium model
with a silicon-based model would quadruple the production costs.
The intermittent nature of wind and solar energy is important to the overall economics of energy
and how these renewable sources relate to nuclear power. Given the low cost needed to
operate a nuclear plant, lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed.
[8] It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all.
57

Climate Politics
Page 58 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Stimulus Solves
The stimulus wasn’t enough—it was just a starting point but is unsustainable on its
own.
Block 2009 (1/30, Ben, WorldWatch Institute, "Growing optimism for U.S. climate change bill",
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6000, WEA)
If climate change legislation fails to pass this year, White House aides have said that the currently
debated financial stimulus package would provide key first steps to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions.
The House of Representatives approved a plan on Wednesday that would provide about $100 billion of support for renewable energy,
energy efficiency, transportation, and environmental restoration projects.
But Congress needs to overhaul the entire economy, through a price on carbon, in order to
create a more sustainable solution to current economic, energy, and climate change crises, said
David Foster, executive director of the Blue-Green Alliance, a collaboration of labor unions and environmental groups.
"Although passage of the stimulus bill would be extremely successful, we can't slow down and we
can't stop there," Foster said. "We really have created an unsustainable economic model. To think we can somehow stabilize
that and go back to doing business as we were in the summer of 2008 - with oil at $147 per barrel, with an enormous trade deficit,
and with a terrible global warming problem on our hands - that is the model that got us into this mess."
58

Climate Politics
Page 59 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe
Climate bill is time sensitive – we must act now to solve warming, or it will get beyond
our control
McKibben 7/15/2009 - resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill, The Guardian, "Environment: race against time",
http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17, WEA)
That’s a smart answer, for almost every other issue on earth. If

he can’t get national health care through the
Congress, then some halfway plan is a good fallback – you can come back in a decade and make
it stronger. But global warming is different, the first truly timed test we’ve ever faced. If we don’t
address it very dramatically and very soon, then we won’t ever fix it – each season that more ice
melts and more carbon accumulates increases the chance that we’ll never get it under control,
because those feedback loops are taking the outcome out of our hands. So far we’ve raised the
temperature less than one degree Celsius, and that’s melted the Arctic. You really want to go for two?
Timeframe = this year.

Adam 2009 (3/11, David, the Guardian, "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say",
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print, WEA)
"People have known about the links between climate and forests for some time, but the alarming
thing now is the level of certainty because real world observations are feeding into the computer
models," said Tony Juniper, an environmental campaigner and Green party candidate. "There really is no time for
delay. Governments must cooperate to cut industrial emissions while at the same time halting
deforestation, otherwise we'll have a mass extinction and a global warming catastrophe."
Tipping point is coming soon where climate change will be unstoppable.

Tolman 2009 (4/30, League of Women Voters, LVW climate change taskforce, "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY
THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY", http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?
Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=13409, WEA)
If we allow GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation to continue to grow at their present rates, the
warming that will follow can be expected to decrease albedo3 (reflectivity) and increase the rate of
absorption of solar energy near the poles, increase water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, melt Arctic
tundra, release stores of carbon from soils and sea floors, and accelerate the melting of ice.
Climate change is happening more rapidly than anyone expected.4 We could reach a tipping
point where we could have a runaway climate change—one over which we no longer have any control—when
releases of carbon (especially methane) from natural reservoirs greatly exceed emissions from burning
fossil fuels. The grave danger we face and the need to take vigorous global action to reduce
GHG emissions without delay are clear.
59

Climate Politics
Page 60 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe
In order to have a shot at controlling temperatures we have a very narrow margin of
error.
Homer-Dixon 2007 - Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of
International Affairs, Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of
Waterloo, PhD in IR from MIT (11/14, transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada,
"Positive Feedbacks, Dynamic Ice Sheets, and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global
Warming", http://www.homerdixon.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon.pdf, WEA)
I’ll give you an indication of what we’re up against. Very soon humankind must cap and then ramp down global carbon emissions.
We have very little room to warm: the estimated maximum safe warming from pre-industrial
temperatures is around 2°C; beyond that point we get into a world where the positive feedback s I’ve
just discussed may develop great force. The warming to date has been about 0.8°C, and the
warming in the pipeline – even if all emissions cease right now – is about 0.6°C. This leaves us
with around 0.6°C room to warm. Limited room to warm implies, in turn, that we have very little
room to emit. The estimated carbon dioxide concentration that’s likely to produce at least 2°C warming is about 450 ppm.
(This is actually a conservative estimate; some people would put the threshold for carbon dioxide much lower. Notice, for instance,
that I am talking about atmospheric carbon dioxide and not ‘carbon dioxide equivalent.’ In other words, these 450 ppm do not
include chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, and a number of other powerful greenhouse gases. If they did, the actual limit for CO2
itself would be much lower than 450 ppm.) The current concentration of CO2 is about 380 ppm, so the room to emit, therefore, is
about 70 ppm. The incremental annual increase is currently about 2 ppm and rising, so we have about 30 years left until we reach
450 ppm. That doesn’t mean we have 30 years before we have to start worrying about this problem: it means that in 30 years we’d
better be heading south on carbon emissions really fast.
Indeed, we need to be heading towards an 80 to 90 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050.
Scientists are talking about that kind of reduction, as are environmental activists, but in Canada it
isn’t even on the policy radar screen at the moment (notably, a number of U.S. Demo- cratic and Republican presidential candidates
have committed themselves to such reductions).
60

Climate Politics
Page 61 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: State Cap And Trade Solves
State policies do not check—too small of a market force.
Fontaine 2004 - co-chairs the Energy, Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J.,
Public Utilities Reports, "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm", http://www.pur.com/pubs/4419.cfm, WEA)
In the vacuum created by the administration's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, a number of states have
stepped forward with legislative and policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.16 Fourteen states
have adopted renewable portfolio standards that require electricity suppliers to derive an increasing percentage of supply from
renewable energy generation sources, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. State RPS
legislation, however, will
not create the necessary market forces to effectuate the large-scale reductions in CO2 necessary
for the United States to achieve a significant reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions. National
legislation is essential.
61

Climate Politics
Page 62 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Good—Extinction
The impact is extinction, cap and trade is key to solve our economic and
environmental crises.
Block 2009 (1/30, Ben, WorldWatch Institute, "Growing optimism for U.S. climate change bill",
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6000, WEA)
Kerry, a long-time advocate of climate change legislation, now chairs the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
highlighted the growing evidence of
Although traditionally focused on foreign aid and national security, the committee
a dangerously warming planet during its first substantive hearing of the year.
"The science is screaming at us," Kerry said. "There is no time to waste. We must learn from the
lessons of Kyoto, and we must make Copenhagen a success."
Former Vice President Al Gore testified at the hearing to support Kerry's calls for action. It was the first time the
Nobel laureate appeared on Capitol Hill in nearly two years.
"The solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic
and national security crises as well," Gore said. "In order to repower our economy, restore American
economic and moral leadership in the world, and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action
now."
Gore, who is currently chair of the nonprofit group The Alliance for Climate Protection, also urged Congress to place a price on carbon
emissions before the Copenhagen negotiations begin.
"Our country is the only country in the world that can really lead the global community," Gore said.
"Thisis the one challenge that could ultimately end human civilization, and it's rushing at us with
a speed that is unprecedented."
62

Climate Politics
Page 63 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Ext. C&T Solves Warming
Cap and trade solves warming.
Olver 7/6/2009 - Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (John W., "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation",
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=31496, WEA)
HR 2454 takes on global warming by capping the amount of carbon that power plants and other large
sources can emit by issuing a limited number of tradable emissions permits. The number of emissions
permits will decrease over time, leading to steady emissions reductions. Companies will have two ways of
meeting emissions targets: they can invest in clean energy and energy efficiency for themselves and sell their excess permits, or
they can buy permits from other companies who have made these investments. Permits will be bought and sold on a carefully
regulated market. The carbon cap will thus unleash a wave of investment, while the permit market
ensures that cuts are made in the most economical way possible. By 2050, this system, combined
with the bill's other provisions, would reduce total global warming emissions 83 percen below 2005
levels.
When combined with vehicle efficiency and biofuel standards enacted in 2007, HR 2454 will reduce America's
dependence of foreign oil by 5 million barrels a day by 2030. This is equivalent to the amount of
oil that we import from the Venezuela and the entire Middle East and will save consumers an estimated $135
billion in fuel costs.
Cap and trade is an adjustable mandate that we can target to the right level of
emissions.
Stone et al 2009 - *Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, former executive director of the Joint
Economic Committee of Congress, **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3, Chad Stone, Hannah
Shaw, and Sharon Parrott, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY
WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS", http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-3-09climate.pdf, WEA)
A cap-and-trade system puts a limit (or “cap”) on the overall amount of greenhouse gases —
mainly carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels — that businesses are allowed to emit each
year. Electric power plants, oil refineries, and other firms responsible for emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases are then required to purchase permits (called allowances) for
each ton of greenhouse gas pollution they emit.
Over time, the number of emissions allowances would shrink in order to achieve the substantial
emissions reductions that scientists say are necessary to curb global warming. This would force
the
economy to gradually adapt by reducing emissions through energy conservation, improved
energy
efficiency, and greater use of alternative clean energy technologies.
63

Climate Politics
Page 64 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Acid rain programs prove—cap and trade is the most effective free market mechanism
Swift and Mazurek 2001 - *director of the Center for Energy, Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law
Institute, **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001, Byron and Jan,
Progressive Policy Institute, "Getting more for four", http://www.ndol.org/documents/clean_energy_part2.pdf, WEA)
The Acid Rain Example During the late 1970s, the problem of acid rain loomed large on the nation’s agenda. This problem is
largely caused by the SO2 emissions from the utility industry, which, citing cost concerns, resisted
congressional efforts to place a limit or "cap" on its emissions. The former Bush administration broke
the deadlock in 1989 by proposing an emissions reduction system that has since proven that a
cleaner environment need not be inordinately expensive. The Acid Rain Program sets a single
tonnage limit or "cap" on the emissions of SO2 from all utilities. Those who can control SO2 cheaply can sell
emissions trading allowances to those who find reducing emissions more costly. This combined approach is far less
expensive than "first generation" laws that regulate emissions from each source separately. By
combining an emissions cap with allowance trading, a stringent environmental result was achieved at
relatively low cost. The expected costs of the Acid Rain Program have decreased since it was debated in Congress from early
estimates, ranging from $400 to $1,500 per ton of SO2 removed, to a current price of only $200 a ton—far less than estimated
benefits (Carlson, 2000).
The cap-and-trade system that has been so successful in controlling SO2
The "Four-E" Approach
emissions holds the promise of reducing pollutant emissions further and of addressing a problem that looms even
larger: climate change. Many scientists believe that the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the earth’s upper atmosphere will
change the earth’s climate (IPCC, 2001). Initiatives to cap carbon here at home and for the United States to participate in efforts to
Those opposed to regulating CO2 have
curb greenhouse gas emissions internationally stalled this past year.
employed the same argument used by those who resisted attempts to reduce acid rain: the cost of
controlling greenhouse gas emissions is too high. Ironically, many electric utilities and a growing number of
members in Congress now view the price of not developing a comprehensive strategy to reduce
power plant emissions as too high.
64

Climate Politics
Page 65 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
The climate bill is key to solve warming—it sets a hard cap on emissions.
Podesta 09 – President of the Center for American Progress (John, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress,
Combat Global Warming, Yes. Whining, No., Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/no_whining.html, 6/23/09]
Despite these changes this bill is a giant leap forward in efforts to transition to a low-carbon
economy. It reflects the enormous shift in priorities between the Obama administration and the previous one. It sets a
hard cap on emissions—something the previous administration was dead set against—that will be lowered over
time so we can achieve the emissions reductions climate science demands over the next few
decades. In the short term the cap would reduce emissions by the equivalent of removing
500 million cars from the road by 2020. The cap would also set a price on carbon pollution, reflecting the costs of
dirty coal-fired electricity. It would spark more clean-energy innovation and private investment in
clean alternatives, including energy efficiency and wind and solar power. Undoubtedly, House
passage of H.R. 2454 is only the first arduous step toward energy transformation. Senate passage
of similar legislation will be more difficult. The Senate Energy Committee is off to an inauspicious beginning by passing an energy
bill that would do little to boost investments in renewable electricity. The bill would allow oil drilling in an area only 45 miles off
the Florida Gulf Coast that had been protected as part of a 2006 compromise to allow drilling in 6 million acres nearby. The bill
would worsen global warming by lifting the prohibition against the federal government purchase of oil from Canadian tar sands,
which produce twice as much greenhouse gas pollution as regular oil. The bill is weak, hapless, and unacceptable, and it must be
improved before it passes the Senate.
The warming bill will reduce CO2 emissions- uses efficiency and renewable electricity
standards
Nadel and Watson 09 – [Steven Nadel and Suzanne Watson, Steve Nadel is the Executive Director of the American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a non-profit research organization, “H.R. 2454 WOULD SAVE $3,900 PER HOUSEHOLD BY
2030”, ACEEE NEWS RELEASE, Revised 6/23/09, http://www.aceee.org/press/0906waxman.htm, 2009]
H.R. 2454 also provides for a number of free emissions allowances to help companies mitigate
the economic impact of climate change legislation, including substantial free allowances to electric utilities.
These range from 43.75 percent of allowances in 2012, decreasing incrementally to 7 percent in 2029. If one-third of these funds
American consumers would save over 2.5 quads of energy in 2030.
were dedicated to efficiency,
Cumulative energy bill savings will total more than $250 billion by 2030, over and above the
savings from the Combined Efficiency and Renewable Electricity Standard. In total, the
energy efficiency provisions in H.R. 2454 could reduce U.S. energy use by 5.4 quadrillion
Btu's, which accounts for about 5 percent of projected U.S. energy use in 2020. These energy
efficiency savings are more than the annual energy use of 47 of the 50 states, including New
York State. Moreover, such savings will avoid about 345 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
emissions in 2020, the equivalent of taking 57 million cars off the road for a year. By 2030,
these energy efficiency savings grow to 12.8 quadrillion Btu’s, accounting for about 12
percent of projected U.S. energy use that year. Increasing the energy efficiency component of the Combined
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standard to 10% savings by 2020 and devoting one-third of electric utility allowances to
Although these potential savings are
efficiency would increase these 2030 energy savings by about 25 percent.
dramatic, there are many additional cost-effective efficiency opportunities available. ACEEE’s
studies of energy efficiency’s potential indicate that current technologies can cost-effectively
save 25-30 percent of total energy use, and that new technologies could increase the
available cost-effective savings.
And, sequestration and reforestation provisions solve existing emissions.

DeBard 09, staff writer, 6-25/09 [Amanda, “Climate bill gives billions to foreign foliage; Critics assail futile 'offsets',” The Washington
Times, PAGE ONE; A01, lexis]
65

Climate Politics
Page 66 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Supporters of the legislation counter that the plan recognizes the need to reduce greenhouse-
gas emissions to curb global warming - in the United States and beyond. Supporting
ways to keep trees alive or plant new trees, wherever those trees are located, helps the
effort, they say. Under the program, the government would reward domestic and
international companies that perform approved "green" actions with certificates, called
permits. Those companies could, in turn, sell the permits to other companies that emit
greenhouse gases. The permits would be, in effect, licenses to pollute - and potentially
very valuable.
66

Climate Politics
Page 67 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Cap And Trade Modeled
Even if the signal fails, a US emissions scheme creates an economic incentive to get
on board.
Petsonk 2007 - JD from Harvard Law School, Adjunct professor at George Washington U Law School and U Maryland Law
School, Environmental law unit of the UNEP (3/27, Annie, Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the US House
of Representatives, "Climate Change - International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries",
http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf, WEA)
Congress can design the U.S. carbon

3. Include carrots and sticks as design elements in the carbon market.
market to provide carrots and sticks that encourage other countries – even recalcitrant ones - to
join our efforts. Our carbon market is likely to be the largest in the world. Other nations will
want access to our market – for carbon finance, and to sell us credits. Those nations' interest in gaining
access to our carbon market gives Congress leverage, just as in any other market access negotiation. Below we
describe some "carrot and stick" options for Congress to consider, among the many potential options that could be envisioned.
China will cooperate if we act first

Saiget 7/16/2009 (Robert J., Agence France Prese, "US officials confident of greater clean energy ties with China",
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hhlDMvsSsQ4WtzdW_Tpcmjb2lB-g, WEA)
Top US trade and energy officials said Thursday they were confident China and the United States
BEIJING —
would step up cooperation on climate change after meeting with Chinese leaders.
US Trade Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, both ethnic Chinese, came to China seeking to open the Asian
giant's markets to US green technology while urging Beijing to set hard targets on gas emissions.
Chu and I measured the success of this trip by answering the simple question of whether
"Secretary
America and China can increase their cooperation in the development... of clean energy and energy efficient
technologies," Locke told reporters.
the simple answer is yes."
"After three days of meeting,
During the trip, China and the United States -- the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases -- announced
the establishment of a joint clean energy research centre aimed at allowing scientists from both
sides to work together.
The centre, with headquarters in both countries, is also intended to serve as a clearing-house for information, with key issues initially
to be looked at including energy efficiency, clean coal technology and low-polluting cars.
Locke and Chu met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Thursday afternoon, with the environment, as well as a host of trade and
other issues, on the agenda. They also held talks individually with other top officials.
Their visit to China comes as officials prepare for the first US-China strategic and economic dialogue, to be held in Washington next
week.
67

Climate Politics
Page 68 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Action now is key—countries like China have signaled willingness but we have to act
first.
Petsonk 2007 - JD from Harvard Law School, Adjunct professor at George Washington U Law School and U Maryland Law
School, Environmental law unit of the UNEP (3/27, Annie, Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the US House
of Representatives, "Climate Change - International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries",
http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf, WEA)
Thank you for asking for our views on the extent to which Environmental Defense perceives developing countries as taking, or
considering taking, steps to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the effect of U.S. and other developed countries'
actions on such considerations. Engaging developing countries in cutting their total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
is essential if the world is to curb climate change. The United States is the world's largest current
and historical GHG emitter. Fast-growing developing countries, however, will soon emit more than we do. Global warming
can't be solved unless both the U.S. and large developing countries cut total GHG emissions. The steps Congress takes
will be crucial. A number of large-emitting developing countries have taken, or are considering,
steps to slow the increase in their GHG emissions: The world's second-largest emitter, China, has adopted more
stringent fuel economy standards for passenger cars than has the United States. China has also
adopted a renewable energy goal, and committed significant funding for renewable energy. The world's fourth largest
emitter, Brazil, has converted most of its passenger car fleet to sugar-cane ethanol. And it has reduced deforestation over 50% in
the last two years, in part through conservation measures and environmental law enforcement. That's important: 70% of Brazil's
emissions come from deforestation in the Amazon.
But most developing countries are reluctant to take further climate protection steps unless and
until the United States does. And most are certainly not likely to take more stringent or faster steps than the U.S. does.
Consequently, if the world is to reduce total GHGs, Congress must lead with workable, enforceable, sufficiently
stringent steps that engage developing countries to join us – quickly - in stabilizing the climate at safe levels.
Congress must also take tough, shrewd steps to ensure that if developing nations fail to engage, neither America's environment nor
her competitiveness will be jeopardized.
Developing U.S. cap-and-trade legislation affords Congress three crucial opportunities to use the
power of the carbon market to meet these challenges:
1. Lead By Example When Congress enacts a climate bill, the rest of the world will be watching
closely. In effect, when Congress acts, America will lead by example. Such leadership is
urgently needed. The international climate treaty talks have stalled because of the
unwillingness of the Executive Branch to engage. Time is running out. America's trading partners are recognizing
that the only way the United States will act to cut emissions in the narrow time window for averting dangerous climate change, is if
the Congress acts. Sensible Congressional action could yield great benefits for America's environment and economy, and provide a
template for the world. As Congress moves to cap and cut America's GHG emissions, there are a number of steps Congress can
take that can have a significant positive effect on developing countries' consideration of, and implementation of, steps to reduce
their own emissions. Taking these in coordination with other developed countries will increase their effectiveness. But Congress
by taking the lead, Congress can show all nations how to
should not wait for other nations to act. Instead,
break the climate logjam and correct the mis-steps that led to the logjam in the first place. If
Congress creates a clear, enforceable U.S. carbon market that taps American innovation in favor of stabilizing the climate at safe
levels, it will set the bar for other nations' actions. If instead Congress litters the program with "intensity targets"
that don't cut total emissions, and with "safety valves" that are really escape hatches, it will simply tempt America's trade
competitors to put the same or bigger loopholes into their programs – and drive global emissions higher. 5
68

Climate Politics
Page 69 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Countries like India will be too bitter too cooperate unless we send a clear signal.
Foster 2007 (6/12, Peter, the Telegraph, "India snubs West on climate change",
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3297214/India-snubs-West-on-climate-change.html, WEA)
India will not curb its greenhouse gas emissions as long as the West continues to treat it as a
'second class global citizen' with less right to pollute than the developed world, a senior Indian
environment official has said.
Pradipto Ghosh, who retired last month as India's environment secretary and now sits on a committee advising India's prime minister
on climate change, warned that the West must "get serious" about cutting its own emissions if it wanted
progress on the issue.
His comments confirm the massive gulf between the West and the world's emerging economies a week after President Bush agreed to enter UN-
sponsored climate change negotiations on condition that India and China also agreed to play their part.
Mr Ghosh reiterated India's position that it would not compromise its continued 8 per cent economic growth to arrest global warming, arguing that it was
historical polluters in the industrialised West who must make the first move.
"The fact is that India has a very, very large number of poor people who are living in conditions of which people in the West can have no conception
unless they have visited India's villages and urban slums.
"The goals of addressing climate change cannot supersede our goals of maintaining our current rates of GDP growth and poverty alleviation programs,
as was agreed by everyone at Kyoto," he told The Telegraph in New Delhi.
At the heart of India's position on climate change is the notion that India - whose population is
predicted to reach 1.5bn by 2050 - must be allowed to pollute on a per capita basis
equally with the West.
That would imply drastic cuts in emissions in developed countries if the world is meet the target
of keeping global warming within the generally agreed 'safe limit' of two degrees, as set
out by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"The prime minister [Dr Manmohan Singh] has said that while pursuing our policies of development and poverty alleviation, we will
ensure that our per capita emissions will never exceed developing countries," Mr Ghosh added.
"This is our challenge to the West. 'You do the best you can, and we'll match it'. If the West thinks that
India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided."
His remarks emphasise the divide which will face developed and developing nations when they meet in Bali, Indonesia in December to start negotiations
on a new climate change agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.
Despite claims of a climate change 'deal' at the G8 summit last week, the meeting only served to increase Indian irritation at being treated as
"petitioners not partners" at the global top table.
India's prime minister let it be known the G8 decision to delivere their final communiqué before meeting with the G5 countries - India, China, Brazil,
Mexico and South Africa - had made him question the worth of even attending the summit.
Empirically, the strongest international projects grew out of a strong domestic stance
in the US.
Bodansky 2001 - Woodruff chair in international law at the University of Georgia, former climate change coordinator and
attorney-advisor at the Department of State, JD from Yale, AB from Harvard, M. Phil from Cambridge University, (Daniel, National
Interest, "Bonn voyage: Kyoto's uncertain revival", http://www.iddri.org/Activites/Conferences/bodansky.pdf, WEA)
Lesson 3: "America first" It is almost a commonplace that successful foreign policy must grow out of domestic
political consensus. Certainly this is true in the United States with respect to environmental
issues, where virtually every successful international regime has had its roots in U.S. domestic
law. The most spectacular success —the Montreal ozone agreement— grew out of the U.S. regulation of
chlorofluorocarbons, the chief culprit in the destruction of the ozone layer, beginning with a ban on
aerosol spray cans ill the late 1970s.Other relatively successful international regimes —for example to limit oil
pollution from tankers, to regulate trade in endangered species, and to control dangerous
pesticides and chemicals— also built on U.S. domestic efforts, rather than attempting to force the United States to
change its ways through the pressure of an international regime.
69

Climate Politics
Page 70 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
US action key to getting countries like China on board.
Yardley 2007 (2/7, Jim, New York Times, "China Says Rich Countries Should Take Lead on Global Warming",
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/world/asia/07china.html?pagewanted=print, WEA)
China said Tuesday that wealthier countries must take the lead in curbing greenhouse
BEIJING, Feb. 6 —
gas emissions and refused to say whether it would agree to any mandatory emissions limits that might hamper its booming
economy.
China was willing to contribute to an international effort
Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry, said
to combat global warming but placed the primary responsibility on richer, developed nations that have
been polluting for much longer.
climate change has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of
“It must be pointed out that
developed countries and their high per capita emissions,” she said, adding that developed countries have
responsibilities for global warming “that cannot be shirked.”
Ms. Jiang’s comments, combined with another briefing on Tuesday by the country’s leading climate expert, represented China’s first
official response to a landmark report issued last week by a United Nations panel of scientists that declared global warming is
“unequivocal” and warned that immediate action must be taken to prevent harmful consequences.
China is the world’s second largest emitter of the greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, trailing only the United States.
Last November, the International Energy Agency in Paris predicted that China would pass the United States in emissions of carbon
dioxide in 2009. China had been expected to surpass the United States as late as 2020, but its soaring consumption of coal has
rapidly increased the country’s emissions.
China derives nearly 70 percent of its energy from coal-fired power plants, many of them equipped with substandard pollution
controls.
Chinese officials have long noted that China’s per capita emissions remain well below the averages in wealthier countries, including
the United States. Officials also argue that China remains a developing country without the financial resources or technological
prowess to make a rapid shift to cleaner, more expensive energy technology.
China has not disputed the scientific rationale behind global warming or denied the potential
harm it could cause. Later this year, China is expected to release broad policy goals on how it can reduce emissions and
respond to global warming. In December, it issued a report warning that climate change posed a serious
threat to the country’s agricultural output and economy.
Action now key to get other nations on board—our current signal threatens overall
leadership.
Pegg 2008 (2/1, J.R., Environmental News Service, "U.S. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle", http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10.asp, WEA)
-The head of the United Nations scientific climate panel spoke with U.S. lawmakers Wednesday,
encouraging them lead the world in cooling the overheated planet. "We really don't have a
moment to lose," said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC.
The massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to avoid serious disruptions to Earth's
climate system are impossible without U.S. leadership, Dr. Pachauri told members of the House Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming.
"It is essential for the U.S. to take action," said Pachauri, who also spoke at a public briefing Wednesday afternoon convened by the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The United States is responsible for some 22 percent of current greenhouse gas emissions. Although China recently emerged as the
leading emitter, U.S. emissions are four times greater than China's on a per capita basis.
Despite broad criticism from across the world, President George W. Bush and his administration have rejected mandatory limits on
greenhouse gases. And many U.S. lawmakers remain reluctant to commit their nation to deep cuts without similar obligations from
China, India and other developing nations.
The IPCC chairman said that view is misplaced.
"The rest of the world looks to the U.S. for leadership … [but] the perception round the world is
that the U.S. has not been very active in this area," Pachauri said, adding that strong action would
"undoubtedly reestablish confidence in U.S. leadership on critical global issues."
70

Climate Politics
Page 71 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Cap and Trade Modeled
Climate Legislation is a new start for policies and our global leadership
The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6-26/09 [“Editorial: A big step against climate change,” CITY-C Edition, EDITORIAL; Inq
Opinion & Editorial; Pg. A18, lexis]
If the United States is going to be the world leader in fighting global warming, it needs to walk
the walk. This nation generates a disproportionate amount of the polluting greenhouse gases
that contribute to climate change. China, India, and other major polluting countries will never
come to the table over carbon emissions unless the United States leads by example. There is
symbolic value in this vote, as well as its practical attempt to reduce pollutants. The heart of the bill
is its "cap-and-trade" provision for carbon emissions. Businesses would need to pay for permits for each ton of carbon emitted.
High polluters, such as coal-fired electric plants, could also purchase capacity from low polluters. The legislation aims to cap
greenhouse-gas emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and increasing targets through 2050. A portion of the money
collected by government auctions of permits would go to offset consumers' higher energy costs; some of the revenue would be
Concerns about the cost of the legislation for consumers appear to be
spent on clean-energy research.
exaggerated. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the measure would cost
each U.S. household about $175 annually by 2020. The Environmental Protection Agency projects it
will cost the average household about $100 per year. Some environmentalists complain that
this bill has been watered down to the point where it won't have any impact on carbon
emissions. And business leaders insist that the legislation will simply impose a huge new energy tax without any social
benefit. But there is much more to President Obama's push for a new energy plan than the desired
results for long-term global warming. For three decades, the United States has grappled with
the unproductive consequences of its dependence on foreign-supplied energy. This plan
envisions new industries and jobs devoted to cleaner domestic energy. This legislation offers
the promise of a new way forward.
Warming bill sends international signal of leadership

Lash 09 – [Jonathan Lash, “National: Tackling climate change: Comment: This bill will change the face of US industry – and give
the leadership the world awaits”, The Guardian – Final Edition, Lexis Nexis, 6/26/09]
The US House of Representatives will vote today on a bill that would change the face of America's factories, power sources,
buildings, landscapes and working patterns. I have been involved in a dozen pieces of landmark US environmental legislation over
the last 30 years. None has been more important than this. Let's start with the fact that the
US has never had a
coherent, comprehensive energy policy, and that the American clean energy and security act
(Acesa) would provide one. The bill sets out a long-term road map to shift the world's biggest
economy on to a low carbon path. My institute's analysis shows that it is the strongest climate bill ever
to come before Congress, setting mandatory caps on sectors responsible for 87% of US
greenhouse gas emissions including electric power, oil and gas, and heavy industry. By putting a
price on greenhouse gas emissions, Acesa sends a vital message to businesses and investors that markets for low-carbon
products and services are the future. The US is home to the most entrepreneurial and innovative private sector in the world. With
this signal we can develop the technology to keep global warming within manageable limits. Almost as important are the bill's
With the months to the UN Copenhagen summit counting down, the world
international implications.
urgently awaits US leadership. The concrete greenhouse gas targets and additional carbon-
cutting measures in this bill, and its provisions to help finance developing country adaptation
to climate change, send a strong signal that the US is serious about negotiating a new global
deal in Denmark this December. If the house defeats the bill, it will be years before Congress
returns to the subject. Meanwhile, the Copenhagen negotiations would collapse. Other nations
would take Congress's failure to limit US emissions as a signal that the world economy will
continue to pursue business-as-usual energy policies. And the planet continues to heat at an
accelerating and dangerous rate.
71

Climate Politics
Page 72 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
China Key To Solve Warming
China cooperation is key to make emissions reductions effective.
China Daily 7/17/2009 ("China-US climate teamwork evolving", http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-
07/17/content_8439207.htm, WEA)
Cooperation between China and the US is crucial in meeting the climate change challenge. That
was the message from a joint press conference held by US Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and US Secretary of Energy Steven
Chu Thursday.
Both were visiting China for the first time as part of the Obama administration.
"There'sso much for our economies to gain by forging new ties in the clean energy sector and so
much to lose if we fail," Locke said. "The US and China have what it takes to meet the world's energy challenge. It'll be great
if 100 years from now the history books say the US and China's collaboration saved the planet from the irreversible climate change."
Chu said there is much the countries can do, including improving technology to reduce carbon emissions and increasing energy
efficiency.
"One of the most important things is mutual cooperation; to share, as best we can and as many things as we
can, the technology," Chu said.
The objective of the planned joint clean energy research center, he said, was to allow the nations to work together on efficient
buildings and better cars and find ways to capture carbon dioxide and look for clean ways to use coal, which both China and the US
have in abundance.
The planned center was announced on Wednesday and will be established by China's Ministry of Science and Technology and
National Energy Administration and the US Department of Energy.
72

Climate Politics
Page 73 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Positive Feedbacks
Continued warming causing feedbacks—this amplifies warming beyond control.
Science Daily 2006 - based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation
(5/22, "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century",
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm, WEA)
Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature
which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been
able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and
methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century
that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.
Using as a source the Vostok ice core, which provides information about glacial-interglacial
cycles over hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers were able to estimate the
amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, two of the principal greenhouse gases, that
were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends. Combining
their estimates with standard climate model assumptions, they calculated how much
these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb, further increasing
carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and so on.
“The results indicate a future that is going to be hotter than we think,” said Margaret Torn, who heads the
Climate Change and Carbon Management program for Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division, and is an Associate Adjunct Professor
in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. She and John Harte, a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group and
in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources, have co-authored a paper entitled: Missing feedbacks,
asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming, which appears in the May, 2006 issue of the journal
Geophysical Research Letters (GRL).
In their GRL paper, Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models, which are predicting a global temperature
increase of as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, may be off by nearly 2.0 degrees Celsius because they only
take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities.
“Ifthe past is any guide, then when our anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global
warming, it will alter earth system processes, resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas
loading and additional warming,” said Torn.
Torn is an authority on carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems, and on the impacts of anthropogenic activities on
terrestrial ecosystem processes. Harte has been a leading figure for the past two decades on climate-ecosystem interactions, and has
authored or co-authored numerous books on environmental sciences, including the highly praised Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course
in Environmental Problem Solving.
Also increases feedback mechanisms to cause runaway warming.

Adam 2009 (3/11, David, the Guardian, "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say",
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print, WEA)
Amazon dieback is one of the key positive feedbacks brought about by global
Positive feedback
warming. These are typically runaway processes in which global temperature rises lead to
further releases of CO², which in turn brings about more global warming. In the Amazon this
happens on a more localised scale but the result, increased forest death, also releases carbon
into the atmosphere.
73

Climate Politics
Page 74 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Current Emission Levels Too High
Even if current emission levels are too high, cap and trade leads to sequestration
technologies.
Swift and Mazurek 2001 - *director of the Center for Energy, Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law
Institute, **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001, Byron and Jan,
Progressive Policy Institute, "Getting more for four", http://www.ndol.org/documents/clean_energy_part2.pdf, WEA)
Carbon Sequestration cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions will not only stimulate the development
A
of abatement technologies but also create opportunities to remove carbon from the atmosphere in other
ways. Carbon can be reduced simply by reforesting or planting trees, or by promoting soil-improving
agricultural practices. These methods increase the storage of carbon in vegetation and soils (called
sequestration). Other methods are under development as well. Many carbon sequestration efforts carry ancillary
benefits—wildlife and biodiversity are promoted through reforestation, and soil erosion reduced with conservation agriculture
practices.
It’s not too late but if we don’t act in the next couple years we’re screwed.
Jagger 2008 - chair of the World Future Council (3/6, Bianca, Testimony to the House Select Energy Independence and Global
Warming Committee, "Renewable energy", CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis Congressional, WEA)
The threat of a global climate disaster is no longer up for debate. The majority of scientists are in
agreement. Governments have previously been reluctant to accept this reality. However, notwithstanding all this sobering
information, the agreements reached in Bali, were extremely weak and inadequate.
I am sure we all agree with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon when he says that climate
change is "the defining
challenge of our age". How to meet that challenge, while dealing with the already devastating consequences of floods,
droughts and rising temperatures, remains the great unanswered question. And the time to
answer it is running out.
In its final report, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that the world must
reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 to avert a global climate disaster. "If
there's no action before 2012, that's too late," said Rajendra Pachauri, who headed the panel, which shared the
Nobel Peace Prize in October with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our
future."
74

Climate Politics
Page 75 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: G8 Solves
G8 agreements are worthless without Congressional follow-up.
LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U.S.", http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit10-
2009jul10,0,4746209.story, WEA)
international pacts are usually meaningless without the backing of Congress; President Clinton,
Such
signed the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming in 1998, but it was never ratified by the Senate.
after all,
That chamber once again finds itself in a position to overrule the president as it considers a
sweeping climate-change bill that was narrowly approved last month in the House. It would fulfill
Obama's G-8 promise by meeting the 2050 goal.
75

Climate Politics
Page 76 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Free Market Solves/Government Control Bad
Government intervention is necessary in the context of warming because air quality is
a public good that private markets can’t address.
Mathur 2009 - professor emeritus of economics at Cleveland State University and adjunct professor of economics at Weber
State University (7/16, Vijay K., Standard-Examiner, "Cap and trade a sound market principle",
http://www.standard.net/live.php/news/178536?printable=story, WEA)
Let me first discuss why government has to intervene by legislating CO2 emissions. There
are two types of goods which
we consume: private goods and public goods. Private goods benefit those who pay the price for
those goods, for example, cars, food, and clothing. There is no leakage of consumption benefits to others who do not
pay the price for private goods. Therefore, people who pay the price have property rights to those goods and
their benefits. When property rights emerge and are enforced, markets will arise for those goods.
Private property rights can not be defined and enforced for public goods, since benefits of public
goods can not be completely appropriated by persons who may be willing to pay the price. If
goods are provided, it would also benefit those who do not pay for the goods. Therefore, there is no
incentive for individuals to buy the goods and hence there will not be any supply of the goods. Private
markets for the goods will not emerge. Hence, public goods have to be provided collectively; it implies that
government has to be assigned the property rights, and it is the government that enforces and allocates those
rights for all of us. For example, national defense is provided by the government because it is a public
good, and our taxes support its provision.
Clean air is a public good and air pollution is a "public bad." Since government has the property
right to the resource clean air on behalf of Americans, it can allow the use of that resource either by
direct regulation of CO2 emissions (quantity control), or a tax-price per unit of CO2 emissions, or a
combination of quantity control and a tax- price, or capping the quantity of emission rights and creating a
market to regulate the allocation of rights (cap and trade). Self-interest of Americans demands that
we all breathe clean air because our life depends upon it. Therefore, all of us must be willing to
pay the price to obtain clean air.
Cap and trade policy is meant to create a market for CO2 emissions, where given emission rights are traded at a
positive price. It is better than outright quantity control and better in many ways than a tax, because it
removes uncertainty about the level of CO2 emissions, allows the market and its price mechanism to allocate
rights, and as Paul Krugman argues, it is effective in achieving international cooperation. Also in a democracy, changing tax levels is
time consuming if quantity goals are not met. Businesses that object to paying for emission rights want to be free riders. The public is
paying for their use of the resource by tolerating depletion of air quality, property damages, and adverse health affects.
76

Climate Politics
Page 77 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Carbon Leakage
No leakage or MNC shift, Europe proves.
Zeller, 7/19/09- Editor at New York Times (Tom Jr., Editor and writer for The New York Times covering alternative energy and
green business, “Peacocks and Passions in Senate Climate Debate”, July 19th 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/business/energy-environment/20iht-green20.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)
Addressing concerns about competitiveness and the relocation of investments to foreign

markets, Mr. Matthes suggested that the latter had not happened in Europe. “We can’t see any
significant relocation of investment — even in industries like the iron and steel industry, which is
heavily exposed to carbon prices,” he said. “We see ongoing investments there.”Such arguments failed to impress Ben
Lieberman, a senior policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation and the sole American testifying at the July 8 hearing.
“The whole point of cap-and-trade is to constrain the supply of energy and therefore drive up its price,” Mr. Lieberman said, “and that
will have adverse effects throughout the economy.”
Government trade adjustments solve carbon leakage.

Frankel 2008 - James W. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at the Harvard Kennedy School (6/9, Jeffrey A.,
Brookings Institute, "OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE LEAKAGE/COMPETITIVENESS ISSUE IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY PROPOSALS",
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/~/media/Files/events/2008/0609_climate_trade/2008_frankel.pdf, WEA)
ABSTRACT: We are likely increasingly to see efforts to minimize leakage of carbon to non-participants and
to address concerns on behalf of the competitiveness of carbon-intensive industry. Environmentalists on
one side and free traders on the other side fear that border measures such as tariffs or permit-requirements against imports of
carbon-intensive products will conflict with the WTO. There need not necessarily be a conflict, if the measures
are designed sensibly. There are precedents (the turtle case and the Montreal Protocol) that
could justify such border measures so as to avoid undermining the Kyoto Protocol or its successors. But
to avoid running afoul of the WTO, and deservedly so, border measures should follow principles such as the following: •
Measures should follow guidelines multilaterally-agreed by countries participating in the emission
targets of the Kyoto Protocol and/or its successors, against countries that are not doing so, rather than being applied unilaterally
or by non-participants. • Measures to address leakage to non-members can take the form of either tariffs or permit-requirements on
carbon-intensive imports; they should not take the form of subsidies to domestic sectors that are considered to have been put at a
competitive disadvantage. • Independent panels of experts, not politicians, should be responsible for judgments as to findings of
fact -- what countries are complying or not, what industries are involved and what is their carbon content, what countries are entitled
to respond with border measures, or the nature of the response. Import penalties should target fossil fuels and a half dozen or so of
the most energy- intensive major industries -- aluminum, cement, steel, paper, glass, and perhaps iron and chemicals -- rather than
penalizing industries that are further removed from the carbon-intensive activity, such as firms that use inputs produced in an
energy-intensive process.
77

Climate Politics
Page 78 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: EPA Regulation Solves
EPA management fails.
Loris and Lieberman 2009 - *senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation,
**research assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407, "Five
Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming",
Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy, all in the name of combating global
warming, would be a chilling shift to a command-and-control system in which EPA
officials regulate just about every aspect of the market.
Beyond the costs of such actions, the red tape and permitting delays are almost unfathomable.
Though the Administration recently enacted a stimulus bill and touted "shovel ready"
construction projects to boost the economy, EPA regulations would essentially assure
that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months, if not years.
For instance, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to file environmental impact statements for EPA
review before moving forward with projects. According to the Government Accountability Office, normally it takes a federal
with the Clean Water Act's Section 404
construction project an average of 4.4 years to complete a NEPA review. Along
requirements, before a shovel can break ground, it could take 5.6 years for a project to jump
through all the normal environmental hoops.[5] Granting the authority for one of the largest and
unprecedented regulatory undertakings in U.S. history would greatly expand the EPA's power.
78

Climate Politics
Page 79 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Climate Models Good
Climate models are pretty sweet even they’re not perfect – new study by
meteorologists proves
Science Daily 2008 (4/6, "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change",
The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the
subject of debate among politicians, environmentalists and even scientists. A new study by
meteorologists at the University of Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate
and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends. Most of these models
project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years.
Scientific opinion on climate change
In the study, co-authors Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Utah
investigate how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To this end, they
compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. The authors apply
this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the
past two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea, Great Britain, Germany, and
the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate
change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy
approaching conventional atmospheric observations," said Reichler. "We can now place a much
higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past."
The many hours of studying models and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much
one can trust climate models and their predictions. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy, the study's
results also provide important response to critics of global warming. Earlier this year, working group one of the IPCC released its
The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by
fourth global warming report.
showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.
79

Climate Politics
Page 80 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Warming Anthropogenic
Climate change is anthropogenic
Burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), deforestation, population growth, and
agricultural practices are changing the composition of the atmosphere (increasing the
concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs, soot, and sulfates) and changing the surface of the land,
The large climate
including melting large areas that have been covered by ice and snow.
changes that have been observed in the past 30 years cannot be accounted for unless the
effects of human activities are included.
80

Climate Politics
Page 81 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Recent Events Disprove Climate Change
Our arguments have gained credibility recently because of accelerated ice melting.
McKibben 7/15/2009 - resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill, The Guardian, "Environment: race against time",
http://www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17, WEA)
But two years ago, almost to the week, scientists noticed that the Arctic was losing ice at an almost
unbelievable pace, outstripping the climate models by decades. Clearly we’d passed a threshold,
and global warming had gone from future threat to present crisis. It wasn’t just Arctic ice; at about the same
time methane levels in the atmosphere began to spike, apparently as a result of thawing permafrost. Surveys of high
altitude glaciers showed they were uniformly melting, and much faster than expected.
Oceanographers reported – incredulously – that we’d managed to make the oceans 30% more acidic.
Those observations changed everything – and they produced what is almost certainly the most important number in
the world. A Nasa team headed by James Hansen reported that the maximum amount of carbon the atmosphere can safely hold is
350ppm, at least if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” Since
we’re already at 390ppm, the message was clear: we don’t need to buy an insurance policy to reduce the threat of future warming.
We need a fire extinguisher, and we need it now.
Scientists have heard that message – in March they gathered by the thousands at an emergency
conference to declare that the five-year-old findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change were dangerously out of date.
But politicians haven’t caught up. As we head toward the crucial Copenhagen talks slated for December, Obama and
the rest of the world’s political class are still using the dated science and its now stale
conclusions. It’s easy to understand why: reaching a deal that would meet even that 2 degree target is incredibly hard, given the
recalcitrance of everyone from China’s Central Committee to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Aiming even
higher could undermine the entire process – asked about tougher targets Obama recently said that they risked making “the best the
enemy of the good.”
They misinterpret short-term statistical blips—our overall climate theory is still intact.
LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U.S.", http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit10-
2009jul10,0,4746209.story, WEA)
The clamor from global-warming deniers has heated up as the nation gets closer to taking action,
yet their comprehension of climate science hasn't improved. A particularly common obfuscation from right-
wing pundits is the "revelation" that global temperatures have been declining since 1998, even as carbon
emissions during the intervening 11 years have risen. This hardly debunks the climate change theory. The
cyclical El Niño phenomenon and heavy greenhouse gas concentrations combined to make 1998
the hottest year in recorded history. Such statistical blips are properly ignored by most
climatologists, who look at average temperatures over time rather than year-to-year data. And
the last decade was on average the hottest ever recorded.
81

Climate Politics
Page 82 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Recent Events Disprove Climate Change
Short-term cooling trends mean nothing—they are statistical blips due to regional
ocean cycles.
Revkin 2008 (3/2, Andrew C., New York Times, "Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell",
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print, WEA)
The world has seen some extraordinary winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past year: snow in Johannesburg last June and
in Baghdad in January, Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer, paralyzing blizzards in China,
and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature.
It is no wonder that some scientists, opinion writers, political operatives and other people who challenge warnings
about dangerous human-caused global warming have jumped on this as a teachable moment.
“Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way,” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano,
the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
So what is happening?
According to a host of climate experts, including some who question the extent and risks of global warming, it is
mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean, which
is in its La Niña phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern.
If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and
atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing
positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint
whether such a new force is at work.
Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a
warming world with disrupted weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from
burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air.
“The current downturn is not very unusual,” said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private
research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been
held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term
warming trend clear nonetheless.
“Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over,” he said.
82

Climate Politics
Page 83 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Climate Change Theory Inconsistent
Skeptics are the ones who are inconsistent—climate change theory has been the same
for decades.
Moore 7/16/2009 (John, National Post, "John Moore: One world government and global warming/climate change/whatever",
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/16/john-moore-one-world-government-and-global-warming-
climate-change-whatever.aspx, WEA)
A major talking point amongst the skeptics is a certain indignation over how “global warming”
became “climate change”. Some people think this was a marketing move by the international forces of
socialism to protect our Coke-like franchise. Actually, the terms are irrelevant. The general theory has been
roughly the same for 150 years. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for the skeptics who made
a very canny transition three or four years ago from the stance that the world isn’t warming up to “no-one
denies the planet is warming up, we dispute the cause.”
83

Climate Politics
Page 84 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Negative Feedbacks
Feedbacks are NET positive.
Let me now say a little bit more about some other feedbacks. This is one of the punch lines of my presentation today. I mentioned
earlier that there are two general kinds of feedback: those that operate more- or-less directly on
temperature, such as the ice-albedo feedback, and those that operate on Earth’s carbon cycle, where
warming produces a change in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. We have a fairly good
understanding of the former and not such a good understanding of the latter. One carbon feedback that worries
scientists involves the melting of the permafrost in Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Canada. As the
permafrost melts it releases large quantities of methane – a very powerful greenhouse gas that,
in turn, causes more warming. Scientists are also concerned about the potential release of more carbon dioxide from
forests: just yesterday researchers reported evidence that, as the climate has warmed, the Canadian boreal
forest has gone from being a carbon sink to a slight carbon emitter. And then there’s the matter of pine bark
beetles. As you likely know, we’ve lost wide swaths of pine forest in British Columbia and Alaska – huge areas of
trees – to bark-beetle infestation. As the climate warms, bark-beetle populations reproduce
through two generations during the summer, and beetle mortality is lower during the winter. Both
these changes mean that beetle populations become much larger overall. If these larger populations cross the
Rockies and get into the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland, and if they kill that forest, the forest will
be susceptible to fire that could release astounding quantities of carbon dioxide. I asked Stephen
Schneider, a leading climate scientist at Stanford, about the implications of such a development. He just shrugged and said, ‘well,
Other potentially destabilizing carbon-cycle feedbacks include the drying
we’re talking about billions of tonnes of carbon.’
of the Amazon and the possibility that if it dries it will burn; the drying of peat bogs in Indonesia,
which have already been susceptible to wide-spread burning; and the saturation of ocean carbon sinks. The
Southern Ocean around Antarctica is no longer absorbing carbon dioxide to the extent it did in
the past. Warming has produced much more vigorous winds closer to Antarctica. These winds have churned up the sea and
brought to the surface deep carbon-rich water, which absorbs less carbon from the atmosphere. Also, higher levels of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere are acidifying the oceans, a change could reduce populations of molluscs and phytoplankton that absorb carbon
into the calcium carbonate of their shells. Our climate has both positive and negative feedbacks. The positive
ones are self-reinforcing, and the negative ones equilibrate the climate and counteract the tendency towards self-reinforcing climate
change. The big question for climate scientists then is: What is the balance is between the positive
and negative feedbacks? A consensus has emerged over the last two years – a consensus again not
reflected in the recent IPCC reports – that the positive feedbacks in the climate system are much stronger
and more numerous than the negative feedbacks. In a paper published last year in Geophysical Research Letters,
Scheffer, Brovkin, and Cox carried out a comprehensive assessment of the feedback situation.7 They wrote, ‘[we] produce an
independent estimate of the potential implications of the positive feedback between global temperatures and greenhouse gasses.’
researchers focused specifically on carbon cycle feedbacks. They went on, ‘we
In other words, these
suggest that feedback of global temperature and atmosphere CO2 will promote warming by
an extra 15% to 78% on a century scale over and above the IPCC estimates.’ Let’s turn to the issue of
dynamic ice sheets. The Greenland ice sheet is the second largest mass of ice in the world, after that in Antarctica. If we melt
Greenland entirely, we get seven metres of sea-level rise. If we melt the West Antarctic ice sheet, we get another five metres. If we
melt the rest of Antarctica, we get an additional fifty or so metres. The Greenland ice sheet will probably be the first to melt, because
it’s the most vulnerable. During the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when temperatures were roughly what they’re going
to be at the end of this century, much of Greenland melted, and sea levels were four to six metres higher than they are right now.
84

Climate Politics
Page 85 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Solar Radiation Cuases Warming
Sunlight variation doesn’t explain warming.
Science Daily 2006 - based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation
(5/22, "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century",
In examining data recorded in the Vostok ice core, scientists have known that cyclic variations in
the amount of sunlight reaching the earth trigger glacial-interglacial cycles. However, the magnitude
of warming and cooling temperatures cannot be explained by variations in sunlight alone.
Instead, large rises in temperatures are more the result of strong upsurges in atmospheric
carbon dioxide and methane concentrations set-off by the initial warming.
Solar radiation theory is inaccurate; their authors are just stuck in denial in the face
of insurmountable evidence.
The third argument concerns radiation from the sun.The most common argument now put forward by climate
sceptics is that the recent warming is a result of changes in the intensity of the sun’s radiation. But a
major review article last year in the journal Nature showed that it’s virtually impossible to explain the
warming we’ve seen in the last 40 years through changes in solar radiation.5 This research is
pretty well definitive, too. So, these three arguments used by sceptics have been largely put to rest. We are now down
to a hard core of climate change deniers who are essentially impervious to any evidence – and they
write me all the time. Sometimes I engage in an amusing exercise just to see how detached from reality they can actually be. I
send them scientific papers and reports on the latest climate research, and invariably the
evidence in these reports makes absolutely no difference to their point of view. This kind of
psychological resistance points to something I think we need to confront directly: a process of denial of evidence
that is quite powerful in some parts of our society and in some individuals. I think there are three stages
of denial, which I talk about in my latest book.6 The first is existential denial, where one denies the actual existence of the
phenomenon. But existential denial is hard to sustain when the evidence becomes overwhelming, as is now the case with climate
change. So, people tend to move away from existential denial and start engaging in what I call consequential denial, in which they
deny that the consequences of the problem are going to be particularly serious. This is essentially the position taken by a lot of
climate change sceptics now. They’re saying, ‘okay, there’s climate change, but we can deal with it. It’s basically a pollution
problem that is not so serious. We can adapt as necessary.’ The evidence is also increasing, of course, that we won’t be able to
adapt adequately to the magnitude of the climate change that’s likely even this century – or that the economic and social
consequences of this change will be so great that, if we try to adapt, we’ll still need to aggressively mitigate our output of carbon
dioxide. So the final position, once it becomes impossible to support even consequential denial, is what I call fatalistic denial: one
basically accepts that the problem is real and that it’s going to hurt a lot, but then one simply says, ‘there’s nothing we can do about
it.’ In my future research I want to explore the larger social consequences of widespread fatalistic denial. I think they could be
astonishingly bad. Let me go on to quickly give you a sense of the three issues that I talked about before: positive feedback, ice-
sheet dynamics, and recarbonization of the fuel system. Let’s talk first about what the recent IPCC Working Group I report said
about global warming to date – that the ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.’
85

Climate Politics
Page 86 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Natural Temperature Cycles
The last century’s warming was beyond the scope of normal temperature cycles—only
our methodology has been externally reviewed.
The first argument concerns the long-term trend of Earth’s average surface temperature. In 1999, Mann, Bradley, and Hughes
released a paper that estimated average global temperature for the last millen- nium. This work was subsequently updated by Mann
and Jones in 2003 to provide a temperature record from the years 200 to 2000 AD.2 These researchers combined a
number of different paleoclimatological records – like tree rings and coral growth rates – that are ‘proxy’
measures of atmospheric temperature during various historical epochs. They cobbled these proxy measures
together to get a long-term record of the planet’s temperature. Their graph famously showed a
sharp uptick over the last half-century, which is why it was widely labelled the ‘hockey stick’
graph. It has been one of the most contentious pieces of evidence used to support the claim that we are experiencing an
abnormally warm period. You are probably familiar with this debate; it has been covered in the pages of the Globe and Mail. In
response to criticism of the statistical methodology used to cobble these records together, the
National Acad- emy of Sciences in the United States created a panel to examine the Mann et al.
methodology. The panel released its results last year, saying that, overall, while some questions remained about
the methodology, the original study’s conclusions were largely correct: the warming of the last 40
years very likely made Earth hotter than anytime in the last 1000 years, and it certainly made
Earth hotter than anytime in the last 400 years. I think the National Academy of Sciences report dealt with the
hockey stick issue; it’s off the table now, except for some – and I use this word deliberately – crazies out there.3
86

Climate Politics
Page 87 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Satellite Data Proves No Warming
Recent reviews of satellite data discrepancies have discredited skeptics.
The second argument concerns satellite data.There has been an enormous debate about an apparent
discrepancy between data from satellites that show no warming in the troposphere and data from ground-
level instruments that show warming. The argument was originally made by John Christy of the University of
Alabama in Huntsville. But recent studies have looked very carefully at this apparent discrepancy
between satellite and ground-level data and have shown that Christy and his colleagues made a number of
methodological and statistical errors. Once these errors are corrected, the discrepancy
disappears.4 The satellite record actually shows tropospheric warming – in fact, it shows both tropospheric
warming and, as we would expect from global warming theory, stratospheric cooling.
87

Climate Politics
Page 88 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Sea Level
Warming causes sea level rises – seawater expansion and glacial melting
Of all the threats posed by global warming—more severe droughts and floods, crop yield losses, more intense
hurricanes, the spread of diseases, increased forest fires, species extinction, and sea level rise—the last poses perhaps
the most obvious threat to modern industrial societies, with their major cities on coasts and their
dependence on ports for international trade.32 As GHG
concentrations and temperatures rise, sea levels also rise for two reasons: (1) Seawater
expands as it warms, and (2) water runs into the oceans from glaciers melting on land.
Global mean temperature three million years ago was only 2-3ºC higher than it is today while sea
level was 25±10 m (80±30 ft) higher. When the atmosphere last had a concentration of 560 ppm, twice what it
was in 1750, about 7 million years ago, there was no Greenland ice sheet and considerably less ice in Antarctica.34 If just
the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets melt, this would raise sea levels by 15 m (50 ft), submerging large parts
of the Delmarva Peninsula,35 Florida, much of Bangladesh, several small island states (e.g., the Maldives and the
Marshall Islands),36 and other low lying areas. A 50-ft rise would drown many large coastal
cities and can aptly be called “catastrophic”. A recent paper using data on land
elevation and
population in coastal areas reports that a sea level rise of just 6 m (20 ft) would inundate over The relationship between global
average temperature and sea level, based on earth’s behavior for the past 40 million years, is shown in Figure 2. Note that the solid
points represent equilibrium conditions—with enough time for the oceans, ice, and vegetation to fully respond. The open point,
labeled Projection for 2100, which shows a projected temperature of about 18ºC and a sea level rise of 1 m in 2100, is based on the
fact that the ice will not have had nearly enough time by then to fully respond to the temperature change. The best straight line
points has a slope of 20 m/°C (37 ft/°F). This means that we can expect an
drawn through the solid
equilibrium sea level rise of 20 meters (67 ft) for each 1°C rise in global average temperature. A
critical question is: How rapidly will the ice melt? If we are lucky and the melting is slow enough,
we may be able to manage a staged retreat from the coasts.
That kills hundreds of millions

Hansen 6 (James, Director @ NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Prof. Earth and
Env. Sci. @ Columbia U. Earth Institute, New York Review of Books, “THE THREAT TO THE PLANET”,
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen.pdf)
How much will sea level rise with five degrees of global warming? Here too, our best information comes from the Earth’s history. The
last time that theEarth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago, when sea level was
about eighty feet higher. Eighty feet! In that case, the United States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston,
New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Miami; indeed, practically the entire state of Florida would be
under water. Fifty million people in the US live below that sea level. Other places would fare worse. China would have 250
million displaced persons. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees, practically the entire nation.
India would lose the land of 150 million people. A rise in sea level, necessarily, begins slowly. Massive ice sheets
must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises. It may require as much as a
few centuries to produce most of the long-term response. But the inertia of ice sheets is not our ally against the effects of global
warming. The Earth’s history reveals cases in which sea level, once ice sheets began to collapse, rose one meter (1.1 yards) every
twenty years for centuries. That would be a calamity for hundreds of cities around the world, most of them
far larger than New Orleans. Devastation from a rising sea occurs as the result of local storms which can be expected to cause
repeated retreats from transitory shorelines and rebuilding away from them.
88

Climate Politics
Page 89 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Economy
Climate change kills the insurance industry and the overall economy.
Gelbspan 2004 - longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Bostong Globe, covered the
Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point",
http://www.wattpad.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt, WEA)
The responses of the insurance industry have been equally schizophrenic. The big European insurers have been politically proactive.
In the early rounds of the climate talks, they aligned themselves with a coalition calling for the largest initial cuts (20 percent below
1990 levels)--the Alliance of Small Island States, from Jamaica to the Philippines, countries whose stability is threatened by rising sea
levels and increasingly intense storm surges. The European insurers have also spent large amounts on public education, newspaper
advertising, and political capital on the climate threat.
most U.S. insurers have been economically defensive and politically invisible. Insurers
By contrast,
in this country have withdrawn coverage further and further inland from coastlines. They are
refusing to insure known storm corridors and selling the risk off to the public. They are keeping silent
politically.
The concern of the European insurers is reflected in their estimates of coming economic losses.
The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has projected that climate
damages will amount to $150 billion a year within this decade. The world's largest
insurer-Munich Reinsurance-has said that within several decades, those losses will
amount to $300 billion a year. And two years ago, Britain's biggest insurer projected that,
unchecked, climate change could bankrupt the global economy by 2065--from property
damage due to sea level rise and increasingly severe storms and floods; destruction of
energy, health, and communications infrastructures; crop failures; losses in the travel
and tourism industries; and public health costs.
Economic downturn causes global nuclear war

Mead 92 (Walter Russell, President’s Fellow @ World Policy Institute @ New School, New Perspectives
Quarterly, “Outer Limits to America’s Turn Inward”, 9:3, Summer, p. 30)
If so, this new failure—the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression—will
open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions—billions—of people around the world have pinned their
hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles—and drawn
closer to the west—because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the
global economy stagnates—or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict:
South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India—these countries with their billions of people and their
nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30s.
89

Climate Politics
Page 90 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Environment
Warming destroys ecological resilience—it increases water, agricultural, and
biodiversity stress.
Pegg 2008 (2/1, J.R., Environmental News Service, "U.S. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle", http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10.asp, WEA)
It is the world's poor who are "most vulnerable" to the adverse impacts of climate change, Pachauri said, noting that the IPCC
estimates some 1.5 billion people in the developing world are likely to be exposed to increased
water stress due to climate change by 2020.
The panel also estimates agricultural yields will drop by some 50 percent in some African countries, by 30
percent by 2050 in Asia and by 30 percent in Latin America before 2080.
"This clearly has major implications for food security worldwide," said Pachauri.
Furthermore, climate change could wreck havoc with ecosystems, he added, and threatens 20 to
30 percent of the planet's plant and animal species.
"Once this kind of damage takes place, we really have no way of turning back," Pachauri said, noting
that humans will be impacted by the loss of biodiversity.
Biodiversity loss outweighs nuclear war

Tobin 90 (Richard, Associate Prof. Pol. Sci. @ SUNY Buffalo, “The Expendable Future: U.S. Politics and
the Protection of Biological Diversity”, p. 14)
when compared to all other environmental problems, human-caused extinctions are likely
In fact,
to be of far greater concern. Extinction is the permanent destruction of unique life forms and the only irreversible
ecological change that humans can cause. No matter what the effort or sincerity of intentions, extinction species can never be
replaced. “From the standpoint of permanent despoliation of the planet,” NormanMyers observes, no other form of
environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species.” Harvard biologist Edward O.
Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions. To Wilson, the worst thing that
will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear
war. As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can be repaired within a few generations.
The one process ongoing … that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and
species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.” David Ehrenfeld succinctly summarizes the problem and the
need for a solution: “We are masters of extermination, yet creation is beyond our powers…. Complacency in the face of this terrible
dilemma is inexcusable.” Ehrenfeld wrote these words in the early 1970s. Were he to write today he would likely add a note of dire
urgency. If scientists are correct in their assessments of current extinctions and reasonably confident about extinction rates in the
near future, then a concentrated and effective response to human-caused extinctions is essential. The chapters that follow evaluate
that response in the United States.
90

Climate Politics
Page 91 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Disease (1/2)
Global warming fuels disease spread through pathogens and insects, it’s
comparatively a bigger threat than bioterror
Gelbspan 2004 - longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Bostong Globe, covered the
There is one group of creatures for whom global warming is a boon. Of

all of the systems of nature, one of the most
responsive to temperature changes is insects. Warming accelerates the breeding rates and the
biting rate of insects. It accelerates the maturation of the pathogens they carry. It expands the
range of insects, allowing them to live longer at higher altitudes and higher latitudes. As a result,
climate change is fueling the spread of a wide array of insect-borne diseases among populations,
species, and entire ecosystems all over the planet.
Those diseases are already passing from ecosystems to people--and the World Health
Organization now projects that millions of people will die from climate-related diseases and other impacts in the
next few decades.
In 2002, a team of researchers reported that rising temperatures
are increasing both the geographical range
and the virulence of diseases. The implication is a future of more widespread and devastating
epidemics for humans, animals, and plants.
As the Boston Globe reported: 'Researchers have long accepted that global warming will affect a wide range of organisms, but they
are only now beginning to predict what those will be. While climate change scientists have studied a handful of human diseases,
[this] report was the first to study dozens of diseases in both humans and nonhumans.
'We are seeing lots of anecdotes and they are beginning to tell a story,' said Andrew P. Dobson, professor
at Princeton University's department of ecology and evolutionary biology and one of the authors. 'It's a
much more scary threat than bioterrorism.'
The researchers reported that the climate-driven spread of diseases will 'contribute to population
or species declines, especially for generalist pathogens infecting multiple host species.
The greatest impacts of disease may result from a relatively small number of emergent
pathogens. Epidemics caused when these infect new hosts with little resistance or
tolerance may lead to population declines, such as those that followed tree pathogen
invasions in North America during the last century.'
'The most detectable effects of directional climate warming on disease relate to geographic
range expansion of pathogens such as Rift Valley fever, dengue, and Eastern oyster
disease. Factors other than climate change--such as changes in land use, vegetation,
pollution, or increase in drug-resistant strains--may underlie these range expansions.
Nonetheless, the numerous mechanisms linking climate warming and disease spread
support the hypothesis that climate warming is contributing to ongoing range
expansions.'
'What is most surprising is the fact that climate-sensitive outbreaks are happening with so many different
types of pathogens-viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites-as well as in such a wide range of
hosts including corals, oysters, terrestrial plants, birds and humans,' wrote lead author Drew Harvell, a Cornell University biologist.
Added Dobson: 'Climate change is disrupting natural ecosystems in a way that is making life
better for infectious diseases. The accumulation of evidence has us extremely worried.
We share diseases with some of these species. The risk for humans is going up.'
'This isn't just a question of coral bleaching for a few marine ecologists, nor just a question of
malaria for a few health officials--the number of similar increases in disease incidence is
astonishing,' added another member of the research team, Richard Ostfeld. 'We don't
want to be alarmist, but we are alarmed.'
91

Climate Politics
Page 92 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Disease (2/2)
And diseases will cause extinction
South China Morning Post, 96 (Kavita Daswani, South China Morning Post, 1/4, lexis)
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be
alerted to:the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV . If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola
outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades
of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than
HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain
reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could
have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was
killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen
tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller
"Nature isn't benign. The survival of
University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said:
the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic
variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu
outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third
World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real
possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and
imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
92

Climate Politics
Page 93 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Water Wars
Warming causes massive droughts ---- puts millions at risk and leads to water wars
Washington Post 7 (Doug Struck, “Warming Will Exacerbate Global Water Conflicts”, 8-20,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967.html)
As global warming heats the planet, there will be more desperate measures. The climate will be wetter in some places, drier in others. Changing weather
patterns will leave millions of people without dependable supplies of water for drinking, irrigation
and power, a growing stack of studies conclude. At Stanford University, 170 miles away, Stephen Schneider, editor of the journal Climatic Change and a lead
author for the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), pours himself a cup of tea and says the future is clear. "As the air gets warmer, there will be
more water in the atmosphere. That's settled science," he said. But where, and when, it comes down is the big uncertainty. "You are going to intensify the hydrologic cycle. Where the
atmosphere is configured to have high pressure and droughts, global warming will mean long, dry periods. Where the atmosphere is configured to be wet, you will get
more rain, more gully washers. "Global warming will intensify drought," he says. "And it will intensify floods." According to the IPCC, that means a drying out of areas such as southern Europe, the Mideast, North
Africa, South Australia, Patagonia and the U.S. Southwest. These will not be small droughts. Richard Seager, a senior researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, looked at 19 computer
models of the future under current global warming trends. He found remarkable consistency: Sometime before 2050, the models predicted, the Southwest will be gripped in a dry spell akin to the Great Dust Bowl drought that
lasted through most of the 1930s. The spacing of tree rings suggests there have been numerous periods of drought going back to A.D. 800, he said. But, "mechanistically, this is different. These projections clearly come
from a warming forced by rising greenhouse gases." Farmers in the Central Valley, where a quilt of lush, green orchards on brown hills displays the alchemy of irrigation, want to believe this is a passing dry spell. They
thought a wet 2006 ended a seven-year drought, but this year is one of the driest on record. For the first time, state water authorities shut off irrigation pumps to large parts of the valley, forcing farmers to dig wells. Farther
south and east, the once-mighty Colorado River is looking sickly, siphoned by seven states before dribbling into Mexico. Its reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are drying, leaving accusatory rings on the shorelines and
imperiling river-rafting companies. Seager predicts that drought will prompt dislocations similar to those of the Dust Bowl. "It will certainly cause movements of people. For example, as Mexico dries out, there will be
Much of the world's
migration from rural areas to cities and then the U.S.," he said. "There is an emerging situation of climate refugees." Global warming threatens water supplies in other ways.
fresh water is in glaciers atop mountains. They act as mammoth storehouses. In wet or cold seasons, the glaciers grow with
snow. In dry and hot seasons, the edges slowly melt, gently feeding streams and rivers. Farms below are dependent on that meltwater; huge cities have grown up on the belief the mountains will always give them drinking
water; hydroelectric dams rely on the flow to generate power. But the atmosphere's temperature is rising fastest at high altitudes. The glaciers are melting, initially increasing the runoff, but
gradually getting smaller and smaller. Soon, many will disappear . At the edge of the Quelccaya Glacier, the largest ice cap in the Peruvian Andes, Ohio State University researcher Lonnie
Thompson sat in a cold tent at a rarified 17,000 feet. He has spent more time in the oxygen-thin "death zone" atop mountains than any other scientist, drilling ice cores and measuring glaciers. He has watched the Quelccaya
Glacier shrink by 30 percent in 33 years. Down the mountain, a multitude of rivulets seep from the edge of Quelccaya to irrigate crops of maize, the water flowing through irrigation canals built by the Incas. Even farther
"What do you think is going to happen when this stops?"
downstream, the runoff helps feed the giant capital, Lima, another city built in a desert.
Thompson mused of the water. "Do you think all the people below will just sit there? No. It's crazy to think they won't go anywhere. And what
do you think will happen when they go to places where people already live?" The potential for
conflict is more than theoretical. Turkey, Syria and Iraq bristle over the Euphrates and Tigris
rivers. Sudan, Ethiopia and Egypt trade threats over the Nile. The United Nations has said water
scarcity is behind the bloody wars in Sudan's Darfur region. In Somalia, drought has spawned warlords and armies. Already, the World Health
Organization says, 1 billion people lack access to potable water. In northern China, retreating glaciers and shrinking wetlands that feed the Yangtze River prompted researchers to warn that water supplies for hundreds of
millions of people may be at risk.
Water wars go nuclear

Weiner in ’90 (Jonathan, Pulitzer Prize winning author, “The Next One Hundred Years”, p. 270)
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then wemay destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the
Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East,
from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling
water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A
climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some
of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.
93

Climate Politics
Page 94 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Ext. Warming Causes Water Scarcity
Climate change increases global water scarcity.
Daley 7/14/2009 (Beth, Boston Globe, "Global warming's timing problem",
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/07/global_warmings_timing_problem.html, WEA)
Evidence is growing that climate change is exacerbating water scarcity problems around the
world.
But now, a study shows that parts of even drenched New England may be facing water shortages
as the world warms and demand increases.
New U.S. Geological Survey research shows that increased demand for water and a warmer climate will
likely decrease the amount of water available in the streams and aquifers of southeast New Hampshire’s
Seacoast region. Similar worries are on the minds of Massachusetts and other New England water scientists.
USGS hydrologist Thomas Mack estimates that summer stream flows, which helps feed groundwater aquifers, in the Seacoast region
Meanwhile, warmer temperatures could increase
could be ten percent less by 2025 than they are today.
evaporation and lengthen the growing season where water is sucked up by plants.
A lot of the problem has to do with timing. About half of the water that recharges the region’s aquifer is from spring snowmelt, said
Mack, allowing it to be plentiful to residents for summer lawn watering and other uses.
But global warming is causing the snow to melt earlier by around two to four weeks. At the same time, more rain, instead of snow, is
expected to fall in the winter. That means the aquifer is filling up earlier in the spring.
94

Climate Politics
Page 95 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Forests
Climate change kills global forests through bark beetle spread.
Gelbspan 2004 - longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe, covered the
The risk, of course, is not confined to humans. In Canada, an explosion in the population of tree-killing
bark beetles is spreading rapidly through the forests. As of late 2002, the deadly bark beetles had spread
throughout an area of British Columbia nearly three-fourths the size of Sweden--about 9 million acres.
Officials attributed the spread of the insects to unusually warm winters.
The massive wildfires that devastated southern California in the summer of 2003 were also made
more intense by a rapid increase in the population of bark beetles that had killed large numbers of trees,
turning them into tinder for the fires that blanketed the area around Los Angeles.
But the impact of the warming-driven population boom of insects on humans is likely to be at least--if not more--severe than the
impact on the world's forests.
Forests prevent extinction

Pew Charitable Trusts 7 (Press Release, “Boreal Forest is World’s Carbon Vault”, 8-12,
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=32032)
“The Boreal Forest is to carbon what Fort Knox is to gold,” said Jeff Wells, the Senior Scientist at the
International Boreal Conservation Campaign (IBCC), an initiative of the Pew Environment Group. “It’s an
internationally important repository for carbon, built up over thousands of years. The maps released today
document where and how these vital carbon reserves are distributed across Canada. We should do everything we can to ensure that
the carbon in this storehouse is conserved.” With 50 percent of the world's remaining original forests stretching across Canada,
Alaska, Russia and Scandinavia just below the Arctic, the Boreal is the largest land reservoir of carbon on Earth. Globally, the Boreal
Forest houses 22 percent of the total carbon stored on the world’s land surface. This is largely because in boreal climates, the colder
temperatures reduce decomposition rates, resulting in deep organic soils that are thousands of years old. Scott Goetz, a Senior
Scientist at Woods Hole Research Center, noted, “The mapping analysis released today provides vital information to inform modeling
of the role of boreal and arctic ecosystems and their feedbacks to the global climate system.” Canada’s Boreal Forest stores an
estimated 186 billion tons of carbon in its widespread forest and peatland ecosystems—the equivalent of 27 years’ worth of global
carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Global Forest Watch Canada compiled the detailed analysis for the International
Boreal Conservation Campaign (IBCC) after reviewing extensive government and scientific data of the region. This globally significant
Canada’s Boreal Forest Includes the World’s Largest Peatlands
carbon storehouse is due to three key factors:
Peatlands are recognized worldwide as highly important for carbon storage, storing at least six times as much carbon per hectare
as forested mineral soils. Canada has the largest area of peatlands in the world, encompassing 12 percent of the nation’s land area.
The map released today illustrates the vast Boreal peatlands that stretch from Quebec and Labrador westward to the Mackenzie
Valley, with significant concentrations in northern Ontario and Manitoba. Vast Permafrost Areas are Key to Carbon Storage
Permafrost, or permanently frozen ground, occupies about 25 percent of the world’s and 50 percent of Canada’s total land area. The
permafrost map released today shows that the northern portions of Canada’s Boreal Forest—particularly the western Boreal region—
are occupied by vast areas of carbon-rich permafrost. “The carbon frozen into Canada’s permafrost, including roughly a third of the
Boreal region, is one of North America’s largest stores of carbon,” said Dr. David Schindler, a Professor of Biology at the University of
Alberta in Edmonton. “It’s
similar to a bank vault containing one of the world’s most valuable and most
influential resources for impacting climate change.” Boreal Soils Rich in Carbon The third map of the analysis
depicts the carbon stored in Canadian Boreal soils. The map shows several carbon hotspots distributed across Canada. Nearly 90
percent of the organic carbon found in Canadian soils occurs in Boreal and Tundra ecosystems. Canada’s Boreal Region is Life-
“Clearly, Canada’s Boreal region is a life-support system for the planet because of
Support for Planet
its key role in carbon storage,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Director of the Natural Resources
Defense Council’s Canada Program. “The world recognizes that tackling global warming involves both reducing
emissions and stopping deforestation and forest degradation. Obviously, the growing tar sands destruction and associated carbon
emissions in Alberta will seriously hamper Canada’s ability to meet its commitment under Kyoto. It is our hope that the Canadian
government will reduce emissions from tar sands development, continue taking steps to protect the Boreal and recognize its
tremendous value as a global carbon storehouse.”
95

Climate Politics
Page 96 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Systemic Death/Poverty
Turns systemic death.
Gelbspan 2004 - longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe, covered the
About 160,000 people currently die each year from the impacts of warming, but the World Health
Organization calculates that that figure will rise into the millions in the near future-from the
spread of various infectious diseases, increased heat stress, and the warming-driven proliferation
of allergens.
'There is growing evidence that changes in the global climate will have profound effects on the
health and well-being of citizens in countries around the world,' said Kerstin Leitner, assistant director-general
of the World Health Organization.
Turns all systemic harms globally.

Jagger 2008 - chair of the World Future Council (3/6, Bianca, Testimony to the House Select Energy Independence and Global
Warming Committee, "Renewable energy", CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis Congressional, WEA)
When the floods have subsided, unprecedented droughts will occur. A poor, low-lying country like
Bangladesh will find it much harder to cope with sea level rise than a rich region like Florida. Ban Ki-moon
said: "Climate change will affect developing countries the most. Those who are most vulnerable
are also the most at risk from this threat. Melting glaciers will trigger mountain floods and lead to
water shortages in South Asia and South America. Reduced rainfall will aggravate water and food
insecurity in Africa."
If current trends are allowed to continue, hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries will lose
their homes as well as the land on which they grow their crops. And then there is the threat of
disease and epidemics: according to Christian Aid, by the end of the century, 182 million people in sub-Saharan
Africa alone could die of diseases and epidemics directly attributable to climate change.
96

Climate Politics
Page 97 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Trade Turn
Cap and trade checks EU trade retaliation
Public Utilities Reports, "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm", http://www.pur.com/pubs/4419.cfm, WEA)
By adopting some form of national legislation that begins to internalize the costs of global warming, the
United States would blunt any effort by the EU to impose trade sanctions on U.S. goods. The EIA analysis
points out one fundamental conclusion. The reduction of global warming gas emissions called for under the Kyoto Protocol will
Even under the relatively modest goals of the McCain
increase electricity prices and therefore the cost of goods.
Lieberman bill, electricity prices will increase due to the internalization of the costs of the cap and
trade system.
The risk of trade sanctions by America's largest trading partners due to the failure of the United
States to control CO2 emissions should be a real concern to U.S. policy-makers. If the United
States continues to resist global pressure to reduce its CO2 emissions, it will largely cede control
over how the rules implementing Kyoto are written and risk trade sanctions by trading partners
seeking to reduce the disparity in production costs.
To avoid this negative outcome, the United States should pursue a more pragmatic middle path that confronts the
problem of global warming by laying out the necessary domestic framework and economic incentives to create a domestic CO2
emissions market that produces efficient CO2 reductions, much like the Acid Rain Trading Program. In this way,
America can develop new technologies, regain its credibility in the global deliberations over how
to combat global warming, and avoid the risk of a damaging trade war with the EU.
Trade tension non-unique.

Palmer 7/15/2009 (Doug, Rueters, "U.S.-china trade imbalance not sustainable-Locke",
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK303347, WEA)
The trade imbalance between the United States and China is not sustainable,
BEIJING, July 15 (Reuters) -
and the two countries have a joint responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, U.S.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said on Wednesday.
China should shift from export-led growth, increase its exchange rate flexibility, and open its markets more, Locke said in remarks
prepared for a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce.
Locke, who will visit Beijing and Shanghai, plans to promote clean energy technology as one area in which U.S. industry can find
opportunities in China.
"For all our areas of agreement, the United States and China's trade relationship has to evolve.
There are concerns and deep structural issues that must be addressed," Locke said.
"Chiefamong them is a bilateral trade imbalance that simply can't be sustained. Growth
predicated on ever increasing Chinese exports being consumed by debt-laden Americans
provided years of prosperity -- but it also sowed some of the seeds for our current economic
problems."
The United States is China's second-largest trade partner after the European Union, and accounts for 18 percent of China's total
exports and imports.
"Theredo exist some issues in our bilateral trade relations, including cooperation on high-tech
products," Chinese commerce ministry spokesman Yao Jian told a press conference on Wednesday.
China's big surplus in its trade with the United States has become a global concern, he said.
"Of course, it's a separate issue as how to interpret the trade surplus. In a globalised world today, trade surplus does not necessarily
mean trade benefits," Yao said, pointing out that China mainly exports labour-intensive products.
"China is trying to promote trade balance. We have special working groups that are in talks with the U.S. side on promoting trade
balance and cooperation on high-tech products."
97

Climate Politics
Page 98 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Trade Turn
China is already acting protectionist in the energy sector.
ChinaStakes 7/16/2009 (Chinese business news, "China Warns US: Carbon Tariff Will Invite Retaliation",
http://www.chinastakes.com/2009/7/china-warns-us-carbon-tariff-will-invite-retaliation.html, WEA)
China has also come under criticism for protectionism, such as excluding foreign companies from
bidding on a recent wind power project. Mr. Locke said that China could not close its markets, for keeping a
fair and open market was the consensus reached between leaders of the two countries at the G20
meeting in London. American enterprises say that China encourages the development of local enterprises by
restraining foreign energy companies from entry into the Chinese market.
If we win our modeling claims then you do not have a protectionism turn.
Levi 2009 - David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at Council on Foreign Relations and Director of
the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (last updated 6/27, Michael A., "Trade and Climate Change", CFR,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19674/, WEA)
In the long term, though, the United States can't cut through this thicket by itself. Over time, the
problem for heavy industry--and
the associated trade issues--could become worse as the United States tightens its own rules and
regulated companies face steadily higher costs. But if major U.S. trade competitors all impose new and similar
climate costs on their energy-intensive industries, no one country's industries will be unfairly
disadvantaged. As a result, most of the rationale for the U.S. rebates will vanish. Ultimately, then, the
only solution to the competitiveness problem is global climate action. Since the United States has few sticks to
bring to the climate negotiating table, progress on the international front will depend mainly on cooperative action. Congress should make sure that in
crafting U.S. climate legislation, its trade measures don't unnecessarily aggravate the external relationships that will be needed to get that done.
Protectionism up now—World Economic Forum meeting proves.

Teslik 2009 - assistant editor and economics writer for CFR, degree from Harvard (1/30, Lee Hudson, Council on Foreign
Relations, "Gloomy Portents for Global Trade", http://www.cfr.org/publication/18429/, WEA)
Amidst the worst economic crisis in decades, the World Economic Forum's
Davos was different this year.
annual mega-summit in the Swiss Alps found itself at a crossroads. The Financial Times' John Gapper says the
prototypal "Davos Man"--the international captain of finance whose prominence and significance has risen meteorically in recent decades--seemed
humbled. Many of the financial sector's major players skipped the summit altogether (Bloomberg), and
several big banks cancelled the glitzy parties they have traditionally hosted at the summit. The concern for policymakers, however, isn't the subdued
economists fear this year's Davos gloom could foreshadow a broader shift away
party scene. Rather,
from the interconnected economic model the World Economic Forum has traditionally embraced.
Pleas for economic openness rang out at this year's summit, particularly among the leaders of emerging
economies. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against reliance upon intervention and
protectionism to cure economic ills, saying such policies could backfire (Guardian). Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao backed
Putin, saying world leaders must remain vigilant (Xinhua) in their efforts to curb trade protectionism. Egypt's
trade minister echoed concerns (Reuters) about protectionism, as did India's (Reuters). "We will only make the crisis worse if we succumb to the lure of
protectionism and petty nationalism," added Angel Gurria, the secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in an
article published on the OECD's website. Significant threats loomed for free-trade hawks well before Davos. In a
recent op-ed, CFR's Jagdish Bhagwati questioned U.S. President Barack Obama's pronouncements on trade, saying Obama has ignored lessons from the
the short-term trade outlook isn't particularly rosy. The International
Depression era. Obama aside ,
Monetary Fund estimates global trade will contract 2.8 percent in 2009 (WSJ), compared to an
expansion of 4.1 percent in 2008. The World Bank also projects a contraction--the first decline in
global trade since 1982. Trade policy could emerge as a flashpoint in the weeks and months to come, particularly as major developed
economies seek to implement stimulus packages to boost their domestic economies. U.S. Democrats are pushing for "Buy
American" provisions to be included in President Barack Obama's proposed stimulus package. British policymakers have
come under fire (The Times) from the head of the World Trade Organization for a bailout package aimed
at stabilizing British automakers, valued around $3.3 billion. French leaders, too, face strong protectionist pressures, particularly
following recent strikes (Bloomberg) calling for President Nicolas Sarkozy to alter his stance toward the economic crisis in order to prevent French job
losses.
98

Climate Politics
Page 99 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
99

Climate Politics
Page 100 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Trade Turn
Trade wars inevitable because of the Buy America provision.
Furchgott-Roth 6/19 Diana Furchtgott-Roth- a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute- June 19th, 2009 (“Starting a trade war
with “Buy America”,” Rueters, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/)
When Congress inserted “Buy America” protectionist provisions that required some goods (such as steel,
cement, and textiles) financed by the stimulus bill to be made in America, our government invited a trade war with
important economic partners. Now China and Canada are imposing their own protectionist regulations,
potentially destroying well-paid American jobs in the export sector. Other countries may follow suit. This week
China reported that the government now requires stimulus projects to use domestic suppliers
when possible, even though in February it promised to treat foreign companies equally. The Chinese $585 billion stimulus
package has resulted in a World Bank growth forecast of 7.2% for China this year, far above other industrialized countries. And on
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a resolution calling on
June 6 the delegates at
“local infrastructure projects, including environmental projects such as water and wastewater treatment projects, [to]
procure goods and materials required for the projects only from companies whose countries of
origin do not impose trade restrictions against goods and materials manufactured in Canada.”
The tragic losers of “Buy America” are free trade agreements and potential job growth in the American
economy. Seductively, “Buy America” promises workers they can have it all — cheap goods from China, oil from Canada, as well
as protection from global competition. But real life just doesn’t work that way. In reality, “Buy America” is shorthand for fewer
jobs as other countries retaliate. Many markets no longer have national boundaries but global reaches. America sits at the center
of global markets for technology, equipment manufacturing, finance, banking, fashion, and advertising — to name but a few.
When international markets expand, America grows. When barriers are erected to trade, jobs — and also wages —shrink. Trade
creates jobs not just through investments of foreign companies at home, but also by increasing employment at exporting firms.
This effect, though less obvious, is far more significant. That’s why “Buy America” hurts employment. Andrew Bernard, a
professor at Dartmouth College, together with economists Bradford Jensen and Peter Schott, find that firms that trade goods
employ over 40% of the American workforce. They conclude that approximately 57 million American workers are employed by
firms that engage in international trade.
Protectionism now—World Bank statistic prove

Economist 09- Jun 25th 2009 (“Duties call,” http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13903045)
DESPITE the periodic sighting of green shoots elsewhere in the economy, the
landscape of global trade remains
resolutely bare. The World Bank said on June 22nd that world-trade volumes, reeling from a drastic
collapse in global demand (see chart), will shrink by nearly 10% this year. That would be the sharpest fall since the
Depression, and the first decline in trade since a small dip in 1982. Unsurprisingly, tempers are fraying as governments struggle
to find ways to protect their own. The latest salvo was fired on June 23rd by America
and the European Union, which
complained to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) about China’s restrictions on the exports of nine
minerals, including bauxite, coke, magnesium and manganese. These are important raw materials for the steel industry,
among others, and China restricts their exports on the grounds that they are exhaustible resources.
But America and the EU argue that by hindering their export, China is unfairly favouring
domestic industries. John Veroneau, a former American deputy trade representative, believes the case against China is a
strong one. He also argues that this week’s move can be seen as an effort to foster more trade (as there surely would be if China
were to ease its export restrictions) at a time when trade is in a great deal of trouble. In practice, it is unlikely to have that effect.
If the case proceeds to the stage where a formal WTO panel is formed to decide on its merits, it could drag on for several years,
by which time trade will, with luck, have recovered from its current moribund state. Jeffrey Schott, a trade expert at the Peterson
Institute for International Economics, a think-tank, says that the case against China may also help the cause of open trade in other
ways. If Ron Kirk, America’s new trade representative, demonstrates that he is actively enforcing the agreements already in
place, he may get “the authority to negotiate Doha and other accords”. That may be too sanguine. True, America and the EU are
not resorting to imposing fresh barriers of their own in this dispute; for that matter, China’s export restrictions are not new either.
Of particular concern are the so-called “Buy
But trade experts warn that protectionism remains a serious worry.
China” requirements added to China’s stimulus package this month. These require recipients of money
from China’s mammoth fiscal expansion to choose domestic suppliers “unless products or services cannot be obtained in
reasonable commercial conditions in China”
100

Climate Politics
Page 101 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: WTO Checks Trade Wars
WTO is down with trade restrictions in the environmental context.
Frankel 2008 - James W. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at the Harvard Kennedy School (6/9, Jeffrey A.,
Brookings Institute, "OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE LEAKAGE/COMPETITIVENESS ISSUE IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY PROPOSALS",
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/~/media/Files/events/2008/0609_climate_trade/2008_frankel.pdf, WEA)
V - WOULD TRADE CONTROLS OR SANCTIONS BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE WTO? Would measures that are directed against CO2
Not
emissions in other countries, as embodied in electricity or in goods produced with it, be acceptable under international law?
many years ago, most international experts would have said that import barriers against carbon-
intensive goods, whether tariffs or quantitative restrictions, would necessarily violate international agreements.
Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), although countries could use import barriers to protect themselves
against environmental damage that would otherwise occur within their own borders, they could not use import barriers in efforts to
affect how goods are produced in foreign countries, so-called Processes and Production Methods (PPMs). A notorious example was
But things have
the GATT ruling against US barriers to imports of tuna from dolphin-unfriendly Mexican fishermen.
changed. The WTO (World Trade Organization) came into existence, succeeding the GATT, at roughly
the same time as the Kyoto Protocol. The drafters of each treaty showed more consideration for the other than do the
rank and file among environmentalists and free traders, respectively. The WTO regime is more respectful of the
environment than was its predecessor. Article XX allows exceptions to Articles I and III for purposes
of health and conservation. The Preamble to the 1995 Marrakech Agreement establishing the WTO seeks “to protect and
preserve the environment;” and the 2001 Doha Communiqué that sought to start a new round of negotiations declares: “the aims
of ... open and non-discriminatory trading system, and acting for the protection of the environment ... must be mutually supportive.”
The Kyoto Protocol text is equally solicitous of the trade regime. It says that the Parties should
“strive to implement policies and measures...to minimize adverse effects…on international
trade...” The UNFCC features similar language. GHG emissions are PPMs. Is this an obstacle to the application measures against
them at the border? I don’t see why it has to be. Two precedents can be cited: sea turtles and
stratospheric ozone. The true import of a 1998 WTO panel decision on the shrimp-turtle case was missed by almost
everyone. The big significance was a path-breaking ruling that environmental measures can target, not only exported products
(Article XX), but also partners’ Processes & Production Methods (PPMs) -- subject, as always, to non-discrimination (Articles I & III).
The United States was in the end able to seek to protect turtles in the Indian Ocean, provided it did so without discrimination against
Asian fishermen. Environmentalists failed to notice or consolidate the PPM precedent, and to the contrary were misguidedly up in
Another important precedent was the Montreal Protocol on stratospheric ozone
arms over this case.12
depletion, which contained trade controls. The controls had two motivations13: (1) to encourage countries to join,
and (2) if major countries had remained outside, the controls would have minimized leakage, the migration of production of banne
101

Climate Politics
Page 102 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: C&T Kills Economy
Cap and trade is the best stimulus—it will create millions of jobs and improve overall
efficiency.
Olver 7/6/2009 - Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (John W., "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation",
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=31496, WEA) *NOTE: ACES = the cap and trade bill/the American Clean Energy and
Security Act
The 111th Congress has addressed this issue with the moral urgency this moment demands. Six months ago we passed an economic
recovery act with investments in smart infrastructure and sustainable job creation. Less than two months later we approved a budget
containing unprecedented support for mass transit and energy innovation. We have passed legislation to green our schools and
preserve 2 million acres of wilderness. ACES represents the next step, and in many ways, the most important one yet.
As our nation faces high unemployment and an ailing auto industry, this is the perfect
opportunity to make significant investments in industries that will become the base of a new
American economy. The Center for American Progress estimates that the transition from foreign oil to clean American
energy, as outlined in this bill, will create 1.7 million American jobs over the next two years alone.
And according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the improved efficiency standards the bill
creates for appliances, buildings, factories, and power plants will create 770,000 jobs by 2030.
Retrofits will employ building specialists and construction workers while burgeoning solar and
wind industries will need machinists, laborers, and engineers. Dollar for dollar, investments in a clean energy
economy create four times as many jobs as investments in the oil and gas industry. And unlike other jobs, jobs based on
clean energy and energy efficiency depend on American resources and cannot be shipped
overseas.
The EPA has found that these far-reaching benefits will cost the average American household less than
the cost of a postage stamp a day and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 40
percent of households will have no increase at all. These estimates do not take into account savings from energy
efficient appliances, which are estimated at over $4,000 per household per year by 2030. This is a welcome change from the Bush
administration energy plan, which raised the average American household's energy costs by $1,100 between 2001 and 2007.
Efficiency mandates in the cap and trade bill solve any cost concerns.
Rueters 6/24/2009 ("Updated Energy Savings Analysis of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act",
http://www.reuters.com/article/gwmCarbonEmissions/idUS363785493920090624, WEA)
efficiency provisions included in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a.k.a.
The federal energy
Waxman-Markey), could save approximately $1,050 per household by 2020 and $4,400 per
household by 2030, according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Changes to ACEEE's analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of
provisions, as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule's Committee version of the bill released
yesterday.
Changes to the efficiency provisions bill include the addition of Smart Grid appliances in the Best-
In-Class Appliance Deployment Program and a new program operated by small rural electric
cooperatives to reduce customer bills and promote energy efficiency and renewable energy. In addition, 10
percent of the SEED (State Energy and Environmental Development) program is set aside for transportation programs that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The bill also changed the distribution of R&D funds, 70 percent of which will go to Advanced Energy
Research and 30 percent of which will go to "Energy Innovation Hubs" at universities.
102

Climate Politics
Page 103 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Climate Bill Kills Economy
Climate bill key to the economy – creates green jobs and revitalizes the manufacturing
sector
Oakland, Calif.-based nonprofit Green For All, which was a driving force in securing green job training funds in the
American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, called the bill a significant step forward in creating a more equitable and secure country.
The bill includes a $860 million allocation to the Green Jobs Act.
will not only position America at the forefront of the clean-energy economy but will
“This legislation
also create jobs and opportunities for communities that are too often at the margins – and the
smokestack end – of our current economy,” Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins said in a statement.
Coalitions of labor and environmental groups praised the House of Representatives for approving key investments in domestic clean
energy manufacturing to be part of the Waxman-Markey legislation.
“The American Clean Energy And Security Act is a giant leap forward to establish energy security,
reduce harmful carbon emissions,and create millions of green jobs that will put our citizens back
to work and get our economy back on track,” said Phil Angelides, chairman of the Apollo Alliance.
He called the inclusion of investments to help the country’s manufacturers retool plants and retrain
workers for the clean energy economy “a major victory that will keep millions of new, green jobs
here at home and help revive America’s long suffering manufacturing sector.”
Let’s quantify it—the most official studies cite the cost to consumers at 30 cents a
day.
• Protect consumers from energy price increases. According

to estimates from the Environmental Protection
Agency, the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a
postage stamp per day. CBO calculates that the legislation will cost the average household less
than 50 cents per day. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates the bill in its current form would cost American
households between $80 and $111 per year, which equals 22 cents to 30 cents per day. A separate analysis from the Congressional
The American Council for an Energy-
Budget Office projected an annual cost of $175 for U.S. households by 2020.
Efficient Economy concluded the bill's energy provisions would save U.S. households up to
$1,050 cumulatively and produce more than 300,000 jobs by 2020.
Prefer our evidence—indicts of the proposal ignores offset mechanisms that blunt any
economic impact.
Stone et al 2009 - *Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, former executive director of the Joint
Economic Committee of Congress, **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3, Chad Stone, Hannah
Shaw, and Sharon Parrott, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY
WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS", http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-3-09climate.pdf, WEA)
Some critics of President Obama’s budget have argued that the proposal to place a cap on greenhouse
gas emissions to combat global warming represents a tax increase for virtually all Americans. That claim is
misleading because it focuses on just one aspect of the Administration’s cap-and-trade proposal. It
ignores the fact that, in addition to raising the cost of using “dirty” energy, a well-designed cap-and-
trade program also raises substantial revenue that can be returned to consumers to offset the
effect of higher energy costs on their budgets, with the result that no significant “tax increase” occurs. That is what
the President’s proposal would do. Economists agree that the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions is either to
tax them directly or to put in place a “cap-and-trade system.”1 Several northeastern states have already
implemented a cap-and-trade system on a regional basis as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. In
addition, the 27 nations of the European Union have operated a cap-and-trade system since
103

Climate Politics
Page 104 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
2005.
104

Climate Politics
Page 105 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Climate Bill Kills Economy
Final bill will be both auctions and allocations – it will cost consumers 38 cents a day –
not enough to collapse consumer spending.
Grist News, 4/23/2009 (Kate Sheppard, “As biz leaders call for a climate bill, Republicans claim it would kill the economy”)
The current draft of the bill doesn’t address the question of what proportion of credits to auction off versus hand out to polluters,
which will be a highly contentious issue going forward. The Obama administration has said it wants 100 percent auction, while the
committee’s Democratic leadership has indicated that the final product is likely to be a balance
between auctions and allocations. Cavaney of ConocoPhillips called for the entirety of the credits to be distributed free of cost in at least the first year
of the program. NRG’s Crane said his company would not support the bill if it was all auction. Bill coauthor Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has said this aspect of the bill was left open-
ended so committee members and interested parties like USCAP could weigh in. But this approach has rankled Republicans on the committee. Ranking member Joe Barton
(Texas) accused the majority of “trying to buy votes” in the process of determining how to give away allowances. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) alleged that the lack of specifics is an
“intentional move to deceive us so we can’t do the cost-benefit analysis.” During another panel session, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood offered the Obama administration’s support for the legislation. “Three important players in this issue, that represent the president, believe
the principles laid out in the bill are very strong and are principles the president and his team can work with,” LaHood told reporters following their testimony. Jackson was asked
how the EPA had been able to estimate the costs of the bill to American households—$98 to $140 a
year, or 27 cents to 38 cents a day—even though the measure is incomplete. She said the agency based its
figures on the assumption that approximately 40 percent of auction revenues would be returned
to consumers through rebates. “The EPA’s economic analysis shows that there are no
harbingers of huge job loss in this bill,” said Jackson. “Nothing is free,” she continued, but the administration
believes there will be only “modest impacts.” If anything, Jackson said, EPA modeling tends to err on
the conservative side and overestimate costs. Jackson said the administration is willing to
collaborate with Congress to develop an allocation and auction scheme. “Though [President Obama] has
called for 100 percent auction, he looks forward to working with this committee ... and believes that these allowance questions can
be addressed,” she said.
105

Climate Politics
Page 106 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: C&T Kills Economy – Auctions
Current bill leads to auctions
CNS News, 4/30/2009 (Nicholas Ballasy, “Obama’s ‘Cap and Trade’ Plan Likely Will Raise Energy
Prices, Says Senate Energy Chairman”)
The Climate Equity Alliance, which is comprised of more than a dozen organizations, ranging from the NAACP (National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People) to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), told CNSNews.com that
cap and trade is designed to increase energy costs so that consumers invest in alternative (or green) energy sources. The alliance
further said that cap and trade is like a distribution of wealth program, which would take the revenue
earned by the federal government through the auctioning of carbon emission permits – cap and trade
– and give it to lower-income families to offset the higher energy costs. Bingaman, however, said it
is not yet “clear” what the government is going to do with the revenue made from auctioning
carbon permits. “Well, I don’t think it’s clear what – I think that’s one of the parts of the debate that we need to have – is what
happens to any revenue that is generated from the auctioning off of allowances – and I think there are various proposals that call for
different ways to distribute that wealth,” he said. When asked if he had an idea about how the revenue should be distributed,
Bingaman said, “Well, I think there’s a general consensus we ought to return as much of it as possible
to rate payers, but beyond that I don’t think there’s any specifics agreed upon.”
Auctions increase consumer spending

AP, 4/23/2009 (Dina Cappiello, “Electricity providers say plan would raise prices”)
Consumers will face higher electricity prices if Congress passes a global warming bill without
giving utilities some allowances to emit greenhouse gases, electricity providers warned Thursday. "Revenues
associated with pricing greenhouse gases would be returned to the very consumers who would be at risk for paying higher energy
prices," said Richard Morgan, who leads the District of Columbia's Public Service Commission. These higher prices would be
the result of legislation that would put a price on the gases linked to global warming. The
providers say the best way to keep the electricity sector from passing on the cost of reducing
greenhouse gases is to initially give away allowances to emit pollution, not sell them, as proposed by
President Barack Obama. The president's budget assumes that allowances will be sold and uses the projected $650 billion in revenue
to help people pay for higher energy costs and to develop new, more climate friendly energy sources. "It should not be legislation
that is designed to raise revenue. ... It should be something that is trying to achieve its objective of reducing carbon emissions in the
country and that alone," said Glenn English, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which represents 42 million
consumers in 47 states. "Auction is not a good idea," he said. "We would discourage the committee from going down that
road."If the allowances are sold, electricity customers will face what Jeffry Sterba, who spoke on behalf of the
a "double whammy" — paying for both the price of the allowance and the
Edison Electric Institute, called
cost of technologies to reduce emissions. Representatives for rural cooperatives, utility commissions,
and electric utilities told lawmakers that if they were given the allowances, they could protect
consumers from higher energy prices. They said that if Congress decided to give them to the producers of electricity, it
would be a windfall for shareholders.
106

Climate Politics
Page 107 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Good—Hegemony
Cap and trade is vital to overall supremacy—we’re falling behind in the most
important sector.
Krupp 2009 - President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31, Fred, Newsweek, "Save the planet, save the country",
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177439/output/print, WEA)
A switch to a low-carbon energy economy would create 5 million new jobs—from the boardroom to
the factory floor—that cannot be outsourced, restoring strength and confidence to the American
economy. But quick action is needed. The United States has already dropped in solar-cell
manufacturing behind Japan, Germany and, most recently, China, which tripled production in 2007. Nine of the world's
10 largest photovoltaic manufacturers are in Europe or Asia. The decisions the president makes in
his first crucial months will determine the course of U.S. technological leadership for decades to come.
The countries that lead in inventing and deploying clean-energy technologies will be the great
powers of the 21st century. And the sun will set on those that fall behind.
Much of the groundwork has been laid. In 2008, a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill, the Climate Security Act, reached the floor of the U.S.
Senate. Though it fell victim to Washington gridlock in the end, a majority of senators voted to continue the debate, and House
lawmakers are readying similar bills for action in 2009. Presidential leadership can now ensure passage of the strongest possible law.
Only with a comprehensive national cap on carbon will the extraordinary clean-energy
technologies now being invented be brought to scale at a pace sufficient to save the U.S.
economy—and the planet. That is the energy and economic policy America and the world need now.
Nuclear wars
Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, RAND Corporation, Washington Quarterly, “Losing the Moment? The United
States and the World After the Cold Water”, 18:2, Spring, L/N)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a
return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is
desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would
have
tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to
American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better
chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony
by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of
another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the
attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global
stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
107

Climate Politics
Page 108 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Ext. Climate Kt Leadership
Inaction on climate threatens overall leadership.
Gelbspan 4 - editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe, covered the Stockholm UN
Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point",
http://www.wattpad.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt)
Although the battle over the climate issue is most vividly illustrated by the relentless resistance of big coal and big oil within the United States, it has rippled
throughout the political, diplomatic, and business arenas—pitting nations and industries against each other and even setting the federal
government against many states. Within a month of taking office, President George W. Bush opened a gaping rupture between the United States
and Europe on an issue of paramount importance to the Europeans—global climate change. That split
over the climate crisis would be reflected in growing divisions between the United States and the rest of
the world, between Washington and many U.S. state and city governments, and within the business world as well, exposing deep differences within the auto, oil, and insurance industries. The Bush
administration's diplomatic posture mirrored one of its central ideological goals: the drastic reduction of the power and influence of government domestically—and the concurrent reduction of the influence and
Bush aroused the suspicions of many U.S. allies when, a month after his inauguration, he
reach of international governance institutions.
reversed his campaign promise to cap emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants. Under pressure from lobbyists in the coal industry, as well as from
conservative members of the Republican Party, Bush announced on March 13, 2001, that he would no longer seek to regulate such power plant emissions. The statement dismayed many Democrats—and a number
the strongest negative response came from

of Republicans, including then treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, a strong proponent of aggressive climate policies. But
across the ocean. Nine days after his announcement, Bush received a stern letter from the fifteen-nation European Union condemning his action. The letter, signed by European Commission
president Romano Prodi and Swedish prime minister Goeran Persson, challenged Bush to find the "political courage" to tackle the climate crisis. The letter made it clear that to the EU, an
agreement "leading to real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is of the utmost

importance ... The global and long-term importance of climate change and the need for a joint effort by all industrialized
countries in this field makes it an integral part of relations between the USA and the EU." The president's response to the EU
was unequivocally dismissive. Six days after receiving the letter from the EU, Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol because, in the words of the president's press secretary, "It is not in the United
States' economic best interest." Margot Wallstrom, the European Union environmental commissioner, called Bush's decision "very worrying." Kazuo Asakai, a top official in the Japanese embassy in Washing-ton, told
the Washington Post, "Japan will be dismayed and deeply disappointed. [The Kyoto treaty] is very serious and important. The European diplomats were particularly stunned by the fact that the administration had
failed to inform them of its plan before announcing it to the media . "Sometimes people think this is only about the environment, but
it's also about international relations and economic cooperation," EU spokeswoman Annika Ostergren told Reuters News Service. "The
EU is willing to discuss details and problems, but not to scrap the whole protocol." Swedish prime minister Goeran Persson was sharply critical of Bush, telling reporters that Bush's position
was a heavy blow to the international effort to curb global warming. "It will have a tremendous impact ...
because it would have sent an extremely strong signal if the U.S. had stuck with the Kyoto protocol," Persson
said. Ironically, just weeks earlier, Bush's EPA administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, had warned him in a
memo that he must demonstrate his commitment to cutting greenhouse gases or risk
undermining the standing of the United States among its allies. "Mr. President, this is a credibility
issue for the U.S. in the international community. It is also an issue that is resonating here at home," she wrote in a March 6, 2001,
memo. "We need to appear engaged." Her fears were well founded. Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto process
created the impression that Bush "[is] hawkish, unilateralist and may appear in some areas
isolationist," according to Helmut Sonnenfeldt, a European affairs specialist at the Brookings Institution. That perception moved from the diplomatic corridors to the streets a few months later when
tens of thousands of demonstrators mounted a massive protest in Genoa against the Bush withdrawal from the Kyoto process. The demonstrators' anger at the United States was noted by several foreign leaders,
including a skeptical Jean Chretien, prime minister of Canada. Noting Bush's promise to provide an alternative plan to the Kyoto mechanism, Chretien said he would listen to an American proposal but "was not
waiting for it." Regardless of the substance of any proposal by the Bush administration, Chretien vowed that Canada would proceed to ratify the protocol. Added French president Jacques Chirac: "The elected
leaders of our countries have to consider the problems that have brought tens of thousands of our compatriots, mainly from European countries, to demonstrate their concern, to demonstrate their wish to change."
Despite U.S. intransigence, however, the Europeans continued to pursue a policy to slow global warming. In 2002, the EU voted to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and European commissioner Margot Wallstrom warned
that the pressure was now on the United States, the world's biggest single emitter of greenhouse gases, to step up to the challenge. "The European Union urges the United States to reconsider its position," she
said. The ratification by the European Union followed a declaration, eighteen months earlier, that the EU would get most of its reductions from new renewable energy installations rather than from the dubious and
less reliable mechanism of international emissions trading. In November 2000, French environment minister Dominique Voynet declared that the core position of the EU was to ensure that countries made most of
their emissions cuts through domestic action rather than through trading emissions credits. She demanded a tight limit on the use of so-called carbon sinks—forests, grasslands, and other forms of vegetation that
absorb carbon—for countries to meet emissions reduction targets. That relatively uncompromising position set the tone for a major conference in Johannesburg two years later, the World Summit on Sustainable
a global switch to clean energy needs to be at

Development (WSSD). In preparing for the summit, leaders of countries in Europe and elsewhere declared that
the heart of any major reversal of the growing—and perhaps irreversible—environmental degradation of
the planet. Their agenda, as the WSSD approached, centered on plans both to boost renewables and to revive what was al-ready quickly becoming a moribund Kyoto process. But the United States
made clear a month before the summit what its position would be. As Senator James Jeffords (I–VT) made clear, the White House would try to "keep global climate change off of the agenda" at the Johannesburg
meeting. Jeffords, a Vermont Republican turned In-dependent who chaired the Senate's environmental panel, bemoaned the fact that the administration would send a small, lower-level delegation to Johannesburg
in an effort to "narrow the scope of the discussions." That prediction was realized in September, when Bush refused to attend the 191-nation summit—despite the presence of an array of world leaders, and despite
the fact that a predecessor summit in 1992 in Rio had been attended by his father, President George H.W. Bush. Not only did George W. Bush refrain from attending, he also saw to it that the plans of other nations
to launch a major clean-energy initiative were thwarted by the United States and some of its oil-producing allies. In the run-up to Johannesburg, a number of countries, led by the EU, put the issue of renewable
energy near the top of the world's sustain-ability agenda. But near the end of the meeting, the United States, acting through the Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan delegations, pushed through a resolution that would
maintain coal and oil as the world's primary fuels. "We have lost an opportunity to move forward substantially on renewable technologies internationally," said Michael Marvin, executive director of the U.S. Business
Council for Sustainable Energy. "If we're truly looking to change patterns of investment, this doesn't do it." After a week of deadlocks and multiple drafts, the delegates finally agreed on the role of energy in future
development. But the final resolution endorsed such unsustainable technologies as clean coal and large-scale hydropower. Most tellingly, it required no deadlines or timetables for action. The consequences of the
"The U.S. decision on Kyoto could

Bush administration's behavior—on this and other fronts—may well have far-reaching diplomatic, as well as climatic, consequences.
become a turning point in trans-Atlantic relations," wrote Jessica. T. Mathews. In an article in Foreign Policy, Mathews, who is president of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, noted that the Bush administration turned its back not only on Kyoto but also on four other major international compacts: the International Criminal Court, the ban on
antipersonnel land mines, the biodiversity treaty, and the Biological Weapons Control Treaty. In refusing to support these compacts, the United States was ignoring the accelerating integration of Europe, she
asserted . "Economically, the EU is no longer a junior partner. It has a larger population than the
108

Climate Politics
Page 109 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
United States, a larger percentage of world trade, and approximately equal gross domestic
product," she wrote at the end of 2001. Climate change is the leading edge of an increasing number of
problems that are truly global in scope. And these issues create a need for new rules that "nibble away at the edges of national sovereignty"—a trend that runs
directly counter to the neo-nationalism of the Bush administration. This "a la carte multilateralism"—in which the United States
decides which issues it is willing to cooperate on—"is not an approach that goes down easily" in
the rest of the world, Mathews wrote. Her conclusion: The current U.S. posture, which is epitomized by the
U.S. position on climate change, could well result in the loss of Americas position as global
political leader. 'America's interests, not to mention its legitimacy and capability as a world leader, are
better served by [participating] in shaping rules and procedures rather than in sulking outside the tent. Though Europe
cannot challenge U.S. political or military supremacy, the world's single superpower must acknowledge that its
power no longer translates . . . into a community of Western democracies and Third World
dependents ready to fall into line behind U.S. leadership.'
109

Climate Politics
Page 110 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Competitiveness Turn
Climate bill doesn’t destroy competitiveness – actual effect on companies is minimal
and rebates solve
Levi 2009 - David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at Council on Foreign Relations and Director of
the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (last updated 6/27, Michael A., "Trade and Climate Change", CFR,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19674/, WEA)
Concerns about the possible competitive impact of climate regulations have been grossly
exaggerated. The macroeconomic impact of smart climate policy will likely be small, meaning that robust U.S. economic
growth will still be able to power a vibrant and internationally competitive economy. Most
companies will see at most limited changes in how they function day to day. Nonetheless, industries
that use lots of energy and whose goods are traded globally have some reason to be nervous
about a cap-and-trade system. High carbon prices could tilt the competitive playing field in areas like steel, aluminum, cement, and
chemicals toward unregulated (or less regulated) competitors abroad. The
climate bill, known as Waxman-Markey,
addresses that by providing rebates to firms in those sectors to blunt the cost. That approach is,
in principle, reasonable. It would cushion the blow for trade-exposed heavy industry while
maintaining the integrity of a U.S. emissions cap. But the devil is in the details--and the current bill gets the details
wrong.
110

Climate Politics
Page 111 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Cap And Trade Fails/Economy Turns
Cap and trade solves—it will unleash innovation for new energy sources and boost the
manufacturing industry.
Krupp 2009 - President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31, Fred, Newsweek, "Save the planet, save the country",
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177439/output/print, WEA)
The new administration will face three closely linked problems—a badly damaged economy, a dependence on imported oil and a
rapidly deteriorating environment. That might seem too much to manage all at once, but the three are best dealt with together. The
right policy to protect our planet is also the best policy to revitalize the U.S. economy—the real
economy, not the paper one that went up in flames this past fall. The right policy to confront climate change is
also the best policy to achieve energy independence and enduring national security. In other words, to
meet all these challenges, Obama must attack them together, striving to do no less than transform the world's energy economy.
With seven words, he could strike a definitive blow for the forces of change: "America will cap its
global-warming pollution." To make good on this promise, he must ensure that the U.S. Congress passes
comprehensive, world-changing climate legislation that establishes a declining cap on carbon-
dioxide emissions and creates a market for U.S. companies to profit from reducing that pollution.
A carbon cap would unleash America's greatest strengths—its spectacular capacity for innovation, its
entrepreneurial spirit and the immense power of its markets and workforce. Hundreds of millions of
dollars of venture capital have already flowed into the emerging technologies for capturing energy from the sun, wind, geothermal
Hundreds of billions more are poised on the sidelines,
heat and biofuels, and for making more efficient use of energy.
waiting for Congress to provide certainty that this new commodity—carbon reductions—will have enduring value. A cap
would allow American business to make the transition gradually; mobilize the market to find the quickest and cheapest way to reduce
emissions; and unlock the immense amounts of capital needed for America's innovators and entrepreneurs to remake this $6 trillion
industry, the biggest business in the world.
A comprehensive cap and-trade plan would begin to free America from the debilitating grip of imported oil: a recent MIT study
concluded that a carbon cap would stem the outflow of nearly $500 billion in petrodollars by 2030, assuming oil averages roughly $50
a barrel.
A carbon cap would also create vast new demand for low-carbon energy solutions. The winners
won't be only the obvious players—solar-cell companies and wind-turbine manufacturers. Those companies are
just the tip of a giant iceberg. The supply chain behind each of these renewable technologies
winds its way through the heart of U.S.—and, indeed, global—manufacturing. Each wind turbine, for instance,
contains 8,000 parts—including bolts, copper wiring, ball bearings, concrete foundations and steel towers. Companies and workers
a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill would deliver immediate benefits in
make those 8,000 pieces, and
new demand, customers and jobs.
111

Climate Politics
Page 112 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
EIA Indict (Electricity Prices)
The EIA analysis is flawed—more realistic studies prove the consumer costs would be
miniscule.
Public Utilities Reports, "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm", http://www.pur.com/pubs/4419.cfm, WEA) *NOTE: EIA = Energy
Information Administration
EIA's May 2004 analysis of the bill found that allowance costs will fall largely on the electricity sector
and would be passed on to consumers. EIA predicts average electricity prices will increase under the bill
from 6.4 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6.8 in 2010 (about $33 per household per month), from 6.7 to 8.0 in 2020 (about $108), and from
6.7to 9.1 in 2025 (about $200). MIT also studied the bill but assumed-based on experience from the Acid Rain
Program-that sources would make substantial early reductions in non-CO2 emissions that would be
banked for later sale. By changing this single assumption from EIA's analysis MIT found that
monthly costs to the average household would be only $15 to $20. Also, EIA assumed,
unrealistically, no significant fuel-shift to natural gas (despite this market's historic unpredictability), no market
penetration of new low-emission technologies (despite billions of federal R&D spending), and no continued federal and
state emission reduction programs. Obviously, such programs are likely to continue, and will further
reduce the bill's costs by independently contributing toward the bill's modest goal of reducing CO2
emissions to year 2000 levels by 2015.
112

Climate Politics
Page 113 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
***Climate Bad***
113

Climate Politics
Page 114 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Decreasing
Nuclear power is dead – growth is slow and leveling off
Hanley, 08 (Paul, “Nuclear industry spins new mythology”, 6/24, The Star Pheonix (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan), lexis)
A second myth is that nuclear is now gaining worldwide acceptance, that it is experiencing a kind of renaissance. The reality is quite
different.
Global nuclear capacity stands at 372,000 megawatts, but its growth rate is lower than any other
energy source. Growth was just 0.5 per cent in 2007, compared to 27 per cent for wind
energy.
In total, global nuclear power capacity grew by less than 2,000 megawatts in 2007, a figure equivalent to
just one-tenth of the new wind power installed globally that year. By the end of 2007, reports the Worldwatch Institute, 34 nuclear
reactors were being built worldwide. Twelve have been under construction for 20 years or more. Meanwhile,
more than 124
reactors have been retired by the commercial nuclear industry since 1964, reducing capacity by 36,800
megawatts. A recent Time magazine article, Is Nuclear Viable?, reports that the American nuclear industry is so
unattractive that it is unable to attract private investment. While the red-hot renewable industry, including wind
and solar, attracted $71 billion in private investment last year, the nuclear industry attracted nothing.
Global nuclear power decreasing now

Flavin, 6 –Christopher, President of World Watch Institute (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on
it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)
Globally, nuclear power is more likely to decline than to increase in the coming years, because
more than half the world's nuclear power plants are over 20 years old. At least 70 nuclear plants
would have to be built in the next decade just to replace those that are projected to be closed.
This is virtually inconceivable, given that only 14 are now under construction. Meanwhile, world
electricity demand is projected to grow by more than 30 percent (the equivalent of more than
500 nuclear power plants) during this same period.
114

Climate Politics
Page 115 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Bad – Extincion
Nuclear power risks extinction
Oda, 2000 – Lecturer at the United Nations NGO Forum and Women of Vision Conference in Washington, D.C. as well as founder
of the organization Plutonium Free Future (Mayumi, “From Nuclear Patriarchy to Solar Community” from “Learning to Glow”, ed. John
Bradley, pg. 292-293)
General Charles Horner, head of the U.S. Aerospace Defense Command, has admitted to the world at large that nuclear weapons are
obsolete. No civilized nation would use them on the cities of an adversary. But we all know that small bands of fanatics or terrorists
might. After more than fifty years of the Nuclear Age, and now that the Cold War is over, we are truly facing nuclear terror. In 1941,
American scientist Glenn Seaborg succeeded in isolating plutonium, an element whose nucleus can be split. Splitting the atom
created extremely toxic by- products and released tremendous power. At that moment something happened to us. A thorn of
violence stuck in the flesh of our Earth and started to infect us. Gaining
the power of gods, we left a lethal legacy
to our children and future generations, just as King Midas inadvertently sacrificed his daughter to his greed. This
lethal legacy is about to become out of control. Children have been living under the fear of the
possibility of not being survived by anybody. We face the extinction of our species. Fear of total
nuclear death is the source of the violence of our time. Until we remove the thorn of plutonium
from the world, that wound of violence will fester and never heal. Out of guilt, the scientists felt there had to
be some peaceful use, some way to redeem the horror they had created. Thus, nuclear energy came to the world.
Decades of research led finally to fuel reprocessing and prototype fast-breeder reactors that
forever produce more fuel than they use. In Japan this is called "the dream energy." It is a dream of unending wealth
and power, the oldest dream of mankind, an alchemy transmuting common lead into unlimited quantities of gold, the myth of Midas
and of Faust.
115

Climate Politics
Page 116 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Leadership
U.S. nuclear leadership fails – overall nuclear hypocrisy makes prolif and terrorism
inevitable
Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 134-
135)
In light of terrorist attacks using conventional weapons, it is only a matter of time before
someone steals enough plutonium to make an adequate nuclear weapon. Then we proceed into
the age of nuclear terrorism.
Meanwhile, with the world awash in plutonium and highly enriched uranium, the Bush administration pursues its own
nuclear armament development policy that makes it increasingly likely that a rogue nation will
procure and possibly use nuclear weapons. The United States has adopted three contradictory
stances at the same time:
It is aggressively forging ahead to build more nuclear weapons, stating that it will use them
preemptively even against non-nuclear nations.
It is instrumental in denying the right to build nuclear weapons to all but a handful of countries.
In the context of promoting nuclear energy, it has offered dozens of countries nuclear technology
and access to nuclear power fuel. The fission process makes plutonium, which can then be separated by
reprocessing and converted to fuel for nuclear weapons. While the Bush proposal includes taking the spent fuel back to the United
not clear that that process can be undertaken with no cheating.
States, it is
Thus, even as there is much hand-wringing at the United Nations about the possibility that Iran
and North Korea may be developing nuclear weapons, eight nation-states-Russia, the United States, France,
China, Britain, India, Israel, and Pakistan-possess their own nuclear arsenals, and others are free to develop weapons
without the admonitions that the United States and the United Nations are imposing upon Iran
and North Korea. This strange juxtaposition of opposing attitudes needs to be examined in the
context of the sixty-five-year history of nuclear fission and related weapons development.
Turn - expanding nuclear leadership increases tech transfer – this increases prolif
Keeny, 07 - former deputy director of the U.S Arms Control and Disarmament agency (Spurgeon, PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON
FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM; SUBJECT: CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18, L/n,
rday)
MR. KEENY: I'd just like to add one point. Going back half a century, President Eisenhower
had a well-intentioned
unfortunate initiative and that his "Atoms for Peace" proposal and it was well- intentioned and was
based on a thesis that nuclear power would be so commonplace that it had to be accepted as a
worldwide phenomenon, and by encouraging it on our terms we would have a better role. And I
think that with based on a misunderstanding status for nuclear power at that time that led to a
different -- a very foolish program of spreading nuclear reactors all over the world to people who hadn't the
remotest idea what to do with them -- how to use them. And -- (inaudible) -- last couple of decades trying to retrieve the remnants of
that program, I think we should -- not totally analogous but should carefully examine what we do in introducing -- (off mike) --
These really poor undeveloping countries can't afford the capital
because we're going to have to subsidize it.
costs of any kind of nuclear program. We should be very careful in thinking it through as to
whether we can control the inevitable by doing things at our initiative that will soon get out of --
(inaudible) -- not necessarily stay under our control because I think -- I sort of see that theme emerging again and
themes that are strangely reminiscent of that -- (off mike) -- fast -- (inaudible).
116

Climate Politics
Page 117 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Bad – Prolif
Nuclear power plants are bomb factories risking prolif
Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer)
Adding to the danger, nuclear power plants are essentially atomic bomb factories. A 1,000 megawatt
nuclear reactor manufactures 500 pounds of plutonium a year; normally ten pounds of plutonium is fuel for an atomic bomb. A
crude atomic bomb sufficient to devastate a city could certainly be crafted from reactor grade
plutonium. Therefore any non-nuclear weapons country that acquires a nuclear power plant will
be provided with the ability to make atomic bombs (precisely the issue the world confronts with Iran today). As
the global nuclear industry pushes its nefarious wares upon developing countries with the patent
lie about "preventing global warming," collateral consequences will include the proliferation of
nuclear weapons, a situation that will further destabilize an already unstable world.
Nuclear energy provides the perfect cover for nuclear weapons development by
militarizing states.
Caldicott, 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen, Nuclear Power is not the answer, pg. 141-
142)
As for those nations currently vying to add nuclear capability to their arsenals, nuclear
power plants offer the perfect
cover. It is only a short step from uranium enrichment for energy to the production of highly
enriched uranium suitable for atomic bomb fuel, or even to reprocessed plutonium from spent
fuel, suitable for bomb fuel. Most nuclear technology associated with nuclear power can be diverted for use in weapons
production: North Korea has almost certainly built at least two nuclear weapons using plutonium
obtained from its research nuclear reactors. Many countries are angry about the paternalism and arrogance
displayed over the years by the nuclear-haves. As the new president MahmoudAhmadinejad of Iran, which is now actively developing
uranium enrichment facilities, said recently when referring to the United States, "Who do you think you are in the world to say you
What kind of right do you think you have to say Iran cannot have
are suspicious of our nuclear activities? ...
nuclear technology? It is you who must be held accountable."! Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
displayed similar feelings when he said recently, "It cannot be that some countries that have developed nuclear
energy prohibit those of the third world from developing it. We are not the ones developing atomic bombs, it's
others who do that. In addition to Iran and North Korea, this chapter will look at three of the nuclear-haves who built their
nuclear weapons arsenals using various components of the nuclear fuel cycle. Israel developed a very large nuclear arsenal from
plutonium created in a reactor specifically designated for that purpose, India
created a nuclear arsenal from heavy
water nuclear power plants, and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons largely from uranium
enrichment facilities.
Nuke power causes terrorism and prolif

Pascual, 2008 - Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution (Carlos, “The
Geopolitics of Energy: From Security to Survival”, January,
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/01_energy_pascual.aspx)
pricing carbon at a
Ironically, high oil and gas prices and the actions that must be taken to address climate change – namely,
cost that will drive investment, new technology and conservation to control its emission – will
drive another existential threat: the risk of nuclear proliferation. Higher energy and carbon prices will
make nuclear power a more attractive option in national energy strategies, and the more reliant that
countries become on nuclear power, the more they will want to control the fuel cycle. The risk of
breakout from civilian power to weaponization would increase dramatically, as well as the risk of
materials and technology getting into the hands of terrorists.
117

Climate Politics
Page 118 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif
Reprocessing makes prolif and terrorism more likely
Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William, Kicking the Carbon Habit:
Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 191-192)
What certainly is not desirable as a supposed solution to the waste problem is reprocessing and
recycling of nuclear fuels-an approach the nuclear industry has promoted in many countries,
partly to create an impression that the disposal problem is solved, partly to stretch fuel
resources. Extraction of re-burnable uranium and plutonium from spent fuels, it is argued, greatly reduces the physical quantity of
waste that must be permanently stored, and it would open the door to a so-called "plutonium economy" in which breeder reactors
recycling does not really solve the
would run on the recycled fuel, producing more energy than they consume. But
disposal problem: it merely reduces the volume of waste that has to be permanently stored (and
that volume is relatively small to begin with), while in some ways complicating the whole situation by
creating more streams of different radioactive materials that all have to be specially handled. As
for the stretching of nuclear fuels, that benefit comes at the cost of having to widely transport
fuels consisting of pure fissile material that could be ripe targets for terrorists seeking to build
bombs.
Spent fuel from reactors, left alone, is too radioactive to be readily handled by a criminal gang, and
extracting weapons-usable material from it would be beyond the capabilities of even an
organization like AI Qaeda in the days before its large training camps were broken up. When
plutonium is extracted from spent fuel commercially, however, it can be handled quite easily and
could be used directly by a terrorist group or be stolen and sold to a government seeking to
obtain nuclear weapons quickly and surreptitiously. This is why President Jimmy Carter was right to terminate
all US work on reprocessing and breeder reactors in 1977 a policy that should be rigorously upheld.
118

Climate Politics
Page 119 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Solves Water Wars
Nuclear power water requires massive amounts of water consumption
Sovacool and Cooper, 07 - *Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor
of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), a national non-
profit organization committed to reforming U.S. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris, Renewing America: The Case for Federal
Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), June,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdf)
If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors, America
will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming. Perhaps the most
important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that is extremely water-
intensive. The nation’s oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear facilities consume about 3.3 billion gallons of water each day.244 In 2006,
they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface- or ground-water
source), roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States.245
A conventional 500 MW coal plant, for instance, consumes around 7,000 gallons of water per minute, or the equivalent of 17
Olympic-sized swimming pools every day.246 Older, less efficient plants can be much worse. In Georgia, the 3,400 MW Sherer coal
facility consumes as much as 9,913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. 247 Data from the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) also confirms that every type of traditional power plant consumes and withdraws vast amounts of water.
Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. Coal plants
also use water to clean and process fuel, and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss. Newer technologies, while
they withdraw less water, actually consume more. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating, closed-loop cooling
technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of
water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source. Thus, while modern power plants may reduce water
withdrawals by up to 10 percent, they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity.248
Nuclear reactors, in particular, require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent
nuclear fuel rods. Because much of the water is turned to steam, substantial amounts are lost to the local water table entirely.
One nuclear plant in Georgia, for example, withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from
the Altamaha River, but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply, enough
to service more than 196,000 Georgia homes,.249
With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years, continuing to rely on fossil fuel-
fired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis. In 2006, the Department of Energy
warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030, to
7.3 billion gallons per day, if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. This staggering amount is
equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995.250
Waste from nuclear power contaminates water resources.

Makhijani, 4 - President of IEER, holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the
University of California at Berkeley (Arjun, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, “Atomic
Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs,” 2004,
http://www.ieer.org/pubs/atomicmyths.html)
Nuclear power brings its own severe vulnerabilities that are not related to climate change or the severe
routine pollution often associated with coal mining and oil production. These vulnerabilities relate to: Nuclear
weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has a large overlap with
nuclear weapons technology. Nuclear power plants create weapons usable
materials - plutonium in current designs.
Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl can occur with nuclear
power plants, even though the details of accident mechanisms and accident
probabilities vary with design, care of construction, and degree of independent
oversight and regulation.
Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear power, from mill tailings to spent fuel, are very
long-lived and threaten essential resources, notably water resources.
119

Climate Politics
Page 120 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Bad – Warming
Cap and trade increases global warming – causes companies to shift overseas and
release more emissions
Buckner, 6/29/09- Professor of Organizational Leadership at Columbia University
(David, “Will Cap-and-Trade Cripple U.S. Production?”, Fox News, June 29th 2009,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529487,00.html)
Cap-and-trade might not only hurt American competitiveness, but also, do the exact opposite of
what it sets out to do. According to the EPA — EPA, the policy may, quote, "cause domestic
production to shift abroad." Why would that happen? When those companies take their
businesses overseas, they're going to will wind up in countries, most likely, without cap-
and-trade rules because they can make their products cheaper there. That will actually
increase greenhouse emissions. DAVID BUCKNER, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: How are you doing? BECK:
Well, I'm good. I don't think I could design a taking down of this country any better than the people — if I were an enemy of
this country, I don't think I could design anything like this.BUCKNER: You slide it in on a Friday, would you? BECK: Yes, I am.
BUCKNER: You slide in on a Friday night so it doesn't hit the news cycle until Monday. And the reality of it is... BECK: Not even
that, you go on vacation — they go on vacation after this. So, they're gone for a week, so they won't feel the public wrath, and
next week is a holiday. BUCKNER: Yes. What they don't recognize here is that we're not seeing the full
picture. On the one side, they're saying that prices have to be inherently increased so that
will be an incentive to not produce products. On the other side, they're saying it's not going
to cost us anything. How can you have — the very thrust of this legislation is based upon
the fact that you're going to raise prices so that people won't produce and create
greenhouse emissions. On the flip side of it, they're saying, "But it won't cost you anything."
It can't be, if it doesn't cost anything, it loses the thrust of the legislation.And so, the
arguments on both sides are intellectually and economically dishonest. BECK: So, I have — I have to
tell you, the — it's not an environmental plan. It can't be. BUCKNER: No. We don't know whether it can ever resolve that. And
not only that, for America to say we can solve the global changes... BECK: Well, the president said that we have to act first,
that we — that China and India — we can't go to, where is it, Copenhagen in December, and we can't convince them to do it.
Why? BUCKNER: So, we're going to take the cost on us, is what he's saying. And everyone will follow. They won't. Here's
what they'll do. You saw when our labor costs went up. We increased minimum wage. Labor
unions exercise their right to petition for greater salaries and they got them. What
happened? Labor left America; it went to India and China. India and China aren't raising
their labor costs. They're not running around going, "You're right, we need to give more
money to our people." They're going to take the markets. There is no way in which the
increase in costs in America will ever remain — will keep us productive and keep us
competitive. It will shift our production overseas. This is an exportation of labor. BECK: If I — if I
look at this — I mean, this is from the governor of Virginia, talked about this and he said, "Well, we just — we have to get this
passed as a nation, but we could never pass it just as a state, because that would hurt us competitively and we'd lose
business here." I mean... BUCKNER: How does it work for the federal, too? But how does it work nationwide if it doesn't...
(CROSSTALK) BUCKNER: Because it's going to be — well, it's actually saying for these states that it wouldn't work
independently, we're going to shift — it's a redistribution. So, the ones that get hurt, oh, we're going to even it out across the
country. BECK: David, how long does it take — I mean, you know — I mean, I don't know if you are as pessimistic as I am. I
mean, I think we are witnessing the destruction of our country. I really do. I don't — I don't know if it's in two months, two
years or 20 years, but we are seeing unsustainable ideas happening here. BUCKNER: We are seeing the cannibalization of
capitalism. I agree with that. We are seeing policies in five months that have cannibalized five corporations and brought them
underneath the umbrella of one government — which I never would have imagined in a capitalist environment in America we
would see. We are seeing — even these environmental bills with no science and no way to pay for them — fully validated.
There is not economic honesty in the dialogue. That's what concerns me. And it's not just about politics. It is the
economics of it. Tell me how you're going to raise the cost of something such that people
will be dissuaded from producing and not cost anything on the other side. The thrust of the
argument is the increase in talks.
120

Climate Politics
Page 121 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Can’t Solve Warming
Cap and trade can’t solve warming- China and India need to take action as well
Corsi, 6/17/09- Ph. D. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R., Staff reporter for WND, “G8 falls
flat on Carbon Ban”, Review Messenger, July 17th 2009,
http://www.reviewmessenger.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1997:g8-falls-
flat-on-carbon-ban&catid=19:guest-opinion)
Last week, the Obama administration faced setbacks to impose cap-and-trade legislation on the United States and on the world, as
part of far-Left climate change agenda the Obama administration has bought hook, line and sinker. In Italy, the G8 could only
manage to set a target of reducing carbon emissions worldwide 80 percent by 2050. By failing to reach an accord on shorter-
range targets, the Financial Times noted the G8 meeting jeopardized the outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit set for
the G8's failure to set meaningful short-term
December. The Wall Street Journal was equally honest, noting
goals "prompted a larger group of nations – including China, India, and other developing-
country polluters – to backtrack from their own commitment to numerical targets they had
planned to announce [at the G8 meeting]." Meanwhile, under tight questioning from Oklahoma's Republican Sen.
James Inhofe, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, appearing before the Senate Environment Public Works Committee, confirmed
thatan Environmental Protection Agency chart did show that unilateral U.S. actions to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the global
climate. Meaningful emission reductions can only occur if China, India and the developing
countries go along. "I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S.
will be all cost for no climate gain," Sen. Inhofe said. "With China and India recently issuing
statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the
job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American
consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate."
DA can’t solve warming- five other actions are more preferable

Dorgan, 6/17/09- US Senator (Byron, US Senator D-ND, "Dorgan: Reduce CO2, yes; cap and trade, no", Grandforks Herald,
July 17th 2009, http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/126797/group/Opinion/)
I’m in favor of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions and to protect our environment. But I don’t support
the “cap-and-trade” plan now being debated in the Congress. “Cap and trade” is an approach that would
have the government set caps on carbon emissions from certain sources, then establish a market in which
allowances for CO2 emissions would be bought and sold on a financial exchange. Supporters call it a
“market-based solution.” I think it is the wrong solution, and I don’t support it. I support capping carbon
emissions. But it has to be done the right way with targets and timelines that let us accomplish our goals
without driving the cost of energy for homeowners and businesses out of sight. The cap and trade plan
does not meet that test for me. I know the Wall Street crowd can’t wait to sink their teeth into a new
trillion dollar trading market in which hedge funds and investment banks would trade and speculate on
carbon credits and securities. In no time they’ll create derivatives, swaps and more in that new market. In
fact, most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. They are ready to
go. I’m not! For those who like the wild price swings in the oil futures market, the unseemly speculation in
mortgage backed securities or the exotic and risky financial products such as credit default swaps that
pushed our economy into the ditch, this cap and trade plan will be the answer to their prayers. Just last
year, speculators overwhelmed the oil futures market, and every day they were trading 20 to 25 times
more oil than was being produced. That speculation drove the price of oil from $60 to $147 a barrel and
gasoline to more than $4 a gallon. Then the same speculators forced the price back down and made
money in both directions. The American public paid the price for it. And remember the financiers who wallpapered
America with risky derivatives and credit default swaps that they traded in dark markets before the financial collapse last year? We
shouldn’t need a second expensive lesson in how manipulation in financial markets can hurt our country. Don’t’ get me wrong. I like
free markets. But given recent history, I have little confidence that the large financial markets are free or fair enough to trust them
with a new, large cap-and-trade carbon securities market. So, I’m willing to cap carbon to address the threat to our environment. But
it has to be done the right way. Here’s what I believe we need to do to protect our environment and make us less dependent on
foreign oil: - We should establish caps on carbon that are accompanied by both adequate research-and-
development funding and reasonable timelines so we can develop and commercialize technologies that’ll
121

Climate Politics
Page 122 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
greatly reduce the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. - I propose we use the majority of the
revenue from a plan that caps CO2 to provide refunds to those who would otherwise experience increased
energy costs. - Even as we continue to decarbonize the use of fossil energy, we should move aggressively
to maximize the production of renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other sources.
- We need to set an ambitious Renewable Electricity Standard along with longer term tax incentives for the
production of wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy. - To move all of that new energy, we need
to build a transmission system that will let us produce renewable energy where we can and move it to the
load centers where it is needed. - To fully reap the benefits of cleaner energy and reduced dependence on
foreign oil, we need to move toward using electricity to fuel our transportation fleet. North Dakota and the
nation have a lot at stake in this debate. We are a major energy producing state. We have the ability to
produce large quantities of oil. We have the greatest wind energy potential of any state. We have the
ability to produce a large quantity of biofuels. And we have large deposits of coal, which is our country’s
most abundant form of energy.
122

Climate Politics
Page 123 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Can’t solve warming – too many daunting problems, and it’ll destroy the economy
Shapiro, 1/15/09- Co-Founder of the U.S. Climate Task Force (Robert, Head of the Economic Advisory Firm Sonecon and
Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration, Roll Call, “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and Carbon-
Based Taxes”, http://www.rollcall.com/news/31397-1.html)
We all have a moral imperative to get climate policy right. To achieve that, the incoming administration and Members
of the 111th Congress will have to carefully weigh all the serious options being proposed to reduce carbon emissions. However, it
seems that some politicians have already made up their minds before real debate has even begun. As last Thursday’s House Energy
and Commerce Committee hearing illustrated, a number of lawmakers are narrowly focused only on cap-and-trade
— the same kind of futile approach that’s failed to lower emissions in Europe. While well-intentioned, cap-and-
trade systems are riddled with daunting problems. These regimes may offer the path of least current, political resistance,
given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments. But basic economics punctuated by the
developments now gripping the U.S. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction, toward a carbon-based tax
program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief. Under cap-and-trade, the government sets an annual “cap” on
greenhouse gas emissions, gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions, and lets a new market sort out the messy job
of determining the prices of emissions. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions targets most cheaply will do so
and sell permits to those who cannot, leaving everyone better off. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the
climate summit in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were
effectively exempt from reducing their emissions, but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe. Burned by the political
firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993, my former boss, President Bill Clinton, still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade
scheme, arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. It didn’t work for me.” But here’s the catch. A cap-and-trade system is very
unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new, trillion-dollar risks
for the financial system. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European
Trading Scheme, based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. According to a new report by the Government
Accountability Office, there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe.
One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. Another
factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies, themselves exempt from caps, can sell to other ETS members.
According to a recent study in Nature, once we set aside those offsets, emissions under the ETS have actually
increased by 10 percent. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely
considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. To the contrary, the prices for ETS permits
are highly volatile. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system, for example, permits prices moved
up or down by an average of 17.5 percent per month, with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. Since the entire
global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion, such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability. However, if the
U.S. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade, it’d be a different story entirely. Volatility like the kind experienced
in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices, unsettling everyone’s markets and undermining investment. And
the volatile prices for the permits themselves, traded on financial markets, would attract speculation and new financial derivatives,
putting us at risk for another crisis. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the
incentives for its participants, including governments, to evade or manipulate the system. These are the main reasons why the father
of climate-change politics, Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. A carbon tax system would apply a stable
price to carbon, creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies.
President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. The best way to do
both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes.
Can’t solve warming – cheating is inevitable

O’Keefe, 2/3/09 (William, Chief Executive Officer at Marshall Institute, Roll Call, “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s
Climate Policy”, http://www.rollcall.com/news/32007-1.html)
Politics and baseball have a great deal in common. In that respect, it’s only appropriate to quote one of America’s legendary ballplayers as the 111th Congress and President
Barack Obama pledge to take bold steps to combat climate change. American voters have heard this before. The Clinton/Gore administration made the same promise but, in the
end, looked at the consequences and blinked. In the words of Yogi Berra, “This is like déjà vu all over again.” More than a decade ago, the United Nations, with strong support
from Vice President Al Gore, drafted the Kyoto Protocol. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries, proposing a 2012 target for the U.S. that was 7
percent below 1990 levels. But the Clinton administration never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. Given its impact on the European Union, voters should be
thankful we passed. Eleven years have elapsed, and in that time almost all EU nations, the major Kyoto signatories, have failed to meet their targets. Between 2000 and 2006,
while America’s carbon dioxide emissions only increased 2.3 percent, the EU emissions jumped by 3.5 percent. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that
Not only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives, they have
our economic growth was much stronger.)
increased energy costs, stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system.
Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system, some U.S.
legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. Going forward, Washington
has three options. One, continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards, new auto technology and lower emission technology. Two, mandate a cap-and-
trade system. Three, impose a carbon tax. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo, the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. The
Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade, a system that sets a limit on emissions, reduces that limit over time, issues emission permits to covered industries
and creates a market for trading permits. Though both policies will raise the price of energy, the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods
123

Climate Politics
Page 124 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
and services. In reality, it’s a stealth tax. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate, administer and enforce it. And unlike a direct tax, cap-and-trade spawns vested
interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system. In theory, cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop
new technologies. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either. A carbon tax, the option favored by an increasing number of economists and analysts, places a price
on carbon and then allows the market to respond. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and, as such, create incentives to find alternatives without
In contrast to a CO2 trading market, the government
enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade.
policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. On top of that,
the resulting increased prices could be offset by reducing the payroll tax, putting more money into the
hands of workers. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders
while still discouraging carbon emissions. Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown, it’s difficult to
understand why so many continue to favor a more complex, opaque system over a simpler, more transparent one. Without transparency, there’s less chance of accountability,
leaving voters vulnerable to further exploitation of financial instruments. In his inaugural address, Obama indicated he would oppose government programs that don’t work. And
there’s no convincing evidence that cap-and-trade will work or that it would work as well as a carbon
to date,
tax. So before America’s leaders drag the public through a decade-old debate “all over again,” Congress should take a fresh, objective, and careful look at all of our policy
options. Good public policy makes for good politics. And the advantages of a carbon tax are good public policy.
124

Climate Politics
Page 125 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Cap and trade won’t solve warming- doesn’t low temperatures, and other countries
are key
The Foundry, 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”, The Foundry, July 21st 2009,
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-and-trade/)
10.)There’s no environmental benefit. Even the flawed and significantly biased cost estimates of $140 per
year or $170 per year aren’t worth the alleged benefits since the bill would lower temperatures by only
hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century. The fact
that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson confirmed the bill would do nothing for global temperatures without
commitment from large emitters like India and China following suit, as well as Greenpeace’s adamant
opposition due to all the corporate handouts in the bill should be telling signs that the environmental
benefits are nonexistent.
No impact to warming – average rates are natural and CO2 emissions aren’t out of
control
Hartman, 7/18/09 (Ed, "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade", July 18th 2009,
http://www.tidewaternews.com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/)
As far as scientists supporting cap-and-trade to stop global warming, there are many against this bill. I
challenge The Tidewater News to obtain and reprint an article written in 2008 by Eric Creed entitled “The Greatest Hoax Ever
Perpetrated.” He covers much information refuting the global-warming mantra. On Dec. 13, 2007, a hundred scientists
wrote a letter to the secretary-general of the United Nations. This letter made three declarations:
■ 1. Recent observations of the phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of
temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, and none of the changes has
been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
■ 2. The average rates of warming per decade recorded by satellites in the late 20th century fall within
known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
■ 3. Leading scientists acknowledge that computer models can’t predict climate, and there has been no
net global warming since 1998. On March 4, 2008, in an International Conference on Climate Change,
more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the “Manhattan Declaration”:
Global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and carbon
dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. There is no convincing evidence that CO2
emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, now or will ever cause catastrophic climate
change. In conclusion, cap-and-trade is wrong because it’s a massive new energy tax. It will kill American jobs, cause electric bills
and fuel prices to sharply increase, and be highly susceptible to fraud and corruption in a time when Americans can’t afford it. In
short those few who earn the money to pay the taxes can‘t afford to perpetuate this hoax. I suggest all concerned taxpayers contact
U.S. Sen. Jim Webb and Sen. Mark Warner and urge them to vote against cap-and-trade.
125

Climate Politics
Page 126 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Cap and trade only reduces temperature by .2 degrees
The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little, if any, environmental benefit. In fact,
analysisby the architects of the endangerment finding, the EPA, strongly suggests that a 60
percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0.1 to 0.2
degrees Celsius by 2095.[2]
126

Climate Politics
Page 127 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Fails – Warming
Even if they win all of their arguments- the current version of cap and trade will fail –
carbon fuels are inevitable and international cooperation is more important
Kovacs, 7/13/09- U.S. Chamber Of Commerce (William, Chamber Representative, Politico, “Waxman-Markey bill: 'this isn’t the
best of U.S’.”, July 13th 2009, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24837.html)
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while
providing for a strong American economy. The question, of course, is how to accomplish that goal. A few months ago in The
Wall Street Journal, Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, made the argument that a “well-designed” cap-
and-trade system is the best approach. A feasible cap-and-trade system might work, but what we got with the American
Clean Energy and Security, or ACES, Act was deeply flawed, based on a failing European
model that they themselves are looking to abandon. Nonetheless, the EDF — and many other cap-and-
trade backers — praised the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill not because it is an effective piece of
legislation, but because “it’s the best we can do.” This may be the greatest indictment issued against the
legislative branch since Joseph Welch questioned Joe McCarthy’s sense of decency. This bill is not the best we can
do, by far, and here are four quick reasons why. First, carbon-based fuels are and will remain for
decades the backbone of the U.S. energy system until cost-effective and reliable alternative
energy sources are developed. ACES does not do a good job of ensuring those alternatives
will be available. Second, international cooperation remains a major stumbling block to
addressing global climate change. Imposing limits on our own energy use and driving up
our own costs — while developing nations like China and India pollute with abandon — will
neither reduce global greenhouse emissions nor improve America’s competitive position.
Furthermore, tariff provisions that impose tariffs on carbon-intensive imports could be deemed
to violate our international obligations — given the worldwide economic situation now is not
the time to spark a trade war. Third, the renewable electricity standard, or RES, along with many of
the other mandates in the bill, will add costs and distort the workings of the carbon market the bill
would establish. If the objective is to allow the market to work to find the lowest-cost solutions, picking technology
winners and losers is not the way to go about it. Fourth, among other weakness, ACES contains dangerous
provisions that could lead to widespread lawsuit abuse. The bill fails to equitably allocate
credits to the refinery sector. It does not fully and permanently protect America’s 27 million
small businesses from being forced to comply with costly standards; nor does it adequately
preempt state and regional greenhouse gas programs. And by applying the Davis-Bacon Act, the bill
will result in diminished competition, shutting out many qualified minority, small, and
nonunion businesses from the entire market.
127

Climate Politics
Page 128 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: C&T Solves Warming
Won’t solve warming – EU system failed
O’Keefe, 9 (William, Chief Executive Officer @ Marshall Institute, Roll Call, “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s Climate
Policy”, 2/3 http://www.rollcall.com/news/32007-1.html)
More than a decade ago, the United Nations, with strong support from Vice President Al Gore, drafted the Kyoto Protocol. The treaty
imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries, proposing a 2012 target for the U.S. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels.
But the Clinton never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. Given its impact on the
administration
should be thankful we passed. Eleven years have elapsed, and in that time almost all EU nations, the
European Union, voters
major Kyoto signatories, have failed to meet their targets. Between 2000 and 2006, while America’s carbon
dioxide emissions only increased 2.3 percent, the EU emissions jumped by 3.5 percent. (That’s even more significant when you
account for the fact that our economic growth was much stronger.) Not only have the EU emissions policies missed
their objectives, they have increased energy costs, stunted economic growth and spawned
cheating in the carbon trading system. Despite all of these environmental and economic failings
of the EU cap-and-trade system, some U.S. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar
emissions scheme here in the States. Going forward, Washington has three options. One, continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards,
new auto technology and lower emission technology. Two, mandate a cap-and-trade system. Three, impose a carbon tax. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to
maintain the status quo, the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade, a system that sets a limit on
emissions, reduces that limit over time, issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits. Though both policies will raise the price of energy,
the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods and services. In reality, it’s a stealth tax. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate,
In theory,
administer and enforce it. And unlike a direct tax, cap-and-trade spawns vested interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system.
cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop new
technologies. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either. A carbon tax, the option favored by an
increasing number of economists and analysts, places a price on carbon and then allows the market to respond. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and,
as such, create incentives to find alternatives without enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade. In contrast to a CO2 trading
market, the government policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. On top of that, the resulting increased prices could be offset by
reducing the payroll tax, putting more money into the hands of workers. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders while still
discouraging carbon emissions. Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown, it’s difficult to understand why so many continue to
favor a more complex, opaque system over a simpler, more transparent one. Without transparency, there’s less chance of accountability, leaving voters vulnerable to further
exploitation of financial instruments.
Cap and trade fails – evasion and manipulation

Roll Call, 9 (Robert, “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and Carbon-Based Taxes”,1/15
http://www.rollcall.com/news/31397-1.html)
While well-intentioned, cap-and-trade systems are riddled with daunting problems. These regimes may offer the
path of least current, political resistance, given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments.
But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U.S. and global financial
systems clearly point in a different direction, toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled
in forms of tax relief. Under cap-and-trade, the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas
emissions, gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions, and lets a new market
sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions
targets most cheaply will do so and sell permits to those who cannot, leaving everyone better off. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate
summit in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions, but
still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe. Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993, my former boss, President Bill Clinton, still pushes
A cap-and-trade system is very
forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme, arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. It didn’t work for me.” But here’s the catch.
unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new, trillion-
dollar risks for the financial system. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme, based on the
Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on
emissions in Europe. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. Another factor is the “offset”
According to a recent study in
permits that European “transition” economies, themselves exempt from caps, can sell to other ETS members.
Nature, once we set aside those offsets, emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10
percent. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely
considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. To the contrary, the prices for
ETS permits are highly volatile. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system, for example, permits prices moved
up or down by an average of 17.5 percent per month, with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. Since the entire global permit
market only currently amounts to some $60 billion, such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability. However, if the U.S. were to
Volatility like the kind experienced
join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade, it’d be a different story entirely.
in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices, unsettling everyone’s markets
128

Climate Politics
Page 129 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
and undermining investment. And the volatile prices for the permits themselves, traded on financial markets, would attract
speculation and new financial derivatives, putting us at risk for another crisis. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-
and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants, including governments, to evade or manipulate the system.
These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics, Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade.
129

Climate Politics
Page 130 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Sea Levels
No impact to rising sea levels – people and species can both adapt
Singer and Avery in ‘7 (Fred, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and
Distinguished Research Professor @ George Mason, Prof. Emeritus Environmental Science @ UVA
and First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service, and Dennis, Director of Global Food
Issues @ Hudson Institute, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years”, p. 160-161)
A continued slow rise in sea levels is probably the biggest problem for humans likely to arise from a moderate global warming. Six inches per century is slow, but if it continues for the next five hundred years, say, it would
The world wouldn't lose its wetlands due to rising sea
cause significant coastal changes. Still, this is a smaller problem than the alarmists have claimed.
levels. The wetlands and their species would simply move slightly upslope, as they have so many times in the past. The
amount of land involved would be trivial. The real impact would be on man-made structures, which would
have to be abandoned or moved inland. Even here, the problem is not great. How many buildings near coasts are built with the expectation
that they will last 100 years, 200 years, or even longer? If we are wise, we will avoid encouraging new building and development in low-lying coastal plains. Tougher zoning for low-lying
areas and tougher building codes for areas within reach of storm surges make sense, whether or not sea levels are rising. The massive problems inflicted by Hurricane Katrina on the city of New Orleans and the communities
of the Gulf Coast in 2005 underscore that point, and remind us that normal hurricane risks are amplified as our cities grow and our people seek waterfronts on which to live and play. At the very least, America should stop
encouraging high-risk waterside building through government-financed flood insurance. John Christy, Alabama state climatologist, recently testified before Congress: One of my duties in the office of the State Climatologist
A sea level rise of
is to inform developers and industries of the potential climate risks and rewards in Alabama. I am very frank in pointing out the dangers of beachfront property along the Gulf Coast.
6 in. over 100 years, or even 50 years, is miniscule compared with the storm surge of a powerful hurricane
like Fredrick or Camille. Coastal areas threatened today will be threatened in the future. The sea level rise, which will continue, will be very slow and thus give
decades of opportunity for adaptation, if one is able to survive the storms. The main point I stress, to state and local agencies as well as industries, is that they invest today in
infrastructure that can withstand the severe weather events that we know are going to continue. These investments include extending floodway easements, improvement in storm water drainage systems and avoiding
hurricane-prone coastal development, among other actions." 333 More than one observer has declared that we would have to "build a dike around Bangladesh" to prevent higher sea levels from destroying that lowlying
The problem is not sea levels per se, but the
country and drowning millions of people. Actually, building a dike around Bangladesh may not be a bad idea anyway.
storm surges from huge tropical cyclones that have hit the country every three to four years in recent decades. Bangladesh has built a large number of "typhoon towers" that allow the population to climb
above the floods with the belongings they can carry. However, the floods of salt water often stay for weeks, spreading disease, poisoning soils, halting economic activity, and inflicting massive amounts of physical damage on
buildings, roads, bridges, and water systems. A dike would be expensive, and it would have to be done with great sensitivity to the coastal wetlands, but perhaps it will need to be done. What about low-lying islands? As
previously noted, the Tuvaluans do not appear to be threatened by rising sea levels. But if they were, emigration does not present insurmountable problems, since there are only about 11,000 Tuvaluans. And, the Tuvaluans
There will always be an ebb and flow
might even prefer it. The point here is that we live on a planet where the climate has been changing constantly for the past billion years.
between land and water, and their interface will be rich with competing organisms. We expect a continued abundance of the
corals, coastal forests, and horseshoe crabs—not to mention sand fleas, biting flies, mosquitoes, and beach combers.
130

Climate Politics
Page 131 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Disease Spread
Climate plays a tiny role in disease spread
Michaels 4 (Patrick, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Environmental Sciences
@ UVA, “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the
Media”, p. 187)
The plain truth is that climate plays an extremely minor role in the transmission of pathogens. Everything
else being equal, given a small change in climate, some diseases will spread somewhat and others will recede somewhat. But to
assume everything else will be equal is a poor scientific assumption. Think about technology, antibiotics, genetic
engineering and sanitation, to name a few things that sure aren't "equal" over time and distance. Change in climate
is so small by comparison that it is nearly irrelevant. What is not small is the dissonant convergence between
media hungry for dramatic news and researchers eager for a place in the paper or on TV. In today's climate, that's a major scientific
disease vector.
Scientific studies prove there is no clear relationship between warming and disease
spread
Michaels 4 (Patrick, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Environmental Sciences
@ UVA, “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the
Media”, p. 186-187)
The June 21, 2002, edition of Science contained a review article by Drew Harvell of Cornell University and six
coauthors titled, "Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota." As a review, the article was a compendium of
many researchers' previous work and therefore included little that was scientifically new. Rather, its
purpose was to
assemble recent findings on how climate affects diseases and how conditions for disease transmission might
change if current climate trends stay on track. Here are some excerpts: Associations between climate and
disease do not necessarily imply causation. Difficulty in separating directional climate change from short-term
variation has made it challenging to associate climate warming with disease prevalence or severity. Whether [vector-borne disease]
expansions are due primarily to climate change or other anthropogenic influences (e.g., habitat alteration or drug-resistant strains] is
controversial, as is predicting future distributional changes in disease prevalence.... In fact, expansion
of antimalarial
resistance and failed vector control programs are probably as important as climate factors in
driving recent malaria expansions. We found no unequivocal examples of natural changes in
severity or prevalence resulting from directional climate warming per se. The paper is filled with caveats
like those, as scientific writing should be when it is about something as nebulous as how climate might potentially affect disease.
After all, it amounts to nothing more than speculation when so many factors completely unrelated to climate are far more important
than climate change itself in determining why a given animal or plant is infected by a particular disease.
131

Climate Politics
Page 132 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Drought
No increases in drought ---- it doesn’t correlate to temperature
Lewis 6 (Marlo, Senior Fellow @ Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Scare Mongering as Journalism: A
Commentary on Time’s “Special Report” on Global Warming”, 4-28, http://cei.org/pdf/5288.pdf)
Comment: Climatealarmists claim that global warming makes droughts more frequent and severe, but
analyses of climate data from Africa, Asia, and Europe fail to confirm a link between warming and
drought. For centuries, dry and wet periods have alternated during periods of both warming and cooling. Similarly, there is no
apparent relationship between temperature and dryness (or wetness) in Northern Hemisphere data. Consider
the table below, published in Moberg et al. (2005): Long-term tree-ring records also indicate that the frequency and severity of 20th
century droughts in North America were well within the bounds of natural variability. Consider these excerpts from North American
Drought: A Paleo Perspective, by the staff of the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program, dated 12 November 2003: • “An inspection of the
maps shows that droughts similar to the 1950s, in terms of duration and spatial extent, occurred once or twice a
century for the past three centuries (for example, during the 1860s, 1820s, 1730s).” • “Longer records show strong
evidence for a drought [during the last half of the 16th century] that appears to have been more severe in some areas
of central North America than anything we have experienced in the 20th century, including the 1930s drought…
These droughts were extremely severe and lasted for three to six years, a long time for such severe drought conditions to persist in
this region of North America.” • “Coincident droughts, or the same droughts, are apparent in tree-ring records from Mexico to British
Columbia, and from California to the East Coast.”
132

Climate Politics
Page 133 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: Forests
No increase in forest fires ---- they’re decreasing burned acres
Michaels in ‘4 (Patrick, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Environmental
Sciences @ UVA, “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
Politicians, and the Media”, p. 142-145)
It is also one of the easiest to dispute. Figure 6.11 shows 10-year averages for acreage burned in the United States. In the warm
1990s, the average was a little around 5 million acres per year going up in smoke. (In the cool 1960s, it was also around 5 million.)
Before the 1942 release of Bambi, the cartoon deer who probably spawned more ecological mismanagement and traffic fatalities
than any other animal in cinematic history, we used to just let things burn. That's part of the reason why, when we look at, say, the
1930s, about 38 million acres went up each year; an average of 25 million combusted in the 1920s. This isn't just a straw doe.
Consider what's happened since Bambi, or in the current era of irrational fire suppression. Figure 6.12 shows summer (June—
September) temperatures since 1960, and Figure 6.13 is decadal average precipitation over the United States. There is a warming
trend, a rise of about 0.9°F in the period. But there's also an increase in precipitation. In the 1960s, we averaged about 28.3 inches of
rain per year. By the 1990s that moved up to 30.5, or a rise of 2.3 inches. It's
not very hard to take the temperature,
rainfall, and burn data and turn it into a mathematical "model." First, you specify an equation that defines a
hypothesis about the way something works. How about this one: Acreage burned = X (temperature) – Y (rainfall). If you have enough
data—usually at least 10 "independent" observations of the "modeled" variable ("acreage burned") and for each predictor
("temperature" and "rainfall")—you can run a fairly straightforward statistical calculation that determines the values of X and Y that
best describe the hypothesized mathematical relationship between fire, heat, and rain. The computer calculates that X is
approximately equal to 700,000, which means, on the average, that a year that is one degree warmer than normal
will have 700,000 more burned acres. Y is equal to 400,000. So every inch of rain above normal reduces
the annual burn by 400,000 acres. This little "model" explains a bit less than half of the total year-to-year variation in
acreage burned in the United States. It's shown graphically in Figure 6.14. Since 1960, the 0.9 degree rise in
temperature means that we are burning 630,000 more acres per year. But, the 2.3-inch rise in
rainfall means that we're burning 930,000fewer acres because of the increased moisture. In
other words, the total "change" in the climate-related signal according to our model is minus
300,000 acres. Despite our straightforward math, don't draw the conclusion that global warming is therefore associated with
reduced fire in the United States. That net change of minus 300,000 acres is a needle buried in an annual 5,000,000-acre foreststack.
Scientifically speaking, you can't tell the climate signal from the random noise. (And don't assume your
perception of more forest fires means that there are more forest fires—remember Dan Rather and the deluge of hurricane coverage
he set in motion in Galveston all those years ago. We hear more about it, but that doesn't mean there's more to hear about.)
133

Climate Politics
Page 134 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Greenhouse Theory Flawed
The dominant greenhouse theory is incomplete—it fails to explain past warming.
AFP 4/13/2009 (Agence France Presse, "Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago",
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXKGlsM4aZXPmItKk9TowSECsEYg, WEA)
A runaway spurt of global warming 55 million years ago turned Earth into a hothouse
PARIS (AFP) —
but how this happened remains worryingly unclear, scientists said on Monday.
Previous research into this period, called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM,
estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine
degrees Celsius (nine and 16.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years.
The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C (73 F), or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath.
How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out, as this could shed light on aspects of global warming today.
What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -- natural, as opposed to man-made -- were disgorged
in a very short time.
The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean.
A trio of Earth scientists, led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii, try to account for the carbon that was spewed out during
PETM.
They believe that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 70 percent during PETM's main phase to reach
1,700 parts per million (ppm), attaining a concentration of between four and five times that of today.
But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3.5 C (1.8-6.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for
climate sensitivity are right, the team found.
There must have been some other factor that stoked temperatures higher.
Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now, the findings are relevant as they
highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming, says the paper.
Some of these so-called "positive feedbacks" are already known.
For instance, when a patch of Arctic sea ice melts, this exposes the uncovered sea to sunlight, depriving it of a bright, reflective layer.
That causes the sea to warm, which leads to the loss of more ice, which in turn helps the sea to warm, and so on.
But these "feedbacks" are poorly understood and some scientists believe there could be others
still to be identified.
"Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global
warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations," warns Zeebe's team.
"This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change."
134

Climate Politics
Page 135 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Climate Models Bad
Climate models are inaccurate—newest journals flow our way.
Rice 7/14/2009 (Doyle, USA Today Science Fair, "Could we be wrong about global warming?",
http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/07/could-we-be-wrong-about-global-warming.html, WEA)
Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?
Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report
found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change
55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What
caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," says
oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston.
"There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are
linked in climate models."
During the warming period, known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM), for unknown reasons, the amount of
carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth.
As the levels of carbon increased, global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures
worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this
ancient warming. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models --
the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century
warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."
In their most recent assessment report in 2007, the IPCC predicted the Earth would warm by anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by the
end of the century due to increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human industrial activity.
135

Climate Politics
Page 136 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Bad – Economy
Cap and trade kills the economy- jobs, GDP, energy costs, businesses
The Foundry, 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”, The Foundry, July
21st 2009, http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-and-
trade/)
136

Climate Politics
Page 137 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
The cap and trade debate, like most debates in Washington, has become a numbers game. One side says it’s cheap; the other
says it’s expensive. Depending on what side of the political isle you fall on, selective hearing can dictate what you believe
Waxman-Markey will do to the economy and how it will affect global warming. You hear it’s a jobs bill – that investing billions
of dollars in new green technologies that will create or save millions of jobs, stimulating the economy while igniting a green
revolution. You hear it won’t cost Americans families very much – about a stamp per day is what proponents of the bill say.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are thirteen reasons to oppose cap and trade. 1.) It will destroy 1.15
million jobs. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that, for the average year
over the 2012-2035 timeline, job loss will be 1.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions. By
2035, there is a projected 2.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. But Heritage
isn’t alone in these estimates. The Brookings Institute, a supporter of a carbon tax, projects that cap
and trade will increase unemployment would by 0.5% in the first decade below the baseline.
Using U.S. Census population projection estimates, that’s equivalent to about 1.7 million
fewer jobs than without cap and trade. A study done by Charles River Associates prepared for the
National Black Chamber of Congress projects higher unemployment of 2.3-2.7 million jobs in each year
of the policy through 2030–after accounting for “green job” creation. 2.) It will reduce
economic growth. All three aforementioned studies found significant losses in Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), our primary measure of economic activity. Heritage found the average GDP
lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012 to 2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion
(in 2009 dollars). Brookings predicts GDP in the United States would be lower by 2.5 percent in
2050 and the National Black Chamber estimates that in GDP will be 1.3 percent ($350 billon)
below the baseline in 2030 and 1.5 percent ($730 billion) below the baseline in 2050. 3.) It will increase your
energy bills. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from carbon emitting fossil
fuels, cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption. The carbon dioxide reduction
targets are still the same at the end of the day, and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy high enough so
people use less. Heritage’s CDA found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent,
natural gas prices would increase 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent,
and worst of all, electricity prices would jump 90 percent. CRA’s and the Black Chamber’s study
found that relative to the baseline, natural gas prices would rise by an estimated 16%, electricity prices go up by
22% and gasoline increases by 23 center per gallon, all in the year 2030. 4.) It hits low-income households hardest. Cap
and trade is an energy tax that falls disproportionately on the poor. Although upper income
families tend to use more energy (and thus emit more carbon per household), since low-income
households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy, the poor suffer most.
Proponents of a carbon cap acknowledge this, saying, “Relative to total expenditure, however, the poor pay more […]. This
means that carbon emission-reduction policies have a regressive impact on income distribution – unless coupled with revenue-
recycling policies that protect the real incomes of the poor and middle classes.” Policymakers sought to protect consumers,
especially the poor, from higher energy prices by handing out rebate checks or tax cuts. If only a small portion (15 percent) of
the energy tax revenue is given back to the consumer, the burden on the poor obviously becomes heavier. Rebates or
not, the higher energy prices would reduce economic activity by forcing businesses to cut
costs elsewhere, by reducing their workforce for example, and thus doing damage that no check
would cover. 5.) It will cost a family-of-four an additional $3,000 per year. When all the tax impacts have been added up,
we find that the average per-family-of-four costs rise by almost $3,000 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the tax impact is
$4,600. And if you add up the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035, the years in which we
modeled the bill, it’s about $71,500. That’s a lot of postage stamps—162,500 to be exact. 6.) More subsidies for unproven
technologies and energy sources. The bill also include a renewable electricity standard that mandates 15 percent of the
nation’s electricity from renewable energy by 2020 as well as hundreds of billions of investments (read: taxpayer subsidies)
for efficiency improvements and renewable energy technology. A federally mandated RES is proposed only because
renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. In effect, Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public.
Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks, a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as
ratepayers. If cap and trade were so sure to work, why is all this even necessary?
137

Climate Politics
Page 138 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Ext. C&T Kills Economy
Climate bill will decimate economic growth – higher costs and trade restrictions
Markheim 2009 - Jay Van Andel senior trade policy analyst int he Center for International Trade and Economics at Heritage
(4/24, Daniella, Heritage Foundation, "Climate policy: free trade promotes a cleaner environment", WebMemo #2408,
http://author.heritage.org/Research/tradeandeconomicfreedom/wm2408.cfm, WEA)
The projected cost of a climate scheme on the U.S. economy--evidenced from Europe's problematic
climate program and the Kyoto Protocol's failure to affect emissions in signatory nations--illustrate how
difficult it is for governments to impose binding climate restrictions without undermining
economic growth.[1]
If Congress and the President do embark on such a potentially treacherous course, households and firms will face much
higher costs for energy and energy-intensive goods, categories that include virtually every product in our
economy. Hard-pressed U.S. consumers and producers will find no relief from artificially inflated
prices by turning to lower-cost imports, as the climate change zealots propose to erect trade
barriers to raise the costs of foreign products produced under less severe environmental policy
constraints.
Some U.S. companies and policymakers may find it fair for the government to prop up domestic
businesses, whose profitability will have been destroyed by new climate change regulations,
against foreign competitors whose governments have chosen to be less draconian. America's trade
partners are unlikely to agree.
Many such trade restrictions could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and lead to legal sanctions
against the U.S. Even if some of the proposed measures hold up against legal scrutiny in the WTO, the potential for
nations to retaliate against U.S. trade measures is very real. Any U.S. restrictions, whether consistent
with WTO agreements or not, would undermine development in poorer countries and make it more
difficult to achieve a multilateral consensus on the rules of trade that best support environmental
objectives.
When all these negative effects are taken into account, it is clear that the adoption of protectionist polices as a part of a U.S. climate
regime does far more harm than good and should be avoided.
Cap and trade destroys economic growth – taxes all energy use, ensures billions of
dollars lost from the GDP each year and increases unemployment
Above anything else, any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick
economy. Even when the economy does recover, the EPA's proposed global warming policy
would severely limit economic growth.
Since 85 percent of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, imposing a cost
on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. The Heritage Foundation's
Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide cuts found cumulative gross domestic
product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars), single-year GDP losses exceeding $600
billion in some years (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars), energy cost increases of 30 percent or more, and
annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing, which will
see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent.[1]
High energy costs result in production cuts, reduced consumer spending, increased
unemployment, and ultimately a much slower economy. But importantly, higher energy prices fall
disproportionately on the poor, since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their
income on energy.
138

Climate Politics
Page 139 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Cap and trade kills the economy—taxes would prevent consumer spending and
thousands of jobs will be lost
Kyl, 7/16/09- US Senator (Jon, R-AZ, “President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle-
income Americans, but legislation he and congressional Democrats are backing would do just that”,
Eloy News, July 16th 2009, http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?
newsid=20346352&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222077&rfi=6)
On June 26, the House of Representatives passed legislation described by Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein as "a stealth strategy for a massive long-term tax
All Americans, regardless of income, will feel the effects of this tax hike. At a time when the
increase."
economy remains shaky and unemployment has reached a 25-year high, Congress should not be
considering new taxes. They would be bad for families and would slow the economic recovery as well. The
Senate could take up the House legislation, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, though it may not do so until September. That would give all Americans time
to register their opinions on the bill. The bill would implement a "cap-and-trade" program with the ostensible purpose of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide into the
Cap-and-trade programs set strict, mandatory limits on carbon emissions from various sources
atmosphere.
(like electric utilities). Those sources would then either reduce carbon emissions or buy or trade emission
allowances to achieve the required overall emissions reductions. Rather than directly raising taxes on Americans, cap-and-
trade raises the cost of living for everyone by raising energy costs and consumer prices for virtually
everything. The effect is the same as if they had had their taxes raised. When the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost of reducing carbon emissions by 15 percent below 2005
levels, it estimated a family's cost of living would increase by $1,600 a year. "To put that $1,600 carbon
tax in perspective, a typical family of four with earnings of $50,000 now pays an income tax of about
$3,000," Feldstein wrote recently in the Weekly Standard. "The tax imposed by the cap-and-trade system is therefore equivalent
to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent." That's $1,600 that families won't be able to spend
or invest in the economy. In addition to the tax increase, Americans would also feel the pinch because cap-and-trade
will hurt economic growth. The Heritage Foundation concluded that it would slow long-term growth by
almost $10 trillion over 26 years. And jobs would be lost. The Heritage Foundation's analysis found that
Arizona would lose thousands of jobs, over 30,000 in the first year alone. Proponents of the cap-and-trade
proposal argue that job losses will be offset by the creation of new, "green" jobs. But it's not certain those
jobs will materialize, let alone make up for the jobs that are lost. In Spain, whose government has invested
heavily in "green" jobs, two jobs are lost for every green job created, according to a Spanish economist. This year won't be the first
time that the Senate has considered cap-and-trade. In 2008, similar legislation went down to defeat, and this year's version will once again face opposition from Senate
Republicans and some moderate Democrats. If Americans communicate their opinions about this bill to their representatives in Congress, I am convinced it can be defeated
again.
Cap and trade prevents growth—businesses and families won’t be able to compete in
the global economy
Corsi, 6/17/09- Ph. D. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R., Staff reporter for WND, “G8 falls
flat on Carbon Ban”, Review Messenger, July 17th 2009,
http://www.reviewmessenger.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1997:g8-falls-
flat-on-carbon-ban&catid=19:guest-opinion)
In a bad sign for the Obama administration, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., blasted the cap-and-trade legislation, saying in a statement
that "I cannot support the bill in its present form." Byrd insisted that clean coal can be a "green energy." "Those of us who understand
coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure
access to affordable energy for West Virginians," Byrd said. "I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the
miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia." West Virginians may not be the only Americans that will suffer
economically if cap and trade passes the Senate. The truth is that government schemes designed to reduce carbon
emissions will inevitably place new taxes on middle-class Americans in the form of increased energy bills
and will cost jobs as those manufacturers who remain in the U.S. contemplate going to countries such as
China where carbon emission caps are unlikely to be taken seriously. Economist Peter Orszag, director of
the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration, testified before Congress on cap-and-
trade in 2008, when he was the director of the Congressional Budget Office in the Bush administration. From his testimony before
he joined the Obama administration, it was clear Orszag believed global climate change resulting from human
causes was a serious, perhaps even catastrophic problem. "Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse
gases, particularly CO2," he testified. "The accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates
throughout the world." Admitting that a cap-and-trade program amounts to a "carbon tax," Orszag argued that cap and trade was a "market-oriented" approach to reducing
carbon emissions" that would be more efficient in reducing carbon dioxide emissions than a "command-and-control" approach as typified in a system of government regulations
139

Climate Politics
Page 140 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
that would require across-the-board emission reductions by all firms. Orszag estimated a cap-and-trade emissions program could generate as much as $145 billion a year in
the cap-and-trade program would function as a tax corporations would
revenue for the federal government. Acknowledging that
most likely pass on to consumers in the form of higher prices, Orzag testified that "price increases would be essential
to the success of a cap-and trade program because they would be the most important mechanisms through which businesses and
households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions." The truth is that:
Cap-and-trade will increase gasoline prices and the cost of energy in the 25 states that get more than 50
percent of their electricity from coal. Businesses that emit carbon dioxide, including manufacturing
companies, will face yet one more cost of operations in paying cap-and-trade costs, at a time the
businesses are trying to compete in a global economy. Moreover, the imposition of what amounts to a
cap-and-trade tax may further depress the economy, at a time when families are struggling just to keep jobs, not lose
homes and pay monthly living expenses, including those involved in raising children. Proponents of cap-and-trade schemes
typically assume the economic costs of what they perceive as the "climate change catastrophe" produced by
man-made carbon dioxide emissions far outweigh the economic cost of the scheme itself. Red Alert
recommends we concern ourselves with the climate change catastrophe later, when the science behind
climate hysteria is more certain. In the meantime, Red Alert calls on the American people to make sure the Senate knows
that any senator voting for the Obama administration cap-and-trade legislation faces strong and determined opposition that will work
actively to defeat them in the next election cycle.
140

Climate Politics
Page 141 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Kills the economy- increases energy costs and destroys consumer spending
Hartman, 7/18/09 (Ed, Tidewaternewsdotcom, "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade", July 18th 2009,
http://www.tidewaternews.com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/)
I agree with Bob Edwards (“Reader disagrees with cap-and-trade talk,” Wednesday, July 15) that the cap-and-trade bill will
cost Americans jobs and further damage the economy. The authors of this onerous bill know that American workers
will be displaced and that it will cause energy costs to soar. On Page 1,157 this bill states that any worker who loses
his or her job as a result of the changes made by the bill will be eligible for special unemployment benefits for a period of up to 156
weeks. That is three years that our government will knowingly force Americans out of work. In an economy that’s losing many jobs a
month, how could anyone justify putting more people out of work? In addition, energy rates will drastically increase. In
January 2008, presidential candidate Obama admitted, “Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under this
program. In our faltering economy, I do not want to scramble for additional funds to cover outrageous electric or fuel bills. Yet, if
you fall within a socioeconomic level of no more than 150 percent of the poverty line, the government will be here to bail you out. On
Page 1,193, the “Energy Refund Program” will allot monthly cash payments to offset the additional burden of
energy costs caused by this bill. On Page 1,209 this bill references the Earned Income Tax Credit. The E.I.T.C. for an individual
with no dependents will double and include annual inflation adjustments. What does a so-called “energy bill” have to do with E.I.T.C.?
Nothing but pandering! Another interesting section is No. 443: “Protection of Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.” It allows the
administrators of Medicare and Social Security to access the general revenues of the U.S. government if it’s determined that the cap-
and-trade bill resulted in the reduction of revenues going into these two trust funds. Does Congress expect more damage to these
two programs by this bill? Where will the money come from for any of it? The Congressional Budget Office has estimated this bill
would cost each household $175 in 2020. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost will range from $426 in
2012 to $1,241 in 2035. This estimate seems reasonable in that every product on a store shelf will have a
carbon tax included to be passed on to the consumer. The cost of transporting goods to market will
drastically increase, too. This cost will be passed to the consumer.
141

Climate Politics
Page 142 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Ext. Can’t Solve Warming/Economy
Cap and Trade doesn’t solve warming or the economy – California’s attempt at
reducing emissions proves
McClintock, 7/9/09- US Congressman (Tom, R-CA, “Waxman-Markey Is Our Smoot-Hawley”, July 9th 2009,
http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/14249/54/lang,en/)
I had a strange sense of deja vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the House floor tonight, and I feel compelled to offer
this warning from the Left Coast. Three years ago, I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a
similar celebration over a similar bill, Assembly Bill 32. And I have spent the last three years watching as that
law has dangerously deepened California’s recession. It uses a different mechanism than cap and trade, but the
objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Until that bill took effect, California’s
unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But then, in January of
2007, California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures.
Today, California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point
since 1941. What is it that happened in January 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire
segments of California’s economy. Let me give you one example from my district. The city of Truckee, Calif., was about to
sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new, EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. AB 32 and
companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity
costs. So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill,
I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district, that’s not a future prediction, that is a historical
fact. Gov. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new, green jobs — exactly
the same promises we’re hearing from cap and trade supporters. In California, exactly the opposite has
happened. We have lost so many jobs the UC Santa Barbara economic forecast is now using the D-word —
depression — to discuss California’s job market. Madam Speaker, the cap and trade bill proposes what
amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other socalled
greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand what that means. It has profound implications for agriculture,
construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing — all of which
produce enormous quantities of this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being
produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day — just by breathing. So applying a tax to the economy
designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. And this
brings us to the fine point of it. When you discuss the folly of the Hoover administration — how it turned the
recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-
Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on more than 20,000 imported products. Waxman-Markey is our
generation’s Smoot-Hawley. In fact, it’s worse, because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger
number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. Let’s ignore for the moment the fact
that the planet’s climate is constantly changing and that long-term global warming has been going on since the last ice age. Let’s
ignore the fact that within recorded history we know of periods when the earth’s climate has been much warmer than it is today and
others when it has been much cooler. Let’s ignore the thousands of climate scientists and meteorologists who have concluded that
human-produced greenhouse gases are a negligible factor in global warming or climate change. Ignore all of that and still we are left
with one lousy sense of timing. In the most serious recession since the Great Depression — why would members of this House want
to repeat the same mistakes that produced that Great Depression? Watching how California has just wrecked its economy and
destroyed its finances, why would they want to do the same thing to our nation? Madam Speaker, this is deadly serious stuff. It
transcends ideology and politics. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover. If this
measure becomes law, two things are certain. First, our planet will continue to warm and cool as it has
been doing for billions of years. Second, Congress will have delivered a staggering blow to our nation’s
economy at precisely that moment when that economy was the most vulnerable.
142

Climate Politics
Page 143 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: C&T Solves Economy
Evidence that says cap and trade will help the economy is biased – the bill would
massively raise energy prices and decimate jobs
McClanahan, 7/4/09- Editor at Kansas City Star (E. Thomas, “Kill cap and trade before it kills growth”, Kansas City Star, July
4th 2009, http://www.kansascity.com/275/story/1306026.html)
Up to now, the usual rationale for a carbon cap is that, yes, it

What’s more interesting is the change in approach.
would involve economic pain, but we have to understand that the short-term costs would be far less than
the dire, long-term consequences of doing nothing about global warming. Now we’re told there won’t be
any economic pain at all. Obviously, the two arguments are contradictory. In fact, Obama’s latest tack is refuted by
statements he made earlier this year, when he remarked that under his cap-and-trade plan, “electricity rates would
necessarily skyrocket.” How do you end up with a vibrant economy and lots of net job creation by forcing
people to pay higher energy prices? Well, you don’t, and that’s why this measure is one of the biggest
threats to the U.S. economy ever to emerge on Capitol Hill. The legislation, which now goes to the Senate, would
impose an overall limit on emissions of greenhouse gases. Industries would then buy and sell permits to emit carbon. Over time, the
cap would become more restrictive, reducing CO2 emissions. The whole purpose of the bill is to force people to pay
more for energy. That won’t spur economic growth. It will retard it, by slowing the growth of consumer
spending, which makes up the greatest share of the gross domestic product. The result will be lower
output and fewer jobs. The notion that cap-and-trade will do little harm came from a recent Congressional
Budget Office analysis that pegged the bill’s annual cost in 2020 at a mere $175 for the average family.
(Lower-income households would get a rebate reducing their energy costs by $40.) The Heritage Foundation pointed out
that incredibly the CBO study failed to include in its calculations the overall effect on economic growth. The
bill would not only make energy prices go up, but — because energy costs raise production costs generally
— it would make the prices of almost everything else rise as well. Cap-and-trade would be a crippling, self-
inflicted wound. Not only that, it would be futile: Without the cooperation of rapidly industrializing
economies such as India and China — which say they have no intention of impeding their growth with
carbon caps — anything the United States does will have little effect on overall global emissions. Nor is it
likely to work as its authors intend. Like any commodity, the price of carbon permits will fluctuate, and those price
movements could be violent. That will add even more uncertainty to the business of energy production. In
Europe, the recession has caused the price of carbon permits to plummet, lowering permit costs and the
cost of using fossil fuels. That has undercut the competitiveness of solar, wind and other new technologies
aimed at boosting conservation. The House barely passed cap and trade — the vote was 219-212. The bill’s prospects in the
Senate, fortunately, are grim because the same political dynamic that worked in the House won’t apply in the Senate. As Jay Cost
points out at the Real Clear Politics site, the New York and California delegations provided 26 percent of the support for cap and trade
in the House. But in the Senate, those states together make up only 4 percent of the membership. Thanks to the Senate’s rules, the
measure will need at least 60 votes. If Republicans hang together and peel off a few Democrats, which seems
likely, they can stop the bill dead in its tracks. For the sake of the economy’s health, they had
better succeed.
143

Climate Politics
Page 144 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
AT: C&T Solves Economy – Green Jobs
Cap and trade kills the economy - our evidence assumes green job increases
Rosales, 7/16/09 (David, A Sure Foundation, “Climate Change Legislation Caps Poor, Not Emissions”,
EGP News, July 16th 2009, http://egpnews.com/?p=11346)
Small businesses in our community are

Members of my congregation are concerned about losing their jobs.
struggling to survive. Poor and single-parent families I counsel are stretching to make ends meet. Ironically at this
time of economic difficulty, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to reduce global warming emissions through a cap-
and-trade system. This legislation would cap the amount of carbon emissions permitted, which would decline over time. Firms
that reduce their emissions below the allowed amount would be able to trade their remaining credits to other companies.
President Barack Obama is calling on the Senate to act, and Senate leaders say a vote will come this fall. The President’s goal
is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. But thecap-and-trade
system will create huge job losses and negatively impact an already failing economy. A
report by the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that limiting emissions by the
projected amounts for 2050 will reduce U.S. gross domestic product by $269 billion with
850,000 job losses by 2014. Moreover, jobs in energy and manufacturing which will be lost will
be replaced with less paying renewable energy jobs. According to a study by the University
of Massachusetts, the average wage in “green energy” jobs is about 65 percent less than
regular energy jobs. And the jobs that will be lost because of cap and trade will likely go
overseas to countries that do not have emissions caps. Ironically, cap and trade is likely to
increase greenhouse gases, not reduce them. Since energy is the largest sector of the U.S.
economy, there is no doubt that imposing limits on energy will affect all other sectors of the
economy. As some Republicans and Democrats who oppose the bill rightly argue, consumers will end up paying “hidden
taxes” in other areas (like food, transportation, and housing). For example, an independent study by the
Heritage Foundation finds that every American family, on average, will have to pay about
$1,241 a year in additional energy costs as a result of cap-and-trade. That’s over $100 per
month, all for a possible decrease in global temperatures of less than one-tenth of one
degree by 2050. When the prices for daily commodities increase, it’s the poor who suffer the most. They are the ones
who will have the greatest difficulty making ends meet. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are more than 37 million
people living in poverty, with 24 percent of African-Americans and 21 percent of Hispanics falling in this category. Due to the
current economic recession, these numbers are likely to increase. Experts predict that more than nine million families will fall
into poverty. With the cost of living increasing due to taxes imposed from this pending legislation, low-income families will
have a hard time putting food on the table. Small business owners will also struggle to stay afloat.
144

Climate Politics
Page 145 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
2NC Trucking Industry Module
Cap and trade will jack the trucking industry- can’t absorb costs and allowances don’t
solve
Mullett, 6/19/2008 (C. Randall, Vice President, Government Affairs Con-way, Inc. Committee on House
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality)
This hardship surprises few in the industry. For most truckers, fuel has now surpassed labor as their largest operating expense. Over
the past five years, total industry consumption of diesel fuel has gone up 15 percent, while the price of
diesel has nearly tripled during the same time period. Trucking is a highly competitive industry with very low
profit margins. This explains why many trucking companies are reporting that higher fuel prices have greatly
suppressed profits, if they are making a profit at all. Our industry can not absorb rapid increases in fuel costs. That
is why the trucking industry is extremely sensitive to how climate change legislation may further escalate
fuel prices. Provisions to release more allowances to help mitigate fuel price spikes will not provide timely
relief to our industry. ATA urges Congress to carefully evaluate other approaches to evaluate and address fuel price impacts that
result from climate change legislation.
Trucking industry is key to the economy

Mullett, 6/19/2008 (C. Randall, Vice President, Government Affairs Con-way, Inc. Committee on House
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality)
With more than 750,000 interstate motor carriers in the United States, the trucking industry is the driving force behind
the nation's economy. Trucks haul nearly every consumer good at some point in the supply chain. Few Americans
realize that trucks deliver nearly 70 percent of all freight tonnage or that 80 percent of the nation's communities receive
their goods exclusively by truck. Even fewer are aware of the significant employment, personal income, and tax revenue
generated by the motor carrier industry. Nearly nine million people employed in the trucking industry move approximately 11 billion
tons of freight annually across the nation. Trucking generates approximately $646 billion in revenue and represents
roughly five percent of our nation's Gross Domestic Product. One out of every 13 people working in the private sector
in our country is employed in a trucking-related jobs ranging across the manufacturing, retail, public utility, construction, service,
transportation, mining, and agricultural sectors. Of those employed in private-sector trucking-related jobs, 3.5 million are commercial
drivers. The trucking industry is composed of both large national enterprises as well as a host of small
businesses, all of whom operate in extremely competitive business environments with narrow profit
margins. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, 96 percent of motor carriers have 20 or fewer trucks and are
characterized as being small businesses.
145

Climate Politics
Page 146 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Trucking Industry Brink
Trucking on the brink- margins thin
Mullett, 6/19/2008 (C. Randall, Vice President, Government Affairs Con-way, Inc. Committee on House Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality)
The trucking industry is concerned over what cap-and-trade legislation will do to the price of fuel we
consume. We are extremely sensitive to rapidly shifting operating costs given our thin operating
margins of between 2-4 percent. These margins continue to be chipped away given the numerous and unprecedented
costs being imposed upon the industry. For instance, new diesel engine emission standards imposed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 drove up engine costs on average of between $3,000 to $5,000 while decreasing fuel
economy between 6-8 percent. Additional EPA diesel engine emission standards in 2007 drove up the cost of engines
between $8,000 to $10,000 and, by many accounts, decreased fuel economy between 2-4%. Diesel
engine emission standards set to take effect in 2010 will substantially increase engine costs yet
again while fuel economy impacts still remain unknown at this time. Not only have equipment costs increased due to federal
requirements, but state regulatory mandates have substantially increased the financial burdens being
placed upon our industry. Beyond equipment costs, we have experienced record increases in insurance
premiums and, most critically, historical expenditures for fuel in the absence of any climate
change legislation being passed. I wish to further expand upon the critical role diesel fuel plays in our industry.
Even small increase in fuel prices could devastate trucking industry

The fuel of choice for the nation's long-haul trucks is diesel fuel. Diesel fuel provides greater fuel economy
and the higher energy content necessary to transport widely diversified loads under extreme operating conditions. Burning
diesel fuel is the main source of carbon emissions from our industry equating to 22.2 pounds of
CO2 per gallon of fuel. We use a tremendous amount of diesel fuel every year to keep our
economy moving and our industry is deeply concerned over what a cap-and-trade program may
do to further exacerbate fuel costs and our current fuel emergency. In 2006 alone trucking consumed over
39 billion gallons of diesel fuel. This means that a one-cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the
trucking industry an additional $391 million in fuel expenses. The average national price of diesel fuel this
week is now over $4.69 per gallon, which is $1.89 more than just one year ago.
146

Climate Politics
Page 147 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Ext. Trucking Key to Economy
Trucking collapse jacks the entire economy
The trucking industry opposes carbon emission caps being placed on the trucking sector as unworkable and impracticable given the
There are more than 750,000 interstate motor carriers
interstate and diverse nature of our business operations.
operating in the United States ranging from single truck operators to fleets with thousands of trucks. Keep in mind that
as the nation's population continues to grow, so does the corresponding demand for more
consumer goods. The demand for more products will in turn require more trucks to deliver such
goods which will result in more vehicle miles traveled and greater diesel fuel consumption. The table
below clearly shows these relationships. Approaches to dramatically reduce carbon emissions from line-haul
trucks will curtail the delivery of vital consumer goods across the nation such as food, medicine,
and clothing. Constraining the country's freight delivery system will do nothing short of shutting
down life as we know it.
147

Climate Politics
Page 148 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Bad – Competitiveness (1/2)
Cap and trade kills competitiveness- increases costs for businesses and encourages
offshoring
Vargus, 7/14/09- San Diego Economic Examiner (Mark, San Diego Examiner, "Cap-and-Trade is a job
killer", July 14th 2009, http://www.examiner.com/x-2988-San-Diego-Economy-
Examiner~y2009m7d14-CapandTrade-is-a-job-killer)
I've had a family member remind me that one study of the Cap-and-Trade bill that passed in the House of Representatives recently
claimed that the average family of four would see only a modest $300 per year increase in their energy bills. More than a few people
have used this as a sign that the bill will not impact the economy heavily. Sadly,
the damage from Cap-and-Trade is not
going to be from its direct impact. The bill in any form will quickly prove to be a job killer as the regulations
and costs it imposes on manufacturing and logistics drives businesses to move operations out of the
country. There are too many elements of this to list them all, but there are three that generate the largest push for
companies to move their operations. The first is the fact that as the cost of energy increases due to the effects
of Cap-and-Trade, the competitive advantage a nation such as China, which has refused to participate in any carbon reduction
treaties, has against US based manufacturers grows. This is obvious, but it’s not just the direct energy costs
that come into play. Energy availability also becomes a factor as companies planning large expansions of
factories must consider if the local power supply is sufficient. Right now Austin, Texas, which created a major program
to sell wind-derived electricity through the local utility company, has discovered that the inability of the wind-farms to ramp up
production to meet the growing need of customers has increased the cost of the green energy enough to make it uncompetitive in
the local market. This was noted in an article published at the statesman.com website, which noted: The reason is that GreenChoice
prices have risen more than fivefold since the program started. GreenChoice now would add about $58 a month to the electricity bill
of an average home. Businesses need to be able to control their costs and plan for profitability. The massive
disruption of the energy production market that Cap-and-Trade would cause is not going to be welcomed by companies needing cost
certainty. For many manufacturers moving operations to China or India, which will have no carbon controls
and therefore less expensive and more abundant energy is not a difficult choice. And this issue will have a higher
impact on any manufacturing that actually produces carbon on its own. One area the US once dominated is Steel. Part of
why some people call part of the Midwest the "Rust Belt' is the fact that the region used to have massive steel mills working round
the clock preparing raw steel for other factories to use. But such operations are power intensive and generate copious amounts of
"greenhouse gases". The industry in the US has already suffered greatly as lower labor costs in other nations
ravaged profit margins, but a few mills have managed to remain in business, often finding niche markets that
foreign mills aren't willing to enter. But
the increased cost from having to purchase carbon credits will drive the
price they must demand for the same products higher, and open the door for foreign competitors to jump
in with an alternative material or product. Once again, the US manufacturers will see foreign factories gain a competitive
advantage not because of better schools or training, but because of regulations they must obey while their competitors do not suffer
under the same restrictions. The final area where costs will rise is logistics. Transporting products to markets is
another energy intensive arena that businesses compete in. I've talked to more than a few semi drivers who make the
long hauls of goods and materials around this nation. Most admit that their rigs get less than 8 miles-per-gallon on a good day.
Moving goods is less expensive by train, but only a few locations are directly on or by the tracks on which
trains run, so most goods still have to travel the last legs of their journey by truck. However, if Cap-and-
Trade goes through and increases the cost of fuel for trains and trucks permanently, then that cost will
impact business decisions and pricing. Now, these three issues all mostly concern the costs that businesses will face, but
anyone who does not see the truth that businesses will react negatively to Cap-and-Trade is ignoring reality.
Businesses in the US are not run as non-profit organizations, and if any business failed to make major
changes to maintain its profitability once Cap-and-Trade goes into effect, the CEOs tenure can be
measured in days before the stockholders demand a new CEO be appointed who will protect their
investments. Production will shift overseas as rapidly as companies can find alternative sites
and prepare them for production. If a company already has a factory overseas and one in the
US, the US one will likely be closed or sold off as the cost of running it rises. The availability of goods
also will change. With costs of transport increasing, companies will be less willing to ship products long
distances unless prices can rise at the destinations. Areas near the coasts will likely seen only a limited
impact, but the interior of the nation will have to pay for the increased cost of moving goods to their cities
and towns. All of this will mean lost jobs. A factory closes due to increased energy costs and the workers
lose jobs. A store finds that it can no longer obtain goods at a low enough price to sell them at a profit, and
the workers there lose jobs. With consumer spending already dropping rapidly and unemployment rising,
148

Climate Politics
Page 149 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
there is no sign that any business will welcome Cap-and-Trade and even less possibility that companies will add jobs
after it goes into effect. It raises costs far too broadly to be avoided and with other nations making it clear that
they will not join in and kill their own economies, the penalties to the US markets for passing this will be
legion.
149

Climate Politics
Page 150 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Bad – Competitiveness (2/2)
Competitiveness key to hegemony
Khalilzad – 95
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S.
economy declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global
leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the
world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would
try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain
its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past,
developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively
affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did
not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and
If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its
the relative position of classes and nations.
institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen.
That solves nuclear wars everywhere

Thayer, 6 (Bradley, prof. of security studies at Missouri State, The National Interest, "In Defense of Primacy",
November/December, l/n)
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was
a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of
power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current
international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing
democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current
system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong
and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when
international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order
established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as
assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is
important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies,
American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the
world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction
among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany.
Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece
and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not
to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not
seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly
war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to
spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the
countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal
democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading
democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any
type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests.
Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve
things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as
well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread
democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's
critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one
gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on
America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought
democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held
in Iraq in January 2005 . It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy.
150

Climate Politics
Page 151 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even
the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon,
Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the
, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network
growth of the global economy. With its allies
characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital
and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global
public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States
created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order
forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as
well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster
the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the
economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India.
Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization,
which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it
provides.
151

Climate Politics
Page 152 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Ext. C&T Kills Competitiveness
Independent analysis finds cap and trade will destroy competitiveness – raises
business costs and forces outsourcing
Zeller, 7/19/09- Editor at New York Times (Tom Jr., Editor and writer for The New York Times covering alternative energy and
green business, “Peacocks and Passions in Senate Climate Debate”, July 19th 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/business/energy-environment/20iht-green20.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)
With the U.S. House of Representatives having narrowly approved a climate change bill late last month, attention has now moved to the Senate, which is busy debating just how
to craft a version of its own. Setting aside leaders like James M. Inhofe, the Republican senator from Oklahoma who has referred to global warming as “the greatest hoax ever
the chief concern surrounding any potential climate legislation in the United States
perpetrated on the American people,”
is this: How will it affect the ability of American industry to compete around the globe? It is a fair question,
particularly as rapidly industrializing nations — chiefly China — continue to resist the idea of implementing
their own emission caps. “The logic is not difficult to understand,” Mr. Inhofe said in a speech on the Senate floor as his
colleagues in the House were preparing to vote on their bill. “Carbon caps, according to reams of independent
analyses, will severely damage America’s global economic competitiveness, principally by raising the cost
of doing business here relative to other countries like China, where they have no mandatory carbon caps.”
Jobs and businesses, Mr. Inhofe said, “will move overseas.” Whether or not that logic is as airtight as Mr. Inhofe suggests is widely debated —
not least by a parade of witnesses now being called before various Senate committees and subcommittees to testify on the needs, merits and implications of climate policy
generally and a cap-and-trade system specifically. At times, the hearings have provided a sober accounting of the economic hazards posed by overzealous government meddling
in the marketplace, weighed against the potentially grave consequences of doing nothing. At other points, they have been a raucous display of political peacocking and sniping
With the prospect for a global climate treaty hinging, in no small
among witnesses and elected officials who appear far from consensus.
part, on the ability of the United States to find common ground on the issue at home, the stakes are
particularly high. Earlier this month, as my colleague Kate Galbraith reported at our Green Inc. blog, representatives of the cabinet of President Barack Obama sat
before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and urged passage of a meaningful bill to combat global warming. Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture, testified
that American farmers and ranchers could benefit from carbon offset provisions in cap-and-trade legislation, while Energy Secretary Steven Chu described climate change as an
a Foreign Relations subcommittee brought in several
“unprecedented threat to our way of life.” A day later, on July 8,
representatives of European industry on the premise that they have learned a thing or two about cap-and-
trade systems in the four years or so that the European Union has had one in place. After all, the European
carbon trading system — the world’s largest and oldest — has been racked by volatile and, more recently,
plummeting prices. In addition, its method of initially seeding the market with free emission permits
generated windfall profits for some companies — most in the utility sector — causing critics to dismiss the
system as fundamentally corrupt. To that point, Felix Matthes, the research coordinator for energy and climate policy at the Öko-Institut in Berlin, told the
Senate subcommittee that the E.U. system, now in its “third phase,” had been tweaked. Those industries least likely to be harmed by the increased cost of having to buy emission
permits at auction, Mr. Matthes explained, are now being required to do so, and free allocation of permits has been widely curtailed — “because there’s a huge potential for
perversion,” he said.
Implementation of cap and trade is a more serious threat to trade – tariffs would
immediately lead to a new round of protectionism
Feldstein, 6/27/09- Professor Of Economics At Harvard, Formerly Chairman Of President Ronald Reagan’s Council Of
Economic Advisors and President Of The National Bureau For Economic Research (Martin, “Martin Feldstein: Cap-and-trade =
protectionism?”, Business Standard, June 27th 2009, http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/martin-feldstein-cap-and-
trade-=-protectionism/362252/)
The cap-and-trade system imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax, raising the possibility
of serious risks to international trade. There is a serious danger that the international adoption of cap-and-
trade legislation to limit carbon-dioxide emissions will trigger a new round of protectionist measures. While
aimed at reducing long-term environmental damage, cap-and-trade policies could produce significant harmful
economic effects in the near term that would continue into the future. Scientific evidence appears to
indicate that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal, oil, and
natural gas) — mainly in electricity production, transportation, and various industrial processes — contributes to gradual global
warming, with long-term adverse effects on living conditions around the world. It is with this in mind that representatives
of more than 150 countries are scheduled to meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss ways to reduce
CO2 emissions. A common suggestion is to impose a tax on all CO2 emissions, which would be levied on companies that emit CO2 in production, or that sell products like gasoline that cause CO2 emissions when used. Such a tax would cause
electricity companies and industrial firms to adopt techniques that reduce their CO2 emissions, as long as the cost of doing so is less than the tax that they would otherwise have to pay. The higher cost of production incurred to reduce emissions — and of any
emissions tax still due — would, of course, be included in the price charged to consumers. Consumers would respond to the tax-induced increase in the cost of the emissions-intensive products by reducing their consumption of those goods and services in favour of
goods and services that create smaller amounts of CO2 emissions. A carbon tax causes each firm and household to respond to the same cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That uniform individual cost incentive allows total CO2 to be reduced at a lower total cost
than would be achieved by a variety of administrative requirements, such as automobile mileage standards, production technology standards (eg, minimum renewable fuel inputs in electricity generation), etc. Yet we do not see carbon taxes being adopted. Although
governments levy taxes on gasoline, they are reluctant to impose a general carbon tax because of public opposition to any form of taxation. Governments have therefore focused on a cap-and-trade system as a way of increasing the cost of CO2-intensive products
without explicitly imposing a tax. In a cap-and-trade system, the government sets total allowable national emissions of CO2 per year and requires any firm that causes CO2 emissions to have a permit per tonne of CO2 emitted. If the government sells these permits in
A
an auction, the price of the permit would be a cost to the firm in the same way as a carbon tax — and with the same resulting increases in consumer prices. The cap-and-trade system thus imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax.
cap-and-trade system can cause serious risks to international trade. Even if every country has a cap-and-
trade system and all aim at the same relative reduction in national CO2 emissions, the resulting permit
152

Climate Politics
Page 153 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
prices will differ because of national differences in initial CO2 levels and in domestic production
characteristics. Because the price of the CO2 permits in a country is reflected in the prices of its products,
the cap-and-trade system affects its international competitiveness. When the permit prices become large
enough to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions, there will be political pressure to introduce tariffs on
imports that offset the advantage of countries with low permit prices. Such offsetting tariffs would have to
differ among products (being higher on more CO2-intensive products) and among countries (being higher
for countries with low permit prices). Such a system of complex differential tariffs is just the kind of
protectionism that governments have been working to eliminate since the start of the GATT process more than 50 years ago. Worse
still, cap-and-trade systems in practice do not rely solely on auctions to distribute the emissions permits. The plan working its way through the United States Congress (the
Waxman-Markey bill) would initially give away 85 per cent of the permits, impose a complex set of regulatory policies, and allow companies to buy CO2 offsets (eg, by paying for
complexities make it impossible to compare the impact of
the planting of trees) instead of reducing their emissions or buying permits. Such
CO2 policies among countries, which in turn would invite those who want to protect domestic jobs to argue
for higher tariff levels.
153

Climate Politics
Page 154 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Bad – Free Trade
Cap and trades kills trade – higher costs and tariffs
The Foundry, 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”, The Foundry, July
21st 2009, http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-and-
trade/)
9.) It would disrupt free trade. When businesses are faced with the higher costs from an energy
tax through a carbon capping policy, they can certainly make production cuts. Another logical
solution is for these companies to move overseas where they can make more efficient use
of labor and capital. To counter this, the bill includes protectionist carbon tariffs to offset the
competitive disadvantage U.S. firms would face. China has already threatened retaliatory
protectionist policies. To mask the economic pain, the government awarded 15 percent of
the allowance allocations to energy-intensive manufacturers. Free allowances do not lower the costs of
Waxman-Markey; they just shift them around. Although the government awarded handouts to businesses, the carbon dioxide
reduction targets are still there, and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy and thereby inflicting more
economic pain.
Free trade solves extinction

Copley News Service, 99 (December 1, 1999)
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear
winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle
apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just
to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet
has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global
economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War
protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia
about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as
Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people
and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of
135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have
been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their
economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war.
That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to
the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity
increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes.
154

Climate Politics
Page 155 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
C&T Bad – Poverty
Cap and trade creates more poverty – it targets taxes and unemployment toward
already low-income individuals
Caruba, 7/17/09- Member of American Society of Journalists and Authors (Alan, Society of Professional Journalists, "Cap-and-
Trade Bill: Villainy On A Grand Scale", July 17th 2009, http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907175536/energy-and-
environment/cap-and-trade-bill-villainy-on-a-grand-scale.html)
The Waxman-Markey bill is villainy on a grand scale. It is no accident that President Obama and his
acolytes keep calling for "clean energy", "energy independence", and babbling endlessly about "green
jobs" as the real jobs of Americans are systematically destroyed. Upon taking office, Obama rescinded the executive
order to permit exploration of the nation's offshore continental shelf for the wealth of oil and natural gas it possesses. It is no
accident that his Secretary of the Interior unilaterally cancelled 77 oil and gas leases or that, on March 25, the House of
Representatives passed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 that adds two million more acres of wilderness to the 107
million acres already "protected" by the federal government. It is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil and 8.8 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas lie beneath these "protected" acres. The government owns 607 million acres of land in a nation founded on the belief in
the sanctity and power of private property, the keystone of capitalism. Even if the bill were to become law, it totally
ignores the fact that all the other nations of the Earth will continue to generate "greenhouse gases." The
United Nations Kyoto Protocol, intended to reduce these gases, purposefully exempted China, India, and all
undeveloped nations. Its limits are, by definition, meaningless. The Waxman-Markey bill will, by 2035,
reduce the aggregate domestic product (GDP) by an estimated $7.4 trillion. Our present annual GDP is about
$14 trillion. It is estimated to destroy 844,000 jobs on average with peak years seeing unemployment rise
by over 1,900,000 jobs. It will raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation. Prices for gasoline and
natural gas will rise by 74% and 55% respectively. This bill will impoverish Americans and destroy the
nation. Out of 307 million Americans, I seriously doubt that more than a relative handful know what Cap-and-Trade means or that it
is even being debated, but they, their children, and their grandchildren will, by the actions of this Congress, live in a very different,
very costly America. The Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House, by their actions, must hate
America. They pose the greatest threat to its future that has ever existed in our history.
155

Climate Politics
Page 156 of 156
7WJ – HPSW
Healthcare Kt Climate
Healthcare passage key to strong climate bill
Jenkins, 7/29/09 (Jesse, energy and climate policy analyst, advocate, currently the Director of Energy and
Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute, “DC Climate Bill Update,” http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/07/29/dc-
climate-bill-update-via-1sky/)
Though healthcare floor action has been pushed until after the August recess, climate champions are insisting they will hold a vote
this year. EPW Chairwoman Boxer and Agriculture Chairman Harkin (D-IA) have promised to stay on track with their committee pieces
of the bill, and Foreign Relations Chairman Kerry (D-MA) is denying that the healthcare calendar will have any effect on climate (E&E).
The White House is maintaining that both agenda items are the “valued children” of the Administration, and they will continue to
press Congress to pass both this year.
Wins beget wins. A win on healthcare helps raise the political capital necessary to pass
Bottom line:
a strong climate bill before Copenhagen.
156

Climate DA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate DA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Politics

Climate Good 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................................6

Climate Good 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................................8

2NC Impact Calc – Warming Quick...............................................................................................................................................................9

Uniqueness: Will Pass – Longer Version of 1NC Card.................................................................................................................................10

Uniqueness: Will Pass – Bro Card for 1NR..................................................................................................................................................12

Uniqueness: Will Pass – Committees .........................................................................................................................................................13

Uniqueness: Will Pass – House And G8......................................................................................................................................................14

Uniqueness: Will Pass – AT: Mccain............................................................................................................................................................15

Uniqueness: Will Pass – Vote Count...........................................................................................................................................................16

Uniqueness: Will Pass – Odds.....................................................................................................................................................................17

AT: Healthcare Prevents Climate Passage.................................................................................................................................................18

AT: Healthcare First....................................................................................................................................................................................19

Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Senate .............................................................................................................................................................20

Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Democrats .......................................................................................................................................................21

Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Healthcare First................................................................................................................................................22

Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Recession.........................................................................................................................................................24

Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – China ...............................................................................................................................................................25

Uniqueness: Nuclear Concessions =/= Passage........................................................................................................................................26

AT: Senate Will Use Reconciliation.............................................................................................................................................................27

Climate Bill Inevitable................................................................................................................................................................................28

Climate Bill Inevitable................................................................................................................................................................................29

I/L: Political Capital Key..............................................................................................................................................................................30

I/L: Bipartisanship Key................................................................................................................................................................................31

Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power........................................................................................................................................................32

Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power........................................................................................................................................................33

AT: Not Enough Loan Guarantees..............................................................................................................................................................34

AT: Obama Won’t Push Nuclear Power......................................................................................................................................................35

AT: Nuclear Power Still Too Expensive.......................................................................................................................................................36

AT: Loan Guarantees Now..........................................................................................................................................................................37

AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees.............................................................................................................................................................38

AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees.............................................................................................................................................................40

Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

AT: Nuclear Power Bad...............................................................................................................................................................................42

AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive................................................................................................................................................................43

AT: No Workforce/Manufacturing Capacity................................................................................................................................................44

Federal Government Key To Nuclear Leadership.......................................................................................................................................45

Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (1/2).......................................................................................................................................................46

Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (2/2).......................................................................................................................................................48

Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (1/2).................................................................................................................................................49

Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (2/2).................................................................................................................................................50

Nuclear Power Good—Poverty...................................................................................................................................................................51

Nuclear Power Good—Water Wars.............................................................................................................................................................52

AT: Nuclear Power Overuses Water...........................................................................................................................................................53

AT: Cap And Trade Not Kt Warming...........................................................................................................................................................54

AT: Wind Solves..........................................................................................................................................................................................56

AT: Solar Solves..........................................................................................................................................................................................57

AT: Stimulus Solves....................................................................................................................................................................................58

AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe.............................................................................................................................................59

AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe.............................................................................................................................................60

AT: State Cap And Trade Solves.................................................................................................................................................................61

Ext. C&T Solves Warming...........................................................................................................................................................................63

Ext. C&T Solves Warming...........................................................................................................................................................................64

Ext. C&T Solves Warming...........................................................................................................................................................................65

Cap And Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................67

Cap And Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................68

Cap And Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................69

Cap And Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................70

Cap and Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................71

China Key To Solve Warming.....................................................................................................................................................................72

AT: Current Emission Levels Too High.......................................................................................................................................................74

AT: Free Market Solves/Government Control Bad......................................................................................................................................76

AT: Carbon Leakage...................................................................................................................................................................................77

Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan