Tradeable Permits Aff Blocks- Wave 6.

0
**Case Debate**..............................................................................................................................................................................3
AT: Permits Hard to Administer.......................................................................................................................................................3
AT: Permits Hard to Administer.......................................................................................................................................................4
**DAs**..........................................................................................................................................................................................5
AT: Natural Gas (Notes)...................................................................................................................................................................5
AT: Natural Gas ...............................................................................................................................................................................6
AT: Natural Gas ...............................................................................................................................................................................7
AT: Natural Gas................................................................................................................................................................................8
Ext. Prices High Now.......................................................................................................................................................................9
**Elections**.................................................................................................................................................................................10
Obama Will Win ............................................................................................................................................................................10
Ext. Obama Win.............................................................................................................................................................................11
Mcain Will Win..............................................................................................................................................................................12
Ext. Mccain Win- Swing States.....................................................................................................................................................13
Ext. Gas Prices Key- Colorado......................................................................................................................................................14
Ext. Gas Prices Key- Florida..........................................................................................................................................................15
Ext. Gas Prices Key- Michigan......................................................................................................................................................16
Ext. Gas Prices Key- Michigan......................................................................................................................................................17
Ext. Gas Prices Key- Evangelicals.................................................................................................................................................18
**Politics**....................................................................................................................................................................................19
Political Capital Low......................................................................................................................................................................19
Political Capital High.....................................................................................................................................................................20
**Counterplans**..........................................................................................................................................................................21
AT: States CP..................................................................................................................................................................................21
AT: States CP..................................................................................................................................................................................22
AT: States CP..................................................................................................................................................................................23
AT: State Action = Fed Modeling...................................................................................................................................................24
AT: Executive Order CP.................................................................................................................................................................25
AT: Executive Order CP.................................................................................................................................................................26
Ext. Roll Back................................................................................................................................................................................27
**The K**......................................................................................................................................................................................28
State Good......................................................................................................................................................................................28
State Good......................................................................................................................................................................................29
AT: Externalization K.....................................................................................................................................................................30
AT: Externalization K.....................................................................................................................................................................31
Ext. No Alt Solvency......................................................................................................................................................................32
Ext. Individual Action Fails...........................................................................................................................................................33
Ext. Perm Solves............................................................................................................................................................................34
AT: Localism K..............................................................................................................................................................................35
AT: Localism K..............................................................................................................................................................................36
AT: Localism K..............................................................................................................................................................................37
Ext. Individual Action Fails...........................................................................................................................................................38
AT: Bio-power K............................................................................................................................................................................39
AT: Bio-Power K............................................................................................................................................................................40
**Updates**...................................................................................................................................................................................41
Oil Prices Up..................................................................................................................................................................................41
Oil Prices Down.............................................................................................................................................................................42
US Econ Up....................................................................................................................................................................................43
US Econ Down...............................................................................................................................................................................44

**Notes**
-Many of the perms on the K’s need for you to insert the specific’s of their alternative. For instance the perm to do the plan and
the alt in every other instance needs for you to insert what the alt does. If you’re confused… ask!
-All of the Localism Impact turns apply to Externalization and vice versa, insert accordingly

1
-There is a Notes page for AT: Natural Gas DA- Read them

2
 **Case Debate**

AT: Permits Hard to Administer

Cap-and-trade is easy to administer

Barnes 07 (Peter, founder of a solar energy company, president of Working Assets Long Distance, author of two books,
“Carbon Capping: A Citizen’s Guide”, Tomales Bay Institute, April. Date Accessed 7-27-08
http://www.capanddividend.org/files/CarbonCapping_CitizensGuide.pdf)

An upstream cap would be easy to administer because only a few hundred companies bring fossil fuels into the
U.S. During the course of a year these companies would have to own permits equal to the carbon content of their
fuels. Once a year they’d ‘true up’ and pay a penalty if they don’t own enough permits. All carbon would be
covered by the cap, and no smokestacks would need to be monitored.

A cap-and-trade system would be easy to implement

Platts 08 (Leading global provider of energy and metals information, McGraw-Hill Companies, “US
Cap-and-Trade System”, March 4. Date Accessed 7-27-08
0http://www.platts.com/Electric%20Power/Resources/News%20Features/captrade/index.xml)
A program to control carbon dioxide emissions through a cap with an emissions-allowance trading program that
includes a "safety valve" would be "significantly more efficient" than an inflexible annual cap on CO2, the
Congressional Budget Office said in a new study in February. A cap-and-trade program that includes a price ceiling
for emission allowances -- also known as a "safety valve" -- could be relatively easy to implement and link with
other GHG emission reduction programs set up by other developed countries, CBO said in the report, "Policy
Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions."

Permit Systems are flexible, easier to apply than a carbon tax

DeLong 08 (Brad, Economist, June 5, “Why Cap and Trade Beats a Carbon Tax”, Date Accessed 7-27-
08,http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/06/delong-smackd-1.html)

But, realistically, what would happen in such an event? Would Congress sit idly by as fuel-oil costs exceeded monthly
mortgage payments? Would they tell their constituents that, sorry, nothing they can do about $15-a-gallon gasoline
prices, we set our cap and now we have to stick with it? Of course not. They would tweak the cap-and-trade system
in one of any number of ways: they might allow companies to borrow emissions credits from future years, or they
might implement a "safety valve" allowing the government to auction off new emission credits at a certain price, or
they might simply raise the cap. Alternatively, of course, they could take the unexpected excess revenue from the
cap-and-trade auctions and start mailing large checks to everybody in the country, thereby helping to cancel out
the ill effects of higher energy prices. The one thing you can be pretty sure would not happen is that Congress would
happily take the cap-and-trade windfall revenue and use it to, say, pay down the national debt. Although even that
would have social value which would offset the negative social effects of higher energy prices. But what of the scenario
where emissions permits are auctioned off at a relatively low price, and then suddenly skyrocket in the secondary
market, giving no windfall to the government? Well, for one thing, the value of next year's permits has just gone up, so
the windfall will come. And for another thing, given that most people bought their emissions permits at a
relatively low price, and that it's only the marginal permits which are expensive, the effects on actual energy
prices would likely not be huge. In other words, as I've said many times in the past, cap-and-trade is flexible. Once
you've installed the mechanism, it can and will be tweaked over time. Changing tax rates, by contrast, is much
harder. Which is why cap-and-trade is superior to a carbon tax.

3
 AT: Permits Hard to Administer

Cap and trade programs easy to implement

Pew Center 08 (on Global Climate Change, “Cap and Trade 101”, Date Accessed 7-27-08”
http://www.pewclimate.org/cap-trade )

A variety of policy tools exist to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change, one of which is a
cap-and-trade system. Resources accessible on this page help explain what cap and trade is and how it works to address
the climate change challenge. A cap-and-trade program sets a clear limit on greenhouse gas emissions and
minimizes the costs of achieving this target. By creating a market, and a price, for emission reductions, cap and
trade offers an environmentally effective and economically efficient response to climate change. Ultimately, cap-
and-trade programs offer opportunities for the most cost-effective emissions reductions. Many challenging issues
must be addressed before initiating the program. Once established though, a well-designed cap-and-trade market is
relatively easy to implement, can achieve emissions reductions goals in a cost-effective manner, and drives low-
greenhouse gas innovation.

4
 **DAs**

AT: Natural Gas (Notes)

Written by the WHAM lab, this disad argues that:

• Renewable energy is not fully ready to power the US economy today, therefore:
• While we wait for solar power to be cheaper and more available, fossil fuel consumers (mostly utility
plants) will be forced to increase their use of natural gas – which is ready now.
• This will drive up the price of natural gas – for the obvious reason that demand will skyrocket.
Afterall, if everyone magically wanted your product, you’d charge more for it. This is especially true
since natural gas is a non-renewable resource (finite). As supply falls and demand grows, the price will
rise sharply.
• High natural gas prices are bad for two reasons – according to the neg:
• It hurts the economy – many folks depend on natural gas – rising prices would kill those
sectors
• It might spike global warming in the short-term (I do not think all WHAM teams say this, for
the record). This argument claims that because natural gas has a high methane content, and
b/c methane causes global warming, warming would increase in the short-term.

Our best answers:

• Natural gas prices have been outrageously skyrocketing for the last 12 months. Our cards are exceptional on
this. It is true that the price of natural gas in down a little since July 3rd. That said, price are wildly up over the
last 12 months – proving that a sharp rise in nat gas prices will not kill the econ. Hostory is on our side.
• Their link ignore that we boost innovation and efficiency, which will help the natural gas sector. This will
decrease prices by 20% according to our NRDC card in the frontline. That card cites the success of the
RGGI – where efficiency gains drove down prices.
• Renewable energy is pretty much ready to go – not that many utility companies will need to switch-over to
natural gas
• The US economy sucks now – rendering their terminal impact not unique
• We fix the US and global econ far better than the disad turns the US economy or global economy.
• Methane is bad for warming, but natural gas does not emit that much of it and the decrease in coal-oil
consumption of the plan far outweighs the turn of small increases in methane consumption.

5
 AT: Natural Gas
( ) Not unique and empirically false – Natural gas prices have skyrocketed without hurting the economy.

Perry 7-29 (Mark J. Perry is a professor of finance and economics at the University of Michigan. This was distributed by
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. Hartford Courant – google news)

Although natural gas is now the fuel of choice in electricity generation, its price has quadrupled in recent years and supplies are
extremely tight. Not too long ago, the expectation of rising imports of liquefied natural gas led many to conclude that more
abundant gas supplies and greater use of alternative fuels would end the long run of soaring gas costs.

But the pause in increased gas costs proved temporary. Natural gas prices are once again rising rapidly — 93 percent since last.
August. Major industries that require large amounts of gas for space heating and as a feedstock in making consumer products
are once again in crisis.

( ) prices high now – multiple factors

Greenwire ‘8 (July 24, 2008 – lexis)

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners decided yesterday to investigate the effects of speculation and
other factors on natural gas prices.

A NARUC working group will also weigh the need for federal legislation to permit "needed investigations" under a resolution approved at the association's summer
meeting in Portland, Ore. The resolution also urges the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to "ensure excessive
speculation is not distorting natural gas prices."

Residential gas prices are expected to jump almost 17 percent this year. The price at the Henry Hub is expected to average $11.86 per
million cubic feet, as compared to $7.17 per million cubic feet in 2007, the federal Energy Information Adminisitration said.

NARUC said 51 percent of U.S. households that use natural gas for heating will pay 40 percent more than last year, about $17.93 per million cubic feet, for the 2008-09
heating season.

This year's surge in natural gas prices has been eclipsed by soaring oil prices. Gasoline prices averaging more than $4 per gallon nationally have Congress focusing on
speculation in oil futures.

But it was distortions in the natural gas market and the implosion of the ex-hedge fund Amaranth Advisors LLC in 2006 that provided evidence that futures markets
might be affecting energy commodities.

NARUC said other factors that might be supporting the high prices for natural gas that should be examined include: the
hurricane season, lower-than-average storage levels, increased international prices, natural gas production rates and
rising demand for electricity.

( ) US economy shot now – housing, energy prices, and recession fears

Cappelli ‘8 (LOUIS CAPPELLI, CEO, STERLING BANCORP -- FD (Fair Disclosure) Wire -- July 24th –lexis)

As you know, the financial markets are slogging through tough, volatile conditions, marked by a slowing US economy,
mounting recession fears, unprecedented energy prices, and a meltdown in asset quality that has led to a seize-up of the
mortgage and credit markets.

6
 AT: Natural Gas
( )*** Link turn – efficiency

Cap-and-trade boosts efficiency, reducing natural gas prices by 20%

NRDC ‘7 (National Resources Defense Council – March 19th -- http://docs.nrdc.org/globalwarming/glo_07031901A.pdf

Electricity and natural gas.

An analysis conducted for the northeast states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI) indicates that increasing end-use efficiency is the most effective way to reduce the impact of a
carbon cap on electricity rates.17 Indeed, this analysis demonstrated that by using the proceeds of an allowance auction
to promote efficiency, the states could reduce power sector carbon dioxide emissions by 10% from current levels and at the
same time save average customers over $100 per year on their energy bills.18

A study by the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy demonstrated even more dramatic results in
the natural gas sector – increasing energy efficiency by 5% could reduce natural gas prices by 20%.19
Since natural gas-fired electricity generation is at the margin in many regions, increasing the efficiency of natural gas
use in non-electric applications will reduce the impact of a carbon cap on both gas prices and electricity
rates.

( ) Zero link – renewable ready now, no need for quick transition to natural gas.

Shallhorn ‘7 (Steve Shallhorn, Chief Executive Officer, Greenpeace Australia – December 13th --
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/opinion/patrick-moore-has-it-wrong-re)

Patrick Moore uses the climate change deniers and delayers favourite tactic: belittling renewable energy. But in reality the
renewable energy industry is leaving the nuclear industry in its wake. A report released in Bali over the weekend “Renewables
2007 Global Status Report’ shows that renewables are thriving. In 2007 global investment in renewable energy will top $100
billion US. Furthermore the renewable energy industry now employs over 2.5 million people globally.Timewise, renewable
energy and energy efficiency are also streets ahead. Last month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued
a dire warning of what would happen to the planet if we did not act to see emissions declining in the next eight years. Nuclear
power just can’t make it. Analysis undertaken by the World Energy council has shown the average construction time for
nuclear plants has increased from 66 months in the mid-70s to 116 months (or nearly ten years) between 1995 and 2000. And
MIT and other studies estimate that for nuclear power to have any effect on global warming, we would need to build a
minimum of 1,000 reactors worldwide. This is not possible in the next decade, particularly as the nuclear industry has lost most
of its engineers to the renewable energy sector. We don’t have time to wait, and there’s no reason to. Renewable energy is
ready now. A wind turbine takes 3 days to erect. The first offshore wind farm in the UK at North Hoyle in North Wales took
only eight months to build. And while solar and wind are variable, they are highly predictable. Meanwhile other renewable
energy technologies like solar thermal, tidal, geothermal and bioenergy are more reliable than coal-fired or nuclear power
stations, with none of the hazards.

( ) We control try-or-die on their terminal impact

That’s the entire 1AC economy argument.

Their econ impact isn’t time sensitive – meaning that the recession-induced wars we avoid in the future are just
as important they ones they say we trigger today.

7
 AT: Natural Gas
( ) Does not turn the case – natural gas is net decrease in warming relative to other options.

Gold ’89 (Thomas -- The writer is the former John L. Wetherill Professor of Astronomy at Cornell University. New York Times – Jan 30th --
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:vUHx2_m7WdsJ:query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html%3Fres%3D950DE4DD173BF933A05752C0A96F948260+natural+gas+%
22global+warming%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

Concern about the global effects of the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and the resulting global warming has
become widespread. What needs to be discussed further are the contributions that various possible energy sources would make.

In the same units, for a given amount of energy made available as heat (for heating houses, fueling automobiles, electricity
generation or industrial processing) the different fuels make the following carbon dioxide contributions to the atmosphere:

Taking natural gas (methane) as one unit, light oil and gasoline (average) will contribute 1.4 units, heavy fuel oil 1.5 units, coal
(average) 1.8 units. (Preparation and use of synthetic fuels would average 2 or above.) Nuclear and hydropower contribute no
carbon dioxide (although in construction and fuel preparation there may be processes that do).

Of the two fuels that are available in abundance - natural gas and coal - gas is superior in delivering almost twice the energy for
a given carbon dioxide burden, and in many applications where a higher burning efficiency can be used, the advantage is ever
greater.

The case on environmental grounds for using gas in preference to other fuels is clearly strong, stronger still if one includes the
environmental advantages of absence of other noxious effluents, and little environmental damage in production and
transportation. From a strategic and economic viewpoint, one might add that domestically available gas can greatly diminish
the dependence on imported oil.

8
 Ext. Prices High Now

( ) High natural gas prices are inevitable

Forbes 7-28 (2008 – google news)

Natural gas supplies to the U.S. are expected to increase 10.0% by 2010 and 17.0% by 2012, said Johong, causing prices to
increase as well. As natural gas prices go up, more people will buy it in the summer when it's cheaper and store it until winter
when the prices are much higher.

( ) Not unique – natural gas prices high now – supply already perceived as too scarce.

Baron’s 7-28 (2008 -- July 28th – google news)

DURING THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, natural-gas prices, on average, have been significantly higher than the cost of
marginal supply, thereby providing material excess returns to the industry. Higher prices and excess returns have been driven
by the perceived "scarcity" of natural gas and were needed to encourage supply/demand responses required to balance the
market.

( ) natural gas price high now – warm weather, and oil pricing.

RMN ‘8 (July 25th--

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1495016/energy_price_gap_closing_natural_gas_coal_approach_wind_solar/)

Runaway natural gas prices are to blame for steeply rising bills, said Xcel Energy spokesman Tom Henley.

Xcel uses gas to fuel its power plants, and passes on the cost of the fuel to customers, dollar for dollar.

"The supply of gas in the Rockies has tightened with the opening of the new Rockies Express pipeline,
while demand in the local market has increased
with warm weather that calls for more power generation," Henley said. "Gas storage levels are pretty far down."

Moreover, natural gas prices often move in tandem with crude oil prices, which are at record levels.

9
 **Elections**

Obama Will Win

(__) Obama Will Win

a) Polls

Economic times, 08 (“Majority of Americans believe Obama will win election: poll” 25 Jul, 2008,
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Majority_of_ Americans_believe_Obama_will_win_election_poll/articleshow/3278186.cms)

WASHINGTON: A majority of Americans believe that Democratic candidate Barack Obama will win the presidential
election against Republican hopeful John McCain in November, a Fox News poll showed on Thursday. While 51 per cent say Obama, who is vying to
become the first African American president, will win the election, only 27 per cent are betting on a McCain victory. Voters registered as
Democrats are more confident about their candidate's chances than their Republican peers: 71 per cent of Democrats see Obama winning on
November 4 while 51 per cent of Republicans believe McCain will win.

b) Public Proves

Economic times, 08 (“Majority of Americans believe Obama will win election: poll” 25 Jul, 2008,
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Majority_of_ Americans_believe_Obama_will_win_election_poll/articleshow/3278186.cms)

One in four Republicans think that Obama, a senator from Illinois, will
succeed US President George W. Bush. A month ago, 47 per cent
of Americans believed that Obama, 46, would win the election compared to 32 per cent for McCain, a 71-year-old
Arizona senator. Even though many Americans are predicting an Obama victory, the race remains tight. In a head-to-head matchup, Obama leads
McCain 41 to 40 per cent among registered voters, the poll showed. If Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and independent hopeful Ralph Nader are added, Obama leads McCain by 40
to 37 per cent. If Obama chooses former Democratic nomination rival Hillary Clinton as his running mate and McCain picks former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a former
Republican candidate, the Democratic ticket leads 48 to 39 per cent.

c) Electoral Count

Birmingham Weekly, 7/27/08 “Electoral College Scoreboard,”

http://www.bhamweekly.com/article.php?article_id=00895
Overall, Obama has “strong” leads in seven states and the District of Columbia, accounting for 119 electoral
votes. He is the “probable” winner in eight states with a total of 76 votes; and has six states “leaning” his way, for
an additional 69 votes. All told, that’s 264 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win, meaning Obama would need
to carry at most two of the 10 “tossup” states to win the election. Meanwhile, McCain has seven states in the
strong category (50 electoral votes), six states classified as probable (60 votes), and six leaning toward him (47 votes),
for a total of 157 electoral votes. Compared to two weeks ago, Obama’s electoral vote total from strong and probable states has slipped from 207 to 195, while
McCain’s total from those categories also dropped, from 125 to 110. This may suggest that many voters are only now beginning to compare the candidates side-by-side,
with the intensity of support for both undergoing a cooling-off that could last until the campaign enters the home stretch in September.

d) Recent Europe Trip

The Xinhua News Agency, byline Zhang Bihong, 7/26/08, “Obama’s visit to Europe aims to boost campaign,”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/27/content_8783525.htm
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wrapped up his three-day European tour Saturday after
meeting leaders of major U.S. allies and harvesting enormous popularity among the public of the three countries
he has traveled to. His high-profile visit to Germany, France and Britain was viewed by observers here as an
attempt to sharpen his diplomatic edge and boost election campaign against rival Republican presidential candidate

10
 John McCain. It was imperative for Obama to travel abroad to convince swing voters at home that he has the
ability to lead his country and its European allies.

Ext. Obama Win

Obama will win- Polls

AFT 7/24/08 (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUIVIUUbNo4fYVug2x1yHg5_agqQ)

WASHINGTON (AFP) — A majority of Americans believe that Democratic candidate Barack Obama will win the
presidential election against Republican hopeful John McCain in November, a Fox News poll showed Thursday.
While 51 percent say Obama, who is vying to become the first African American president, will win the election, only 27 percent are betting on a
McCain victory.
Voters registered as Democrats are more confident about their candidate's chances than their Republican
peers: 71 percent of Democrats see Obama winning on November 4 while 51 percent of Republicans believe McCain will win.

Obama ahead in electoral votes – but McCain could still catch him.
The Statesman, byline Scott Shepard, 7/24/08, “Zogby Poll says Obama holds Large Lead in the Latest Electoral
College Count,” http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-
blogs/washington/washington/entries/2008/07/24/zogy_poll_says.html#postcomment
Pollster John Zogby says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a substantial lead over Republican
John McCain in the Electoral College. Zogby’s latest Electoral College map of the United States has Obama with
273 electoral votes to 146 for McCain. In Zogby’s previous assessment of the Electoral College map, Obama also had
273 but McCain had 160. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. According to Zogby, 119
electoral votes are still too close to call. Said Zogby: “For the time being, Obama maintains the edge and has the
strength of a majority of electoral votes. His triumphant foreign trip allows him to continue to define this race.
But too many of these states are close and a sizeable number are undecided or choosing a third party candidate.
So there is a lot of fluidity.”

11
 Mcain Will Win

(__) McCain will win

a) swing states

The press Association, 08 (“Obama nine points ahead of McCain” 7/28/2008

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hw7k_AxwGXPQeYVkdyVQX3jRLkDA)
Another poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute showed McCain
had cut Obama's lead in the key battleground states of
Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, and overtaken Obama in voter support in Colorado. "It's been a good month for McCain. His
movement in these key states, not large except for Minnesota, jibes with the tightening we are seeing in the national polls," said
Peter Brown, the institute's assistant director. "The good news for McCain is that he has improved his standing in Colorado and
Michigan, two states that are critical to each man's strategy," Brown said. McCain led Obama by 46 per cent to 44 per cent in Colorado, the survey
conducted last week of some 1,400 people in the mountainous state showed. The margin of error was 2.6 per cent. In June, Obama led McCain by 49 per cent to 44 percent in
Colorado, traditionally a Republican state. In Michigan, Obama also saw a couple of percentage points shaved off his voter-support tally, which fell from 48 per cent in June to 46
in Minnesota, McCain surged ahead --
percent this month. McCain held steady at 42 per cent. The margin of error in that state's poll was 2.4 per cent. And
from 37 per cent in June to 44 percent -- while Obama fell back from 54 per cent to 46 percent, Quinnipiac said. Minnesota's
margin of error was 2.8 per cent. Another poll by the Pew Research Center found that two-thirds of Hispanic voters support Obama for the White House, while less than one quarter
back McCain. The findings marked a positive turn for Obama's fortunes with Latinos: he lost the Hispanic vote in the Democratic primaries to Clinton by nearly two-to-one, Pew
noted.

b) Colorado

Headline News, byline Kris Alingod, News Writer, 7/24/08, http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011715762

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has taken the lead in the Centennial State, according to Quinnipiac University's latest
statewide poll. McCain is ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), 46 percent to 44, a month after being down, 44 percent to 49 percent
in the previous survey. Three percent of voters declared their support for other candidates and 7 percent were undecided. The four-term Arizona senator
holds the support of whites, 51 percent to 41 percent, men, 55 percent to 37 percent, and seniors, 51 percent to 37 percent. He ties with Obama
among voters between 35-54 years old at 46 percent. Obama, meanwhile, has the edge among young voters, 51 percent to 43 percent, women, 50 percent to 39 percent, and
Hispanics, 57 percent to 29 percent

c) evangelicals

American Spectator, byline Joseph M. Knippenberg, 7/22/08, “Republicans and Religious Voters,” http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13561
MH
There you have it: currently John McCain enjoys a 36 point lead among white evangelicals, a 14 point lead among
white mainline Protestants, and a 6 point lead among Catholics. He has these leads in a bad Republican year, facing a charismatic and
extraordinarily well-funded opponent. And he has them without having to go out of his way to stress religious themes in his campaign, even as Senator Obama assiduously
Perhaps the aforementioned GOP analysts are right after all: Republicans won't have to
reaches out to various faith communities.
pay too high a political price if they deemphasize their ties to religious conservatives, and focus their message on
national security and economic issues.

d) Pennsylvania

McCain leads Obama in Pennsylvania which is a key swing state

Ross 7/14 (Elizabeth Ross, 7/14/08, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-ross/mccain-courts-
pennslyvani_b_112623.html)
John McCain's flippant remark in Pittsburgh about our exporting cigarettes to Iran is "a way of killin' 'em" may or may not have much shelf life beyond this week. Pittsburgh
didn't seem to make much of the comments. In a CBS affiliate interview the next day, they were brought up briefly, but only in the context of the press making issues of non-
issues. McCain moved beyond his "joke" and attempted to endear himself with Steeler Nation by pointing out that during his captivity in Vietnam, he told his jailers the names
of the Steeler Defensive linemen when he was being pressured to name his comrades. More interesting was McCain's plan for Pennsylvania come November. The Pittsburgh
region still relies a great deal on the coal industry, from steel to electric production and beyond.
McCain's energy plan includes the use of clean coal
technology currently being developed in the region and at nearby West Virginia University in Morgantown. In the
Democratic primary, Barack Obama did not fare well in the Western Pennsylvania, although that may be attributed to
issues other than coal. In the fall, a candidate with a platform based on promoting industries that are perceived as the

12
life's blood of the region would be difficult to defeat. Pennsylvania remains a must-win state, and Pittsburgh would be a must win
city for Obama given the conservative majority that lives i the state outside the urban centers.

Ext. Mccain Win- Swing States

(__) McCain winning in Colorado- winning all key stayes

McClatchy Washington Beurau, byline Steven Thomma, 7/25/08, “Obama wins the week but McCain’s
still in the race,” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/45643.html
The Arizona Republican went to the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, dominating local news
coverage and talking about gas prices, an issue mentioned in local coffee shops much more than Obama's trip. Polls
show Obama with an edge, but the contest still very close. In surveys of battleground states taken just before
Obama's trip and during its first days, Quinnipiac University found McCain gaining on him in Michigan,
Minnesota and Wisconsin and pulling narrowly ahead in Colorado. "The race is tightening," said Peter Brown,
assistant director of the Connecticut University's Polling Institute. "McCain's doing a little better because Obama's
post-primary bounce is wearing off."

(__) McCain gaining on Obama in critical swing states.

Fox News, 7/24/08, “Poll McCain Makes Gains in 4 Swing States,” http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/24/mccain-
makes-gains-in-4-swing-states/
A new poll shows John McCain made gains on Barack Obama in four key November battleground
states — Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin — giving McCain a slight edge in one state,
and chipping away at Obama’s lead in the others. The Quinnipiac University/Wall Street
Journal/WashingtonPost.com poll showed McCain tentatively ahead of Obama in Colorado by 2
percentage points, with McCain at 46 percentage points, and Obama at 44. One month ago, Obama held
49-44 percent lead. McCain’s biggest gain in the other three states was in Minnesota. In June, Obama
held a 17 percentage-point lead over his rival; this month, the split had dwindled to 46-44 in favor of
Obama

13
 Ext. Gas Prices Key- Colorado

( ) Gas prices are key to winning Colorado

WSJ ‘8 (By JOHN D. MCKINNON, ELIZABETH HOLMES and STEPHEN POWER, “Republicans Seek to Capitalize On
Drilling Support,” 28 July, date accessed 7/28/08,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121720971265788915.html?mod=googlenews_wsj.)

The Obama camp is seeking to cast Sen. McCain as the one who has failed to take action."Sen. McCain put it best when he
said that our energy problems are the result of 30 years of inaction in Washington," said Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman.
"Unfortunately, John McCain was there for 26 of those years and he repeatedly voted against increasing fuel-economy
standards and investing in renewable energy." The potency of the oil issue is apparent in some state races. In Colorado,
Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall has seen a 10-point lead over Republican Bob Schaffer disappear. Mr. Schaffer has
highlighted his support for increased domestic oil production and echoed President Bush's call to develop the state's oil shale.
"High gas prices have changed the political dynamics in Colorado," says Floyd Ciruli, a Denver-based political strategist.
Republicans "see public opinion is running in their direction."

14
 Ext. Gas Prices Key- Florida

( ) Gas prices are the # 1 issue for Florida voters

Sarasota Herald-Tribune ‘8 (Florida -- June 22, 2008 – lexis)

The poll underscored the electorate's unease over the economy, with one out of every four voters telling the
pollsters that they felt their family's financial situation was "falling behind."

Sixty-one percent of the voters said their family finances were "holding steady."

Democrats were more pessimistic about the economy than the Republicans, with 30 percent of the Democratic voters saying
they were falling behind as opposed to only 11 percent of the Republicans. Thirty percent of independent voters said they were
falling behind.

As for their biggest economic worries, the Florida voters -- after being prompted with a list -- said rising gas prices
were their biggest concern. Overall, 48 percent of the voters cited that worry, followed by 15 percent worried over high
health care costs and 13 percent worried about food prices.

Gasoline worries cut across party lines, with 53 percent of the Republicans citing it as their top
concern, followed by 43 percent of the Democrats and 51 percent of the independents.

( ) Gas prices are the top issue for Florida voters

Morning Edition ‘8 ( July 16, 2008 --http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92570061)

In the upcoming election, there's now clearly one major issue: the economy. A new poll shows that seven
out of 10 voters in two swing states — Florida and Ohio — say it's a top issue in deciding how they'll vote for
president.

To understand what aspects of the downturn are causing the most problems, NPR teamed with the Kaiser Family Foundation
and Harvard's School of Public Health to conduct a poll of people in those two states.

In Florida, half of those polled say they're struggling not just with one, but with multiple economic problems.

There's the collapse of the housing market and the decline in home values. Also, a credit crunch is making it hard for
consumers to borrow their way out of trouble. Then there's triple or quadruple whammy: spiraling fuel and food prices.

Multiple Economic Challenges

In the new poll, more than three-quarters of people in Florida said they were facing at least one serious
economic problem; half said they were struggling with three or more. The big ones? It's jobs, gas prices, housing and
health care.

15
 Ext. Gas Prices Key- Michigan

( ) Gas Prices are the top issue for Michigan Voters

Fed News ‘8 (US Fed News Service, quoting US Congressmember Tim Walberg, Including State News. Washington D.C. June 3, 2008. ProQuest.
http://proquest.umi.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu:2047/pqdweb?index=32&did=1489256471&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VNam
e=PQD&TS=1217186036&clientId=3552)

"The number one concern on the minds of most Michiganders right now is high gas prices," Walberg said.
"One gallon of regular, unleaded gas in January 2007 cost $2.33, and now prices are over $4 a gallon. Families, truckers, farmers, small business owners and emergency services are
demanding lower prices at the pump. Folks simply cannot continue to afford four dollars for regular gas and five dollars for diesel.
Michigan cannot afford the inaction of House leaders, who refuse to allow movement on a comprehensive energy plan." U.S. Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI) today issued the
following statement about high gas prices and the inaction of Congress to do much to bring down the price at the pump. Walberg is returning to Washington, D.C. this afternoon after
a week and half district work period.

( ) Unlike other voters, Michigan voters do not view alternative energy as a solution to high gas prices

Detroit News ‘8 (“Michigan voters seek practical energy solutions,” -- 7/24/08,

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080724/OPINION01/807240311/1008)

The refreshing common sense of Michigan voters on energy issues should not be lost on the politicians who will be
courting their votes this fall. Yes, Michigan voters want cleaner, alternative energy sources such as wind and solar --
95 percent say they support these options, according to this week's Detroit News/WXYZ Action News survey. But they also recognize that
oil remains an essential source of energy, and they think the United States should exploit its own oil and gas
reserves. Two-thirds support offshore drilling, 58 percent favor exploration in the Alaskan wilderness, 62 percent would provide incentives for oil companies to drill in the
United States and more than half would relax environmental limits on drilling. That message should be particularly encouraging to the presumed Republican presidential nominee,
Sen. John McCain, who recently moved off a no-drilling stance to support offshore exploration. Michigan is likely a must-win state for the Republican nominee this year. Sen. Barack
Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, continues to hold to an energy policy designed to appeal to hard-line
environmentalists, opposing opening domestic reserves in favor of a strategy that almost entirely emphasizes alternative energy. Michigan voters, according
to the poll, prefer a more balanced solution to the energy crisis.

( ) Economy is a more important issue for Michigan voters than the environment.

Detroit News ‘7 (December 20, 2007 – lexis)

While pollsin Michigan and nationally show that voters rank the environment far below Iraq, the economy
and health care as their top concerns, the Iraq war, sky-high gas prices and devastating weather like Hurricane Katrina
and wildfires out West have prompted voters -- and the presidential candidates -- to think of environmental issues more
broadly, as an integral part of the GOP standbys of national security and job creation

( ) Gas Prices are the top issue for Michigan voters

WXYZ ‘8 (WXYZ is the biggest News Station in Detroit – citing a joint poll with the Detroit News – July 23rd -- http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=e237fb5c-
bf22-4582-b6e7-6fd3daac77ea)

An exclusive new WXYZ-TV, Detroit News poll is showing that the economy is the top issue on the minds of voters this election year.
It also shows that the vast majority of people think things are on the wrong track both in the United States and Michigan.
In all 48% of people name the economy as the most important problem facing the nation today. That category also included both unemployment and
jobs. The next important issue is gasoline and energy prices, followed by the Iraq war.
But while most people say the economy is their top issue, the majority also say that their personal financial situation is either good or somewhere in the middle. However they also
think that overall the US economy is getting weaker.
With gas prices being such a concern, nearly 70% of people say the high prices have had either a major or significant impact on
their lives. With so many feeling the energy pinch, it's no surprise that people favor a variety of ideas to lower the cost. They have expressed support for everything from

16
offshore drilling and incentives for oil companies that drill in currently leased land to encouraging the development of wind and solar energy.

Ext. Gas Prices Key- Michigan

( ) Gas prices are the number issue for Michigan voters.

CNN ‘8 (Quoting EVEN TRACEY, CAMPAIGN MEDIA ANALYSIS GROUP and T.J. HOLMES, CO-HOST of CNN
Sunday Morning – January 18th – lexis)

most of the campaign commercials talk about the economy. It's the number
HOLMES: It's no surprise that
one issue now with voters across the country and he especially in Michigan, which is facing tough times.

TRACEY: All the campaigns right now are starting to be talking about economic issues like gas prices,
health care, jobs and even trade.

17
 Ext. Gas Prices Key- Evangelicals

( ) Gas prices are a key issue for evangelical communities

CSM ‘8 (Christian Science Monitor 7/14/08 -- Dante Chinni, “As economic distress deepens, McCain has toughest climb,” 07.14.2008, date accessed 7/28/08,
http://www.csmonitor.com/patchworknation/csmstaff/2008/0714/as-economic-distress-deepens-mccain-has-toughest-climb/ Christian science monitor)

No matter what people call the economic downturn – whether or not they use the r-word – there is no question that the situation is worsening for communities across America. And
Patchwork Nation’s second monthly
the bumpy road is going to affect the 2008 presidential campaign, likely damaging John McCain’s prospects.
Economic Hardship Index, a composite of key economic indicators, finds declining conditions in the
majority of the nation’s 3,141 counties. The hardship is acute on the West Coast and in the Mountain
West, where political observers expect a fierce fight this fall.The index crunches county-level figures for unemployment, foreclosures, and
gasoline prices to create a 1-to-100 score that shows relative economic stress by location. The numbers show a stark decline across all of Patchwork Nation’s 11 community types.
Counties hit hard are probable battlegrounds in the fall – places with high numbers of service workers (“Service Worker Centers”) and places
that are growing and diversifying (“Boom Towns”).Counties with a large population of Christian Evangelicals (“Evangelical
Epicenters”) have been rocked by climbing gasoline prices and foreclosures, pushing up their hardship
scores from 13.5 to 16.9.Overall, the average hardship score in Patchwork Nation’s community types for July is 14.9, compared with 13.4 in June. Four different
community types in July surpassed June’s highest hardship score of 15.2 in “Service Worker Centers.”That means that the 2008 election is likely to be even more about choosing a
president who will usher in “change” – which helps Barack Obama and hurts Senator McCain.

18
 **Politics**

Political Capital Low

(__) Political Capital Low

a) lame duck and human rights issues.

Senan Hogan, Staff Writer, 5-27-2008, The Mirror, “Bush is a lame duck president,” , Lexis.
George is a "lame duck" leader on human rights issues, a conference heard yesterday. Nobel Peace Prize winner
Jody Williams also said she hoped Mr Bush's successor in the White House would back agreements banning
indiscriminate munitions. More than 100 countries attending the Dublin Diplomatic Conference aim to sign a treaty
outlawing cluster bombs on Friday, after two weeks of negotiations. Ms Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in
1997 for campaigning against mines, said it was disappointing the US was not at the summit. She added: "We
should not be thinking about the Administration on its way out. We should be thinking about the Administration
that will be coming in. "Mr Bush is a lame duck." US Senator Patrick Leahy also criticised Mr Bush for
diminishing the country's leadership in the eyes of the world.

b) Iraq and Dem controlled Congress

Paul Harris, Staff Writer, 5-11-08, The Observer, “Lame-duck Bush back in the limelight,” , Lexis.
For Bush, who is fast becoming the forgotten man of America's political landscape, it has been a rare moment back in
the spotlight. The fact is that for months Bush has been largely irrelevant in American politics. 'He is an
extremely lame duck. Nothing he does is really worthy of any attention at this moment,' said Professor Shaun Bowler,
a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside. 'It seems like he is just counting down the clock.' The
term 'lame duck' is always given to two-term American Presidents in their final year of office. As the political scene
shifts to their inevitable successor, it becomes difficult for any President to have a meaningful impact. Simply put:
everyone waits for the new man (or woman) to take power. But for Bush the problem has become particularly acute.
He began his second term with a radical domestic agenda to change social security and reform taxes. That was defeated,
and then the Democrats won control of Congress, meaning they could stymie any fresh legislation Bush puts forward.
At the same time, Bush's main legacy is the disastrous war in Iraq. That has seen his popularity ratings plunge to
historic lows, further reducing his waning political influence. 'He is one of the least popular Presidents we have
ever had. Even if he had an agenda now, he would not be able to enact it,' said Professor Seth Masket of Denver
University.

c) Hurricane Katrina response.

Paul Harris, Staff Writer, 5-11-08, The Observer, “Lame-duck Bush back in the limelight,, Lexis.
The result has been a surreal situation for much of the past year. Though he remains the most powerful man on Earth
and will continue to occupy the Oval Office until January 2009, Bush has been reduced to a marginal figure. In
recent weeks his most high-profile appearance was on the TV game show Deal or No Deal . Yet ratings for the episode
slumped. That prompted the New York Post tabloid to crow in a headline: 'Bush cameo sinks game show'. Bush's toxic
popularity ratings mean that he has played almost no role in the Republican election campaign so far. Though the
Democrats continually link Bush with the Republican nominee John McCain, McCain has tried to distance himself
from his own President. Indeed McCain recently launched a blistering attack on Bush's 'disgraceful' handling of
the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

d) Middle East proves.

Paul Harris, Staff Writer, 5-11-08, The Observer, “Lame-duck Bush back in the limelight,”, Lexis.
Bush will visit the region this week on a lengthy trip for him - from Tuesday until Sunday. During that time he will
meet Israeli, Palestinian and Egyptian leaders. However, few experts hold out real prospects of something concrete
emerging from the trip. Apart from the usual problems of solving a decades-old intractable dispute, Bush is a lame
duck in the Middle East, too. 'The problem is that in the Middle East no one sees him as an honest broker after
Iraq. So they, too, are waiting for the next President to take office,' said Masket.

19
 Political Capital High
(__) Political Capital High

a) cooperation with Congress on passing legislation

Aaron Blake, Staff Writer, 7-26-08, The Hill, “Bush Praises Cooperation on AIDS Bill,”.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-praises-cooperation-on-aids-bill-2008-07-26.html
President Bush said Saturday that he will sign Congress’s bill to expand a program to fight AIDS in the developing
world, praising Republicans and Democrats for working with him to pass the legislation. Bush said in his weekly
radio address that he would sign the bill, which would build on the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, next
week. In a highly partisan time for foreign policy in Washington, Bush’s work on the AIDS epidemic has won
praise from even some of his detractors. He said the program has expanded the number of people receiving
antiretroviral treatment in sub-Saharan Africa from 50,000 to 1.7 million over the past five and half years. “We will
expand access to lifesaving antiretroviral drugs. We will help prevent millions of new HIV infections from occurring.
And we will also bolster our efforts to help developing nations combat other devastating diseases like malaria and
tuberculosis,” Bush said.

b) Republicans and many Americans prove.

David Jackson, Staff Writer, 7-2-2008, USA TODAY, “Bush still a popular fundraiser,” Lexis.
Despite lower approval ratings in his waning months in the White House, President Bush continues to be a popular
draw for Republican candidates. On Tuesday, he made his 30th and 31st fundraising appearances of the year, though
his total take has dipped for this election. Bush has raised at least $134 million in the 2007-08 election cycle,
according to figures from the Republican National Committee (RNC). He'll need to raise about $60 million more to
match his take for the 2006 congressional elections, and he's far off the record he set in 2004 for his re-election bid.
Republicans say they're grateful for Bush's efforts. "President Bush has been very generous with his time," RNC
spokesman Alex Conant said. "He remains a strong fundraiser and popular with a lot of Americans."

c) Sustained Influence

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Staff Writer, 6-30-07, New York Times, “For President Bush, a Reversal of Fortune
on His Political Capital,”. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/washington/30bush.html
Even weakened presidents retain tremendous influence; if nothing else, the conservative tenor of many of the
Supreme Court’s decisions in the last week is a reminder of the ways in which Mr. Bush’s legacy will continue to shape
politics and policy for a long time. As the president demonstrated in clashes with Congress over war spending and
stem cell research, he still has enough Republican support to sustain a veto. And administration officials said Mr.
Bush had no intention of writing off the next year and a half.

d) The defeat of the immigration bill

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Staff Writer, 6-30-07, New York Times, “For President Bush, a Reversal of Fortune
on His Political Capital,”. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/washington/30bush.html
In a sense, the defeat of the immigration bill could give Mr. Bush a lift by taking off the agenda an issue that has
sapped his strength within his base. It is an axiom of politics that a loss is never a victory. But conservatives were so
up in arms about the immigration bill, which they regarded as amnesty, that some say it is better for Mr. Bush that
it failed. “The president’s intentions were good, the heart was in the right place, the legislation was bad,” said
Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina. “If this had passed, America would have lost all confidence in the
Congress and the president. I think this is going to give us a fresh start.”

20
 **Counterplans**

AT: States CP

(Note: select the right perms – a lot depends upon how they word they’re text)
(Consider Straight turning the Cplan in certain spots – can read Dispo Bad)

( ) perm – do both

( ) perm – do the plan on the federal level and do the cplan on the State level.

( ) 50-state fiat is voter

a) Fiating uniformity decreases education – it’s not real world and robs-us of patchwork arguments – the central question
in the literature.

b) Crushes fairness – Aff could always re-create the Federal government on a sub-national level and run politics. We
could never win.

( ) Dispo/Conditionality is bad

(insert)

( ) Cplan can’t solve Bali

a) Independent state action on climate collapses U.S. global leadership on the issue

Maxwell ‘7 (Katie Maxwell is a 2007 graduate of the Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University and a
2004 graduate of Columbia University, Barnard College, Penn State Environmental Law Review, Winter 2007,
p. 368-9)
Not having enacted any legislation about the emissions of CO2, does not mean that the United States has failed to take a stance on the issue.
Oftentimes, inaction is more signaling then actual action, and just like in Virginia v. Tennessee can be very telling of Congress' intent. By
refusing to act on CO2 emissions the federal government has laid out a federal climate change policy, that shows it is opposed to regulating
CO2 emissions
There are many plausible reasons why Congress and Bush administration may not want a national program similar to RGGI, and it is just as
easy to argue that Republicans are being manipulated by energy lobbyists as it is to say that RGGI-like agreements are bad policy as they
encourage other forms of energy that may cause other environmental harms that are arguably worse than an increase in CO2 emissions.
Regardless of whether states agree with the policy plan, they should be bound by federal policy. Furthermore, by publicly speaking out
against federal policy, the RGGI states are undermining the official policy of the Congress and the President. The United States is losing
international clout on the issue of global warming, by the mere fact that it can not control its own states
(Note: RGGI = Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative)

b) The impact is global solvency

Extend our Diringer card – which is specific to Bali and the importance of US leadership

21
 AT: States CP

( ) Solvency deficit – international permit linkages

a) They’re key to solving and states won’t be effective at setting them up.

Wiener ‘7 (Jonathan -- Perkins Professor of Law and Professor of Environmental Policy & Public Policy Studies, Duke University and
former semifinalist at the NDT – University of Pennsylvania Law Review --
http://eprints.law.duke.edu/1623/1/155_U._Penn._L._Rev._101_(2007).pdf)
As I have argued at length elsewhere,52 a system of international emissions allowance trading offers the best method to engage
participation in a climate regime (global or plurilateral), while limiting the distortionary inefficiencies of the necessary transnational side
payments by embedding those side payments in the allocation of allowances. 53 This will not be easy, but it is the best option for reaching a
mutually attractive bargain with the major players. It would unleash the power of competitive markets to mobilize innovation and encourage
the international diffusion of lower-emitting technologies. It would not be inexpensive, but it would be less costly than letting climate change
continue unabated, or using direct government-to-government aid as a side payment, or imposing international carbon taxes (with some other
method of transnational side payment), or spending government funds on pure technology research.
Subnational state-level actions may teach us some valuable lessons, but they are not the ideal solution to the global problem. Does that imply
—in a world without U.S. national action, where climate change is an important risk warranting preventive measures—that the U.S. states
should therefore do nothing? That is a hard case to make; but it also is hard to make the case that state-level action will accomplish much net
benefit. At the very least, the states taking initial action, such as California and RGGI, need to reduce leakage, increase their coverage of
emissions, and broaden their allowance trading markets by engaging other states, the U.S. federal government, and other countries in as broad
a national and international regime as possible. But this ambition may be constrained by the legal obstacles to state-level action identified
above, and by the states’ desire to experiment with differing policy designs and to foster a patchwork of policies that motivate federal action.
Subnational state-level action may thus be thwarted by its limited reach, legal obstacles, internal costs, external leakage, and conflicting
objectives. To solve a global externality, it will take global thinking and global action.
b) Specifically, States can’t overcome the Treaty Clause

Wiener ‘7 (Jonathan -- Perkins Professor of Law and Professor of Environmental Policy & Public Policy Studies, Duke University and
former semifinalist at the NDT – University of Pennsylvania Law Review --
http://eprints.law.duke.edu/1623/1/155_U._Penn._L._Rev._101_(2007).pdf)
Meanwhile, state regulation of GHG emissions may face a variety of legal obstacles, including challenges (i)
under the Dormant Commerce Clause, especially if states attempt to regulate or tax emissions embedded in products (such as goods, services,
and electricity) imported into the state from other states; (ii) under the Dormant Treaty Clause or more generally for
interference with the foreign affairs power of the federal government, especially where U.S. states purport
to enter into agreements with foreign countries such as Great Britain or the European Union;15 (iii) under theories of
preemption by federal statutes such as the Clean Air Act; and (iv) under the Interstate Compacts Clause, in the cases of RGGI, western states,
or other cooperative multistate programs.16
c) Fiat doesn’t solve this

The cplan allows States to set-up permit trading – it doesn’t give them the right to negotiate with China, and it certainly
doesn’t make them effective at such negotiations.

22
 AT: States CP

( ) Even if initially uniform, a state-lead permit regime would always scare businesses and would solve worse because federal permits
create a far larger market for innovation
Litz ‘8 (Franz T. Litz, Esq. Senior Fellow -- WORLD RESOURCE INSTITUTE -- TOWARD A CONSTRUCTIVE
DIALOGUE ON FEDERAL AND STATE ROLES IN U.S.CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY – June --
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/StateFedRoles.pdf.)
The greater reliance on federal control in all areas would maximize the uniformity of policies across all states, and
create a
predictable business environment. For those programs that are most effectively implemented on a national level—like a
cap-and-trade program—the overall cost of the programs will be minimized, allowing for more significant
reductions overall. A few potential policies are outlined below before a discussion of the benefits and challenges of the Heavy Federal
Role Approach.
National Cap-and-Trade Program. In general, a
cap-and-trade program presents the classic example of a policy
measure that is more effectively deployed at a national level than at the state or regional level. This is true
because the more sources covered by a cap, the greater the possibility for inexpensive reductions
across the system as a whole, and in turn, the greater the overall reduction practically achievable. Larger
cap-and- trade programs also send more robust market signals to investors who seek larger markets for
new technologies to address GHG emissions. A federal program also tends to level the playing field for sources as compared
to state or regional emissions trading regimes.

( ) 2 implications
a) They don’t solve our Economy Advantage – which is implicated throughout advantage two.

b) They don’t solve Warming – Stavins implicates our innovation argument

*** optional ***

( ) Cplan doesn’t solve modeling – The States already act on climate, but international action won’t happen until Bush changes
course.
Deutsch ‘8 (Klaus Deutsch is an economist at Deutsche Bank Research -- Cap and Trade in America – May 5th --
http://www.dbresearch.de/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000224857.pdf.)
On the diplomatic side, the Bush Administration had a difficult time with the Europeans in particular. President Bush has been
staunchly opposed to a major carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system for GHGs from the beginning. In 2001, he rejected the Kyoto
approach to climate change in particular and announced a withdrawal of the US from its commitment to reduce US GHG emissions by 7% in the period 2008-2012 as compared to
1990. In 2006, President Bush launched the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea instead. A number of
bilateral partnerships with other countries are also of importance. Moreover, some significant cap-and-trade action occurred in 2007 under the Montreal protocol for hydrochloro
fluorocarbons (HCFCs). In global climate diplomacy, the US gradually changed course only during 2007 and in the face of major international pressure both in the G8 and the UN
frameworks. At the G8 summit at Heiligendamm on June 7, 2007, Bush conceded the US would fully participate in the UN process to formulate by 2009 a binding agreement to
follow on from the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012 and agreed to the phrase: “In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed-together with all
major emitters-to consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050”. However, the White
House made clear afterwards that the US would not consider such a strong reduction feasible.
After the Heiligendamm summit, President Bush invited govern- ments of major emitting countries to two “Major Economies Meetings” designed to encourage those governments to
commit themselves to more stringent GHG mitigation policies. 19 A third was held in Paris April 17-18. The US even accepted the Bali com- promise of the 13th Conference of the
Parties to the UNFCCC which entails a commitment on the part of the industrial countries to reduce emissions until 2020 in accordance with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) recommendations 20 , even though President Bush publicly stated afterwards that the approach would yield risks for the US economy. However, he also stated that
the US prefers sealing an agreement at the 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen, Denmark in December, 2009.
Criticism. This mix of federal policies scattered across dozens of programmes mostly of an energy-policy nature on the one hand and
misgivings about climate diplomacy on the other did not fully reflect governance desires and policy objectives on
climate change as proposed by the states, communities and environmental NGOs in the US. In fact, as Schreurs and others
have noted, federal environmental policy lost its national and international leadership roles of the 1970s and 1980s
roughly by 1990 after the signing of the Montreal Protocol because domestic political conflict prevented comprehensive
action both at home and in diplomacy. President Bush’s climate policy has elicited much criticism of a lack of ambition.
The current political situation is, however, ambiguous as Congress has shifted gear again and has tackled
climate change in a comprehensive draft bill at Committee level so far. If legislation were to come about, domestic
federal leadership would be resurrected and international action would probably follow suit as well.

23
 AT: State Action = Fed Modeling

( ) State Action does not cause Federal modeling in this context – 3 reasons:

a) Empirically false – 10 Northeastern States and California have had had permits for years. Feds have not modeled.

b) Our 1AC inherency defeats this – Federal modeling will be difficult and slow. Extend Brownstein and Holloway.

c) Prefer our ev – it’s more specific to cap-and-trade and the current politics than their geernal ev.

24
 AT: Executive Order CP

1. Perm do both

2. Perm do the CP- Its legit, we don’t specify which branch of the federal government we use, the
president can enact a cap and trade system.

3. Agent Counter Plans bad

a) Steals Aff Ground – Resolution says we should defend the USFG, executive branch is included in that,
CP steals that portion of the Aff. Its not predictable since its resolutionally based.

b) Decreases topic specific education- ignores the core of the topic- forces us to debate USFG not plan
mechanisms or alternative energy. We can also get that education from the politics DA.

c) Lit doesn’t check/no solvency advocate- No literature which advocates that the President should enact
an executive order to do the plan. Doesn’t cut both ways- we have a solvency advocate- that’s stavins.

d) it’s a voter for fairness education and abuse.

4. Obama will roll back the Presidents’ Executive Orders

Digby 08, [“Obama Would Overturn Unconstitutional Executive Orders,” http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/86818/]

Obama said one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the

If elected president, Democratic White House hopeful Barack
constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.
Those that don’t pass muster will be overturned, he said.
During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama — a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School — was asked what he hoped to
accomplish during his first 100 days in office.
“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and
overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama
Obviously, he can't actually overturn laws, but he certainly can overturn executive orders, so this is good news. If we can get him to
promise to make all this stuff public it would be even better news. I have no doubt that we will see a much more transparent and open administration. But part
of the new transparency must be telling the public what was done in their name.

5. Prez Powers turn

a) Executive Orders increase Presidential Powers- the impact is tyranny and loss of Democracy
Kissinger 92, Henry, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, 3/21/08, [“Executive Tyranny,” http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/exec_tyranny.htm /]

With the unearthing of old and newly improved executive orders recently we come to realise that this has
been an ideological strategy that was designed long before the present U.S. administration. We are seeing
the death throes of the US constitution and any semblance of democracy that may have initially existed
with the founding fathers. It seems inevitable that the U.S. will become the epitome of a totalitarian rule
with a further mandate to build on its already established cultural "McDonaldization" and geopolitical
destruction of the planet. The above words from Kissinger giving a speech at the 1992 Bilderberg meeting in Evian, France, was recorded by a Swiss delegate, no
doubt much to the chagrin of this "elder statesman", who was unaware of the taping. The barely disguised contempt for humanity is only too familiar within the ranks of the "Elite",
and this man is particularly active at the moment. No doubt he is seeing the beginnings of a Faustian pay-off for services rendered. I dread to think what misanthropic propaganda he
is peddling behind the closed doors of conferences and special "interest groups" in 2003.

25
 AT: Executive Order CP

B) Tyranny and lack of democracy leads to worldwide war

Doyle 04, Michael W, 22 June 2004, [“Liberal Internationalism: Peace, War and Democracy,” http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/doyle/index.html /
Peace and democracy are just two sides of the same coin, it has often been said. In a speech before the British parliament in June of 1982,
President Ronald Reagan proclaimed that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise "restraint" and "peaceful intentions" in their foreign policy. He then,
perhaps unaware of the contrast, announced a "crusade for freedom" and a "campaign for democratic development."2 In making these claims the President joined a long list of liberal
: the aggressive instincts of authoritarian leaders and totalitarian ruling
theorists (and propagandists) and echoed an old argument
parties make for war. Liberal states, founded on such individual rights as equality before the law, free
speech and other civil liberties, private property, and elected representation are fundamentally against war,
this argument asserts. When citizens who bear the burdens of war elect their governments, wars become impossible. Furthermore, citizens appreciate that the benefits of trade can be
the very existence of liberal states, such as the United States, the European
enjoyed only under conditions of peace. Thus,
Union and others, makes for peace. And so peace and democracy are two sides of the same coin.

6. Links to the Net benefits- Bush would get credit- its His executive order.

26
 Ext. Roll Back

(__) Next president can roll back the Executive Order

COOPER 1997 [Phil, prof of political science @ University of Vermont, ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIETY, November]

Even if they serve temporary goals, executive orders can produce a significant amount of complexity and
conflict and not yield a long-term benefit because the next president may dispose of predecessors’ orders
at a whim. It may be easier than moving a statute through Congress and faster than waiting for agencies
to use their rule-making processes to accomplish policy ends, but executive orders may ultimately be a
much weaker foundation on which to build a policy than the alternatives.

27
 **The K**

State Good
*This card is generally helpful against k’s which reject the State*

(__) STATE POWER IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE EVIL – IT CAN BE USED TO HEDGE AGAINST
HARMFUL EFFECTS OF CAPITALISM AND TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

ECKERSLEY 2004 [Robyn, professor in School of Politics, Sociology, and Criminology @ Univ. of Melbourne, THE GREEN STATE: RETHINKING
DEMOCRACY AND SOVEREIGNTY, pages 6-8/ttate]
Of course, not all states are democratic states, and the green movement has long been wary of the coercive
powers that all states reputedly enjoy. Coercion (and not democracy) is also central to Max Weber’s classic sociological understanding of
the state as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”14 Weber believed
that the state could not be defined sociologically in terms of its ends, only formally as an organization in terms of the particular means that are peculiar to it.15
Moreover his concept of legitimacy was merely concerned with whether rules were accepted by subjects as valid (for whatever reason); he did not offer a
normative theory as to the circumstances when particular rules ought to be accepted or whether beliefs about the validity of rules were justified. Legitimacy
was a contingent fact, and in view of his understanding of politics as a struggle for power in the context of an increasingly disenchanted world, likely to
become an increasingly unstable achievement.16

In contrast to Weber, my approach to the state is explicitly normative and explicitly concerned with the purpose of states, and the
democratic basis of their legitimacy. It focuses on the limitations of liberal normative theories of the state (and associated ideals of a just constitutional
proposes instead an alternative green theory that seeks to redress the deficiencies in liberal
arrangement), and it
theory. Nor is my account as bleak as Weber’s. The fact that states possess a monopoly of control over the means of
coercion is a most serious matter, but it does not necessarily imply that they must have frequent recourse to that
power. In any event, whether the use of the state’s coercive powers is to be deplored or welcomed turns on the purposes for which that power is exercised,
the manner in which it is exercised, and whether it is managed in public, transparent, and accountable ways—a judgment that must be made against a
background of changing problems, practices, and understandings.
The coercive arm of the state can be used to “bust” political demonstrations
and invade privacy. It can also be used to prevent human rights abuses, curb the excesses of corporate power,
and protect the environment.
In short, although the political autonomy of states is widely believed to be in decline, there are still few
social institution that can match the
same degree of capacity and potential legitimacy that states have to redirect societies and economies along
more ecologically sustainable lines to address ecological problems such as global warming and pollution, the buildup
of toxic and nuclear wastes and the rapid erosion of the earth’s biodiversity. States—particularly when they act collectively
—have the capacity to curb the socially and ecologically harmful consequences of capitalism. They are also
more amenable to democratization than corporations, notwithstanding the ascendancy of the neoliberal state in the increasingly competitive global economy.
There are therefore many good reasons why green political theorists need to think not only critically but also constructively about the state and the state
system. While the state is certainly not “healthy” at the present historical juncture, in this book I nonetheless join Poggi by offering “a timid two cheers for the
old beast,” at least as a potentially more significant ally in the green cause.17

28
 State Good

(__) State Action Key- Your alternative will get violent co-opted, its replacement will be worse.

29
 AT: Externalization K

1. Perm do both

2. Perm do the Plan and reject calls to environmental laws that allows us to escape our guilt in every
other instance

Its legit-

a) Give us lee way on the permutation- when they explain what the Alternative does, we’ll clarify how our
perm functions

b) Forces the negative to prove that this particular instance of governmental action is UNIQUELY bad

3. Double bind either a) the Perm solves all the links or b) the alternative isn’t strong enough to over
come the status quo.

4. No Link- plan doesn’t seek to externalize the guilt of environmental destruction- prefer our scientific
evidence that BUSINESSES are the main emitter of said emissions. Plan looks to the root of the problem
in order to curb warming.

5. Plan acts like a DA- there is zero way that the Alternative will be able to solve the case in the
timeframe allotted- Warming causes extinction that OW their impact. The economy and banking sectors
are on the brink- Plan is key to saving both, collapse of the economy causes nuclear war – that’s mead and
collapse of the banking sector causes extinction that’s our Bailey Evidence.

6. Individual Action Fails

Steffen 2007 (Alex, Executive Editor and CEO of World Changing, “Deep Ecology, localism, innovation and knowing whats what,” World Changing, Mar 22 nd

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//006355.html)

Conversely, it's not always clear that all forms of localism and retreat from the global economy are good. There are reasonable
arguments to be made even about whether food globalization is bad, and it may be that we need a more sophisticated approach to the issue that global = bad. Similarly, many
advocates for the version of green localism most often voiced have a strong anti-urban bias, seeing their exurban
lifestyles (which can be among the most destructive around) through rural-colored glasses, while conveniently
ignoring both their own participation in global systems and national infrastructures and the gigantic sustainability
advantages compact and well-designed cities have to offer. When you run the numbers, urban life beats exurban life
every day of the week.
The point is that I believe the time has come to stop talking about a retreat from prosperity and the urban as a path
towards sustainability. Indeed, we need to stop talking about any model of sustainability for which we're unwilling
to run the numbers. The steps Bill outlined last night -- local food and local energy -- are generally good ones, but they alone are not
going to get us anywhere close to one planet living. For that, we need truly radical change, delivered through
widespread innovation and systemic redesign, and going far beyond the sorts of impacts we can create though
individual consumer actions.

30
 AT: Externalization K

7. And our argument is not just that global warming is bad- but that permits are good, they are key to
economic competitiveness and the global banking sector. The impact is extinction that’s our Khalilzad
evidence and our Bailey evidence.

8. The alternative leads to extinction- true confrontation of our guilt paralyizes us to inaction- the impact
is our Henderson evidence

THE GLOBE AND MAIL 1992 [Peter D. Currier, “Stepping away from ‘green guilt’, April 27, lexis/ttate]
I'm familiar enough with guilt to know that no relationship can sustain boundless doses of [guilt] it. That
includes our relationship with the Earth. Unless we offer Mother Nature more than palliative care, her
stare will grow ever sterner and we will start to feel ever more oppressed – cynical and hopeless about this
Earth we live with. Eventually, we may just give up. Healthy outlets for the need to conserve must be
created or we, for whom to live is to pollute, will resign ourselves to self-destruction and abandon our
efforts to save the Earth. We need to feel that we can confront the complications of today's litter with
something better than a stick with a spike on the end. Otherwise, as the pollution count and ultraviolet
index hammer home our failures, and as acid rain dampens our spirits and corrodes our confidence, the
stress of living with ecological demands that we can't meet will become unendurable. Green guilt can be directed
constructively. When my family visited my sister in Sechelt, B.C., in 1990, we found that processing refuse was mealtime routine. All that washing, label-
stripping, composting and paper- sorting seemed like a bag lady's sordid obsession until we saw a week's garbage hit the curb in a single, well-used paper lunch
bag. Later, when I drove a trunkful of recyclables to the Sechelt depot and saw all those bins with their different labels, I knew my sister wasn't alone in her
eccentricity. The glass, paper and metal there was all headed back onto the shelves. And in-home processing had cut much of the collecting and sorting costs.
There, even if recycling was driving the price of raw materials down, affordability wasn't the issue. Paper recycled meant a tree saved. So much for resource
gluttony. So much for landfill. So much for green guilt. The recyling issue highlights a more general need to clarify the muddy waters of current ecology: How
thin is the ozone layer? Are disposable diapers that bad? Is Styrofoam really worse than paper in fast-food packaging? Is cotton production an environmental
hazard? How safe is tap water? There are excellent written references for many such questions, but in a mercurial environment, answers are complex and
quickly dated. A credible and visible environmental coalition that addresses ecological issues clearly, objectively and authoritatively would ground green
The state can do more as well. More and
conscience and give direction to the increasing numbers of those who are possessed of it.
better legislation on polluting emissions, packaging, resource management and recycling is called for. If
bad news triggers green guilt, then we need to make good news. More initiatives like the one in Sechelt would allow the media
more heartening reportage and give us effective in-home options for survival.

9. Perm solves- State action is key

SWAP 1991 [Walter, prof of psychology @ Tufts University, “Psychological Factors in Environmental Decision Making: Social Dilemmas.”
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKIGN: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE, ed. Chechile and Carlisle, pages 14-37/ttate]

The tragedy of the commons dilemma arises when users of a commons are unwilling to forego short-term
individual benefits for long-term group benefits. Even when people realize that the best solution would be
to restrict one's usage, trusting others is a risky business (see Figure 2-1). Behavior analysis and attitude
research have addressed the first component of the dilemma-how to induce users to change their short-
term behavior. However, in the absence of some system for ensuring trust in the other users' willingness to
conserve, such solutions are likely to be only temporary, to disintegrate at the first signs that one is being
exploited.

31
 Ext. No Alt Solvency

(__) Bobertz does not call for an all our rejection of all environmental regulations

BOBERTZ 1996 [Bradely, asst prof of law @ University of Nebraska College of Law, email and reflection on TEXAS LAW REVIEW ARTICLE,
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jonathan/debate/ceda-l/archive/CEDA-L-Sep-1996/msg00382.html//ttate]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:02:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: brad bobertz <bbobertz@unlinfo.unl.edu>
To: rmckown@emory.edu
Cc: bbobertz@unlinfo.unl.edu
Subject: Limits of the "Scapegoating" Thesis

Dear Robert:

I'm writing to clarify some of the ideas in my article, "Legitimizing Pollution Through Pollution
Control Laws: Reflections on Scapegoating Theory," published in vol. 73, no. 4 of the Texas Law Review (Mar.
1995). I do NOT believe that all affirmative environmental regulation is suspect either because it diverts
attention from the real problems or because it alleviates personal responsibility for these problems.
Certainly some environmental laws have these effects (and I discuss some specific examples as well as the general
"scapegoating" phenomenon in my article). But this does not mean that ALL environmental laws exhibit these
tendencies. My thoughts about the efficacy of any environmental law depends on the nature of the problem in question and on the how law responds to
that problem. Let me give you an example from the article. In Part V, I discuss the saga of the "evil spray can." In essence, research indicating that CFCs
could destroy stratospheric ozone evolved into a simpler story in the mid to late 1970s: spray cans that used CFCs as propellants were bad for the environment,
and EPA's 1978 ban on
CFCs in aerosol products "solved" the problem by banishing these environmental wrongdoers from the scene. As I noted in the article, the problem with this
story was that it was incomplete. The EPA ban, while a good thing, affected only one source of CFC emissions (ignoring refigerators and car air conditioners,
for example) and,
because it applied only in the U.S., did not address the international dimensions of the problem. So I used EPA's 1978 ban on CFCs in spray cans, as well as
reactions to this ban by the press and public, as examples of the "scapegoating" phenomenon in action. But this wasn't the end of the story. In 1987 the United
States signed (and in 1988 ratified) an extraordinary treaty called the "Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer." The Montreal
Protocol froze production and consumption of CFCs and other ozone depleters at 1986 levels, followed by a 50 percent reduction in CFC use by industrialized
countries over a ten-year period. As scientists began to discover that ozone depletion posed an even more serious and immediate threat, the Protocol members
met in London to consider measures to stregthen the accord. Ultimately, the parties agreed on a TOTAL elimination of CFC production and use by 2000.
Separate reduction and phaseout schedules were established for halons and other ozone-depleting chemicals. Five months after the London agreement, the
U.S. Congress enacted a number of additional measures to accelerate the elimination of ozone-depleting substances in Title VI of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. The European Community accelerated their own CFC phaseout, shortening the deadline by three years to 1997. The United States EPA
then announced it would beat the EC's new timetable by a year. Governmental and nongovernmental organizations, as well as industry, joined this remarkable
race to speed up the ban on ozone depleters. Last December, when the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol convened in Vienna, "the
developed world was within weeks of halting all production of most ozone-depleting substances that the Protocol initially had only required be cut in half by
the year 2000." Robert Percival, et al., "Environmental Regulation," p. 1284 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1996). (For other sources on the Montreal Protocol,
see footnotes 140 to 149 of my article). The Montreal Protocol and the unilateral and multilateral laws that followed it strike me as an enornmous success
story. Obviously, it would have been better if the Protocol had been signed ten years earlier, but all the evidence wasn't in yet. As it was, the Protocol faced
and overcame many obstacles (which time prevents me from recounting in detail). Although EPA's 1978 ban, in my view, illustrates the "scapegoating" thesis,
the Montreal Protocol just as strongly demonstrates that affirmative environmental measures can be effective, even in the cumbersome and unpredictable arena
of international affairs. To sum up, I
did not write my "scapegoating" article to advance the idea that ALL
environmental laws are wrongheaded, wasteful, or counterproductive because they shift "blame" from the
individual consumer (or from the "real" source of a problem) to some other target of regulation. I
believed and continue to believe that many laws, environmental or otherwise, exhibit aspects of the
scapegoating phenomenon that I wrote about. This does not mean, however, that all laws do so. As I said
before, it all depends on the problem at hand and how the law responds to the problem. I wrote the article
hoping to encourage BETTER lawmaking, not to suggest that the lawmaking enterprise itself is doomed
by our tendencies to oversimplify difficult problems and to transfer blame to symbolic "scapegoats." Such
a nihilistic and depressing viewpoint, I sincerely hope, is not supported by a full and fair reading of my
article. If I'm wrong about this, then I accomplished exactly the opposite of what I intended. I realize
that quotations from the article, removed from the context of the entire piece, can be used to support a
variety of positions. I hope this note helps clarify what I actually intended the article to say.

32
 Ext. Individual Action Fails

(__)INDIVIDUAL ACTION WILL NOT LEAD TO CHANGE

NICKERSON 2003 [Raymond, prof @ Tufts University, “Chapter Four: Attitude Assessment and Change”, PSYCHOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE, ttate]
We know that beliefs and attitudes about environmental issues, at least as expressed by people when
asked about them, are not perfect indicators of how they will act relative to those issues (Bickman, 1972;
Eagly & Chaiken, 1990; Geller, 1981a; Howard, Delgado, Miller, & Gubbins, 1993; Hutton, 1982; (Oskamp, Harrington, Edwards, Sherwood, Okuda, & Swanson, 1991; Scott &
Willits, 1994; Seligman, Kniss, Darley, Fazio, Becker, & Pryor, 1979). It is not safe to assume that people who identify themselves as environmentalists in response to survey
questionnaires necessarily have a substantive understanding of the issues or are willing to modify their behavior to make it more environ- mentally benign if told how to do so
It is difficult to tell, in the absence of evidence from other sources, the extent to which
(Krause, 1993; Riordan, 1976).
responses to surveys regarding socially sensitive issues even reflect individuals' real attitudes, let alone
predict their behavior. It is hard to rule out the possibility that respondents sometimes give answers they assume the interviewers want to hear or that help convey the
socially responsible kind of image they wish to project (DeMaio, 1984; De Oliver, 1999; Fujii, Hennessey, & Mak,1985; Tedeschi, 1981; Tedeschi, Schenkler, & Bonoma, 1971). It is
also possible that people sincerely see their own behavior as more socially responsible than it actually is.

(__) SELF-INTEREST WILL CHECK BACK LARGE-SCALE INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS

NICKERSON 2003 [Raymond, prof @ Tufts University, “Chapter Four: Attitude Assessment and Change”, PSYCHOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE, ttate]

We tend to act in our own immediate self-interests. Consumers are more likely to purchase environmentally safe products if they believe
environmental problems constitute threats to their personal well-being than if they do not (Baldassare & Katz, 1992). We find it less natural to be
concerned about the long-range implications of our actions for others.
The central lesson of realistic policy-making is that most individuals and organizations change when it is
in their interest to change, either because they derive some benefit from changing or because they incur sanctions when they do not-and the shorter the time
between change (or failure to change) and benefit (or sanction), the better. (Ruckelshaus, 1989, p. 168)
From a survey of people's attitudes and behavior with respect to home energy use, Seligman (1986) concluded that pleas to conserve are likely to be effective only if people can be
told of ways to do so while remaining comfortable.

33
 Ext. Perm Solves
(__) Must have state action- Key to sustainability and to foster/organize individual action

ECKERSLEY 2004 [Robyn, professor in School of Politics, Sociology, and Criminology @ Univ. of Melbourne, THE GREEN STATE: RETHINKING
DEMOCRACY AND SOVEREIGNTY, pages 4-6/ttate]
This inquiry thus swims against a significant tide of green political theory that is mostly skeptical of, if not entirely hostile toward, the nation-state. Indeed, if a
green posture toward the nation-state can be discerned from the broad tradition of green political thought, it is that the nation-state plays, at best, a
contradictory role in environmental management in facilitating both environmental destruction and environmental protection and, at worst, it is fundamentally
ecocidal.6 From eco-Marxists to ecofeminists and ecoanarchists, there are few green political theorists who are prepared to defend the nation-state as an
institution that is able to play, on balance, a positive role in securing sustainable livelihoods and ecosystem integrity.7 It is now a trite observation that neither
environmental problems nor environmentalists respect national borders and the principle of state sovereignty, which assumes that states ought to possess and
be able to exercise more or less exclusive control of what goes on within their territories. Indeed, those interested in global political ecology are increasingly
rejecting the “statist frame” through which international relations and world politics have been traditionally understood, preferring to understand states as but
one set of actors and/or institutions among myriad actors and institutions on the global scene that are implicated in ecological destruction.8 Thus many global
political ecologists tend not only to be skeptical of states, they are also increasingly sceptical of state-centric analyses of world politics, in general, and global
environmental degradation, in particular.9 Taken together, the analyses of green theorists and activists seem to point toward the need for alternative forms of
political identity, authority, and governance that break with the traditional statist model of exclusive territorial rule. While acknowledging the basis for this
antipathy toward the nationstate, and the limitations of state-centric analyses of global ecological degradation, I seek to draw attention to the positive role that
states have played, and might increasingly play, in global and domestic politics. Writing more than twenty years ago, Hedley Bull (a proto-constructivist and
outlined the state’s positive role in world affairs, and his arguments continue to
leading writer in the English school)
provide a powerful challenge to those who somehow seek to “get beyond the state,” as if such a move
would provide a more lasting solution to the threat of armed conflict or nuclear war, social and economic injustice, or
environmental degradation.10 As Bull argued, given that the state is here to stay whether we like it or not, then the call to get
“beyond the state is a counsel of despair, at all events if it means that we have to begin by abolishing or subverting the state, rather than that
there is a need to build upon it.”11 In any event, rejecting the “statist frame” of world politics ought not prohibit an inquiry into the
emancipatory potential of the state as a crucial “node” in any future network of global ecological governance. This is especially so, given that
one can expect states to persist as major sites of social and political power for at least the foreseeable future and that any green
transformations of the present political order will, short of revolution, necessarily be state-dependent. Thus,
like it or not, those concerned about ecological destruction must contend with existing institutions and,
where possible, seek to “rebuild the ship while still at sea.” And if states are so implicated in ecological destruction, then an inquiry into the
potential for their transformation or even their modest reform into something that is at least more conducive to ecological sustainability
would seem to be compelling. Of course, it would be unhelpful to become singularly fixated on the redesign of the state at the expense of other institutions
of governance. States are not the only institutions that limit, condition, shape, and direct political power, and it is necessary to keep in view the broader
spectrum of formal and informal institutions of governance (e.g., local, national, regional, and international) that are implicated in global environmental
change. Nonetheless, while the
state constitutes only one modality of political power, it is an especially significant one because
of its historical claims to exclusive rule over territory and peoples—as expressed in the principle of state sovereignty.
As Gianfranco Poggi explains, the political power concentrated in the state “is a momentous, pervasive, critical phenomenon. Together with other forms of
social power, it constitutes an indispensable medium for constructing and shaping larger social realities, for establishing, shaping and maintaining all broader
and more durable collectivities.”12 States play, in varying degrees, significant roles in structuring life chances, in distributing wealth, privilege, information,
and risks, in upholding civil and political rights, and in securing private property rights and providing the legal/regulatory framework for capitalism. Every one
dimensions of state activity has, for good or ill, a significant bearing on the global environmental crisis.
of these
Given that the green political project is one that demands far-reaching changes to both economies and societies, it
is difficult to imagine how such changes might occur on the kind of scale that is needed without the active
support of states. While it is often observed that states are too big to deal with local ecological problems and too small to deal with global ones, the
state nonetheless holds, as Lennart Lundqvist puts it, “a unique position in the constitutive hierarchy from
individuals through villages, regions and nations all the way to global organizations. The state is inclusive
of lower political and administrative levels, and exclusive in speaking for its whole territory and
population in relation to the outside world.”13 In short, it seems to me inconceivable to advance ecological
emancipation without also engaging with and seeking to transform state power.

34
 AT: Localism K
1. Perm Do both

2. Perm do the Plan and __________________________________________ in every other instance

Its legit-

a) Give us lee way on the permutation- when they explain what the Alternative does, we’ll clarify how our
perm functions

b) Forces the negative to prove that this particular instance of governmental action is UNIQUELY bad

3. Double bind either a) the perm solves the link or b) the alternative isn’t strong enough to over come the
Status Quo

4. Perm Solves- Acting locally and with government works to solve ecological disasters- US public wont
do it alone, government key.

Steffen 2007 (Alex, Executive Editor and CEO of World Changing, “Deep Ecology, localism, innovation and knowing whats what,” World Changing, Mar 22 nd

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//006355.html)

I have no faith that people in the United States or elsewhere will voluntarily reduce their standards of living: indeed, outside of
a few statistical outliers, like the Amish, I know of no evidence that anyone ever has, at least for very long. The way forward is not
by going back to some earlier model of living which we believe to have less impact on the Earth, because people
won't accept it, and we need mass popular support for dramatic change if we are to avert catastrophe.
So, we must ask ourselves, How can we deliver the prosperity billions of people expect, while reducing the ecological footprint it exacts?
If increases in prosperity were tied purely and simply to growth in use of material resources and energy, we
couldn't. We couldn't even keep up the lifestyle we've got. But they're not. We know that, in fact, our existing systems for delivering material prosperity are abysmally inefficient,
rotten with corruption and historical accidents and irrationality and bad design. As Bill McDonough says, the major product of our systems is waste.
We also know that it is within our capabilities to reduce that wastage, not only through more efficient products (the
Japanese live almost as prosperously as North Americans, but they use a fraction of the resources to do it), but through redesigning the systems
themselves.
Sure, we can invest massively in green energy and clean tech, but we do a lot more than that. We can reveal flows, build better
cities, create user communities for product-services, dematerialize certain products altogether. The list goes on, as regular Worldchanging readers will know.
Nor do these things need to remove us from community and health: indeed, they can reknit and heal. Many of the
best new solutions have the wonderful advantage not only of making our lives greener, more resilient and more
economical (at least if there's anything like true-cost accounting) but making them more healthy and comfortable and connected as
well. Whether we're talking the health benefits of smart growth , the cleaner air in a green building, or the friends you make at the tool library, in this model life gets
better when it gets more sustainable.

5. We will answer their epistemology 2NC here

a) Our evidence is NOT biased by global organizations, government or corporations in an attempt to

control and oppress. Prefer our evidence we’re reading it from qualified scientists and economists who
don’t have an interest in propping up the state. BE EXTREMELY weary of their evidence by crazy hacks
who hate the government.

35
 AT: Localism K

b) Your advocacy is WORSE- integrating ideas of localism into public debate force us to not call out the
government and to retretat from true solutions to environmental destruction.

Steffen 2008 (Alex, Executive Editor and CEO of World Changing, “resilient Community,” July 2 nd

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QHnjym91t0UJ:www.worldchanging.com/archives/008178.html+%22cap+and+trade%22+%22localism%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

But I worry as well about the role these sorts of ideas seem to often end up playing in the public debate. At the very
least, I see these sorts of ideas playing into a misinformed understanding of the possibilities of localism, one
which has the potential to seriously drain needed energy from efforts to stave off collapse. At the worst, I see it
playing into an insane survivalism, one that's quite oblivious to the real nature of big systems failures.
Because, it bears repeating again and again and again, responses based purely on localism and scaling-back can't save us now. We need
to remake our material civilization. If we don't do that, no amount of community preparation or personal bunker-
building is going to save our bacon. If we don't avoid the tipping points, we're headed into an atmospheric
singularity, which will likely involve cascading systems failures and a total inability to meaningfully plan our own
lives.
Resilience is a great strategy for making sure our communities are capable of withstanding the bumps we're facing
in order to keep generating solutions which can be used to avoid the crash; but if the crash comes, individuals and
local communities are not going to be in any position to weather it through their own actions, no matter what they
do.

6. Localism Fails- Several Reasons- they ignore environmentally conscious actions like the plan and wont
ever create change- personal/individual actions fail.

Steffen 2007 (Alex, Executive Editor and CEO of World Changing, “Deep Ecology, localism, innovation and knowing whats what,” World Changing, Mar 22 nd

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives//006355.html)

Conversely, it's not always clear that all forms of localism and retreat from the global economy are good. There are reasonable
arguments to be made even about whether food globalization is bad, and it may be that we need a more sophisticated approach to the issue that global = bad. Similarly, many
advocates for the version of green localism most often voiced have a strong anti-urban bias, seeing their exurban
lifestyles (which can be among the most destructive around) through rural-colored glasses, while conveniently
ignoring both their own participation in global systems and national infrastructures and the gigantic sustainability
advantages compact and well-designed cities have to offer. When you run the numbers, urban life beats exurban life
every day of the week.
The point is that I believe the time has come to stop talking about a retreat from prosperity and the urban as a path
towards sustainability. Indeed, we need to stop talking about any model of sustainability for which we're unwilling
to run the numbers. The steps Bill outlined last night -- local food and local energy -- are generally good ones, but they alone are not
going to get us anywhere close to one planet living. For that, we need truly radical change, delivered through
widespread innovation and systemic redesign, and going far beyond the sorts of impacts we can create though
individual consumer actions.

36
 AT: Localism K

7. State Collapse not inevitable the US is here to stay.

Baker 2007 (James A, Co-Chair of the National War Powers Commission, Sept/Oct, “the Big Ten” The National Interest)

The United States will likely remain the pre-eminent global power for some time. But how we wield
that unparalleled capability will determine exactly how long we remain at the front of the
international pack. Despite setbacks and doubts associated with the ongoing Iraq War, the most significant phenomenon
shaping global affairs today remains the uniquely pre-eminent position of the United States.
Compared to earlier superpowers-ancient Rome, Napoleonic France and Britain just prior to World War I-we possess far greater
advantages over potential rivals. The United States is the world's economic powerhouse. Our output
represents almost a quarter of global GDP. Moreover, our performance over the last two decades has
significantly outpaced that of our traditional competitors such as Japan and the countries of Western Europe. And, despite the
scandals that rocked corporate America earlier in this decade, we remain at the forefront of
economic efficiency, innovation and entrepreneurship. In the last decade, American companies have created trillions of dollars in new
wealth by spearheading products that are driving the information-technology revolution. No other advanced industrial power-and no rising
power-can match us in the military arena. The defeat of the Taliban and the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein clearly demonstrate our unparalleled ability to project decisive force across vast distances. No other
countries even begin to approach this capability today, nor will they for years-if not decades-to
come. China's defense build-up, for instance, is significant and bears close watching. But Beijing is still far from being able to challenge us
in east Asia, much less other critical regions like the Persian Gulf. Moreover, despite concerns about America
"being alone", we still continue to exert immense diplomatic influence in the global arena. The United
States enjoys strong and durable bilateral relationships with a host of friendly countries-including key
European states, Japan and, more recently, India. And we also play a leadership role in international organizations such as the United
Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and NATO. Last but not least, we represent an ideology-free-
market democracy-without a serious global rival. Communism, our old international adversary, has been swept into the dustbin of history. No
other ideology with a universal reach has risen to take its place. Yes, Islamic fundamentalism is a potent force. But, by definition, its appeal is limited to countries with significant
Muslim populations. It is true that the model of free-market democracy is clearly not triumphant everywhere. But
the trend over recent decades has
unmistakably been in the direction of democracy and free markets-even in states that are still far
from achieving these goals. Today's China, however authoritarian, is a far cry from the China of Mao's Cultural Revolution. We need only compare regions like
Eastern Europe and Latin America with what they were a quarter century ago to appreciate the broad, if imperfect and incomplete, trend towards market democracy. This is true even
In short, today there is no country or group of
with the recent backsliding that we have witnessed, say, in parts of Latin America.
countries that can challenge our international pre-eminence in economic, military or political terms.
This may change as countries like China and India acquire a greater share of world GDP and loom
larger on the world stage. But for now and for decades to come, the United States is and will be the
major global power.

8. Evaluating Consequences good-

<Insert Williams evidence from Cap K 2AC block>

37
 Ext. Individual Action Fails

(__)INDIVIDUAL ACTION WILL NOT LEAD TO CHANGE

NICKERSON 2003 [Raymond, prof @ Tufts University, “Chapter Four: Attitude Assessment and Change”, PSYCHOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE, ttate]
We know that beliefs and attitudes about environmental issues, at least as expressed by people when
asked about them, are not perfect indicators of how they will act relative to those issues (Bickman, 1972;
Eagly & Chaiken, 1990; Geller, 1981a; Howard, Delgado, Miller, & Gubbins, 1993; Hutton, 1982; (Oskamp, Harrington, Edwards, Sherwood, Okuda, & Swanson, 1991; Scott &
Willits, 1994; Seligman, Kniss, Darley, Fazio, Becker, & Pryor, 1979). It is not safe to assume that people who identify themselves as environmentalists in response to survey
questionnaires necessarily have a substantive understanding of the issues or are willing to modify their behavior to make it more environ- mentally benign if told how to do so
It is difficult to tell, in the absence of evidence from other sources, the extent to which
(Krause, 1993; Riordan, 1976).
responses to surveys regarding socially sensitive issues even reflect individuals' real attitudes, let alone
predict their behavior. It is hard to rule out the possibility that respondents sometimes give answers they assume the interviewers want to hear or that help convey the
socially responsible kind of image they wish to project (DeMaio, 1984; De Oliver, 1999; Fujii, Hennessey, & Mak,1985; Tedeschi, 1981; Tedeschi, Schenkler, & Bonoma, 1971). It is
also possible that people sincerely see their own behavior as more socially responsible than it actually is.

(__) SELF-INTEREST WILL CHECK BACK LARGE-SCALE INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS

NICKERSON 2003 [Raymond, prof @ Tufts University, “Chapter Four: Attitude Assessment and Change”, PSYCHOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE, ttate]

We tend to act in our own immediate self-interests. Consumers are more likely to purchase environmentally safe products if they believe
environmental problems constitute threats to their personal well-being than if they do not (Baldassare & Katz, 1992). We find it less natural to be
concerned about the long-range implications of our actions for others.
The central lesson of realistic policy-making is that most individuals and organizations change when it is
in their interest to change, either because they derive some benefit from changing or because they incur sanctions when they do not-and the shorter the time
between change (or failure to change) and benefit (or sanction), the better. (Ruckelshaus, 1989, p. 168)
From a survey of people's attitudes and behavior with respect to home energy use, Seligman (1986) concluded that pleas to conserve are likely to be effective only if people can be
told of ways to do so while remaining comfortable.

38
 AT: Bio-power K

1. Perm do both

2. Perm do the plan and _________________________________________ in every other instance

Its legit-

a) Give us lee way on the permutation- when they explain what the Alternative does, we’ll clarify how our
perm functions

b) Forces the negative to prove that this particular instance of governmental action is UNIQUELY bad

3. Double bind either a) the perm solves the link or b) the alternative isn’t strong enough to over come the
Status Quo

4. No Link- Plan is not bio-political, even if there is a regulatory mechanism on businesses these
regulations are not the draconian measures that their evidence speaks about and there is an incentive
mechanism which means businesses have an equal share in the power to decide their own fates.

5. 1AC is a disadvantage- rejection of the plan causes warming to run away- the impact is extinction
that’s our Henderson evidence. And US permits scheme is key to US competitiveness and global
banking- the impacts are US leadership and the Global Economy.

6. Bio power doesn’t cause genocide or extinction

39
 AT: Bio-Power K

7. Power is Fluid- Your impacts are wrong

8. Biopower key to checking the worst forms of oppression, environmental destruction and extinction

40
 **Updates**

Oil Prices Up

(__) Oil Up

a) Iran and Nigeria

Xinhua 7-28 (“Oil Prices Rebound on Iran, Nigeria Tensions,” 2008 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/29/content_8829787.htm)

Oil prices settled higher after a volatile session on Monday as geopolitical tensions in Iran and Nigeria overshadowed
the flagging fuel demand.
Light, sweet crude for September delivery rose 1.47 U.S. dollars to settle at 124.73 dollars on the New York Mercantile
Exchange. Price rallied to 125.22 dollars a barrel in the early morning trading.
In London, Brent crude for September delivery gained 1.32 dollars to settle at 125.84 dollars a barrel on the ICE Futures Exchange.

b) Nigerian Conflict drove down supply.

Axess News 7-28 (“Weaker dollar and Nigerian supply concerns lifts oil prices Monday,” 2008 http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/16493)

Shell cut production back at its Nigerian wells due to concern over renewed rebel attacks that when combined with
a weaker dollar Monday, pushed crude oil prices up more than 1 percent.
Crude oil futures in New York rose $1.46 per barrel, or 1.18%, to trade at $124.72 late Monday afternoon.
In London, Brent crude on the ICE Futures Exchange closed up $1.32 per barrel at $125.84.
Gasoline futures on the NYMEX rose nearly 3.5 cents to $3.06 per gallon.
Heating oil futures closed up more than 3.4 cents per gallon at $3.55.

41
 Oil Prices Down

(__) Oil Down

a) Globally

Graphic Online 7-29 (“Oil Prices Begin to Retreat,” 2008

http://www.graphicghana.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=85&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=4362&wpage=&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&
reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=2364&hn=graphicghana&he=.com)

Since early last week oil prices have fallen on both sides of the Atlantic, dipping almost by 13 per cent to a low of
$128 or thereabout per barrel, as against $147 a barrel that was recorded in the middle of July.
Currently, US crude has fallen by $2.23 to settle at $123.26 after falling to $122.50 earlier, the lowest since June 5. Brent
crude lost $1.92 to settle at $124.52 a barrel.
The gradual dipping of the price of the commodity, to all intents and purposes, should gladden the hearts of non-oil
producing countries.

b) More Ev- Prefer it- its future predictive- we’ve not even begun to see the price of oil to decline.

Oil and Gas Journal 7-28 (“Oil and gas Futures price drop on US market,” http://www.ogj.com/display_article/335510/7/ONART/none/GenIn/1/MARKET-
WATCH:-Oil,-gasoline-futures-prices-drop-on-US-market/)

The front-month oil contract fell July 25 on the New York futures market along with falling gasoline prices.
Analysts said prices still have yet to fully reflect falling US oil demand caused by high energy prices. Some
analysts suggest the market's momentum points to more oil price declines.
The American Automobile Association reported July 28 that the nationwide average price for a regular gasoline was $3.958/gal. An AAA spokesman forecast retail gasoline prices
could drop as much as 25¢/gal by Labor Day.

c) despite recent growth- econ still down

Reuters 7-28 (“FOREX-Dlr slips, investors refocus on weak U.S. economy,” 2008 http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUSL860679320080728)

LONDON, July 28 (Reuters) - The

dollar slipped broadly on Monday, losing some of the momentum built after upbeat U.S.
housing and consumer sentiment data late last week, as investors concluded that the U.S. economic climate
remained poor.
The euro rose, brushing off data showing that German consumer sentiment hit a five-year low, as the market awaited a barrage of economic data from round the world this week
which will culminate with crucial U.S. payrolls figures on Friday. A one percent slide in European shares kept risk appetite low, which also put the dollar under selling pressure.
Stocks fell on jitters about the health of European financial firms ahead of earnings reports from Deutsche, HBOS, Unicredit and others later in the week.

42
 US Econ Up

(__) US Econ Up-

a) Housing bill- Prefer our evidence its future predictive

AP 7-28 (‘Hoyer Says US economy needs foreclosure bill,” http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/realestate/bal-foreclosures0728,0,3737102.story 2008)

Congressman Steny Hoyer says a foreclosure recovery measure that Congress recently passed is needed to stabilize the
economy.
The House majority leader said rising foreclosures have hit Maryland hard, with 11,000 foreclosures projected this year in the state.
Prince George's County leads the state in foreclosures; Hoyer said nearly 30 percent of Maryland's foreclosures in the first quarter of 2008 were in Prince George's.
The bill would provide mortgage financing assistance and $180 million nationwide for financial and legal
counseling for homeowners. President Bush has indicated he will sign the bill.

b) Up compared to other countries and will grow in the second quarter.

Kennedy 7-28 (John, “US Economy Bad But Everyone Else Worse,” Cluster stock, http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/7/us-economy-bad-but-everyone-else-worse-good-
news-for-dollar-)

the dollar will strengthen in the near term, even as the economy continues to flounder. As
Brown Brothers thinks that
bad as things are in the U.S., the firm says, they're even worse in other G7 economies:
One of the key factors that have contributed to the dollar’s weakness has been the under-performance of
the US economy and the rates cuts seen in response. We think that the news stream is improving in this regard. In fact, it is possible
that the US economy was the best performer in the G7 in Q2, and could be doing it again here in Q3.
What's more, U.S. growth is expected to pick up in Q2 and exceed earlier estimates, just as Japan and
Europe begin to sink further:
We had projected a 1.5% pace in Q2, but this seems too conservative. Indeed the US economy appears to have grown at around twice the pace of Q1. Recognizing that H1 08 growth
has been significantly better than expected, both the IMF and the Federal Reserve have now revised higher their forecasts made in the spring. This stands in stark contrast with what
is happening in the other major industrialized countries.

43
 US Econ Down

(__) US Econ Down

a) Budget Deficit

Pulizzi 7-29 (Henry J, Dow Jones News Wire, “US Faces Record budget deficit in fiscal 2009,” 2008 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24094417-
20142,00.html)

THE sluggish US economy and the cost of this year's economic stimulus package will push the federal budget
deficit into record territory in fiscal year 2009, the White House said.
The Office of Management and Budget said it expects next year's budget gap to soar to $US482 billion ($504 billion),
$US75 billion higher than its previous estimate. The deficit for the current fiscal year, which ends September 30, is projected to come in at $US389 billion,
$US21 billion lower than the administration's February forecast.
White House budget director Jim Nussle said the
current year's figure is likely to be larger than $US389 billion due to recent
Congressional developments, including Medicare legislation and the housing rescue package President George W. Bush
will sign this week.

b) Slow growth and raising prices

ABC News 7-24 (“Fed reserve paints grim picture of US economy,” 2008 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/24/2312884.htm?section=business)

The United States Federal Reserve's latest survey of the US economy outlines a grim situation, saying the country is struggling
with slower growth and rising prices.
It says the pace of economic activity has slowed since last month and it describes consumer spending as sluggish or
slowing across the country.
The report from the central bank also highlights inflation woes, saying that price pressures are elevated or
increasing.
It says the troubled real estate market is showing few signs of life, with weak sales and declining prices in most of the
country.

c) High energy and food prices

Xinhua 7-23 (“Fed Sees slower US Economic Growth amid higher price pressures,” 2008 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/24/content_8758352.htm_)

U.S. economic activity slowed somewhat in June and early July, as consumers were squeezed by soaring costs for
energy and food, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday.
"Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts suggest that the pace of economic activity slowed somewhat
since the last report," said the Fed in a nationwide survey, which is based on economic information supplied by the Fed's 12 regional banks and collected on or before July
14, 2008.
Five eastern districts noted a weakening or softening in their overall economies, while Chicago characterized its
economy as sluggish and Kansas City noted a moderation in growth, it said.

44