Cap and Trade Affirmative

Cap–and–Trade AFF
DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney>

Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will
ToC
ToC.......................................................................................1
ToC..........................................................................................................................................................................1
AT – ASPEC.......................................................................22
AT – ASPEC.........................................................................................................................................................22
AT – Topicality: “USFG”...................................................24
AT – Topicality: “USFG”....................................................................................................................................24
AT – Topicality: “Substantial”............................................25
AT – Topicality: “Substantial”............................................................................................................................25
AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives.................27
AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives................................................................................................27
Auctioning Permits Good...................................................31
Auctioning Permits Good....................................................................................................................................31
Auctioning Permits Good...................................................32
Auctioning Permits Good....................................................................................................................................32
AT – Global Warming Slow...............................................33
AT – Global Warming Slow................................................................................................................................33
Global Warming Impacts – Penguins/Krill.........................35
Global Warming Impacts – Penguins/Krill.......................................................................................................35
Solvency – Environmental Leadership...............................36
Solvency – Environmental Leadership..............................................................................................................36
Solvency – Environmental Leadership...............................37
Solvency – Environmental Leadership..............................................................................................................37
Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>..........38
Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>.........................................................................................38
Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>..........39
Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>.........................................................................................39
Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 1/3...............40
1
Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 1/3..............................................................................................40

Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 2/3...............41
Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 2/3..............................................................................................41
Whaling Impact Module A 3/3 – Global Warming.............42
Whaling Impact Module A 3/3 – Global Warming...........................................................................................42
Whaling Impact Module B 3/3 – Mercury Poisoning........43
Whaling Impact Module B 3/3 – Mercury Poisoning.......................................................................................43
Whaling High – Japan........................................................45
Whaling High – Japan.........................................................................................................................................45
Whaling High – Japan........................................................46
Whaling High – Japan.........................................................................................................................................46
Whaling High – Norway....................................................47
Whaling High – Norway......................................................................................................................................47
Soft Power Low..................................................................48
Soft Power Low....................................................................................................................................................48
Solvency – Soft Power Cards.............................................49
Solvency – Soft Power Cards..............................................................................................................................49
Solvency – Soft Power Cards.............................................50
Solvency – Soft Power Cards..............................................................................................................................50
Soft Power Good – Econ....................................................51
Soft Power Good – Econ......................................................................................................................................51
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations..............................52
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations...............................................................................................................52
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Warming>..........53
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Warming>..........................................................................................53
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>.....54
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>....................................................................................54
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>.....55
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>....................................................................................55
Soft Power Good – Terrorism.............................................56
Soft Power Good – Terrorism.............................................................................................................................56
Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ.................................57
Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ..................................................................................................................57
2

Competitiveness Good – US Econ.....................................60
Competitiveness Good – US Econ......................................................................................................................60
Competitiveness Good – US Econ.....................................61
Competitiveness Good – US Econ......................................................................................................................61
Competitiveness Good – International trade/conflict.........62
Competitiveness Good – International trade/conflict.......................................................................................62
Competitiveness Good – Hege...........................................63
Competitiveness Good – Hege.............................................................................................................................63
Competitiveness Good – Terrorism....................................64
Competitiveness Good – Terrorism....................................................................................................................64
Free Trade Good – NW......................................................65
Free Trade Good – NW........................................................................................................................................65
Innovation Key to Economy...............................................66
Innovation Key to Economy................................................................................................................................66
Cap–and–trade Good – Econ..............................................67
Cap–and–trade Good – Econ..............................................................................................................................67
Cap–and–trade Good – Econ..............................................68
Cap–and–trade Good – Econ..............................................................................................................................68
Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good.......................................69
Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good.......................................................................................................................69
Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good.......................................70
Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good.......................................................................................................................70
Cap–and–Trade Bad – Econ...............................................70
Cap–and–Trade Bad – Econ...............................................................................................................................70
Cap–and–Trade Bad...........................................................72
Cap–and–Trade Bad............................................................................................................................................72
Cap–and–Trade Key to Nuclear Power..............................73
Cap–and–Trade Key to Nuclear Power.............................................................................................................73
Cap–and–trade better than European model.......................74
Cap–and–trade better than European model....................................................................................................74
...........................................................................................74
3
...............................................................................................................................................................................74
Cap–and–trade – Solvency.................................................75
Cap–and–trade – Solvency..................................................................................................................................75
Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................79
Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................................................................................................79
AT – States CP....................................................................85
AT – States CP......................................................................................................................................................85
AT – Command/Control CP...............................................86
AT – Command/Control CP................................................................................................................................86
AT – Politics DA.................................................................87
AT – Politics DA...................................................................................................................................................87
AT – Biz Con DA...............................................................88
AT – Biz Con DA..................................................................................................................................................88
AT – Biz Con DA...............................................................89
AT – Biz Con DA..................................................................................................................................................89
AT – Biz Con DA...............................................................90
AT – Biz Con DA..................................................................................................................................................90
AT – EU Relations DA.......................................................91
AT – EU Relations DA.........................................................................................................................................91
4
AT – Spending DA.............................................................94
AT – Spending DA................................................................................................................................................94
AT – Spending DA.............................................................95
AT – Spending DA................................................................................................................................................95
AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good).........................96
AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good).........................................................................................................96
AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good).........................97
AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good).........................................................................................................97
AT – Natural Gas DA (Low Prices Good)..........................98
AT – Natural Gas DA (Low Prices Good)..........................................................................................................98
AT – US Not Biggest Polluter............................................99
AT – US Not Biggest Polluter..............................................................................................................................99
US = Model......................................................................100
US = Model.........................................................................................................................................................100
AT – China won’t follow US regulation...........................101
AT – China won’t follow US regulation...........................................................................................................101
5
OBSERVATION 1: GLOBAL WARMING
NOT ENOUGH IS BEING DONE TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING NOW

Bill McKibben; 9/29/2007; Page A19; The Race Against Warming; Washington Post; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801400.html?sub=AR]
It's the oldest and most cliched of metaphors, but when it comes to global warming, it's the only one that really works: We're in
a desperate race. Politics is chasing reality, and the gap between them isn't closing nearly fast enough.
Consider the news from the real world, the one where change is measured with satellites and thermometers, not focus groups:
Arctic ice is melting on an unbelievable scale -- an area the size of Britain disappeared each week in late summer as the record
for minimum ice cover, set in 2005, was shattered by more than 400,000 square miles, meaning about a 27 percent loss. Forget
the Petraeus report -- what historians will note about September 2007 is that the Northwest Passage was free of ice for the first
time since humans started keeping track.
GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE SOLVED BY EMISSIONS TRADING – SPECIFIC ATMOSPHERIC

COMPOSITION SOLVES – EMPIRICALLY PROVEN
[A. Denny Ellerman; Senior lecturer, Massachusetts institute of Technology, Economics, Finance & Accounting; 2005; US
experience with emissions trading: lessons for CO2 emissions trading; page 81; Cambridge University Press, New York; Edited by
Bernd Hansjurgens]
CURRENT TRENDS OF CLIMATE CHANGE RISK EXTINCTION FOR MORE THAN 1 MILLION
SPECIES
[John Roach for National Geographic News; 7/12/2004; By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says; National
Geographic; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html]
The predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of extinction.
The numbers are expected to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentially dooming more than a million species. "These are
first-pass estimates, but they put the problem in the right ballpark … I expect more detailed studies to refine these numbers and
to add data for additional regions, but not to change the general import of these findings," said Hannah. Writing in an
accompanying commentary to the study in Nature, J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica, and
Robert Puschendorf, a biologist at the University of Costa Rica, say these estimates "might be optimistic." As global warming
interacts with other factors such as habitat-destruction, invasive species, and the build up of carbon dioxide in the landscape,
the risk of extinction increases even further, they say.
6
BIODIVERSITY IS KEY TO HUMAN SURVIVAL

New Scientist; 4/12/2008; New Scientist Magazine; issue 2653; Biodiversity linked to human health;
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/endangered-species/mg19826533.200-biodiversity-linked-to-human-health.html]
To protect the health of humans, save other species. That's the message from Eric Chivian and Aaron Bernstein from Harvard
Medical School in Boston, who say that human health depends crucially on biodiversity.
While plenty of investigations have focused on the sociological and economic impact of species dying
out, few have considered the impact on human health. Chivian and Bernstein hope to change this by drawing
together the ideas of leading thinkers on the subject in Sustaining Life: How human health depends on biodiversity, to be
published by Oxford University Press in May.
OUR IMPACTS OUTWEIGH – SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF A CAP-AND-TRADE ARE

MINISCULE, AND THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE FAR WORSE.
Environmental Protection, 4/30/08, “Study: Cap-and-Trade Won't Slow Economy”, http://www.eponline.com/articles/61412/
A new study released by Environmental Defense Fund finds a clear consensus among leading economic models that a cap-
and-trade policy to cut global warming pollution is consistent with long-term economic growth. The anticipated cost of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the U.S. economy is small, even difficult to measure against projected economic growth,
the study finds. "We can afford an ambitious climate policy for just pennies on the dollar. It's a small investment that will pay
off in cleaner air, new jobs, and a safer world," said Nathaniel Keohane, Ph.D., director of economic policy and analysis at
Environmental Defense Fund, and a former associate professor of economics at the Yale School of Management. "Not acting
now just means paying a heavier price later as we try to manage the consequences of unchecked climate change." What Will it
Cost to Protect Ourselves From Global Warming? is the first comprehensive analysis of the leading economic modeling of cap-
and-trade legislation to combat climate change.
Key findings of the analysis include: • The overall cost of capping greenhouse gases for the average American family will
amount to less than 1 percent of household budgets over the next two decades. • The total number of jobs affected by
climate policy in the manufacturing sector over 20 years is substantially below the number of jobs created and destroyed in
the sector every three months. • Household electricity and natural gas bills rise by only a few dollars a month over the next few
decades – well within the rise and fall homeowners already experience. The U.S. economy has grown nearly 3 percent per year
on average in the post-war period, and that growth is projected to continue. If the U.S. capped its greenhouse gas emissions, the
projected median impact of that cap on growth would be three one-hundredths of 1 percent (0.03 percent), the analysis finds.
"Put another way, our gross domestic product is projected to reach $26 trillion in January 2030. If we capped greenhouse
gases, according to these studies, the economy would hit that same mark by April," Keohane said. The study highlights the fact
that none of the models takes into account the high costs of inaction. Each looks only at one side of the ledger: the costs of
reducing emissions, rather than the benefits of avoiding the consequences of unchecked climate change. "It's important to keep in
mind that these forecasting models compare climate policy to a business-as-usual case that doesn't take the costs of climate change
into account," said Keohane. "If we fail to take action on global warming, the future will be anything but 'business as usual.' The
most expensive policy by far is to do nothing at all." According to a recent study by the University of Maryland, runaway global
warming will impact every economic sector and every region of the country, straining public budgets and impacting jobs
and competitiveness. The EDF study focuses on cap-and-trade programs that would cut U.S. emissions by 60 percent or more
below current levels by the year 2050 – including the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) currently before the
Senate. The analyses surveyed were performed by five of the most highly respected economic modeling groups in
government and academia, at the Energy Information Agency, Research Triangle Institute, Harvard, the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories.
7
GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES EXTINCTION

Stop global warming; http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_learnmore.asp; 2008; Stop Global Warming
The results are in and the reality of global warming is beyond dispute or debate. It’s not just an
environmental issue. It affects our public health and national security. It’s an urgent matter of
survival for everyone on the planet — the most
urgent threat facing humanity today. It’s going to take action from you and all of us working together.
GLOBAL WARMING DECREASES FOOD AVAILABILITY

Dr. Christopher Field, Professor of global ecology at Stanford, researcher at the Carnegie Institute, March 16, 2007;
http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/field-lobell/default.html]
Over a span of two decades, warming temperatures have caused annual losses of roughly $5 billion for major food crops,
according to a new study by researchers at the Carnegie Institution and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From 1981-
2002, warming reduced the combined production of wheat, corn, and barley—cereal grains that form the foundation of much
of the world’s diet—by 40 million metric tons per year. The study, which was published March 16 in thse online journal
Environmental Research Letters, demonstrates that this decline is due to human-caused increases in global temperatures.
A FALL IN FOOD PRODUCTION CAUSES WW3

William H. Calvin, University of Washington, A Brain for All Season, 2002 http://WilliamCalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/
NAcoast.htm Caporal)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try
to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at
home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to
take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons
to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem – and could
easily lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze.
8
OBSERVATION 2: AIR QUALITY
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS ARE ON THE RISE – ELECTRICITY SECTOR IS THE MAIN
EMITTER.
MongaBay 5-21-08 <http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0521-energy.html>
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.6 percent in 2007 to a new record reported the Department of Energy's Energy
Information Administration (EIA). Total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels reached 5,984 million metric tons, up
from 5,888 million metric tons in 2006. EIA data showed an increase in emissions from natural gas and coal in 2007, but a drop
in emissions from the use of oil. U.S. CO2 emissions are now 19.4 percent above 1990 levels. Electricity generation continues
to be the largest source of emissions in terms of primary energy consumption, followed by transportation, and industrial,
residential, and commercial use. Transportation emissions have grown at about the same rate as electric power emissions since
1990, while direct-use emissions in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors have remained relatively flat since 1990.
In a hopeful sign, energy CO2 intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of economic output) fell by about 0.5 percent as the
economy expanded by 2.2 percent but emissions grew only 1.6 percent. Between 1990 and 2006, total greenhouse gas
emissions per unit of GDP declined by 27.7 percent. Despite the gains in carbon intensity, power generation became less
efficient in 2007 due to a decline in the proportion of energy generated from hydroelectric dams. Drier-than-normal conditions
meant that power companies had to make up the shortfall by burning more natural gas and goal. Overall emissions from the
power sector rose 3 percent, while electricity generation rose 2.5 percent.
REDUCING EMISSIONS WOULD DECREASE AIR POLLUTION.

Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Center, July 2001, “The American Way to the
Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Analysis to Reduce Carbon Pollution ,“ http://assets.panda.org/downloads/usreport.doc
A variety of air pollutants, associated with the use of fossil fuels, can cause or exacerbate health problems and damage the
environment. Reducing use of fossil fuels would reap important local health benefits by lowering the amount of air pollutants
inhaled. Recent scientific findings confirm that pollutants such as fine particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone (formed by a mix
of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in presence of sunlight) can lead to health damages, including premature
death. Research shows that small children and the elderly are particularly at risk from these emissions (Dockery et al., 1993;
Schwartz and Dockery, 1992). The policies would reduce national, regional and local pollution, owing to reduced fossil fuel
use, providing important environmental benefits and health benefits, especially for small children and the elderly. Table 5.3
summarizes the impacts of the policies on criteria air pollutant emissions. Sulfur-dioxide emissions are about 52 percent lower
in 2010 than the Base case, and about 68 percent below 1990 levels. Nitrogen oxides are 16 percent lower in 2010,and about 37
percent below 1990 levels. Particulates are about 13 percent lower in 2010, and about 24 percent below 1990 levels. Carbon
monoxide emissions are about 9 percent lower in 2010, and about 2 percent below 1990 levels. Finally, volatile organic
compounds are about 7 percent lower in 2010, and about 33% below 1990 levels. Figure 5.3 shows the impacts of the
Climate Protection policies over time. The large reductions in particulates emissions arise from the substantial decrease in
coal generation in the policy cases. Sulfur-dioxide decreases in the baseline projections arising from the cap/trade provisions of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, are augmented by the policies. Similarly, baseline declines in nitrogen oxides, volatile
organic compounds and carbon monoxide, which arise from tailpipe emissions standards as new cars enter the fleet, are
augmented by the policies that affect vehicle travel patterns. The reductions in nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon are similar to those
introduced in the Four Pollutant Bill currently before the House and the Senate. The Climate Protection scenario achieves the
required levels of reduction a few years earlier (for carbon) or later (for nitrogen and sulfur) than the Four Pollutant Bill's 2007
target date, with substantially deeper reductions continuing thereafter.
9
ONLY STOPPING EMISSIONS ALLOWS NATURAL SEQUESTRATION CATCH UP TO SOAK UP

CARBON
EPA, 10/19/2006, Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, <http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html>
7. What is the potential for additional sequestration to offset greenhouse gas emissions?
At the global level, the IPCC Third Assessment Report estimates about 100 billion metric tons of carbon over the next 50 years
could be sequestered through forest preservation, tree planting and improved agricultural management. This would offset 10-
20% of the world's projected fossil fuel emissions. For the U.S., some analyses (e.g., McCarl and Schneider 2001) suggest that
between 50 and 150 million metric tons of additional carbon sequestration per year could be achieved through changes in
agricultural soil and forest management, tree planting, and biofuel substitution. These particular results consider the financial
incentive to improve land-use practices at prices of, respectively, $10 and $50 per metric ton of additional carbon stored. For
more information on analyses of the potential for additional sequestration in the U.S., visit the National Analysis section of this
Web site. 8. Do sequestration practices affect greenhouse gases other than CO2? Yes. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
are potent greenhouse gases that are also important to consider for forests, croplands and grazing lands. Practices that maintain
and sequester carbon can have both positive and negative effects on CH4 and N2O emissions. The relationship among practices
that affect CO2, CH4, and N2O can be especially complex in cropping and grazing systems. For example, if nitrogen-based
fertilizers are applied to crops to increase yields, this would likely enhance soil carbon but the benefit could be partially or
completely offset by increased emissions of N2O. The practice of rotational grazing can be beneficial across all three major
gases: soil carbon can be maintained and enhanced; livestock CH4 emissions should decline due to improved forage quality;
and N2O emissions can be avoided by eliminating the need for fertilizer applications on the pasture. These complex interactions
among gases mean that it is important to consider not only carbon but all the greenhouse gas effects for certain sequestration
practices. For more information on levels of CH4 and N2O emissions from U.S. agriculture, visit the National Analysis section
of this Web site. 9. What are the other environmental effects of sequestration practices? Practices that aim to reduce carbon
losses and increase sequestration generally enhance the quality of soil, water, air and wildlife habitat. Tree planting that restores
fuller forest cover may not only sequester carbon but could improve habitat suitability for wildlife. Preserving threatened
tropical forests may avoid losses in both carbon and biodiversity, absent any leakage effects. And reducing soil erosion through
tree planting or soil conservation measures can sequester carbon and improve water quality by reducing nutrient runoff. In
certain cases, there may be tradeoffs between carbon objectives and environmental quality. Replacing diverse ecosystems with
single-species timber plantations may generate greater carbon accumulation, but could result in less biodiversity, at least at the
scale of the plantation. For more information on some of the broader environmental effects of sequestration
visit the Co-benefits section of this Web site. 10. How could carbon sequestration be affected by climate change? According to
a National Academy of Sciences 2001 report, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of
human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." In addition to temperature,
human-induced climate change may also affect growing seasons, precipitation and the frequency and severity of extreme
weather events, such as fire. These changes can influence forests, farming and the health of ecosystems, and thus carbon
sequestration. Some argue that rising CO2 levels will enhance sequestration above normal rates due to a fertilization effect.
However, the concurrent changes in temperature and precipitation, along with local nutrient availability and harmful air
pollutants, complicate this view. Furthermore, recent studies of pine forests fumigated with elevated CO2 levels have shown
that this fertilization effect may only be short-lived (Schlesinger and Lichter 2001; Oren et al. 2001). Current projections of
business-as-usual U.S. sequestration rates under various climate change scenarios show both increases and decreases in carbon
storage depending on various assumptions. To date, few analyses of the potential for additional sequestration over time have
considered the future effects of climate change.
10
EMISSIONS SHORTEN LIFE SPANS AND KILL 60,000 A YEAR.

Clean Air Task Force, October 2000, “Death, Disease, and Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution
from Power Plants,”
In March 1995, a second landmark study was published supporting the conclusions of the Six Cities study. The
American Cancer Society (ACS) study tracked over half a million adults in 151 different metropolitan areas for more than
seven years. Detailed information was collected from study participants regarding their age, sex, weight, height, demographic
characteristics, smoking history, alcohol use, occupational exposures, and other factors. The study found a 17 percent increase
in mortality risk in areas with higher concentrations of fine particles. The investigators also found linkages between fine
particles and total mortality and with cardiopulmonary disease. The researchers concluded that exposures to current levels of
air pollution are shortening the lives of Americans by several years.32
In his book summarizing the body of evidence on fine particle health effects, Dr. John Spengler, Director of the Environmental
Science and Engineering Program of the Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that the most obvious and direct
interpretation of the data is that approximately four percent of the death rate in the U.S. can be attributed to air pollution. That
figure is large (approximately 60,000 deaths per year) and exceeds a hundred-fold the sum total of all deaths caused by the
other pollutants that the U.S. EPA regulates.33
POLLUTION CAUSES EXTINCTION

The Stanford, 3/30/2004, Pollution Causing Mass Extinction, <
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/3/30/pollutionCausingMassExtinction>
If you thought our basketball season was intense, get ready for March Madness on a mass extinction scale. Right now, the score
is 5-1, nature vs. humans. By the time it takes for you to finish that econ problem set, several species may have become extinct.
There’s nothing new about this, over 99 percent of the species that ever walked on Earth no longer exist. As a tribute to
Disney’s new DVD, the Lion King, it’s the circle of life playing out before our eyes.
Paleontologists have hypothesized that five major extinctions have occurred on Earth, each one responsible for the demise of
thousands of species. Two recent studies appearing in the journal Science, published by American Association for the
Advancement of Science, even go so far as to suggest that the world could be experiencing another mass extinction. The catch
is this one is slightly different. It is not asteroids and colder temperature shifts that are to blame but pollution. Industry
developments have depleted nitrogen — an essential nutritious source — from the soil, creating a fissure in species’ food webs.
Scientists from the United Kingdom’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology found that the United Kingdom and Central Europe
may have already lost 20 percent of their species to nitrogen deposition. Even more frightening, according to a recent issue of
American Scientist magazine, is the fact that species are becoming extinct at historical rates. The author of the article, Dr.
Donald A. Levin, a botany professor at the University of Texas, claims that species extinction is occurring about 100-1,000
times more than normal. At this rate, he calculated that on average, species are becoming extinct every twenty minutes! I
wonder if any amount of technological progress and global expansion is worth the loss of nearly half of our species in the next
hundred years. Although not a direct consequence of the aforementioned events, pollution is an inevitable byproduct of our
progress. It seems we plow the globe with our novelties in science, architecture, technology, and too many other areas to list, at
a cost, a very high cost. As our population numbers and industrial developments escalate, the living conditions of the Earth’s
flora and fauna simultaneously decline. The question is, does our ability to splice DNA, land on the moon and build impressive
civilizations justify their destruction? Perhaps it’s no use quantifying the value of a macaque’s habitat with Mendelssohn’s
string symphonies. Our achievements surpass the basic instinct of survival into a desire for commodities. For example, even
after the establishment of the Endangered Species Act in 1970 to protect threatened or endangered species, animals keep on
dying. The Tecopa pupfish, the blue pike and the Santa Barbara song sparrow are examples of species that have gone extinct in
the United States since then. Birds in Kakamega Forest, Kenya’s only rainforest, are dying long after logging activities have
stopped. It is difficult to come up with feasible alternatives to our planetary woes. Curbing industrial expansion and reducing
pollution emissions isn’t going to work unless we all work together. Make an effort to be more conscientious about our
environment and look ahead. Our actions now, believe it or not, determine which species will survive or forever disappear.
After the past five mass extinctions, scientists have noted remarkable jump backs in species diversity. There is still hope that
species can and will flourish. All it takes is assuming responsibility for our advancements and respecting the right to live of all
animals, great and small. For our current bout over mass extinctions, I wouldn’t mind if nature takes the crown.
OBSERVATION 3: LEADERSHIP
SUBPOINT A: SOFT POWER
11
SOFT POWER IS LOW NOW BECAUSE OF US INACTIVITY ON INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, 12/28/2002, The Decline of American Soft Power, <
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.html
Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its ability to attract others by the
legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result. According to Gallup International polls,
pluralities in 29 countries say that Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the United States. A
Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believes that Washington has hindered efforts to fight global poverty,
protect the environment, and maintain peace. Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to
achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment.
Skeptics of soft power (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld professes not even to understand the term) claim that popularity
is ephemeral and should not guide foreign policy. The United States, they assert, is strong enough to do as it wishes with or
without the world's approval and should simply accept that others will envy and resent it. The world's only superpower does
not need permanent allies; the issues should determine the coalitions, not vice-versa, according to Rumsfeld. But the recent
decline in U.S. attractiveness should not be so lightly dismissed. It is true that the United States has recovered from unpopular
policies in the past (such as those regarding the Vietnam War), but that was often during the Cold War, when other countries
still feared the Soviet Union as the greater evil. It is also true that the United States' sheer size and association with disruptive
modernity make some resentment unavoidable today. But wise policies can reduce the antagonisms that these realities
engender. Indeed, that is what Washington achieved after World War II: it used soft-power resources to draw others into a
system of alliances and institutions that has lasted for 60 years. The Cold War was won with a strategy of containment that used
soft power along with hard power.
The United States cannot confront the new threat of terrorism without the cooperation of other countries. Of course, other
governments will often cooperate out of self-interest. But the extent of their cooperation often depends on the attractiveness of
the United States. Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomes the
United States wants. When Washington discounts the importance of its attractiveness abroad, it pays a steep price. When the
United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries' domestic politics, foreign
political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions (witness the defiance of Chile, Mexico, and Turkey in March 2003).
And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy in the eyes of others, distrust grows, reducing U.S. leverage in international
affairs.
12
CAP–AND–TRADE KEY TO REVIVE US CREDIBILITY ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Richard E. Benedict, writer for Issues in Science and Technology, 9/22/2001, Striking a Deal
<http://www.cleanenergystates.org/international/Docs%20to%20post%20to%20Int%27l%20Page%20August%202005/Benedick%20
Striking%20a%20New%20Deal%20on%20Climate%202001.pdf>
Start reducing emissions. Regardless of whether the Kyoto Protocol enters into force or the United States ratifies it, the United
States should start down its own path of reducing emissions. Indeed, Senators Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Ted Stevens (R-
Alaska) recently introduced bipartisan legislation that would require President Bush to set interim eduction targets and would
authorize major new funding for relevant energy research and development. A modest initial domestic cap-and-trade system,
similar to the programs that successfully reduced sulfur dioxide and hlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, would send a
message to industry and to other nations that the United States takes the problem seriously. Other policies and measures to
stimulate emissions reductions could be coordinated with
differing constellations of likeminded nations (depending on the measure) and not necessarily enshrined in a global treaty.
It should be possible to break out of the megaconference mold and open parallel negotiations; one need not negotiate on all
subjects with all countries.
US ACTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES WILL MONGER OTHER COUNTRIES TO

PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
Lloyd Doggett, Congressman of Texas, 6/17/2008, Remarks on Introduction of Climate MATTERS Bill, <
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1692549/>
We gather today in the hearing room for a committee that considers revenue, trade, and health legislation. The proposal, which
we are announcing today addresses all three. Certainly, global warming represents our greatest environmental challenge. With
the increased competition for limited resources already underway around the world, with the potential displacement of millions
of people from both flooding and desertification, I believe that global warming also represents our greatest long-term national
security challenge. But with every challenge comes an opportunity, and I am convinced that this immense challenge can offer a
significant economic opportunity for our country to take the global lead in developing renewable energy technology and the
more efficient use of all energy.
Our country has been the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter, and my home state of Texas is the biggest greenhouse gas
polluter in America. We have a responsibility to find a solution, and today we offer a new bill, the "Climate Matters Act." This
is the first climate change bill to have been introduced in Congress, which will receive primary referral here to the House Ways
and Means Committee. We have been promised a hearing on it here in this room within a month. While perhaps true that
climate change legislation cannot be approved this year, the only way to get it approved next year, is to keep pushing forward
now on this urgent national priority. The Climate Market Auction, Trust, and Trade Emissions Reduction System - you can see
why we call it the "Climate MATTERS Act," creates a market-based, cap-and-trade system to put strong yet achievable limits
on greenhouse gas pollution. It creates a carbon marketplace in which allowances to emit greenhouse gases will be auctioned,
bought, sold and traded. The goal is essentially to charge a fair market price for pollution that is currently being dumped into
the atmosphere free of charge. We applaud similar efforts by Senators Lieberman, Warner, and Boxer. Countless forces have
sought to weaken and undermine their proposal. We believe that the science-based solution that we are all seeking is best
advanced by strengthening the cap and trade system that they proposed, not by weakening it. Accordingly, we would both place
limitations on more pollution and give away fewer allowances to pollute free-of-charge to existing polluters than was provided
in their bill. The first title of our bill concerning trade is also unique. We call for the presidential leadership, which we have
lacked for eight years, to engage in immediate international negotiations to encourage all major countries to participate in a
comparable cap-and-trade system. We include both "carrots" and "sticks," consistent with World Trade Organization
requirements, to encourage this global participation. US manufacturers should not be disadvantaged by foreign competitors,
who continue to pollute. Our bill removes the incentive either to buy goods made from "dirty" manufacturing processes abroad
or to move manufacturing offshore.
The auction we propose will raise substantial new revenue: revenue that the bill reinvests in clean energy technology,
assistance to workers and consumers affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy, and some repair of the damage
already inflicted by global warming.
13
SOFT POWER KEY TO PREVENT NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION

Zalmay Khalilzad, Renowned Theorist on Levinas and Foucault, Senior Defense Policy Analyst at RAND, Spring, 1995 (Losing
the Moment? Washington Quarterly. Lexis |
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a
return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a
vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have
tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values --
democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with
the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.
leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
SOFT POWER IS KEY TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR

Associated Press, 11/26/2007, Defense Chief: Fight Terrorism with “Soft Power”, <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21980961/>
WASHINGTON - Defeating terrorism will require the use of more “soft power,” with civilians contributing more in
communication, economic assistance, political development and other non-military areas, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said
Monday. Gates called for the creation of new government organizations, including a permanent group of civilian experts with a
wide range of expertise who could be sent abroad on short notice as a supplement to U.S. military efforts. And he urged more
involvement by university and other private experts. “We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military,
beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen,” he said in a speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan.
“We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years.” He said
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. military involvement in the 1990s in the Balkans and in Somalia, have shown
that long-term success requires more than U.S. military power. “Based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former
director of CIA and now as secretary of defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use ‘soft’ power
and for better integrating it with ‘hard’ power,” Gates said. Many have argued that the Bush administration missed
opportunities early in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns to head off insurgent resistance by failing to focus on economic
development, promotion of internal reconciliation, training of police forces and communication of U.S. goals.
14
TERRORISM CAUSES EXTINCTION – IT COLLAPSES THE ECONOMY AND TRIGGERS NUCLEAR

WAR WITH RUSSIA, CHINA AND NORTH KOREA
Jerome Corsi, PhD from Harvard, 2005, Atomic Iran, 176-178
In the span of less than one hour, the nation's largest city will have been virtually wiped off the map. Removal of debris will
take several years, and recovery may never fully happen. The damage to the nation's economy will be measured in the trillions
of dollars, and the loss of the country's major financial and business center may reduce America immediately to a second-class
status. The resulting psychological impact will bring paralysis throughout the land for an indefinite period of time. The
president may not be able to communicate with the nation for days, even weeks, as television and radio systems struggle to
come back on line. No natural or man-made disaster in history will compare with the magnitude of damage that has been done
to New York City in this one horrible day. The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios. The combination of horror
and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by
the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators
will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during
the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were
radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the
terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will
there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible
under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect
another attack by our known enemy – Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to
destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity.
Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world – more than 1 billion
human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United
States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us. Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy,
the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched
from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities
could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be
possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer
Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their
population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States.
What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow
and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they
have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United
States could be drawn into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the
great nations focus on attacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in
power suddenly inflicted upon America. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of
World War II, when in the last century the Americans a second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their
rescue. If the French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves, they might be happy to fan the diplomatic fire
beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike
on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem
is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would still
see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New
York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But for the president not to retaliate might
be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city
in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective
answer. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician.
The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike
against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting
revenge.
15
SUBPOINT B: ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
US CREDIBILITY IS KEY TO PREVENT THE COLLAPSE OF WHALING REGULATIONS

Sarah Suhre, J.D. at Georgetown University Law Center, ’ 99 ,Misguided Morality: The Repercussions of the International Whaling
Commission's Shift from a Policy of Regulation to One of Preservation, 2 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 305
Preservation, 2 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 305)
The ramifications for the IWC of losing these pro-whaling members would be enormous. As one author stated, "fears for
the organization's future effectiveness are justified," because the Commission is on the verge of losing Japan and Norway,
and if it does, it will have "no legal or moral control over [these countries'] activities ." n103 Without the ability to regulate
the whaling nations, the IWC "will serve neither the whaling interests, nor the states that seek to control whaling." n104
Thus, whether or not one agrees with the current whaling practices of Japan and Norway, one must recognize that
compromise with these nations is mandatory if the IWC is to remain effective. A taste of what could happen if Norway
and Japan withdraw from the IWC is about to be delivered by Iceland, a country which withdrew from the Commission in
1992 after becoming frustrated with the IWC's lack of progress toward a solution acceptable to the pro-whaling
contingent. n105 Iceland's parliament recently voted to end the country's ten-year ban on whaling, and the country is
preparing to resume whaling as early as next year. n106 Iceland's small population will be unable to provide a large
domestic market for whale meat, and thus the country plans to export much of what it catches. n107 Iceland feels no
obligation to refrain from trading in whale products because it is no longer a member of the IWC and is not a signatory of
CITES. n108 Because certain countries such as Japan have virtually bottomless markets for whale meat and blubber, the
number of whales that Icelandic hunters would be willing to kill in a year and the amount of profit to be gained from such
whaling will likely be very high. With no international regulation and very attractive motives for hunting, the resumption
of Icelandic whaling could be potentially devastating for targeted whale stocks. What is to stop Norway and Japan from
[*316] following the example of Iceland, throwing off the shackles of the IWC's whale preservation politics and
resuming full-fledged commercial whaling and trade in whale products? Iceland's potentially reckless plans make clear
the necessity for pro-whaling nations to remain part of the IWC. Regulation, control, and compromise, all of which can be
achieved through an international organization that combines the interests of both whalers and conservationists, are
needed to protect the world's whale stocks from the over-harvesting which occurred in the past. The only way to insure
that whaling countries stay with or rejoin such an organization is to compromise.
16
EXTINCTION – WHALING WILL SUFFOCATE US ALL

George Small, Ph.D.,College of Staten Island, 'Why Man Needs The Whales', in Project Interspeak, ed. T. Wilkes, San Francisco,
1979
Why do we need whales? Every human being has a biological need that must be constantly met - oxygen. And 70% of the
oxygen added to the atmosphere each year comes from plankton in the sea. Serious damage to the world ocean therefore could
endanger the entire atmosphere of the earth. During the last two decades (1950's and 60's) man has killed so many of the large
whales that four species of whale have been reduced from a total of several million to just a few thousand. Every one of these
vanished millions of whales used to consume several hundred tons of a large species of zooplankton a year. That plankton now
is undergoing a classic population explosion for want of a predator. What will be the effect on the oxygen-producing smaller
plankton of the world ocean? What will be the effect on the colour and reflectivity of the oceans? What will be the effect on the
average water temperature of the oceans, on its dissolved oxygen content and subsequently on the earth's atmosphere? No one
knows. Climatologists know any significant change in ocean temperature can have profound effects on the earth's climates. By
killing off the whales of the world man is playing Russian roulette with the earth's primary support system. Yes, we desperately
need the whales to preserve the air we breathe.
OBSERVATION 4: COMPETITION
THE US IS SLUGGISH ON LOW-CARBON TECH – INVESTING IN A GREEN ECONOMY IS

CRUCIAL TO PREVENT A DEVASTATING LAG OF COMPETITIVENESS.
Daniel Kammen, Distinguished Chair in Energy and professor in the Energy and Resources Group, the Goldman School of
PublicPolicy, and the Department of Nuclear Engineering, founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory,
Co-Director of the Institute of the Environment, all at the University of California, Berkeley, served on the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, currently serves on the Canadian National Advisory Panel on the Sustainable Energy Science and Technology
Strategy, 9/25/2007, “http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:DFTI3CV77SMJ:www.unep.org/civil_society/GCSF9/pdfs/karmen-
senate.pdf+Professor+Daniel+Kammen+from+U.C.+Berkeley+new+wave+of+job+growth+both+%E2%80%98high+technology%E2
%80%99+and+ones+that+transform+%E2%80%98blue+collar+labor%E2%80%99+into+%E2%80%98green+collar%E2%80%99+o
pportunities.+The+combination+of+economic+competitiveness+and+environmental+protection+is+a+clear+result+fr&hl=en&ct=cln
k&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
In this testimony I highlight the key finding that while a continuation of business as usual energy choices will result in socially,
politically, and environmentally costly and destructive climate change, the motivation to invest in solutions to climate change
can be simply that a green economy can also be exceedingly vibrant. In fact, an economy built around a suite of low-carbon
technologies can be resistant to price shocks as well as secure against supply disruptions as well as inclusive of diverse
socioeconomic groups. A new wave of job growth – both ‘high technology’ and ones that transform ‘blue collar labor’ into
‘green collar’ opportunities. The combination of economic competitiveness and environmental protection is a clear result from
a systematic approach to investing in climate solutions. Clean energy systems and energy efficiency investments also
contribute directly to energy security and to domestic job growth versus off-shore migration. Renewable energy systems are
more often local than imported due to the weight of biomass resources and the need for operations and maintenance. A growing
number of state, regional, and national economies are assuming leadership positions for a clean, low carbon, energy economy.
These ‘early actors’ are reaping the economic benefits of their actions. Among the global leaders are Brazil, Denmark, Iceland
Germany, Japan, Spain, all of which have made significant commitments to a green economy, and all are seeing job growth and
rapidly expanding export opportunities. The goal of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to reduce the greenhouse impact of fossil
fuel emissions, and to begin to move toward a diverse set of economically and environmentally sustainable transportation
choices. Job Growth in a Green Economy – Empirical Lessons and Strong Prospects Expanding the use of renewable energy is
not only good for our energy self-sufficiency and the environment; it also has a significant positive impact on employment. My
students and I have examined the observed job growth in a number of technology sectors (Kammen, Kapadia and Fripp, 2004).
US RENEWABLES DOMINANCE IS CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING ITS TECHNOLOGICAL LEAD

IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.
17
Kammen, Professor of Energy and Society Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory
(RAEL) Energy and Resources Group, 7/11/2001, (FDCH, lexis)
In the last decade, the case for renewable energy has become an economic and environmental 'win-win' proposition. For many
years renewables were seen as environmentally and socially attractive options that at best occupied niche markets due to
barriers of cost and available infrastructure. That situation has dramatically changed. Renewable energy resources and
technologies - notably solar, wind, small-scale hydro, and biomass based energy, as well as advanced energy conversion
devices such as fuel cells - have undergone a true revolution in technological innovation, cost improvements, and in our
understanding and analysis of appropriate applications 2 . There are now a number of energy sources, conversion technologies,
and applications, where renewable energy options are either equal, or better, in price and services provided than the prevailing
fossil fuel technologies. For example, in a number of settings in industrialized nations, wind energy is now the least cost option
across all energy technologies with the added benefit of being modular and quick to install and bring on-line. In fact, some
farmers, notably in the Midwest, have found that they can generate more income per hectare from the electricity generated by a
wind turbine on their land than from their crop or ranching proceeds. Furthermore, photovoltaic panels and solar hot water
heaters placed on buildings across America can: help reduce energy costs; dramatically shave peak-power demands; produce a
healthier living environment; and increase our energy supply while managing our energy demand. California's energy crisis has
raised fundamental questions about regional and national energy strategies. Rising demand suggests the need for new energy
supplies, and certainly some new energy capacity is needed. However, there is a wide range of options for achieving supply
and demand balance, and some of these options have not been given adequate attention. In general, the lack of past state and
federal leadership has meant that we have seen too few incentives for renewable energy development, energy conservation, and
efficiency measures, and too little attention to appropriate power plant siting issues and transmission and distribution
bottlenecks. As a nation we are ignoring the importance of maintaining leadership in key technological and industrial areas,
many of which are related to the energy sector.3 This includes keeping pace with Japan and Germany in the production of solar
photovoltaic systems, catching up with Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and with Japan, Germany, and
Canada in the development of fuel cell systems. The development of these industries within the U.S. is vital to both our
international competitiveness and commercial strength, and to our national security in providing for our own energy needs.
Renewable and distributed energy systems and energy efficiency are areas experiencing tremendous market growth
internationally. These systems combine the latest advances in energy conversion and storage, with improvements in computer
and other advanced technologies, and are therefore natural areas for U. S. business interests and for U. S. strategic leadership.
The U. S. must improve the financial and political climate for clean energy systems in order to reassert our leadership in this
vital area.
COMPETITIVENESS IS KEY TO MAINTAIN LEADERSHIP.

Zalmay Khalilzad, professor of international relations at Columbia, Senior Defense Policy Analyst at RAND, Spring, 1995 (Losing
the Moment? Washington Quarterly. Lexis | SWON)
To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm.
Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions
produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and
negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation,
which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize
the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power,
U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by
strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior science and technology.
18
THE TERMINAL IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR.

Zalmay Khalilzad, Renowned Theorist on Levinas and Foucault, Senior Defense Policy Analyst at RAND, Spring, 1995
(Losing the Moment? Washington Quarterly. Lexis |
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival
or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such
a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have
tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values --
democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with
the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States
and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange.
U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power
system.
19
Hence the plan:
The United States federal government should establish an auctioned cap and
trade system that reduces carbon emissions from electricity generation to 20%
below 1990 levels by 2020.
20
OBSERVATION 5: SOLVENCY
PLAN IS KEY TO AVOID THE THRESHOLD FOR CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE

Professor Doctor Hartmut Grafl et al, chair of German Advisory Council on Climate Change and Director of Max Planck Institute
for Meteorology (the rest are all various professors and think tank directors), 11/10/2003, “Climate Protection Strategies for the 21st
Century, Special Report by German Advisory Council on Climate Change”, http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2003_engl.pdf
The threshold from which damage to the global natural heritage is no longer acceptable cannot be determined precisely.
However, the WBGU estimates it to be in the range of 2°C global warming relative to pre-industrial values. For worldwide
food security, too, the threshold appears to be in this range, as above this global warming level worldwide climate-related
losses in agricultural production must be expected, as well as a steep rise in the number of people threatened by water scarcity.
Concerning health impacts, no tolerance threshold can currently be appraised due to poor data availability
and a lack of mature methodologies. However, it can be assumed that for some regions the effects of climate
change would already lead to intolerable impacts at 2°C mean global warming. Moreover, climate change has the
potential to trigger singular, catastrophic changes in the Earth System, such as a shift in worldwide ocean
circulation, the melting of major ice sheets (West Antarctic, Greenland) or the sudden release of huge
methane reserves. Quantitative assessments of the threshold values for these effects are beset with great
uncertainty. The WBGU’s recommendation: A maximum of 2°C warming is acceptable The WBGU reaffirms
its conviction that in order to avert dangerous climatic changes, it is essential to comply with a ‘climate guard rail’
defined by a maximum warming of 2°C relative to pre-industrial values. As the global mean temperature has already risen by
0.6°C since the onset of industrialization, only a further warming by 1.4°C is tolerable. A global mean long-term
warming rate of at most 0.2°C per decade should not be exceeded. This climate window should be agreed
as a global objective within the context of the UNFCCC process. The European Union should seek to adopt
a leading role on this matter. 2Acceptable emissions The WBGU has developed tolerable emission paths for
energy- and industry-related greenhouse gases that remain within the WBGU climate window. However,
major uncertainty still attaches to the estimate of climate sensitivity, meaning the rise in temperature that
follows a doubling of CO2 concentration. Similarly, the role of the biosphere in the carbon cycle cannot yet
be appraised with sufficient accuracy. It is also hard to assess to what extent other greenhouse gases can
also be reduced. The WBGU’s recommendation: Adopt ambitious emissions reduction targets. In view of the
major uncertainties concerning the climate system, the WBGU recommends a hedging strategy in which initially a CO2
concentration target below 450 ppm is aimed at. This will only be possible if by 2050 global energy-related CO2 emissions can
be reduced by about 45–60% from 1990 levels. Furthermore, it will be essential to achieve substantial reductions
of the other greenhouse gases (notably methane and nitrous oxide, but also the fluorinated compounds)
and of further indirectly radiatively active substances (e.g. soot).Therefore, industrialized countries must reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020.
EMISSIONS TRADING IS COST EFFECTIVE, FEASIBLE AND EASY TO MONITOR

White House Task force on climate challenge; 10/19/1999; Environmental protection agency; Greenhouse gas emissions
trading: a country and a company-eye view: The U.S. view; Lexis;]
The sulfur dioxide allowances can be bought and sold. Companies facing high emission control costs have the
flexibility to choose their own compliance strategies. They can reduce their emissions by enough to match their allowance
allocation (e.g., by installing pollution controls, switching to cleaner fuels, or improving efficiency).
They can also choose to purchase more allowances. Companies with inexpensive opportunities to reduce
emissions below their allocations can sell allowances they do not need. A national registry records all
allowance holdings and trades, and shows which allowances have been used and which remain available for future use.
Electric utilities, brokers, and private individuals have accounts in the registry recording their
allowance holdings, purchases, and sales. Some allowances have even been purchased by school
children and environmentalists, who have taken them "off the market" to further reduce emissions.
The results speak for themselves. Sulfur dioxide emissions are being cut about 30 percent more rapidly than expected,
bringing cleaner air to millions of Americans. And the total costs of the acid rain program are now projected to be well
under half of original expectations.
21
CAP–AND–TRADE PRODUCES REVENUE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

RESOURCES
Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center of Budget and Planning and Policy Priorities, 1/23/2008, CAP, AUCTION,
AND TRADE: AUCTIONS AND REVENUE RECYCLING UNDER CARBON CAP AND TRADE”
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, < http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-08climate-
testimony.htm>
Although the resources that can be generated by sound climate-change policies are substantial, so too are the budget claims
arising from those policies. Besides the need to protect vulnerable populations, those claims include basic research into
alternative energy sources, assistance for workers and communities that depend on the coal industry and other
industries most affected by the shift to a less carbon-intensive economy, and other needs. In addition, higher energy prices
will drive up the cost to federal, state, and local governments of providing many important services and benefits. Unless these
costs are offset, government services will have to be reduced or taxes raised, or the federal deficit will rise.
REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS WILL LEAD TO RESEARCHING ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES.

In addition to this reduced demand for electricity, the mix of fuels used to generate electricity changes dramatically, as shown
in Figure 5.2b. The electric sector policies shift the generation mix away from a heavy reliance on coal, and avoid the rapid
build-up of natural gas generation, by relying much more on renewable energy and, especially, cogeneration. Cogeneration
grows from roughly 300 TWh today to 660 TWh in 2010, and 1260 in 2020, whereas in the Base case cogeneration increases
modestly to 380 TWh in 2010 and 440 TWh in 2020. Non-hydro renewable energy consumption increases almost five times by
2010 over the Base case, and remains roughly at this level through 2020.
US ACTIONS WILL BE A MODEL FOR OTHERS IN EMISSIONS

[Richard D. Morgenstern; Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future, 2000 – present, Distinguished Professor of Economics
(Visiting), Oberlin College, 2000 – 2001, Member, National Academy of Engineering Committee on "Industrial Environmental
Performance Metrics," 1997 – 1999 ; 2005; Design issues of a domestic carbon emissions trading system in the USA; page 115;
Cambridge University Press, New York; Edited by Bernd Hansjurgens]
AT – ASPEC
1. We meet – all 3 branches is normal means
22
2. Counter-interpretation - United States federal government:

The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal
government of the United States – Wordnet 03
3. Resolution basis – it only mandates the specificity of the

United States Federal Government
4. Infinitely regressive – if they can mandate more specificity

than the USFG, then they can ask for specific congress people
– this explodes reasonable ground. They either run ASPEC or
OSPEC. This wastes time and kills debate
5. Agent counterplans are bad – they steal the 1AC and allow for
infinitely small and artificially competitive net benefits, which
moots the 1AC
6. ASPEC is not a voter

i. Cross-ex and pre-round disclosure check abuse.
ii. No in-round abuse—they aren’t running any agent
counterplans or d/a about the government
iii. Don’t vote on potential abuse— you cant decide what we
MIGHT do in another round.
23
AT – Topicality: “USFG”
1. We meet – The USFG does the plan.
2. Counter Interpretation – Only the US can pass the plan without conflicting
laws
Richard Stavros, Public Utilities Fortnightly, “Playing Russian roulette?”, No. 11, Vol. 142; Pg. 4, 11-1-2004
It could mark the biggest bungle of the last two administrations-the decision to walk away from the Kyoto Protocol rather than
stay and negotiate to U.S. advantage. No one thought Russia would sign and put the treaty in force. But now that Russia's
ratification appears imminent, policy wonks in America are scrambling to assess the impact.
In our August issue, attorney Peter J. Fontaine laid out in stark detail what Russia's ratification could mean for energy prices,
and how the World Trade Organization (WTO) could force the United States to comply (see, "Global Warming: The Gathering
Storm," p. 50). And many other analysts now appear to agree, predicting that Kyoto's enactment could prove painful for the
United States, owing largely to our discordant state and federal environmental rules.Frustration with the current administration
has caused some state regulators to go it alone on environmental policy. Some states in the last few years have cut their own
deals with electric utilities on carbon emissions-deals that go out for years. Or they have developed mandatory portfolio
standards for renewable energy, or have sponsored emissions trading regimes with neighboring states or countries, such as
Canada. However noble these efforts, they could undermine America's economic competitiveness. Utilities, for instance, may
find themselves obliged to boost rates to pay for emissions reduction equipment forced upon them under the Kyoto plan. The
affect of those increased energy costs, experts worry, could render U.S. businesses less competitive. Evidently, at this point no
one really knows how these state environmental programs will mesh with the Kyoto treaty. Only now are experts beginning to
ask questions like, "Is New England too restrictive in its reduction of carbon emissions? Does Ohio need to be more
restrictive?" Conversely, others say that some state environmental programs may prove adequate for U.S. participation in a
Kyoto plan. A greater problem, they say, may be those states that have not enacted any kind of program and are likely to see
more of a dramatic shift in their rates. All of this has led some to worry that in the absence of a comprehensive national plan,
even more states may feel forced to strike out and cut their own sweetheart Kyoto deals or to protect businesses within their
borders. It recently was rumored in the international press that California might be working on a carbon-trading scheme linked
with the European or Kyoto programs. Now imagine 50 such deals, each with its own peculiarities. The biggest problem,
experts agree, is the lack of any national plan for the environment. Until we have one, America's energy sector could find itself
held hostage to world opinion.
3. USFG key – states will sell permits at different minimum levels; causing
companies to move to states that sell permits cheaper. Companies will
evacuate states crashing multi-state economies
4. Counter–standards
a. Limits – our interpretation strictly limits our case to the USFG
b. Ground – the NEG can run ASPEC, States CP, Politics DA’s, etc.
c. Education – we force the AFF to stick to one actor so that we must
defend all sides
d. Fairness – we prevent the AFF from shifting actors
5. Not a voters for the reasons above
24
AT – Topicality: “Substantial”
1. We meet - Cap-and-trade programs cause a substantial reduction in carbon
emissions
[John Kinsman reviews the successes of emissions trading
and rebuts fears that trading might lead to localised ‘hot spots’;
Emissions trading, the economy and the environment; Market View; October 2002;
http://www.emissions.org/publications/member_articles/ef10ema_b.pdf]
Second, cap-and-trade programmes set a permanent emissions cap to be much lower

(eg, 50–70%) than current emissions, requiring a substantial reduction in emissions over
the area of concern, be it a large region or the whole nation.
2. Counter Defintion: Substantially is to a large degree
3. Our definition is best it allows for the greatest number of cases, provided
that there is literature, which allows a balance that creates a fair and
predictable debate for both aff and neg.
4. Substantially creates and arbitrary brightline that becomes impossible to

meet because there will always be cards that mandate a specific amount that
is impossible to meet with any case. This limits out the aff and means neg wins
every debate.
5. Substantial is relative – different affs and policies require a different

amount of incentives in order for it to be a substantial increase.
6. The neg justifies judge intervention which is bad because it leads to

arbitrary decisions based on who yells louder.
7. Reasonability becomes the only real standard because it is the only way to
make sure that the neg doesn’t run T just because they know they can get
away with it. The aff only has to be reasonably topical to give the neg the
necessary ground.
25
8. T is not a voter. Don’t vote on potential abuse.
26
AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives

Cap–and–Trade incentivizes companies to research and develop alternative energy
resources
testimony.htm>
The policies needed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would, by themselves, result in regressive changes in energy prices.
But they also can generate substantial revenue that could be used to offset those regressive impacts. Our analysis, like that of
CBO, shows that the potential revenue from auctioning off emission allowances under a cap-and-trade system could yield more
than enough revenue to offset the losses likely to be experienced by low- and moderate-income families and by workers in the
industries hit hardest by the adjustment to a less carbon-intensive economy. The revenue could be sufficient both to address
these issues and to meet various other legitimate purposes arising from the legislation as well (see figure 1). In contrast, giving
away a substantial fraction of emission allowances to existing energy producers would do almost nothing to compensate low-
and moderate-income families for their losses. A very large percentage of the benefits of such a giveaway would go to
shareholders of the energy companies, most of whom have high incomes, while little revenue would be available to mitigate
the effects on those least well-off. Addressing regressivity and adjustment costs would not be the only claims on the resources
that could be generated by a cap-and-trade system. Governments at all levels would pay more for the energy and energy-
related products that they consume directly. For example, the Defense Department is the single largest consumer of energy in
the United States. In addition, there would be impacts on living costs and economic activity, which, while modest in the
overall economy, could nevertheless trigger increases in automatic cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security and other
benefit programs and some modest reductions in tax revenues. These issues can be addressed — and any increases in deficits
and debt avoided — by using a share of the allowances to offset such tax and expenditure changes. (Note: action to reduce the
damages from climate change should have positive effects on the budget over the longer run, by reducing government
expenditures for such things as natural disasters, crop failures, and disease epidemics. In other words, in the absence of
effective climate-change policies, natural events are likely to occur sooner or later that entail large federal costs and throw the
budget farther out of whack.) In addition, although higher energy prices would create strong incentives for energy
conservation and for investment in clean-energy technologies, there will be claims for additional subsidies to encourage a
wide variety of activities in the name of combating climate change. In many cases (including various types of basic alternative
energy research), such investments can be a valuable complement to the market incentives provided by a cap-and-trade
system. Such spending will be wasteful, however, if it merely subsidizes activity that would take place anyway or that is not
well focused on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. If lawmakers capture the necessary revenue and make wise choices
among competing claims in designing climate-change policy, they can achieve the economic and environmental benefits from
reducing greenhouse-gas emissions while addressing the impact of higher prices on low-income consumers and other
legitimate new claims on available resources. (It might even be possible to achieve some modest deficit reduction, which
would be valuable at a time when, as this Committee well knows, the pressures on the federal budget will be increasing.) If,
however, lawmakers give away too many emissions rights to existing emitters, as a number of the bills currently pending in
Congress would do, they will fail to capture sufficient resources to meet these needs, while conferring windfall profits on
energy companies and other emitters. This latter course would risk large increases in deficits and debt (already on course to
reach unsustainable levels in future decades), significant increases in poverty and hardship, and a further widening of the gap
between rich and poor.
27

Cap–and–trade produces revenue used for development of alternative energy resources
testimony.htm>
Although the resources that can be generated by sound climate-change policies are substantial, so too are the budget claims
arising from those policies. Besides the need to protect vulnerable populations, those claims include basic research into
alternative energy sources, assistance for workers and communities that depend on the coal industry and other
industries most affected by the shift to a less carbon-intensive economy, and other needs. In addition, higher energy prices
will drive up the cost to federal, state, and local governments of providing many important services and benefits. Unless these
costs are offset, government services will have to be reduced or taxes raised, or the federal deficit will rise.
Cap–and–Trade provide powerful incentives for companies to pursue alternative energy

Richard B. Steward and Jonathan B. Wiener, Authors of Issues of Science and Technology, 1/1/2004, Practical climate change
policy: a sensible middle–of–the–road alternative exists between defending the Kyoto Protocol and the do–nothing policy,
<http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-681282/Practical-climate-change-policy-a.html>
Our proposed regime would have the following elements. It would use market based incentives in the form of an international
cap-and-trade system for net GHG emissions that would include both developing and industrialized countries. Because GHGs
mix globally, their effects on global climate are unrelated to where emission reductions occur. A cap would be placed on net
emissions by all participating countries and their sources. Emissions trading would allow those countries and companies that
face high emissions reduction costs to finance emissions reductions in other countries, especially developing countries that
enjoy lower costs, benefiting all parties financially and environmentally. Further, it would enlist the resources and ingenuity
of the private sector, giving companies powerful incentives to develop emissions -reducing technologies and ways of
doing business. The new regime would also include a comprehensive regulatory system covering all GHGs, sinks (such as
forests), and economic sectors rather than being limited to a subset of the problem, such as fossil fuel CO2 combustion. Finally,
we would set sensible emissions lim itations pathways that maximize net benefits to society.
28

Cap–and–trade causes a price spike by restricting emissions from non–alternative
energies sources
testimony.htm>
In a cap-and-trade system, making sure there are adequate budget resources requires that most of the emission allowances are
auctioned off, not given away for free to energy companies and other emitters due to misconceptions about the financial losses
they would incur. One misconception is that those losses would be very large. CBO's review of the evidence, however,
concludes that less than 15 percent of the total value of the allowances would be sufficient to offset the net financial losses of
companies affected by policies to restrict emissions. More than that would simply create what CBO has called “windfall
profits” for companies receiving the free allowances. A related misconception about cap-and-trade may also contribute to the
belief that large numbers of emission allowances should be given away to energy companies and other industrial emitters. This
is the mistaken belief that energy prices will not rise (or not rise as much) if the allowances are given away. That belief is not
correct; it flies in the face of the basic law of supply and demand. A cap on emissions will limit the supply of energy produced
from fossil fuels. When supply is restricted, prices rise — just as when there is a banana shortage, the price of bananas goes
up. Regardless of whether the government gives away or sells the allowances, energy companies will be able to sell their
products at the higher price. If companies receive allowances for free, they will still be able to charge the higher price — they
will be able to charge what the market will bear — and will reap what CBO has termed “windfall profits.” Indeed, Harvard
economist Greg Mankiw, who served as Chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has
characterized a cap-and-trade mechanism under which the allowances are given away as “corporate welfare.” (As an analogy,
if a distributor has purchased large quantities of a product at one price but some external event then causes the supply of future
quantities of that product to fall — and the market price of the product to rise correspondingly — the distributor will not keep
his prices low just because he purchased the products before their price climbed. He will charge what the market will bear. In
the same way, energy companies will charge what the market will bear whether they obtain the permits for free or purchase
them through an auction.)
Increased energy prices from cap–and–trade spur innovation for alternative

energy
testimony.htm>
Effective climate-change policies work in part by raising the prices of fossil-fuel energy products to encourage energy
efficiency and the substitution of clean energy sources. This is essential to prevent extensive environmental and economic
damage from climate change. However, it will raise costs to consumers for a wide array of products and services, from
gasoline and electricity to food, mass transit, and other products or services with significant energy inputs. Households with
limited incomes will be affected the most by those higher prices, since they spend a larger share of their incomes on energy-
related products and services than more affluent households do. They also are less able to afford investments that can reduce
their energy consumption, such as buying a more efficient car or a new heating and cooling system. If nothing is done to
protect people of limited means, many more of them will slip into poverty, those who are poor will become poorer, and the
trend toward widening income inequality will be aggravated.
29

1. We meet - Reduced carbon emissions will lead to researching alternative
energies.
In addition to this reduced demand for electricity, the mix of fuels used to generate electricity changes dramatically, as shown
in Figure 5.2b. The electric sector policies shift the generation mix away from a heavy reliance on coal, and avoid the rapid
build-up of natural gas generation, by relying much more on renewable energy and, especially, cogeneration. Cogeneration
grows from roughly 300 TWh today to 660 TWh in 2010, and 1260 in 2020, whereas in the Base case cogeneration increases
modestly to 380 TWh in 2010 and 440 TWh in 2020. Non-hydro renewable energy consumption increases almost five times by
2010 over the Base case, and remains roughly at this level through 2020.
2. Counter-interpretation – incentive means to drive action toward.

Merriam-Webster Online 2008
Incentive: something that incites or has a tendency to incite to determination or action
3. We meet our counter-interpretation – lower carbon emissions makes

companies shift to alternative energies.
4. We aren’t effects – the move to alternative energy is made immediately

after plan is passed.
5. Effects good –
a. Ground – effects allows the aff to access more cases to run and gives
the neg more ground for disad and kritik links, increasing in-round education
by letting us talk about more subjects.
b. No brightline – the neg doesn’t say how many steps is not effects, so
there’s no way to evaluate effects T.
c. Limits – effects allows for broader limits and more varied debates. The
neg’s interpretation leads to boring, repetitive debates that kill education.
d. Increases clash – the neg has more links to attack if we take more
steps, allowing for better debates with more clash.
6. We are reasonably topical since we lead to an increase in the use of

alternative energies so you can’t vote us down on T. Prefer reasonability
because it allows for more substantive debates instead of trivial debates on
interpretations.
7. This case is one of the most predictable since there is so much literature
about reducing carbon emissions to increase alternative energy. The neg
should have literature and be able to debate this case.
30
Auctioning Permits Good

Companies will raise energy prices regardless of auction or allowance
testimony.htm>
Besides the need to protect vulnerable populations, those claims include basic research into alternative energy sources,
assistance for workers and communities that depend on the coal industry and other industries most affected by the shift to a less
carbon-intensive economy, and other needs. In addition, higher energy prices will drive up the cost to federal, state, and local
governments of providing many important services and benefits. Unless these costs are offset, government services will have
to be reduced or taxes raised, or the federal deficit will rise. In a cap-and-trade system, making sure there are adequate budget
resources requires that most of the emission allowances are auctioned off, not given away for free to energy companies and
other emitters due to misconceptions about the financial losses they would incur. One misconception is that those losses would
be very large. CBO's review of the evidence, however, concludes that less than 15 percent of the total value of the allowances
would be sufficient to offset the net financial losses of companies affected by policies to restrict emissions. More than that
would simply create what CBO has called “windfall profits” for companies receiving the free allowances. A related
misconception about cap-and-trade may also contribute to the belief that large numbers of emission allowances should be given
away to energy companies and other industrial emitters. This is the mistaken belief that energy prices will not rise (or not rise
as much) if the allowances are given away. That belief is not correct; it flies in the face of the basic law of supply and demand.
A cap on emissions will limit the supply of energy produced from fossil fuels. When supply is restricted, prices rise — just as
when there is a banana shortage, the price of bananas goes up. Regardless of whether the government gives away or sells the
allowances, energy companies will be able to sell their products at the higher price. If companies receive allowances for free,
they will still be able to charge the higher price — they will be able to charge what the market will bear — and will reap what
CBO has termed “windfall profits.” Indeed, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who served as Chairman of President George
W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has characterized a cap-and-trade mechanism under which the allowances are given
away as “corporate welfare.” (As an analogy, if a distributor has purchased large quantities of a product at one price but some
external event then causes the supply of future quantities of that product to fall — and the market price of the product to rise
correspondingly — the distributor will not keep his prices low just because he purchased the products before their price
climbed. He will charge what the market will bear. In the same way, energy companies will charge what the market will bear
whether they obtain the permits for free or purchase them through an auction.)
Auctioning trading permits is more efficient and economical than allocatiing allowances
Recent analyses suggest that an auction is the most economically efficient way to distribute permits, meeting emissions caps at
lower cost than allocations based on grand[parents] allowances or equal per kWh allowances (Burtraw, et al. 2001).
Implementing such auctions for the electric sector will also clear the way for an economy-wide approach in future years based
on auctioning. In this study, the price of auctioned carbon permits reaches $100 per metric ton carbon. While not specifically
targeted by the trading programs, the operators of the 850 old “grand-[parented]” coal plants built before the Clean Air Act of
1970, which emit 3-5 times as much pollution per unit of power generated than newer coal power plants, will likely retire these
plants rather than face the cost of purchase the large amount of credits necessary to keep them running. However, utilities are
continuing to operate these plants beyond their design life, and have in fact increased their output over the last decade. By
subjecting these old plants to the same requirements as newer facilities, as has been done or is being considered in several
states including Massachussetts and Texas, operators would be obliged to modernize the old plants or to retire them in favor of
cleaner electric generation alternatives. With a cap and trade system in place for CO2, SOx and NOx, this scenario reduces
multiple emissions from power plants, in a manner similar to that adopted in the Four Pollutant Bill currently before the House
(H.R., 1256) and the Senate (S. 556).
31
Auctioning Permits Good

Revenue from auctioning permits provides funding for more alternative energy
research
testimony.htm>
The policies needed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would, by themselves, result in regressive changes in energy prices.
But they also can generate substantial revenue that could be used to offset those regressive impacts. Our analysis, like that of
CBO, shows that the potential revenue from auctioning off emission allowances under a cap-and-trade system could yield more
than enough revenue to offset the losses likely to be experienced by low- and moderate-income families and by workers in the
industries hit hardest by the adjustment to a less carbon-intensive economy. The revenue could be sufficient both to address
these issues and to meet various other legitimate purposes arising from the legislation as well (see figure 1). In contrast, giving
away a substantial fraction of emission allowances to existing energy producers would do almost nothing to compensate low-
and moderate-income families for their losses. A very large percentage of the benefits of such a giveaway would go to
shareholders of the energy companies, most of whom have high incomes, while little revenue would be available to mitigate
the effects on those least well-off. Addressing regressivity and adjustment costs would not be the only claims on the resources
that could be generated by a cap-and-trade system. Governments at all levels would pay more for the energy and energy-
related products that they consume directly. For example, the Defense Department is the single largest consumer of energy in
the United States. In addition, there would be impacts on living costs and economic activity, which, while modest in the
overall economy, could nevertheless trigger increases in automatic cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security and other
benefit programs and some modest reductions in tax revenues.
Revenue from auctioning permits helps protect poor families from rising energy prices
testimony.htm>
The amount of revenue the government could raise by auctioning off all of the permits in a cap-and-trade system is far more
than what would be needed to protect low-income consumers from higher energy-related prices arising from climate-change
legislation. We estimate that a program designed according to the principles laid out later in this testimony, which would fully
offset the impact on the poorest 20 percent of people and also provide some relief to many hard-pressed working families in the
next 20 percent, could be fully funded with approximately 14 percent of the resources that would be generated by auctioning
off all the allowances in a cap-and-trade system. The specific dollar amounts in our first two sets of numbers — $750 to $950
per year of added costs for low-income consumers and $50 to $300 billion per year of potential revenue are tied to specific
emissions targets, but the 14 percent figure is not. When the emissions target is looser (and hence the emissions reduction is
smaller) — as it would be in the early years of most proposals — the dollar amount of revenue that could be raised would be
lower, but so too would be the increase in energy prices and the amount of added costs that households would face. As the cap
tightens and larger emissions reductions are called for, the added costs to households increase, but so too does the potential
revenue that would be available to offset those costs. But no matter what the point in time, the amount needed to protect low-
income consumers would always be about 14 percent of the revenue that could be generated. In other words, Congress does
not need to guess at what the right amount to provide to assist low-income consumers will be; by setting aside 14 percent of the
allowance value in a cap-and-trade system in perpetuity, it can be sure to have shielded these consumers from whatever the
price impacts on them are in any given year. If Congress wanted to assist middle-income consumers as well, that could be
accomplished, if a sufficient share of the allowance value from a cap-and-trade regime were set aside for that purpose.
32
AT – Global Warming Slow

1) Global warming is causing species loss now
[Dan Stafford; 11/24/2006; Global Warming is Real and Happening Now; environmental action; http://www.environmental-
action.org/blog/archives/2006/11/global_warming_6.html]
According to a study from a researcher at the University of Texas, at least 70 species of frogs have gone extinct likely
from the effects of global warming. Another 100 to 200 species are in sever danger of being wiped out, such as the
emperor penguin and the polar bear. Combined with this is evidence of many species migrating northward to escape the
increased heat. Hopefully, we'll be able to generate enough change to stop it.
2) Extend New scientist 08 from the 1AC – biodiversity is key and a growing
endangered species list threatens human survival
33
Global Warming Impacts – Drought/extinction

Global warming now is leading to drought, floods and heat
[The Associated Press; 8/7/2007; Global warming will strike developing nations the hardest, UN says;
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/07/asia/AS-GEN-India-UN-Global-Warming.php]
Scientists have warned that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions are causing global temperatures to rise, leading to drought,
floods and searing heat.
Global warming causes extinction

[Stop global warming; http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_learnmore.asp; 2008; Stop Global Warming]
The results are in and the reality of global warming is beyond dispute or debate. It’s not just an environmental issue. It affects
our public health and national security. It’s an urgent matter of survival for everyone on the planet — the most urgent threat
facing humanity today. It’s going to take action from you and all of us working together.
Not enough is being done to stop global warming now

[Bill McKibben; 9/29/2007; Page A19; The Race Against Warming; Washington Post; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801400.html?sub=AR]
It's the oldest and most cliched of metaphors, but when it comes to global warming, it's the only one that really works: We're in
a desperate race. Politics is chasing reality, and the gap between them isn't closing nearly fast enough.
Consider the news from the real world, the one where change is measured with satellites and thermometers, not focus groups:
Arctic ice is melting on an unbelievable scale -- an area the size of Britain disappeared each week in late summer as the record
for minimum ice cover, set in 2005, was shattered by more than 400,000 square miles, meaning about a 27 percent loss. Forget
the Petraeus report -- what historians will note about September 2007 is that the Northwest Passage was free of ice for the first
time since humans started keeping track.
Global warming causes pain

[Gabriel Gache; Science News Editor; Global Warming Now Synonymous with Kidney Stones - Carbon dioxide emissions directly
impact the health of the kidneys; 7/15/2008; http://news.softpedia.com/news/Global-Warming-Now-Synonymous-with-Kidney-
Stones-89979.shtml]
As if global warming weren't bad enough as it is, researchers now say that the extra amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's
atmosphere will strike us in one of the most painful ways possible: kidney stones. And this time it's not selective and it's most
certain that some of the leaders of the G8 states will feel head on at least one of the effects of global warming. Luckily, they
agreed last week to cut even more of the carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years. According to predictions, in the US
alone, more than 2.3 million people will contract kidney stones every year in the next four decades, as a result of climate
change.
34
Global Warming Impacts – Penguins/Krill

Global Warming is killing penguins
[Paul Eccleston; Last Updated: 5:01am GMT 11/12/2007; Penguins now threatened by global warming;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/11/eapeng111.xml]
Global warming is threatening one of the most endearing symbols of Antarctica - the penguin.
Four species of penguin are facing a dual threat from loss of nesting sites and a shortage of food.
The environmental conservation group WWF is warning that rising temperatures and the resulting loss of sea ice is robbing the
emblematic birds of the nesting grounds they need to breed successfully.
At the same time climate change and over-fishing has led to a reduction in the availability of krill - tiny crustaceans - which
they rely on for food.
Save the penguins!

[Biodiversity activist; Penguins threatened by global warming - Act Now; 12/31/2006;
http://actionnetwork.org/BIODIVERSITY/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=4504560]
The Center petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this week to list 12 species of penguins under the Endangered Species
Act. Like the polar bear in the Arctic, these Antarctic and sub-Antarctic birds are threatened primarily by global
warming. Global warming threatens everything we care about, and yet we still do not have laws explicitly capping greenhouse
gas emissions in this country. Please urge your senator to support the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006, which
would require greenhouse gas reductions of the magnitude that scientists tell us are necessary to avoid true climate disaster.
Krill is a keystone species

[Biodiversity activist; Penguins threatened by global warming - Act Now; 12/31/2006;
http://actionnetwork.org/BIODIVERSITY/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=4504560]
Penguins in the Antarctic aren't the only animals marching toward extinction caused by global warming; other species, from
corals in the Caribbean to polar bears in the Arctic, are also gravely threatened by climate change. The Emperor Penguin
colony at Pointe Geologie, featured in the film "March of the Penguins," has declined by 70 percent due to global warming.
Krill, the keystone of the Antarctic marine ecosystem, and an essential food source not just for penguins but also for whales
and seals, has declined by as much as 80 percent since the 1970s over large areas of the Southern Ocean. Even under the most
optimistic greenhouse gas emission scenarios, continued warming over the next several decades will affect, dramatically and
adversely, Antarctica, the Sub-Antarctic islands, the Southern Ocean, and the penguins dependent on these and adjoining
ecosystems.
35
Solvency – Environmental Leadership

Implementation of cap–and–trade builds environmental leadership
Seth Dunn, senior fellow at Worldwatch Institute, 9/22/2002 , Down to Business on Climate Change: An Overview of Corporate
Strategies <http://www.resourcesaver.org/file/toolmanager/CustomO16C45F42862.pdf>
In addition to influencing government policy individually and through trade associations, business responses to climate change
include a range of internal and external control measures. Internal controls include greenhouse gas inventory and management
systems; internal greenhouse gas reduction targets; internal emissions trading systems;
consideration of climate change in outside investments; and research and investment into energy efficiency, fuel switching and
new technologies. BP and Shell have, for example, established internal cap-and-trade systems for all their business units.
Indeed, involvement in trading or other flexibility mechanisms is becoming a common external control. Over the past five
years, governments have increasingly accepted emissions trading as a policy of choice to address climate change. At the same
time, progress in the international negotiations and the increasing likelihood of emissions limitations have driven the
emergence of a market for greenhouse gas emissions. This trend toward greenhouse gas trading is motivated by both economic
theory and empirical evidence, notably the successes of the US sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions trading programme that was
incorporated in the acid rain programme of the 1990 US Clean Air Act Amendments. The cap-and-trade programme, which has
created a $4 billion market, has helped reduce SO2 emissions much faster, and at lower cost, than expected: emissions in 2010
are projected to be roughly half their 1980 levels. While the cost to industry is estimated at $1 billion per year, the health
benefits are projected to reach $50 billion by 2010 (see Murphy 2002). While the sulphur emissions trading market arose from
legislation, the early greenhouse gas emissions market has come in advance of finalised government rules. Motivations for
firms to trade are similar to those for adopting climate response strategies in general: demonstrating environmental leadership,
learning-by-doing, hedging and managing risk, and generating revenue. According to the global energy brokerage firm
Natsource, an estimated 200 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) were traded between mid-1997 and mid-2002. (This
number includes trades of reductions as well as financial derivatives based on reductions, but excludes internal corporate trades
and small trades of less than 1,000 tonnes of CO2e.)
Cap–and–trade key to revive US credibility on environmental issues

authorize major new funding for relevant energy research and development. A modest nitial domestic cap-and-trade system,
differing constellations of likeminded nations (depending on the measure) and not necessarily enshrined in a global treaty. It
should be possible to break out of the megaconference mold and open parallel negotiations; one need not negotiate on all
subjects with all countries. It is worth noting that only 21 nations (11 industrialized, 10 developing)
account for 80 percent of global emissions. Recall also that the first international action on the ozone front was not a reduction
target or formal treaty, but rather a loosely coordinated agreement in the late 1970s that involved just a few countries, including
the United States.
36
Solvency – Environmental Leadership

International fossil fuel companies representing the US are supporting cap–
and–trade systems
Seth Dunn, senior fellow at Worldwatch Institute, 9/22/2002 , Down to Business on Climate Change: An Overview of Corporate
Strategies <http://www.resourcesaver.org/file/toolmanager/CustomO16C45F42862.pdf>
In addition to influencing government policy individually and through trade associations, business responses to climate change
include a range of internal and external control measures. Internal controls include greenhouse gas inventory and management
systems; internal greenhouse gas reduction targets; internal emissions trading systems;
consideration of climate change in outside investments; and research and investment into energy efficiency, fuel switching and
new technologies. BP and Shell have, for example, established internal cap-and-trade systems for all their business units.
Indeed, involvement in trading or other flexibility mechanisms is becoming a common external control. Over the past five
years, governments have increasingly accepted emissions trading as a policy of choice to address climate change. At the same
time, progress in the international negotiations and the increasing likelihood of emissions limitations have driven the
emergence of a market for greenhouse gas emissions. This trend toward greenhouse gas trading is motivated by both economic
theory and empirical evidence, notably the successes of the US sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions trading programme that was
incorporated in the acid rain programme of the 1990 US Clean Air Act Amendments. The cap-and-trade programme, which has
created a $4 billion market, has helped reduce SO2 emissions much faster, and at lower cost, than expected: emissions in 2010
are projected to be roughly half their 1980 levels. While the cost to industry is estimated at $1 billion per year, the health
benefits are projected to reach $50 billion by 2010 (see Murphy 2002). While the sulphur emissions trading market arose from
legislation, the early greenhouse gas emissions market has come in advance of finalised government rules. Motivations for
firms to trade are similar to those for adopting climate response strategies in general: demonstrating environmental leadership,
learning-by-doing, hedging and managing risk, and generating revenue. According to the global energy brokerage firm
Natsource, an estimated 200 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) were traded between mid-1997 and mid-2002. (This
number includes trades of reductions as well as financial derivatives based on reductions, but excludes internal corporate trades
and small trades of less than 1,000 tonnes of CO2e.)
37
Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>

US action on environmental policies will monger other countries, regardless of
past problems
Lloyd Doggett, Congressman of Texas, 6/17/2008, Remarks on Introduction of Climate MATTERS Bill, <
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1692549/>
We gather today in the hearing room for a committee that considers revenue, trade, and health legislation. The proposal, which
we are announcing today addresses all three. Certainly, global warming represents our greatest environmental challenge. With
the increased competition for limited resources already underway around the world, with the potential displacement of millions
of people from both flooding and desertification, I believe that global warming also represents our greatest long-term national
security challenge. But with every challenge comes an opportunity, and I am convinced that this immense challenge can offer a
significant economic opportunity for our country to take the global lead in developing renewable energy technology and the
more efficient use of all energy.
Our country has been the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter, and my home state of Texas is the biggest greenhouse gas
polluter in America. We have a responsibility to find a solution, and today we offer a new bill, the "Climate Matters Act." This
is the first climate change bill to have been introduced in Congress, which will receive primary referral here to the House Ways
and Means Committee. We have been promised a hearing on it here in this room within a month. While perhaps true that
climate change legislation cannot be approved this year, the only way to get it approved next year, is to keep pushing forward
now on this urgent national priority. The Climate Market Auction, Trust, and Trade Emissions Reduction System - you can see
why we call it the "Climate MATTERS Act," creates a market-based, cap-and-trade system to put strong yet achievable limits
on greenhouse gas pollution. It creates a carbon marketplace in which allowances to emit greenhouse gases will be auctioned,
bought, sold and traded. The goal is essentially to charge a fair market price for pollution that is currently being dumped into
the atmosphere free of charge. We applaud similar efforts by Senators Lieberman, Warner, and Boxer. Countless forces have
sought to weaken and undermine their proposal. We believe that the science-based solution that we are all seeking is best
advanced by strengthening the cap and trade system that they proposed, not by weakening it. Accordingly, we would both place
limitations on more pollution and give away fewer allowances to pollute free-of-charge to existing polluters than was provided
in their bill. The first title of our bill concerning trade is also unique. We call for the presidential leadership, which we have
lacked for eight years, to engage in immediate international negotiations to encourage all major countries to participate in a
comparable cap-and-trade system. We include both "carrots" and "sticks," consistent with World Trade Organization
requirements, to encourage this global participation. US manufacturers should not be disadvantaged by foreign competitors,
who continue to pollute. Our bill removes the incentive either to buy goods made from "dirty" manufacturing processes abroad
or to move manufacturing offshore.
The auction we propose will raise substantial new revenue: revenue that the bill reinvests in clean energy technology,
assistance to workers and consumers affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy, and some repair of the damage
already inflicted by global warming.
38
Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>

Cap–and–trade in the US acts as a model for other nations – Canada proves
Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP, 6/6/2008, Cap and Trade is the Best Way to Go, <
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=fa314ac9-a9fc-489c-a763-c965749ddfd1>
This week, the House of Commons adopted my private member's bill, the Climate Change Accountability Act (C-377).
Canada's elected chamber became the first in the world to adopt science-based targets to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by
80 per cent (from 1990 levels) by 2050. This goal must be achieved if we are to avoid the dangerous two-degree increase in
average global temperature that scientist warn us about. To get there, we need to have the right mechanisms in place to reduce
pollution, and to ensure greener consumer choices become more available and affordable This week McGill professor
Christopher Ragan questioned in The Gazette why the NDP is advocating pricing carbon through a cap-and-trade system,
rather than a carbon tax. The answer is simple: cap-and-trade is the most effective and efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Pricing carbon through a cap-and-trade system accomplishes three key goals that a carbon tax does not: First, cap-
and-trade ensures the big polluters in Canada begin to pay their share. Second it ensures measurable annual pollution reduction
targets. And third, it generates much needed revenue for green solutions that, under the NDP plan, will be dedicated to help
individuals do more in their daily lives to make greener choices. Our plan ensures that both industry and individuals play a
role. Ragan suggests that some of the new pollution penalties on industry under our cap-and-trade model will be merely passed
on to consumers thereby hurting low- and fixed-income Canadians. Any carbon pricing regime will affect the costs of certain
goods. But under our plan, the costs for pollution-intensive goods will likely go up at the same time that the costs for more
efficient goods will go down. Either way, the change in price will be borne out of the firm's ability to reduce its carbon
emissions. Those companies that become greener, faster, will see their costs, and therefore their prices, go down. Instead of
taxing families for heating their home at current energy consumption levels, our plan is designed to help Canadians use less
energy to heat the homes in the first place. It's not enough to just put a price on carbon; we need to help Canadians use less of it
through an ambitious home and building retro-fit and energy efficiency initiatives. The NDP's plan would make it cheaper for
all Canadians to buy greener products, like green cars and energy efficient appliances. For low-income Canadians, we need
comprehensive tax changes and credits to ensure no Canadian is left behind as we undertake this great national effort. The NDP
has proposed to offset the costs associated with tackling climate change by rolling back the overly aggressive corporate tax
give-aways announced in recent federal budgets. In the United States, both senators Obama and McCain support cap-and-
trade. And while Environment Minister John Baird called the Quebec-Ontario cap-and-trade agreement "a rogue initiative," I
called it "filling the leadership vacuum" started by the previous government and perpetuated today under Prime Minster
Stephen Harper's failed leadership. This week's announcement by Premiers Charest and McGuinty is another boost to the move
for a pan-Canadian cap-and-trade system. It builds on earlier initiatives of other provinces notably in Manitoba with NDP
Premier Gary Doer's establishment of a carbon registry. Some suggest that cap-and-trade will take long to set up. I disagree.
Nearly two-thirds of the country live in areas where the move to cap-and-trade has begun and last Friday the Montreal Stock
Exchange opened its carbon exchange. With federal leadership, a national system could be up and running much faster than
additional carbon taxes neutralized by other tax changes would take to truly alter consumer behaviour. As someone who has
been working to implement practical pollution cutting solutions throughout my 25 years in public service, I welcome the
current debate. Cap-and-trade in our view is the most effective tool to help get Canada on the road to meeting its commitments
in Bill C-377 - my generation's obligation to future generations. There is no greater crisis facing planter than climate change.
And there is no greater challenge facing Canada than to reduce our greenhouse emissions and invest in green solutions. The
NDP's cap-and-trade system will allow us to do just that, while ensuring no Canadian is left behind.
39
Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 1/3

US credibility on environmental issues low – Kyoto Protocol proves
Jutta Brunnée, Staffwriter for European Journal of International Law, 1/25/2004, The United States and International
Environmental Law: Living with an Elephant < http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/4/617>
For many observers, the US decision in 2001 to abandon the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change encapsulates an alarming trend in American attitudes towards international environmental law. This article
explores recent trends in US approaches. It begins by canvassing the trajectory of US practice since around the time of the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio. This review suggests that some shifts in legal avenues for shaping relevant policy agendas have indeed
occurred, but that it would be a mistake to treat one event — the US withdrawal from Kyoto — as representative of the nature
of these shifts. It then examines a range of possible explanations for the changing US approach to international environmental
law. These include factors related to the growth of treaty regimes and institutional structures, factors related to American power,
domestic politics and attitudes towards international law, and factors specifically related to the administration of George W.
Bush. Both the review of US practice and the assessment of factors that might account for American policy suggest that the
international environmental law community must carefully distinguish short-term developments from longer-term trends.
Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I
can call it that,one is affected by every twitch and grunt.
Cap–and–trade key to revive US credibility on environmental issues

authorize major new funding for relevant energy research and development. A modest nitial domestic cap-and-trade system,
differing constellations of likeminded nations (depending on the measure) and not necessarily enshrined in a global treaty. It
should be possible to break out of the megaconference mold and open parallel negotiations; one need not negotiate on all
subjects with all countries.
40
Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 2/3

US credibility is key to prevent the collapse of whaling regulations
Sarah Suhre, J.D. at Georgetown University Law Center, ’ 99 ,Misguided Morality: The Repercussions of the International Whaling
Commission's Shift from a Policy of Regulation to One of Preservation, 2 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 305
Preservation, 2 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 305)
The ramifications for the IWC of losing these pro-whaling members would be enormous. As one author stated, "fears for
the organization's future effectiveness are justified," because the Commission is on the verge of losing Japan and Norway,
and if it does, it will have "no legal or moral control over [these countries'] activities ." n103 Without the ability to regulate
the whaling nations, the IWC "will serve neither the whaling interests, nor the states that seek to control whaling." n104
Thus, whether or not one agrees with the current whaling practices of Japan and Norway, one must recognize that
compromise with these nations is mandatory if the IWC is to remain effective. A taste of what could happen if Norway
and Japan withdraw from the IWC is about to be delivered by Iceland, a country which withdrew from the Commission in
1992 after becoming frustrated with the IWC's lack of progress toward a solution acceptable to the pro-whaling
contingent. n105 Iceland's parliament recently voted to end the country's ten-year ban on whaling, and the country is
preparing to resume whaling as early as next year. n106 Iceland's small population will be unable to provide a large
domestic market for whale meat, and thus the country plans to export much of what it catches. n107 Iceland feels no
obligation to refrain from trading in whale products because it is no longer a member of the IWC and is not a signatory of
CITES. n108 Because certain countries such as Japan have virtually bottomless markets for whale meat and blubber, the
number of whales that Icelandic hunters would be willing to kill in a year and the amount of profit to be gained from such
whaling will likely be very high. With no international regulation and very attractive motives for hunting, the resumption
of Icelandic whaling could be potentially devastating for targeted whale stocks. What is to stop Norway and Japan from
[*316] following the example of Iceland, throwing off the shackles of the IWC's whale preservation politics and
resuming full-fledged commercial whaling and trade in whale products? Iceland's potentially reckless plans make clear
the necessity for pro-whaling nations to remain part of the IWC. Regulation, control, and compromise, all of which can be
achieved through an international organization that combines the interests of both whalers and conservationists, are
needed to protect the world's whale stocks from the over-harvesting which occurred in the past. The only way to insure
that whaling countries stay with or rejoin such an organization is to compromise.
41
Whaling Impact Module A 3/3 – Global Warming

Every 1% increase in oxygen causes a 70% increase in destructive forest fires
that ruin the natural balance and risk extinction
M.A. Corey, Author of many books about theology, the environment, spiritual, and psychological, 1993, God and the New
Cosmology page 79
Following the terrestrial compensation for the previously discussed change in solar luminosity, it was essential for the
amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to be strictly regulated. For while a relatively high amount of oxygen in the
atmosphere is important for virtually all forms of earthly life, too much oxygen is exceedingly destructive. Indeed, if the
amount of oxygen in the atmosphere were to be increased even slightly beyond its present 21% concentration, forest fires
would become far more prevalent. This is due to the fact that the probability of lightning starting a forest fire is known to
increase by a whopping 70% for each 1% rise in the atmospheric oxygen content. Once again we find yet another
amazing balance in nature, without which most life forms would be unable to exist. A possible naturalistic explanation
for this degree of balance is to say that the atmospheric oxygen content has been fixed by a natural feedback-type
mechanism on the Earth which is automatically connected to the amount of vegetation what has been burned by lightning-
induced forest fires.
Less trees increases GHG emissions which contribute to global warming

Environmental Defense 2004 The Heat is on: a White paper on climate
Action, <http://www.edf.org/documents/3777_TheHeatIsOn.pdf>
The reductions envisioned in Kyoto will buy critical time to allow additional approaches to be developed, including bilateral
arrangements with developing countries. One principal area of concern is tropical deforestation, which is responsible for
approximately 20% of total human caused carbon dioxide emissions. Providing incentives for forest
conservation will be essential for any international climate agreement to work, and could also provide a bridge to re-engage the
United States in the international climate debate. Amidst the uncertainty surrounding the Kyoto Protocol, one thing is clear:
Developing countries are unlikely to substantially restrain their emissions until the United States shows leadership.
Global warming causes extinction

Stop global warming; http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_learnmore.asp; 2008; Stop Global Warming
The results are in and the reality of global warming is beyond dispute or debate. It’s not just an environmental issue. It affects
our public health and national security. It’s an urgent matter of survival for everyone on the planet — the most
urgent threat facing humanity today. It’s going to take action from you and all of us working together.
42
Whaling Impact Module B 3/3 – Mercury Poisoning

CRACKING DOWN ON WHALING IS CRUCIAL TO PREVENT MERCURY POISONING
Science Daily, 5/20/2003, Mercury in Packaged Whale Meat Across Japan May be a Major Health Problem, <
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030520082803.htm>
Dangerous levels of mercury appear to be present in whale, dolphin and porpoise meat sold widely as food in Japan, according
to a study by Japanese scientists. One U.S. researcher says the findings point to a "major health problem" in Japan. The
Japanese scientists bought samples from across the country, and found that every single slice of toothed whale red meat —
Japan's most popular whale product — exceeded that country's provisional limit on mercury, with some samples containing
almost 200 times the maximum value. The researchers also found that mercury levels were higher in whales caught off the
coast of the southern part of the country. The findings are scheduled to appear in the June 15 edition of Environmental Science
& Technology, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society. "About 17,000
toothed whales are caught annually off the Japanese coast," says Tetsuya Endo, Ph.D., a professor at the Health Sciences
University of Hokkaido, Japan, and lead author of the paper. "Despite extreme contamination with mercury, toothed whale
products have been sold for human consumption without any regulation." "These particular meat samples were from packaged
food products that someone would have eaten, if they had not been purchased for pollutant analysis," says Frank Cipriano,
Ph.D., director of the Conservation Genetics Laboratory at San Francisco State University. "This is a clear signal that Japan has
a major health problem that the government has not addressed." The levels of mercury measured by the scientists are similar to
or higher than the levels in fish eaten by people in the Minamata Bay area of Japan, Endo says. The region is well known for its
previous problems with mercury. In the 1950s and early 1960s, hundreds of children were born with birth defects caused by
their mothers' repeated consumption of contaminated fish. The Japanese eat less whale meat today than they have historically,
largely in response to a 1982 International Whaling Commission moratorium on commercial whaling. Toothed whales, or
odontocetes, are not covered under the moratorium. Demand for these species — a suborder of aquatic mammals that includes
dolphins, porpoises, killer whales and pilot whales — has therefore increased in Japan as larger whales have become harder to
obtain, Endo says. About 40 percent of all whale products marketed in Japan are from toothed whales, according to the Institute
of Cetacean Research. This meat is eaten mostly in coastal fishing villages, but also in metropolitan areas around the country.
Whale meat is not sold for human consumption in the United States. Between 2000 and 2002, Endo and his colleagues
purchased whale meat in towns across Japan — from tiny fishing villages to Tokyo. They measured total mercury levels in the
samples and did a genetic analysis to verify the species of each whale. The researchers analyzed 137 meat samples in all and
found that every one exceeded the provisional mercury level set by the Japanese Ministry of Health, which is 0.4 parts per
million (ppm). Out of nine different whale species identified, the lowest average mercury level was 1.26 ppm and the highest
was 46.9 ppm, with the majority of species ranging from 5-10 ppm. The two highest mercury levels in individual samples were
found in a false killer whale (81 ppm) and a striped dolphin (63.4 ppm). Nago, the southernmost of the six regions studied, had
the highest average concentration, and levels decreased steadily moving northward. The effect of eating mercury-tainted meat
on people in Japan is not well studied, but a 1997 survey in the Faroe Islands revealed neurological problems in children whose
mothers ate whale meat frequently. Mercury levels in most of the toothed whale samples from the current study are higher than
levels in pilot whales from the Faroe Islands, according to the researchers. In another study published earlier this year, Endo
and his colleagues found that rats developed kidney disorders when they ate whale organs contaminated with mercury. They
plan to examine the Japanese population in the future to determine the effects of mercury contamination. Mercury enters the
environment naturally and through industrial pollution. Nearly all fish contain trace amounts of mercury, but longer-lived
predators — like odontocetes, tuna and sharks — are the final repositories for many pollutants because of their position at the
top of the food chain. Endo reported the current findings at a meeting of the Food Hygiene Society of Japan in Tokyo last
week. The International Fund for Animal Welfare provided support for this study.
43
Whaling High
Whaling has killed 99% of whales
ScienceDaily, 7/25/2003, Whale Populations are Too Low to Resume Commercial Hunting,
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030725080621.htm>
Scientists have vastly underestimated the number of humpbacks and other great whales that inhabited the North Atlantic Ocean
before the advent of whaling, according to geneticists from Stanford and Harvard Universities. Their findings, published in the
journal Science, could represent a major setback for countries that advocate lifting a 17-year moratorium on commercial
whaling established by the London-based International Whaling Commission (IWC). The worldwide population of humpback
whales, estimated at 20,000 may have been as high as 1.5 million before the advent of 19th-century commercial whaling,
according to a new genetics srudy by researchers from Stanford and Harvard Universities. "The IWC is the main organization
that regulates whaling, and its policies allow for the resumption of commercial hunting when populations reach a little more
than half of their historic numbers," said Stephen R. Palumbi, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford and co-author of
the July 25 Science study. The problem, he noted, is that the IWC bases its historic estimates on unconfirmed whaling records
dating back to the mid-1800s. "It is well known that hunting dramatically reduced all baleen whale populations, yet reliable
estimates of former whale abundances are elusive," wrote Palumbi and Harvard graduate student Joe Roman, lead author of the
study. "Whaling logbooks provide clues, but may be incomplete, intentionally underreported or fail to consider hunting loss."
Genetics surprise To assess the accuracy of historic whaling records, Roman and Palumbi turned to the science of population
genetics. "Our study marks the first attempt to use genetics rather than whaling records to confirm the number of whales that
used to exist," said Palumbi, whose lab is based at Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station. "The genetics of populations has within
it information about the past. If you can read the amount of genetic variation -- the difference in DNA from one individual
whale to another -- and calibrate that, then you can estimate the historic size of the population." In their study, Roman and
Palumbi focused on the genetics of humpback, fin and minke whales -- three species decimated in the mid-19th and early-20th
centuries by the demand for whale oil (for lamps, candles, soaps and perfumes), baleen (for whips, corsets and other devices)
and meat. Although humpbacks, fins and minkes are found in many oceans, the researchers restricted their DNA analysis to the
North Atlantic -- with surprising results. "The genetics we've done of whales in the North Atlantic says that, before whaling,
there were a total of 800,000 to 900,000 humpback, fin and minke whales -- far greater numbers than anybody ever thought,"
Palumbi said. Take humpback whales, for example. According to the IWC, the current population of North Atlantic humpbacks
is about 10,000, compared to its historic high of 20,000 -- a figure based on old whaling records. But after comparing DNA
samples from 188 humpbacks, Roman and Palumbi concluded that the historic population in the North Atlantic may have been
10 times greater than the IWC estimate. "A small population tends to weed out all of its genetic differences through
inbreeding," Palumbi observed. "A large population, by contrast, should have a lot more genetic variation. Our study shows
that humpback whales today actually have about 10 times more genetic variation than would be expected from the whaling
logbook estimates. That tells us that, sometime in the past, the population of humpbacks was pretty big -- and in fact our
calculation for the North Atlantic suggests that the historic size of that population was about 240,000 animals." Using these
results, Palumbi estimated that the worldwide humpback population could have been as high as 1.5 million -- more than 10
times the IWC's global historical estimate of 100,000. Exactly when the population reached that size will have to be determined
in future genetic expeditions, he added: "We know from the genetics that there were many, many humpback whales in the
ocean, but when those numbers started to drop is something we haven't been able to pinpoint yet." Palumbi pointed out that,
although the humpback population today is small because of whaling, "the genetic signal persists in that population for a long
time, so we're really reading the past signal in the current population. And that past signal is far higher than it should be if there
were only 20,000 whales in the North Atlantic." An analysis of fin whale DNA yielded similar results. According to historic
whaling records, about 40,000 fin whales once inhabited the North Atlantic. Current IWC estimates place today's fin whale
population at 56,000, which would be an all-time high. But a genetic comparison of 235 fin whales by Roman and Palumbi
revealed that the actual pre-whaling population was probably about 360,000 -- again, roughly 10 times higher than the IWC's
historical estimate. "Somehow we have to reconcile those numbers," Palumbi added. "That's going to require going back and
looking at the whaling records. Are they complete? Have there ever been large hunts of whales that weren't recorded? These are
things that we have to find out."
44
Whaling High – Japan

Japan continues whaling despite Western pleas
JapanProbe, 2/12/2008, The Japanese People on Whaling… We don’t care… What’s for dinner?, <
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=3769>
Recently in the international news media there has been a lot of hype surrounding photos released by the Australian
government showing whaling by Japanese scientific research fleets [those interested can read British, American, and Australian
]. As an Australian who often checks newspaper websites from home, I found it was a featured news story getting a lot of
attention. The Australian federal environmental minister went on the record and called the images “sickening.” You’d think that
the news about protests against Japanese whaling in western countries would make the people of this nation want the problem
to go away. If asked most Japanese people seem quite apathetic. However, a recent survey in the Asahi Shimbun and reported
in Australian newspapers says that the Japanese public continue to support the Japanese whaling program and by a margin of 2-
1. It also says that 56% of people still want to see whale on the menu in restaurants (as it is in my local izakaya). Why? Toshiko
Marks, a professor of multicultural understanding at Shumei University, said: “I don’t know anyone sensible who honestly says
they like to eat whale meat. I hate it because I was forced to eat it as a child immediately after the war because there was not
much else. But if you ask young people, they’ve never tasted whale and don’t want to. “On the other hand, there is a sense that
we’re having this issue rammed down our throats and people do not like being told what to do by primarily Anglo-Saxon
countries that have done some pretty cruel things themselves.”
45
Whaling High – Japan
Japan continues whaling by calling it tradition

Kurasawa Nanami, author of The Japanese Observer, Vol.7 No.7, 7/3/2001, Gloomy Debate on Greedy Whaling, <
http://www.whales.org.au/policies/japan.html>
Is the debate about whaling really a conflict of interests between Japan and Western countries?
Every year when the IWC meeting comes to a close, we are bombarded with news articles about whaling in Japan. Media
reports come mainly from the government controlled "industry of information," so in this season we have no choice but to deal
with those one-sided or highly biased reports. Generally the controversy on whaling is accepted as a conflict of interests
between Japan and Western countries. Advocates of whaling argue that the conflict is between Japanese, who are trying to
maintain (what they claim to be) a cultural tradition, and Westerners, who not only lack understanding of other cultures but also
impose their cultural values on others. On the other side, there are arguments that the Japanese are "environmental predators,"
behaving like a "gang of thugs," who continue environmental degradation for the sake of optimal use, and bully domestic
environmental and conservation groups into "keeping silent" on the issue. There are also arguments on whether the habit of
eating whale meat is really a tradition, and about whether the government should allow or legitimize anything that be called a
"tradition."
However, it must be understood that the labeling of Japanese as "environmental predators," or other not-so-endearing terms, is
certainly making the problem worse. There is a not miniscule percentage of Japanese who say, "the conservation of whales is
going too far," or "the Western nations are imposing their cultural values on us" when faced with the high-handed attitudes of
the anti-whaling advocates. It is clear that it is the choice of the Japanese people that is crucial in solving the problem of
whaling (and dolphin hunting). Due to this we have to shift the focus of discussion from "Conflicts between Japan and anti-
whaling Westerners "to "Conflicts between the advocates of industrial development and exploitation, and the advocates of
environmental protection." From this perspective, we need to pave the way for a fair discussion within our own country. The
whaling industry argues that Japanese have been eating whale meat traditionally since ancient times. In trying to prove this,
evidence is produced by exhibiting whale bones found in excavations dating from the Jomon period. However, the reality is
that it was not until the postwar period when, due to acute food shortages, and with the permission of the Allied GHQ, Japan
resumed large scale whaling activities in the Antarctic Ocean, in 1946. The whale populations were already in decline when
Japan began its commercial whaling. In order to make it a viable industry, Japan purchased foreign whaling ships, which had
ceased to be used for the commercial harvesting of whales when it no longer became a profitable trade for the countries who
had previously indulged in it. During that lean period, whale meat was cheaper than other types of meat, and it became an
important source of protein for the Japanese. But as soon as the market for other types of meat reopened and became more
viable, the demand for whale meat decreased sharply. By 1950, there was a problem of over-supply. But despite this, the
whaling industry never ceased to grow, and so the surplus of whale meat was used as a source of meat for school lunch meals
for children. Also the industry pushed forward with processed foods made from whale meat. One of them was fish-meat-
sausages, which were mostly fish but included whale to add a "meaty" flavor. These sausages were kept from rotting by using
AF2, a preservative which is no longer used because of strong suspicions that it has an adverse impact on human health and is a
suspected cause of birth defects. The inclusion of this preservative enabled the meat to be transported at normal temperatures.
And so these fish-meat-sausages appeared on the markets in suburbs where food circulation wasn't up to par, and where these
types of markets were spreading all over Japan. Thus the great fishing industries were able to build, establish and expand bases
of legitimacy and viability. Many people from the whaling industry argue that the industry has been in decline simply because
of the moratorium on whaling. But as one can see, the whaling industry itself has had to shift toward hunting smaller Minke
whales due to shortages of the great-sized whales such as the Blue, Fin, Right, Humpbacks well as the Sperm whales. In truth,
the whaling industry has been in crisis because of the overexploitation or rampant decimation of the great whales.
46
Whaling High – Norway

Norway continues whaling under Japanese cover–up
James Owen, Staffwriter for National Geographic, 6/27/2008, Why is Japan Whaling’s Boogeyman when Norway Hunts Too? <
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080627-japan-whaling.html>
For the anti-whaling lobby, Japan appears to be its Moby Dick, a foe to be singled out and endlessly pursued.
For example, activists chased Japanese whalers across the Southern Ocean under a full media glare this past winter.
But are the attacks fair, when other nations also engage in substantial amounts of whaling—and unlike Japan, in open defiance
of international conventions? Hunting opponents seeking to influence the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the world
regulatory body, at its annual meeting in Santiago, Chile, this week were unequivocal. Japan is the "head of the zombie and
needs to be cut off," said Willie Mackenzie, oceans campaigner for Greenpeace U.K. "It's very, very clear that, internationally,
Japan is behind the drive towards commercial whaling." Japan not only kills the most whales, Mackenzie said, but it is also
trying to "undermine" the international moratorium on commercial whaling and challenge the endangered status of some
species. Yet Norway and Iceland also have substantial whaling programs—and do so not under the auspices of research but
commercially, flouting IWC rules that have banned such activities since 1986. "Japanese people feel that, yes, maybe there is a
little bit of racism in the way in which we are considered in comparison with the way Norway or other whaling nations are
treated," said Noriko Hama, a professor of economics at Doshisha University in Kyoto. "If Japan continues whaling, we're
'barbarians.' But at the same time, I think Japan is giving its critics the excuse to level those accusations, because the
government is simply not coming clean on its whaling policy," she said. According to IWC figures, Japanese ships killed 866
whales in the 2006-2007 season, a haul that included minke, fin, sei, and sperm whales—the most of any nation. Norway
placed second with a total catch of 545 whales.
47
Soft Power Low

Soft power is low now because of US inactivity on international environmental
policy
Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, 12/28/2002, The Decline of American Soft Power, <
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.html
Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its ability to attract others by the
legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result. According to Gallup International polls,
pluralities in 29 countries say that Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the United States. A
Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believes that Washington has hindered efforts to fight global poverty,
protect the environment, and maintain peace. Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to
achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment.
Skeptics of soft power (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld professes not even to understand the term) claim that popularity
is ephemeral and should not guide foreign policy. The United States, they assert, is strong enough to do as it wishes with or
without the world's approval and should simply accept that others will envy and resent it. The world's only superpower does
not need permanent allies; the issues should determine the coalitions, not vice-versa, according to Rumsfeld. But the recent
decline in U.S. attractiveness should not be so lightly dismissed. It is true that the United States has recovered from unpopular
policies in the past (such as those regarding the Vietnam War), but that was often during the Cold War, when other countries
still feared the Soviet Union as the greater evil. It is also true that the United States' sheer size and association with disruptive
modernity make some resentment unavoidable today. But wise policies can reduce the antagonisms that these realities
engender. Indeed, that is what Washington achieved after World War II: it used soft-power resources to draw others into a
system of alliances and institutions that has lasted for 60 years. The Cold War was won with a strategy of containment that used
soft power along with hard power.
The United States cannot confront the new threat of terrorism without the cooperation of other countries. Of course, other
governments will often cooperate out of self-interest. But the extent of their cooperation often depends on the attractiveness of
the United States. Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomes the
United States wants. When Washington discounts the importance of its attractiveness abroad, it pays a steep price. When the
United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries' domestic politics, foreign
political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions (witness the defiance of Chile, Mexico, and Turkey in March 2003).
And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy in the eyes of others, distrust grows, reducing U.S. leverage in international
affairs. Some hard-line skeptics might counter that, whatever its merits, soft power has little importance in the current war
against terrorism; after all, Osama bin Laden and his followers are repelled, not attracted, by American culture and values. But
this claim ignores the ...
48
Solvency – Soft Power Cards

Environmental leadership is key for sustainable soft power
Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 7/10/2001, Senate Testimony
<http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/testimony_07102001.cfm>
There are other ways we can and should spur companies to act ahead of any mandatory requirements. One is for the
government to enter into voluntary enforceable agreements with companies or sectors willing to commit to significant
reductions--either in process emissions, or those from the use of products they make (e.g. automobiles or washing machines).
In exchange for its commitment to cut emissions, a company or sector should be guaranteed that it would not be bound by
subsequent mandates for greenhouse gas controls over the same time period. A similar approach could encourage companies,
particularly in the electric utility sector, to cut carbon emissions as they undertake air pollution reductions required by existing
law--a more cost-effective way to achieve multiple environmental objectives.
While such efforts can help get the United States on track, the long-term emission reductions needed can be achieved only with
a far more comprehensive--and binding--strategy. Alternative approaches should be closely studied, and the results publicly
debated. But much of the analysis thus far suggests that a "cap-and-trade" system--which sets an overall cap on emissions and
establishes a market in carbon credits--can provide the private sector the flexibility and incentive to achieve emission
reductions at the least possible cost. As yet, we do not believe that we have economic models that can accurately predict the
long-term costs and benefits of a serious climate strategy. However, the best analyses to date suggest that, with the use of
rational strategies, the costs are reasonable, particularly when weighed against the serious and significant costs of not acting.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, there will be important side benefits to many of these measures. The steps we take to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions will help U.S. companies compete in the international marketplace. Improving energy efficiency for
example, makes good business sense, as well as good economic policy. Efficiency can mean new kinds of light bulbs that
provide better light, waste less energy, and save money over their lifetimes. It can mean new industrial process designs that use
less energy, produce more valuable products and produce less waste. It can mean superconductors that dramatically cut
electricity transmission losses. Efficiency is not just a short-term solution; it is also a long-term solution. Both the electricity
system and the automobile waste most of the energy they produce. In fact, we waste so much energy that the potential for long-
term savings is huge.
49
Solvency – Soft Power Cards

Environmental policies boost US influence and presence internationally
Jacob Park, Staffwriter for the Washington Quarterly, 2/23/2000, Globalization after Seattle, <
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v023/23.2park.html>
The failure of the WTO negotiations cannot be blamed on one single factor. Some of the blame must be laid on the complexity
and diversity of the trade issues. The lack of transparency and the secretive manner in which international trade rules are
negotiated might have been acceptable in the past, but nonstate actors such as environmental groups and labor unions decided
they were no longer satisfied with waiting on the policy sidelines. With 2000 presidential elections less than a year away, U.S.
domestic politics no doubt played a key role in energizing the WTO protests. The usual lack of concern for the developing
world's trade interests, coupled with new issues such as genetically modified foods and the environmental impact of [End Page
13] liberalizing the international commerce of forest and paper products, provided the ideal platform for anti-WTO rhetoric
from all sides of the political spectrum and from all corners of the globe. Whether or not the WTO meeting in Seattle is the
harbinger of what global governance may look like in the twenty-first century may depend on how successfully U.S.
policymakers cultivate what Joseph Nye, the dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, calls America's
"soft power." Unlike "hard power" that is exercised through economic sanctions or military force, soft power is the ability of a
country to get what it wants through cooperation rather than coercion. The United States has become so successful at using
hard power in places such as the Balkans and the Persian Gulf that the public sometimes forgets that hard power is not really an
option when trying to forge global consensus on international business, labor, and environmental matters. The United States
remains the world's only economic and military superpower, so the tendency just to bully other countries to accept its policy
agenda has unfortunately become a normal part of our diplomatic reflex. This is why many people around the world resist the
inevitability of globalization since the concept is so often tied to U.S. hegemony. Soft power is often the only diplomatic tool at
the disposal of small, less powerful states that do not have the luxury of having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council
nor of ranking as the most influential shareholder of the International Monetary Fund. A good example is the way small island
nations have organized themselves into the Alliance of Small Island States, an effective lobbying group to promote the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sets legally binding emissions targets for
industrialized countries. Barbados, Marshall Islands, and other island states know that their policy objectives are attainable
only by working together in a carefully planned alliance, an idea the United States often preaches but rarely commits to. Both
dimensions of power are important expressions of U.S. foreign policy. But the ability to cultivate soft power, particularly
within the framework of regional organizations such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and global policy
forums such as the International Standards Organization, is likely to determine the strength of U.S. leadership in world affairs.
One way to cultivate soft power is for the U.S. government to develop a strategy to include nonstate actors such as
environmental groups and labor unions in future international policy negotiations. In a press conference held a month before
the WTO meeting, President Bill Clinton told reporters that he supports bringing labor and environmental interests into the
trade deliberations. Yet, it took a lawsuit by a cadre of environmental groups [End Page 14] to force the U.S. Trade
Representative's office to appoint environmentalists to its advisory panels on forest and wood products. President Clinton
practically issued an invitation to the labor unions and environmental groups to participate in the trade negotiations, but they
found riot police and tear gas when they arrived in Seattle. If the Clinton administration was serious about broadening the
framework of the trade negotiations, the White House should have been more explicit in how this increased participation was
to be achieved. There was an opportunity in the spring of 1999 to do just that, but it never materialized. More than six months
before the WTO meeting, the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, and other environmental groups distributed a proposal
that would give the White House the negotiating authority on trade while ensuring that environmental and health laws were not
undermined by its goals. The proposal to establish a special standing committee on international trade, consisting of leaders,
committee chairmen, and senior minority members from both parties, did not receive political support from the White House
and Congress. The failure to establish such a committee is unfortunate because it might have partly addressed the concerns of
labor and environmental groups before the WTO meeting in Seattle.
50
Soft Power Good – Econ

US Soft Power is key to global economic stability
Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, 12/28/2002, The Paradox of American Power
<http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2002/nye_ballgame_ft_122802.htm>
The problem for Americans in the 21st century is that there are more and more things outside the control of even the most
powerful state. Although the United States does well on the traditional measures of power, there is a whole new ball game
increasingly more going on in the world that those measures fail to capture. The paradox of American power is that world
politics is changing in a way that means the strongest power since Rome cannot achieve some of its most crucial international
goals acting alone. The US lacks both the international and domestic prerequisites to resolve conflicts that are internal to other
societies, and to monitor and control transnational transactions that threaten Americans at home. On many of the key issues
today, such as international financial stability, drug smuggling, the spread of diseases or global climate change, military power
simply cannot produce success, and its use can sometimes be counterproductive Instead as the largest country, the United
States must mobilize international coalitions to address these shared threats and challenges. The agenda of world politics has
become like a three-dimensional chess game in which one can win only by playing vertically as well as horizontally. On the top
board of classic interstate military issues, the United States is likely to remain the only superpower for years to come, and it
makes sense to speak in traditional terms of unipolarity or hegemony. However, on the middle board of interstate economic
issues, the distribution of power is already multipolar The United States cannot obtain the outcomes it wants on trade, anti-
trust or financial regulation issues without the co-operation of the European Union, Japan and others. It makes little sense to
call this American hegemony. And on the bottom board of transnational issues, power is widely distributed and chaotically
organized among state and non-state actors. It makes no sense at all to call this a unipolar world or an American empire. And
this is the set of issues that is now intruding into the world of grand strategy as illustrated by Bush's new doctrine. Yet the new
unilateralist part of his administration still focuses solely on the top board of classic military solutions. Like children with a
hammer, all problems look like nails to them.
Economic collapse causes extinction

Bearden, Liutenant Colonel, 2000,The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It)
Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the
point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be
released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including
U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can
reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will
quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that,
under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled
to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin
that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate
full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed,
rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great
Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
51
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations

Soft power is key to insuring stable US–China relations
Yuhzu Wang, an associate professor of Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and a visiting
scholar to University of Chicago, 2/6/2007, Power structure and its stability in North- East Asia,
<http://iaps.cass.cn/english/Articles/showcontent.asp?id=831>
The world needs a more generous hegemony. The last but very important point to my argument is I believe that the U.S.
government will behave rationally at most situations. Realists argue that great powers consider more about relative gains when
dealing with international relations, because in a self-help world this is the rational choice. But I argue here, if they make
choice rationally, they will not be offensive, instead, they should be defensive and more generous. First, America is the only
hegemony in a globalized world, and there is an international regime led by America, through which America can take some
relative gains. Second, bilaterally, realists argue the relative gains concerns make cooperation impossible, but in fact, when one
side would like to make concession, cooperation is available. And I think the rising china is one case: although china knows
that the U.S. dominant world order is far from justice, it still works positively within this system, because Beijing learned that
the only way to get justice treatment is accepting the injustice of the world order and cooperate with the leaders. And this is the
real relationship between china and America. Some argues that by engaging china, the united states lose the relative gains,
because china’s GDP growth rates is higher than those of America, but only simple calculation can prove this argument is
misleading. China should keep a 4-time higher GDP growth rate than America to maintain its GDP gap with America from
being widened. Third, though offensive is seemed to be a foolproof method to maintain hegemonic status, its cost may be
forbiddingly high, especially when you try to put down a big country like china. Yes, America may win a war on china easily,
but how about India, which is also experienced rapid growth, and how about Russia? After all, all countries are growth and
become more powerful. America can never have enough power to conquer all these “potential” challengers, and if it really tries
to do so, it may decline even quicker. So, the best way should be using the soft power, focus more on the international regime
and be a generous hegemony. That means the hegemony should try best to solve international conflicts peacefully, and
avoiding push too hard for those offenders. For example, after being labeled “evil”, North Korea bombed its nuclear weapons
and Iran began to seek nuclear weapons openly. Kissinger recommended recently that the Bush Administration should to try
more diplomatic measures to solve the Iran issue and prepared to sit down to talk with enemy, that shows some people had
realized be generous maybe helpful. The United States caught the only hegemony position after the end of the Cold War. It
need time to get rid of the cold war thought and learn to be the leader of the world. And I believe they can learn quickly, the
frustrating experience in Iraq maybe helpful in this aspect. So, I’m optimistic on the future of Northeast Asia. Yes I can be
wrong, but that’s too bad, not for myself, but for the world. Thank you.
52
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Warming>

US China cooperation is key to solve global warming
(William Chandler , Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2008, Breaking the Suicide Pact:
U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change)
The United States and China must make accommodations to curb greenhouse gas emissions if both countries are to break their
“suicide pact” of self-destructive, energy-using behavior. Together they produce 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions,
yet both countries demand that the other take responsibility for climate change, meanwhile the threat of environmental disaster
grows. For the first time, China is considering an emissions target while half of U.S. states have set their own targets—the time
for a deal is now. In Breaking the Suicide Pact: U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change, William Chandler, director of
the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program, identifies practical, non treaty-based approaches both countries could take to cut
their carbon dioxide emissions across economic sectors—with little financial impact. He argues that China and the United
States should work together to set individual, national goals and achieve them through domestically enforceable measures and
international agreements that prevent either nation from taking advantage of steps taken by the other. Key Recommendations
for U.S.-China Cooperation: Eliminate subsidies that discourage energy efficiency. Provide tax breaks for investment in
efficiency and low-carbon energy and impose tax penalties on high-carbon energy. Make climate cooperation integral to trade
policy, such as jointly setting production standards to limit the energy used to manufacture exports. Create partnerships
between Chinese provincial officials and leaders in U.S. states on the forefront of climate change prevention to improve
implementation of innovative energy policies. Promote market penetration of existing carbon
emission reduction technologies and encourage development of new technologies by linking American laboratories more
closely to Chinese markets to share research and development costs. Encourage banks in China to remove the regulatory cap on
interest rates for energy-efficiency investments. “U.S.–China collaboration poses no threat to the climate leadership of any
region or nation or to global cooperation. It is a complement, not a challenge, to existing and planned emissions cap and trade
systems. This act of mutual self-preservation would help the United States and China to avert climate disaster and the eventual
sanctions of other nations if they do not act, and lay the groundwork for successful global action,” concludes Chandler.
Less trees increases GHG emissions which contribute to global warming

Environmental Defense 2004 The Heat is on: a White paper on climate
Action, <http://www.edf.org/documents/3777_TheHeatIsOn.pdf>
The reductions envisioned in Kyoto will buy critical time to allow additional approaches to be developed, including bilateral
arrangements with developing countries. One principal area of concern is tropical deforestation, which is responsible for
approximately 20% of total human caused carbon dioxide emissions. Providing incentives for forest
conservation will be essential for any international climate agreement to work, and could also provide a bridge to re-engage the
United States in the international climate debate. Amidst the uncertainty surrounding the Kyoto Protocol, one thing is clear:
Developing countries are unlikely to substantially restrain their emissions until the United States shows leadership.
53
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>

Relations are key to prevent proliferation
(Phillip C. Saunders, Director of East Asian Nonproliferation Program, October 23, 2001, "Can 9-11 Provide a Fresh Start for U.S.-
SINO Relations?", http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sino911.htm)
China and the United States still share numerous common interests in fighting proliferation. In terms of specific
nonproliferation issues, the United States and China both oppose the introduction of nuclear weapons onto the Korean
peninsula and seek to restrain India's efforts to build an operational nuclear arsenal. Both also want to avoid arms races in
Northeast Asia that might lead Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Finally,
both the United States and China seek ways to improve the effectiveness of the treaties banning chemical and biological
weapons. Obstacles to cooperation: Despite a significant record of successful bilateral cooperation, proliferation remains a
contentious issue. China has received little political credit in the United States for its significant accomplishments, which have
been overshadowed by a small number of continuing weapons transfers. U.S. concerns now center mainly on Chinese exports
of ballistic missile technology to Pakistan and exports of dual-use technology to Iran that can be used for chemical and
biological weapons. The current military conflict in Afghanistan and the threat of WMD terrorism have turned these issues
from abstract proliferation concerns to concrete threats to American lives. If Pakistani nuclear weapons fall into the hands of
Islamic terrorists, China's assistance to Pakistan's nuclear weapons program in the 1980s will be blamed. China argues that U.S.
arms sales to Taiwan and proposals to provide theater missile defense systems to Japan and Taiwan should be considered a
form of proliferation. Chinese efforts to link its bilateral proliferation commitments with American conventional arms sales to
Taiwan have led many to question China's commitment to nonproliferation principles and to conclude that Chinese missile
technology exports are used as leverage to force the United States to address Chinese security concerns. While China is a
member of the major international arms control treaties, it has significant reservations about export control regimes such as the
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Chinese commitments to abide by MTCR restrictions on exports of ballistic
missile technology have been made bilaterally, interpreted as narrowly as possible, and have not been implemented effectively.
The United States is still waiting for China to issue export control laws governing missile technology that were promised in
November 2000. Ironically, after American efforts to persuade China to join the arms control and nonproliferation regime bore
fruit, the United States now appears to be losing interest in arms control. The Senate's rejection of the CTBT is one example;
the Bush administration's rejection of international efforts to develop a BWC verification protocol is another. Several Bush
administration officials have argued that the United States cannot afford to be constrained by treaties in an uncertain future
world. Instead, the administration's emphasis has been on building ballistic missile defenses that can protect the U.S. homeland,
which would require withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Even a limited national missile defense
(NMD) system would cause concerns for China, which currently possesses only 18-24 intercontinental ballistic missiles
capable of reaching the United States. The Bush administration is not prepared to accept any binding limits on U.S. missile
defenses, which makes it difficult to engage in a serious strategic dialogue with China. A serious strategic dialogue would also
require China to discuss the ultimate size of its future strategic forces. U.S. NMD deployment would accelerate the pace and
expand the scope of China's ongoing strategic modernization program. The issues of ballistic missile defense and China's
strategic modernization are likely to continue to impede efforts to cooperate on other nonproliferation issues. Chinese concerns
about NMD have already produced a deadlock in international arms control efforts, where work on a fissile material cutoff
treaty has been linked to a Chinese demand for negotiations on a ban on outer space weapons. The U.S. emphasis on ballistic
missile defense and counterproliferation at the expense of arms control could prompt China to withdraw from some of its
bilateral nonproliferation commitments and even to resume nuclear weapons testing. Another important obstacle to cooperation
is the Chinese buildup of short and medium range missiles opposite Taiwan. This buildup does not violate any international
regimes, but China's use of M-9 missile tests to intimidate Taiwan in 1995-96 raised concerns throughout Asia about Chinese
behavior and intentions. China regards its missiles as a means of deterring moves toward Taiwan independence. China strongly
opposes the U.S. sale of advanced theater missile defense (TMD) systems to Taiwan, but its ongoing missile buildup (currently
between 300-350 missiles) is increasing support for providing Taiwan with TMD. The missile buildup is also stimulating
Taiwan's interest in developing offensive missile and aircraft strike capabilities that would allow it to hold China at risk. An
arms race is already underway across the Taiwan Strait; the question is whether it will accelerate or whether it can be slowed or
stopped.
54
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>

Proliferation leads to extinction.
Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis,
Summer 02, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, Survival, p.87-90.
The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles
against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small
arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of
violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels
unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse.
And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread
proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a
substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear
proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most,
if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today,
but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
55
Soft Power Good – Terrorism

Soft power is key to win the war on terror
Associated Press, 11/26/2007, Defense Chief: Fight Terrorism with “Soft Power”, <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21980961/>
WASHINGTON - Defeating terrorism will require the use of more “soft power,” with civilians contributing more in
communication, economic assistance, political development and other non-military areas, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said
Monday. Gates called for the creation of new government organizations, including a permanent group of civilian experts with a
wide range of expertise who could be sent abroad on short notice as a supplement to U.S. military efforts. And he urged more
involvement by university and other private experts. “We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military,
beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen,” he said in a speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan.
“We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years.” He said
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. military involvement in the 1990s in the Balkans and in Somalia, have shown
that long-term success requires more than U.S. military power. “Based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former
director of CIA and now as secretary of defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use ‘soft’ power
and for better integrating it with ‘hard’ power,” Gates said. Many have argued that the Bush administration missed
opportunities early in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns to head off insurgent resistance by failing to focus on economic
development, promotion of internal reconciliation, training of police forces and communication of U.S. goals.
US soft power is key to prevent a major terrorist attack on the US

David Morey, Chair of the Independent Task Force on Public Diplomacy sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations – Founder
& CEO of DMG, Inc., a strategic and communications consultanty – Prof of Int’l Affairs @ Columbia, 2002, The battle for hearts
and minds; U.S. public diplomacy should be more than public relations,
Ironically, as this world's only superpower, the United States remains vulnerable as the terrorists' only super target. Terrorist
attacks against the homeland make clear that America's national security cannot rest on favorable geography, military strength
and economic power alone. It depends on a long-term process to shape an international environment that builds credibility and
trust and serves our interests. But a critical point is this: A new public diplomacy paradigm cannot be reduced to the simplistic
spin of a public relations campaign. In today's information society, nations, companies and candidates cannot depend simply
on such tactics to make their case. Instead, they must use truth as the most powerful form of propaganda. Effective public
diplomacy means getting out the truth, understanding and influencing foreign publics and educating them about American
interests, policies and values. This is not about selling America. It's about revealing America. This is not about the image of
America. It's about the idea of America: Countering aggressively the lies taught children in the more than 30,000 Madrasas
operating in Pakistan today. Today, however, we must recognize that U.S. foreign policy has been weakened by a failure to
include public diplomacy systematically in the policy making process. Examples of misunderstood policies include rejection
of the Kyoto treaty, the treaty to ban anti-personnel land mines, the agreement to create an International Criminal Court and the
Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. The point here is not that these are flawed policies or that foreign public opinion should drive
policy. Rather, it is that foreign attitudes can affect the success or failure of policies, the willingness of allies and others to join
coalitions and broad support for American interests and values. Across different administrations, strong disagreements and
misunderstandings have existed among America's closest allies and others on many issues. How we explain and advocate
policies matters. In the 21st century, the world is becoming more democratic. People are influencing what governments can
do more than at any time in history. And policies and negotiated agreements will succeed only if they have the general support
of opinion makers and the masses -- and only if public diplomacy is a central consideration in all policy decisions. In fact,
public diplomacy should be a powerful asset in pursuit of America's interests around the world. It is central to national security
-- and must be involved, to borrow Edward R. Murrow's famous phrase, in the "take-offs and not only the crash landings." In
today's information age, it is simply not enough to explain our national policies only to world leaders.
56
Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ

The failure to compete in this emerging renewables market will cripple U.S.
economic and technological leadership
Hendricks – Executive Director of the Apollo Alliance – 2-12-2004 (Bracken, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on House Resources, “Rising Price of Natural Gas,” Lexis-Nexis Universe)
Energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy. And America's future prospects will depend upon the secure supply of affordable
and sustainable energy that can fuel our continued growth and prosperity. But growing dependence on foreign oil,
unprecedented energy failures, and mounting evidence of environmental crises are clear warning signs that America's current
policies cannot be sustained. It is time for a bold initiative - with the vision and the scope of the original Apollo program - to
end America's dependence on foreign oil and create millions of good jobs building the sustainable energy system of the next
century. While the Apollo project is about changing our future, it is built on an honest assessment of our past and the
recognition that public leadership and meaningful public investment have historically been essential for economic development
and promoting new technology. In the past, government investment in the railroads, in the national highway system, in the
space program, in the research and development of the micro chip and other technologies elevated our economy and quality of
life to new levels. We cannot sit on the sidelines now if America is to move forward. The American economy will not grow its
way out of problems thirty years in the making without real political leadership. Too often we are told to think small, that we
have to choose between good jobs and environmental quality. This is a false choice and we can do better. Working families
should not have to decide whether to put food on the table for our children today or protect the health and economic security of
our children tomorrow. We must do both. Ensuring a diverse, efficient, and clean energy supply is essential for preserving good
jobs, protecting our environment, and sustaining American global economic and technological leadership.
The US is losing out on billions – development of domestic industries is critical

to technological competitiveness.
Janet Sawin, Research Associate at the Worldwatch Institute, 3/26/02, “Losing the Clean Energy Race”
www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=20066
The United States once led - actually, began - the clean energy revolution. As recently as 1990, U.S. industries played the
dominant global role in wind and solar PV development and deployment. But, due to a lack of appropriate and consistent
government support for clean energy technologies, and government subsidies that continue to favor dirty, conventional fuels
and technologies, we are losing our role as technological leaders. We are now falling farther and farther behind as Japan and
Europe surpass us with regard to total installed clean energy generating capacity, share of the global market, and ownership of
manufacturers. U.S. companies must compete in the global marketplace.
If this trend is not reversed, America will lose millions of potential high-wage, high-tech jobs, billions of dollars in potential
investment and revenue. The US will also fail to glean multiple benefits not traditionally measured in economic terms that
come with clean, safe, domestic and renewable energy technologies - including cleaner environment, reduced risk of global
warming, improved human health, better quality of life, and a more secure future.
With only 4.5 percent of the United States land area and a fraction of its wind resource potential, Germany has more than
double the U.S. installed wind energy capacity. Denmark, a small nation of about five million people, is the world's leading
manufacturer of wind turbines, with several turbine companies that consistently rank in the global top ten. The U.S. share of
global PV shipments reached a peak in 1996, declining from 44 percent that year to 27 percent in 2001. Total grid-connected
PV in the United States is now estimated to be only 15 percent of that in Japan, and 31 percent of that in Germany. The rising
demand for Japanese and European made technology is due primarily to the dramatic increases in demand for renewable
energy capacity in these countries, sparked by successful government policies aimed to develop markets for renewable energy.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power, at levels many times that for renewable
energy technologies. Around the world, leaders in business and government are calling for a transition to a clean energy
economy to address global climate change, increase national security and meet rising demand for energy worldwide. Perhaps
most importantly, the American public wants clean energy. In poll after poll, Americans have expressed their preference for
investment in renewable
57

energy technologies over conventional energy. According to a Gallup poll taken November 8, 2001, 91 percent of Americans
favor investments in new sources of energy, such as solar and wind. Top level advisors under Clinton, Reagan and Nixon have
urged Congress to adopt strong measures now to advance renewable energy in order to advance America's energy security.
"They [renewable energy technologies] are now ready to be brought, full force, into service…. Speedy action by the
Administration and the Congress is critical to establish the regulatory and tax conditions for these renewable resources to
rapidly reach their potential." David Freeman, who has held top positions at the New York Power Authority and Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA), and now heads the California Power Authority, notes that "our whole system of electric power supply
is hard to defend against attack. The worst is nuclear." Sir Mark Moody Stuart, former CEO of Shell Oil company last month
called on governments of northern countries "to expand renewable energy targets, removing inappropriate subsidies and
switching some to renewable energy to provide a level playing field in the energy sector." Russian Vice Prime Minister Ylia
Klebanov recently said that "using traditional energy technologies, it's hard to talk about [a] competitive economy. And for
renewable energy technologies we do too little…." Every region and state in this nation has significant renewable energy
potential - wind and solar energy, geothermal energy, ocean power, crops for biomass, and environmentally sustainable
hydropower. In fact, North America has some of the world's greatest wind energy resources; North Dakota alone has enough to
produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity each year , 37 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption in 1999 (3
trillion kWh ). Every minute, the sun drenches earth's surface with more energy than the world consumes in a year. The United
States has the best solar resource of any industrialized country.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enough electricity could be generated to meet all of U.S. demand with solar
energy on a plot of land 100 miles square in Nevada. The benefits of renewable energy are compelling: a cleaner environment
for current and future generations, reduced threats of global warming, economic growth, greater diversity of fuel supply,
improved energy and national security, rapid and modular deployment, and a global potential for technology transfer and
innovation. In addition, renewable energy technologies provide more jobs per unit of energy generated than do conventional
energy technologies. According to the Department of Energy, wind energy provides about five times more jobs per dollar
invested than coal or nuclear power. A recent study concluded that solar PV provides the most jobs of any renewable
technology, on an energy capacity basis, and many of these positions are high-wage, high-tech jobs. The global markets for
renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are booming. Wind has been the fastest growing energy source worldwide
for most of the past decade, while global shipments of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and modules have increased at an
average annual rate of 33 percent since 1996.
During the same period, the use of coal for generating electricity has declined by 9 percent worldwide. Solar PV and wind
power technologies have matured considerably since the 1980s, experiencing dramatic increases in productivity and lifetime,
while achieving significant declines in cost. In good wind sites, wind power is now the cheapest new energy source, with full
life-cycle costs below those of most fossil-fuel powered plants. Today, solar PV provides electricity for several hundred
thousand people around the world, creates employment for more than ten thousand people and generates business worth more
than $2 billion annually. According to some forecasts, clean-energy markets will grow from less than $7 billion in 2000 to
more than $82 billion by 2010 , and the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) predicts that PV technology has
"the potential to become one of the world's most important industries." Driven by concerns about global warming, energy
security, increasing demand for energy worldwide - particularly in developing countries and advances in renewable energy
technologies, nations around the world are setting targets for renewable energy. The European Union aims to generate ten
percent of its electricity with renewables by 2010, and the European Wind Energy Association projects that Europe will have
60,000 MW of installed wind capacity by that year. By the year 2020, wind energy could generate 10 percent of the world's
electricity and create more than 1.7 million jobs. The European PV Industry Association projects that solar PV will provide 26
percent of total global annual electricity demand by 2040. Even China, India and Brazil have committed to significant increases
in the use of renewable energy; India established a ministry for advanced energy technologies, and China has eliminated
subsidies for coal. These three nations combined have more than two billion people, with rapidly rising demand for energy and
the technologies that produce it, offering nearly unlimited market potential.
The current political and commercial commitment to renewable energy around the world implies that the recent surge of
activity in this industry is only the beginning of a massive transformation and expansion expected to occur over the coming
decades. But without strong and sustained political leadership at home, Americans will lose out in this energy revolution. To
compete successfully in the clean energy race, U.S. industries must be strong and resilient, which requires a strong and
consistent domestic market for their products.
58

Dominance by Europe and Japan in global renewable markets will collapse the
U.S. economy – a transition to renewables is critical to prevent this.
Jonathon Rynn, Asia Times, 6/20/08, “Guns Blight US Energy Choices”, www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF20Dj01.html
When New York City wanted to make the biggest purchase of subway cars in US history in the late 1990s, more than US$3 billion
worth, the only companies that were able to bid on the contract were foreign. The same problem applies to high-speed rail today: only
European or Japanese companies could build any of the proposed rail networks in the United States.
The US has also ceded the high ground to Europe and Japan in a broad range of other sustainable technologies. For instance, 11
companies produce 96% of medium to large wind turbines; only one, GE, is based in the United States, with a 16% share of the global
market. The differences in market penetration come down to two factors: European and Japanese companies have become more
competent producers for these markets, and their governments have helped them to develop both this competence and the markets
themselves. Take Germany as an example. Even though the sun is not so shiny in that part of Europe, The average for electricity that is
paid for nonrenewable sources is about 0.05 euro per kwh, so Germany is effectively paying double for its renewable electricity in a
successful effort to encourage its production. Every year, the guaranteed price is lowered, so that the renewable sector can eventually
compete on its own, having gotten over the hump of introducing new technology. Germany's other advantage is that it is a world
leader in manufacturing renewable technology equipment - 32% of the solar equipment manufacturers in the world are located in
Germany. In addition, almost 30% of global wind turbine manufacturing capacity is German. In Denmark we can see the advantages
of good policy plus competence in building machinery. The world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is Danish. According to
the Earth Policy Institute, "Denmark's 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20% of its electricity needs, the largest share in any
country." These new solar technologies will probably result in lower-cost electricity for long-distance applications than photovoltaics.
Asia is an important producer of renewable energy and train equipment as well. As of 2006, Japan produced about 39% of the solar
cells in the world and has encouraged solar energy in Japan with subsidies for purchasing the equipment as well as generous research
budgets. Japan's Shinkansen high-speed rail network covers much of the country. China is set to take off as one of the world’s biggest
producers of solar and wind equipment owing to its rise as a manufacturing nation. Europe sets the pace But Europe and Japan's
dominance in renewable technologies is really based in a broader domain of competitive competence. They dominate the most
fundamental sector of the economy, namely the production of machinery for manufacturing industries in general (often referred to as
the mechanical engineering sector).
The European Union produces almost twice as much industrial equipment overall as the United States, according to data compiled by
the EU, Japan produces almost as much as the US, with about half the population. The split among the EU, US, and Japan, which
together produce most of the world's machinery, is 52%, 27% and 21%, respectively.
A robust industrial sector is the infrastructure we need for building the tools that will help us to avert climate catastrophe. Think of the
industrial sector of an economy as an ecosystem. Instead of the grass and leaves that feed the plant-eaters that feed the meat eaters, a
modern economic ecosystem contains industrial equipment that makes production technology that creates the goods and services that
people consume. The different niches of an economic ecosystem, such as the various machinery and equipment sectors, thrive as a
self-reinforcing web of engineers, high-skill production workers, operational managers and factories. As of 2003, Europe's
manufacturing sector made up 32% of its nonfinancial economy, while the manufacturing sector of the United States comprised only
13% of its nonfinancial sectors. The decline of American machinery and manufacturing sectors, in conjunction with the on-again/off-
again nature of American renewable energy policy, explains why Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the United States in the
transition to a more sustainable economy.
And America's decline can be traced to one overriding factor: a military budget that comprises nearly half of the world's military
spending. For decades, as the late Professor Seymour Melman showed in many books (such as After Capitalism) and in numerous
articles, the Pentagon has been draining not just money but also the engineering, scientific and business talent that Europe and Japan
have been using for civilian production. As Melman often pointed out, the US military budget is a capital fund, and American citizens
can use that fund to help finance the construction of the trains, wind and solar power, and other green technologies that will help us to
avoid economic and environmental collapse.
That economic collapse, if it comes, will be caused by two major factors: the end of the era of cheap oil, coal and natural gas; and the
decline of the manufacturing and machinery base of the economy. Both problems can be addressed simultaneously, as Europe and
Japan are showing, by moving the economy from one based on military and fossil fuel production to one based on electric
transportation and the generation of renewable electricity.
59
Competitiveness Good – US Econ

Creating a stable domestic market for renewable will allow U.S. industries to
capture large shares of the global market and overtake competitors in Europe
and Japan.
Jason Walsh, national policy director for Green For All, and Sarah White, senior policy associate with the Center on Wisconsin
Strategy, 5/20/2008, www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE20Dj07.html
The new-energy economy will not solve all of the problems of economic inequality, environmental degradation and energy insecurity.
But it can contribute mightily to a resurgence of the American middle class and a sustainable environmental ethos. By expanding
existing industries and creating new ones, the emerging green sector can retain and create significant numbers of domestic jobs. What
are these green-collar jobs? We define the core of this sector as family-supporting, middle-skill jobs, most of them in the primary
sectors of a clean-energy economy - efficiency, renewables and alternative transportation and fuels. There are many ways to count
them, none perfect. One respected source, using a broad set of parameters, estimates that the renewable and efficiency sectors may
account for as many as one in four jobs by 2030. This projection includes both the full range of jobs in these industries - from
accountants to mechanics - and those created indirectly by them. Whatever the relative merits of such approximations, even the most
modest modeling indicates that the green economy holds much promise for urban and rural revitalization. A large part of this promise
is based on the reality that green-collar jobs are community-based: because they focus on transforming the immediate natural and built
environment, they are harder, in some cases impossible, to offshore. No one will ship a building from Chicago to be retrofitted in
China. The energy efficiency industry provides perhaps the most exciting opportunity. Substantially reducing energy waste through
systematic retrofitting and upgrading of residential and commercial buildings is a key area where environmental and equity agendas
can come together to create good jobs in plentiful numbers. The work requires a multi-skilled, local workforce, and it feeds a building-
materials industry that is still largely domestic. Make no mistake: we are talking about a lot of jobs here. The New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority estimates that for every gigawatt hour saved, the agency's programs create or retain 1.5 jobs. A
recent report for the American Solar Energy society counts eight million jobs created in the US energy efficiency industry in 2006
alone (3.7 million directly in efficiency). Building-trades jobs are not the only green-collar occupations resistant to offshoring. The
manufacturing sector, which has borne the brunt of job losses in this country could receive a marked job creation boost from a
substantial shift to renewable energy. The Renewable Energy Policy Project has published a series of reports identifying the potential
for states with existing industrial infrastructure and skilled labor to become component manufacturing leaders for the wind industry. If
the country can muster the US$62 billion investment required to expand wind capacity by 125,000MW over the next 10 years - the
amount needed to stabilize US carbon emissions - the wind energy sector could create nearly 400,00 domestic manufacturing jobs.
And the top 20 states that stand to benefit are some of the most populous and hardest hit by recent manufacturing job loss. California
and Texas lead the list, followed by the Great Lakes states: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
The United States is playing catch-up to others, especially the Europeans and the Japanese, who have invested heavily in developing
the expertise and manufacturing base for this production. But there are good reasons to believe we can and should catch up.
Transporting huge turbines overseas is unsound from a carbon perspective; with oil periodically breaching $100 per barrel, it is
financially irrational as well. Soaring shipping costs (and a foundering dollar) are already driving greater domestic production. Some
of the key wind turbine manufacturers serving the US market, such as Vestas (Denmark), Siemens (Germany), Gamesa (Spain),
Mitsubishi (Japan), and Suzlon (India), have already started to produce turbines locally. The siting by foreign companies of
manufacturing facilities in the United States, and the potential of US manufacturers to be the links in a supply chain for the wind
industry, are signs of progress. They should not obscure the additional promise that US-based green industries hold to be globally
competitive sectors. With the right policy supports, US-based renewable energy and energy efficiency industries can capture large
shares of these rapidly expanding global markets and export their products, from solar cells to energy efficiency appliances, to
consumers around the world. Sound national policy The possible future, then, is compelling, as long as we demonstrate the policy
smarts and political will to achieve it. This means crafting sound national policy to create stable domestic markets for renewable
energy and using related energy standards as green job creation tools.
60
Competitiveness Good – US Econ

Loss of competitiveness spills over into every sector of the economy, and
causes a collapse
Connolly 2002 (Bernard| Chief Global Strategist, AIG| Dark Vision for the World Economy|
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Connolly.html|
But as capital accumulation proceeds, the rate of return on capital gradually subsides back towards its starting point, even if the
process takes several years. As it does, business investment does not just decelerate -- it falls in absolute terms. A similar story can be
told about consumer investment -- residential construction and purchases of consumer durables. As domestic demand falls back, net
exports need to rise to fill the gap, a gap made bigger by the increase in capacity produced by the preceding years of strong
investment. But, by definition, the exchange rate cannot adjust to aid this process. Instead, the lagged effects of past overheating,
showing up in inflation, actually worsen international competitiveness. With domestic demand falling and competitiveness worsening
simultaneously, the economy goes into a tailspin. Unemployment rises; inflation begins to fall back, even though for some time it
remains above levels in competitor countries. Since nominal interest rates are set outside the domestic economy, falling inflation
pushes real interest rates up while the rate of return on capital is coming down -- this combination produces falling asset prices,
worsening the decline in domestic demand. To re-balance the economy, domestic inflation has to fall below that in other countries
under the influence of recession and rising unemployment. But the process of disinflation (perhaps even deflation) constantly pushes
real interest rates up. Worse, asset deflation weakens balance sheets, including the government's. Bankruptcy and default, including
government default, become real possibilities. Credit spreads widen, exacerbating the problem of excessively high real interest rates.
Asset markets weaken further. The circle is vicious indeed. If nothing is done to break into it, the outcome will be not just economic
and financial collapse but social and political chaos.
61
Competitiveness Good – International trade/conflict

Loss of U.S. competitiveness leads to protectionism, regional trade blocs, and
international conflict – perception of commitment to trade is key
Fred Bergsten, Director of the Institute for International Economics and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, 2001, Foreign
Affairs, March/April, "America's Two-Front Economic Conflict"
THE UNITED STATES and the European Union (EU) are on the brink of a major trade and economic conflict. Washington has
already retaliated against European import restrictions on American beef and bananas -- each retaliation accounting for a hundred
million dollars or so of annual trade -- and has rejected all European efforts to resolve these disputes. Europe in turn threatens to
retaliate against several billion dollars of U.S. export subsidies, as well as new U.S. trade laws that would channel the proceeds of
antidumping penalties from the Treasury Department to the complaining industries and would force the president to continually
change the products being retaliated against, thus intensifying the impact of U.S. punitive sanctions.
Still larger trade clashes loom. The troubled U.S. steel industry will likely file additional antidumping cases against European firms or
even an industry-wide safeguard action that would restrict all European imports. In addition, a major dispute over commercial aircraft
is brewing as the two sides quarrel over whether direct European governmental subsidies for Airbus or indirect Pentagon subsidies for
Boeing are more egregious. Europe's outcry over U.S. sanctions against European firms that deal with American adversaries such as
Cuba and Iran has only been swept under the rug. And just over the horizon lies the biggest battle of all: the debates over farm
subsidies, genetically modified products, and overall agricultural trade that will explode in 2003, when the U.S.-EU "peace clause" (a
moratorium on new complaints in the agricultural sector) expires.
The United States and Europe also differ on global trade issues for which they share leadership responsibility. They remain divided,
for example, on whether to include competition policy and investment issues in new WTO negotiations. It was their opposing views
on issues such as these that scuttled any prospect of launching a new round of trade talks at Seattle.
Furthermore, the United States and Europe are divided on energy and environmental issues. As energy prices soared and riots erupted
on European roadways last fall, European resentment flared anew over Americans' penchant for cheap fuel and their profligate energy
consumption. The recent Hague conference that sought to devise operational plans to check global warming broke up over
fundamental disagreements about who bears responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, how they should be cut back, and who
should pay for doing so.
Financial relations are another potential land mine. When the European Central Bank intervened to halt the slide of the euro last
September, the United States provided only grudging support. But now that the euro has rebounded, the shoe may soon be on the other
foot as the dollar risks a sharp decline in the wake of a domestic economic slowdown and an annual trade deficit approaching $ 500
billion. Europe should be willing to help in such a circumstance, since it would not want to see the euro soar to levels that would
jeopardize the price competitiveness of its exports. But it might be less enthusiastic to bolster the dollar if the net effect were to
finance massive tax cuts a la President George W. Bush that would further reduce U.S. national savings and hence increase America's
draw on foreign capital.
The accumulation of such potential conflicts poses high risks for both American and European economies. Moreover, the global
impact of a commercial clash between these two titans could be severe -- including systemic damage to the WTO, especially its
crucial but fragile dispute settlement mechanism. A transatlantic economic conflict may also exacerbate potential security tensions
over issues such as a future policy toward the Balkans, American concern over European plans for an autonomous military force, and
European anxieties that American proposals for a missile defense system will renew tensions with Russia and trigger another global
arms race. All this calls for new basic strategies for managing globalization, especially in light of the developments simultaneously
arising on the other side of the world.
62
Competitiveness Good – Hege

Competitiveness key to hegemony
NAFSA, Association of International Educators, October 2007, “An International Education Policy For U.S. Leadership,
Competitiveness, and Security”, http://www.nafsa.org/public_policy.sec/united_states_international/toward_an_international
The need is critical. Globalization is obliterating the distinction between foreign and domestic concerns. Today, most domestic
problems are also international problems. The global economic and technology revolutions are redefining the nation’s economic
security and are reshaping business, work, and life. In a devastating report, the Committee for Economic Development documents the
myriad ways in which the U.S. educational system fails to produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required for a global
workforce. U.S. competitiveness is a national interest. It underpins national security and leadership, and deliberate policies are
required to facilitate it. U.S. dependence on international scientific and technological talent is making educational exchange
relationships more complex. The United States now not only has an interest in educating international students in the United States
and returning them to contribute to the leadership and development of their home countries, but we also have an interest in educating
international students in the United States and hiring them to fill positions in our high-technology industries and research
establishments. Return to their home country now often occurs later, after some years of work in the United States. These new realities
are rendering obsolete many of the assumptions that have guided the administration of educational exchange. Without a policy, the
implementation of exchange risks becoming more and more detached from today’s realities.
63
Competitiveness Good – Terrorism

Improved technological response is crucial to winning the war on terror.
Omar Hussein 9/14/06 “9/11 a wake-up call for U.S. science education” Daily Trojan,
http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2006/09/14/Opinions/911-
A.WakeUp.Call.For.U.s.Science.Education-2271332-page3.shtml
Yet it is just that technological might that is needed to keep the nation secure in the face of global terrorism. It does not take
much imagination to see why. Whatever method is used to combat terrorism, from infiltration of terrorist cells on our own soil
to monitoring cell phone "chatter" in Pakistan, it will benefit from the improved data processing and communications that
inevitably result from technical advancement. Weapons development, reconnaissance, logistics, translation, cryptography,
information storage and retrieval, personnel training, combat simulation - all are essential elements of successful warfare in the
digital age, and all require a robust scientific society behind them.
Terrorism leads to extinction. That’s Corsi <in the 1AC>.
64
Free Trade Good – NW

Economic integration through more open trade prevents nuclear war
Spicer, Olin Foundation, 96 [Michael, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, p. 121]
The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting
head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out
markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. The problem about the second
approach is not simply that it won’t hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that consumers will begin to demand those
goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world
in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and
unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will
necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be
absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good stop in the direction of world stability. With nuclear
weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead
Trade organizations like the WTO are crucial to stop global nuclear war.
Copley News Service December 1, 1999
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of
nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's
meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just
to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a
worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to
be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest
activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators
in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the
father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive
against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to
discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading
peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's
why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the
world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for
the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes
65
Innovation Key to Economy

Innovation is the core of economic success
Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft Corp. and co-chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. His wife is a director of The
Washington Post Co., 2/25/2007, How to Keep America Competitive, < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301697.html>
For centuries people assumed that economic growth resulted from the interplay between capital and labor. Today we know that
these elements are outweighed by a single critical factor: innovation. Innovation is the source of U.S. economic leadership and
the foundation for our competitiveness in the global economy. Government investment in research, strong intellectual property
laws and efficient capital markets are among the reasons that America has for decades been best at transforming new ideas into
successful businesses. The most important factor is our workforce. Scientists and engineers trained in U.S. universities -- the
world's best -- have pioneered key technologies such as the microprocessor, creating industries and generating millions of high-
paying jobs. But our status as the world's center for new ideas cannot be taken for granted. Other governments are waking up to
the vital role innovation plays in competitiveness. This is not to say that the growing economic importance of countries such as
China and India is bad. On the contrary, the world benefits as more people acquire the skills needed to foster innovation. But if
we are to remain competitive, we need a workforce that consists of the world's brightest minds. Two steps are critical. First, we
must demand strong schools so that young Americans enter the workforce with the math, science and problem-solving skills
they need to succeed in the knowledge economy. We must also make it easier for foreign-born scientists and engineers to work
for U.S. companies. Education has always been the gateway to a better life in this country, and our primary and secondary
schools were long considered the world's best. But on an international math test in 2003, U.S. high school students ranked 24th
out of 29 industrialized nations surveyed. Our schools can do better. Last year, I visited High Tech High in San Diego; it's an
amazing school where educators have augmented traditional teaching methods with a rigorous, project-centered curriculum.
Students there know they're expected to go on to college. This combination is working: 100 percent of High Tech High
graduates are accepted into college, and 29 percent major in math or science. Contrast that with the national average of 17
percent. To remain competitive in the global economy, we must build on the success of such schools and commit to an
ambitious national agenda for education. Government and businesses can both play a role. Companies must advocate for strong
education policies and work with schools to foster interest in science and mathematics and to provide an education that is
relevant to the needs of business. Government must work with educators to reform schools and improve educational
excellence. American competitiveness also requires immigration reforms that reflect the importance of highly skilled foreign-
born employees. Demand for specialized technical skills has long exceeded the supply of native-born workers with advanced
degrees, and scientists and engineers from other countries fill this gap. This issue has reached a crisis point. Computer science
employment is growing by nearly 100,000 jobs annually. But at the same time studies show that there is a dramatic decline in
the number of students graduating with computer science degrees. The United States provides 65,000 temporary H-1B visas
each year to make up this shortfall -- not nearly enough to fill open technical positions. Permanent residency regulations
compound this problem. Temporary employees wait five years or longer for a green card. During that time they can't change
jobs, which limits their opportunities to contribute to their employer's success and overall economic growth. Last year, reform
on this issue stalled as Congress struggled to address border security and undocumented immigration. As lawmakers grapple
with those important issues once again, I urge them to support changes to the H-1B visa program that allow American
businesses to hire foreign-born scientists and engineers when they can't find the homegrown talent they need. This program has
strong wage protections for U.S. workers: Like other companies, Microsoft pays H-1B and U.S. employees the same high
levels -- levels that exceed the government's prevailing wage. Reforming the green card program to make it easier to retain
highly skilled professionals is also necessary. These employees are vital to U.S. competitiveness, and we should welcome their
contribution to U.S. economic growth. We should also encourage foreign students to stay here after they graduate. Half of this
country's doctoral candidates in computer science come from abroad. It's not in our national interest to educate them here but
send them home when they've completed their studies. During the past 30 years, U.S. innovation has been the catalyst for the
digital information revolution. If the United States is to remain a global economic leader, we must foster an environment that
enables a new generation to dream up innovations, regardless of where they were born. Talent in this country is not the
problem -- the issue is political will.
66
Cap–and–trade Good – Econ

Action helps the economy
John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, Todd Stern, Senior Fellow at
American Progress, Kit Batten, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy and is a Ph.D.
ecologist 11/27/07, “Capturing the Energy opportunity Creating a Low-Carbon Economy”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf
Taking such action is not just good for our environment. Actions like these can provide a powerful charge to the economy. Our
vision of a low-carbon economy includes vigorous private and public research pushing the envelope on technologies that will
not only stabilize emissions at livable levels during the next 50 years but also create the clean-powered world that our
grandchildren and their children will see at the dawn of the next century. Developing, deploying, and building at this scale
recalls other great economic transformations in America’s past, like the laying of our railroads and the construction of the
interstate highway system. But in many ways our new challenge is even more complex since energy powers every part of the
economy. Yet that’s exactly why these advancements will drive economic growth and American leadership in a competitive
global economy well into the 21st century
U.S. action increases competition

The good news is that the technology we need to begin the transformation to a low-carbon economy exists and the investment
dollars are available if the policy ground rules are properly established. A great deal of investment and effort will be needed to
make this vision real, but the hard work of ushering it in can become a powerful engine for growth, competitive advantage and
jobs. Our competitors are figuring this out, while our national leaders have been asleep at the switch. Over the past 10 years,
for example, our market share in producing solar cells has plummeted, while Japan, relying on government R&D and consumer
subsidies, has become the world leader. Germany, not known for its sunshine, has also become a solar leader, thanks to some
well-placed incentives. European companies have also captured a dominant share, approximately 70 percent, of the world
market for wind turbines. And Brazil has vastly reduced its dependence on oil by ramping up its production of ethanol and
transforming its auto fleet to run on such fuel. Our nation has always thrived on its creativity, entrepreneurial character, flexible
economic structure, resourcefulness, and can-do spirit. Over and over, in the face of large and difficult challenges—cleaning
our air and water, repairing the ozone layer, making cars go farther on a gallon of gas (which we did 30 years ago before
reversing direction)—the gloomy chorus has complained that we couldn’t succeed, that the economy would fail, that jobs
would disappear, that America’s competitive edge would be blunted. Every time the naysayers have been proven wrong, and
this will happen again when we rise to meet our new energy challenge.
Businesses/corporate leaders want to invest now and a binding target works

better
Environmental defense 2004 “ The Heat is on: a White paper on climate action”
http://www.edf.org/documents/3777_TheHeatIsOn.pdf
Delaying action now will cause more serious economic disruptions later. The bottom line is that businesses abhor uncertainty.
Many corporate leaders are convinced that the United States will eventually have to join in fighting global warming, and would
prefer to begin making capital investments now than waiting until the last minute, when the job will be more expensive. Some
corporate leaders are also worried that without binding targets, American companies will have less incentive to develop
technologies to reduce global warming gases, thereby ceding a lucrative emerging market to their European and Japanese
competitors.
67
Cap–and–trade Good – Econ

Clean energy creates jobs
New Apollo Energy Project [no date?] “The Problem: U.S. is falling behind in the clean energy
industry, while jobs and investments are going overseas” http://www.apollopac.com/pdf/Jobs.pdf
The United States is letting other countries take the lead in the development and manufacturing of clean energy technologies.
Clean energy technologies promise to be the next wave of new industries creating millions of new jobs. In the 1980ʼs, it was
the personal computer; in the 1990ʼs, it was the Internet and software development; we are in the midst of a bio-tech
revolution, and clean energy is next. The worldwide clean energy market is already experiencing double-digit growth. Wind
power has averaged 32% growth per year for the past five years, attracting more than $7 billion in investments in 2002 alone.
Europe anticipates generating as much as 20% of its power by wind by 2010. The clean energy revolution will create millions
of new jobs in the countries that take the lead in their development. At this time, unfortunately, those countries are Germany,
Denmark, and Japan. Meanwhile, the United States has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since George Bush took
office in 2001. American exports have recorded their largest drop in 50 years, and despite some recent gains, the economic
recovery in the manufacturing sector has been the slowest since the Fed began keeping records in 1919.
68
Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good

Cap–and–trade systems are impossible to manage – only a tax can solve
Kenneth C. Johnson, author of Energy Policy, October 23, 2006, 2007, vol. 35, issue 5, pages 3115-3118
< http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4MG1P63-
2&_user=4257664&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022698&_vers
ion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4257664&md5=c52050e967a5eb01d0033cd487df20b7>
Regulatory climate policy entails a tradeoff between environmental goals and costs. If the highest-priority policy objective is
environmental sustainability, an appropriate regulatory instrument would be a cap and trade system that caps emissions at a
sustainable level and seeks to achieve the cap at minimum cost. The economic costs of cap and trade can be minimized by
employing emission trading and by allocating emission allowances freely, although there is no guarantee of cost acceptability.
But if political imperatives favor cost acceptability over environmental goals, then an appropriate instrument might be an
emission tax. A tax effectively caps costs by mandating an emission price, although there is no guarantee that the tax incentive
would be sufficient to achieve environmental sustainability.
Cap and trade has become accepted as the mainstay of greenhouse gas regulatory policy, but considering that caps are never set
at sustainable levels it is evident that cost control takes precedence over emission control and that emission caps are determined
primarily to hit cost targets, not sustainability targets. This is an ineffective and inappropriate use of cap and trade because it is
not possible, in the context of rapidly evolving technologies and volatile markets, to predict in advance an emission cap or a
schedule of declining caps that will achieve minimum emissions within limits of cost acceptability. When cost considerations
take precedence over environmental interests, cap and trade can perversely reduce the likelihood of achieving environmental
sustainability goals because the only way to guarantee compliance with the emission cap, while also ensuring cost
acceptability, is to set the cap so far above the sustainable level that cost acceptability is assured under the most cost-
conservative predictive assumptions. Moreover, without any incentive to reduce aggregate emissions below the cap level it is
virtually certain that sustainability goals will not be attained. It would seem that emission taxes, which provide cost certainty,
would be more compatible with cost-constrained political priorities, but a carbon tax commensurate with environmental goals
would be politically and economically unviable because of the high cost that taxes impose on industry. Taxes can be made
more politically palatable by “recycling” tax revenue to consumers, e.g., through reduced income taxes. Indeed, a tax of
sufficient magnitude to achieve climate sustainability might conceivably displace income taxes altogether.
But the revenue transferred from industry to consumers may be spent in ways that are unrelated to the tax's environmental
purpose and that might even increase greenhouse-gas-related consumption. Moreover, tax recycling would make the
government's tax base and the economy perversely dependent on carbon emissions, creating a situation in which the
government would lose much of its tax base if the policy actually succeeded in achieving carbon neutrality. A more direct and
efficient way to effectuate tax recycling would be to refund the tax to the regulated industry as a production subsidy. For
example, taxes in the utility power sector would be refunded in proportion to power generation, so that firms with worse-than-
average emission performance (as measured by CO2 emissions per unit power output) incur a positive net cost from the
program, while those with better-than-average performance derive net income. The Swedish Acid Rain program uses a
refunded tax of this type to regulate stationary-source NOx emissions (Ågren, 2000; Isaksson and Sterner, 2006; Wolff, 2r000).
In contrast to conventional tax recycling, refunding has the advantage that the only net aggregate costs that a refunded tax
imposes on industry are regulation-induced costs for emission reduction. New low-emission technologies at their nascent
commercial stage would be economically dependent on tax-financed net subsidies, but the subsidies would automatically phase
out, without further regulatory intervention, as the technologies gain market share and economies of scale. Conventional
economic analysis tends to focus on the “Prices vs. Quantities” distinction between caps and taxes (Weitzman, 1974), but
revenue distribution is also critically important. The political advantage and success of cap and trade can be attributed to the
fact that with free allocation a regulated firm need not pay for emission rights to cover its entire emission output; it only has to
buy credits to cover any excess emissions over its allotted quota. If it does not need its full quota, the firm can sell its unneeded
allowances at a profit. A conventional emission tax, by contrast, requires that all regulated firms—even the most emission-
efficient—pay for their entire emission output. The distributional impact of the tax would be similar to cap and trade with
auctioned permits, which would be no more politically palatable than a tax. On the other hand, refunding would eliminate the
political handicap of taxes relative to cap and trade, and the price stability afforded by refunded taxes would further enhance
their political favor.
69
Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good

Cap–and–trade only drives up prices which a carbon tax avoids
Tam Hunt, Community Environmental Council, 6/25/2008, Forget Cap and Trade, a Carbon Tax is Better, <
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story?id=52717>
But this isn't really bad news because the whole idea of a national cap and trade isn't very good to begin with, considering the
new economic reality surrounding energy. Oil reached US $135 a barrel in late May and has stayed above US $120 since then.
Many analysts are predicting US $150-200 oil within two years. Natural gas prices have surged to records not seen since
Hurricane Katrina and Rita locked in significant Gulf of Mexico production. Coal prices are at records and have doubled over
the last year. Utility bills will soon follow as utility companies are forced to pay far higher prices and pass those prices along to
ratepayers. Gasoline keeps rising and has breached US $4/gallon nationally and is over US $4.50/gallon in places like
California (and over US $4.70/gallon at some stations in my hometown of Santa Barbara). Diesel prices are even higher,
topping US $5/gallon. What does all this spell for our future? In a word: conservation. Lo and behold, gasoline demand is not
inelastic, as economists have stated for years. People do in fact respond to higher prices. Prices just had to rise high enough to
provoke a significant response. US $4/gallon seems to have been the magic number. In May, auto companies released their
sales figures and they were remarkable: SUV and light truck sales have dipped 30-60% (depending on the brand) over the last
year. Small car sales are up almost as much. At the same time, total "vehicle miles traveled" dipped for the first time since
1979. Behavior is changing — and rapidly — in light of higher prices. Markets are in fact working. The question is: will prices
remain high and will these behavior changes persist even if prices dip again? Looking to history, we can see that after an
impressive ten-year period of conservation and declining petroleum demand after the oil shocks of the 1970s, the U.S.
consumer returned to her profligate ways. We forgot the lessons of the past. Will the same thing happen this time around? Don't
count on it. The difference this time around is that the higher prices are prompted mostly by fundamental supply and demand
issues. We may already have reached a global peak in oil production, and even if we haven't, it will likely be here in the 2010-
2015 timeframe at the latest. When global peak oil production is reached, we can count on far higher prices than today's
records. At the same time, we have already witnessed declining global oil exports. While global production has been on a
plateau the last three years, global oil exports from the top 15 exporters declined 2.7% in 2007 (according to EIA data). In
2008, this trend has accelerated, with imports to the US from Venezuela and Mexico, two of our five largest suppliers, down
32% on an annual basis. This may have been a factor in price increases over the last few months, as US inventories are
declining. So high oil prices are very likely to persist, with some possible dips along the way. And the most likely outcome of
these dynamics is far higher oil prices between now and 2020. Far higher prices will lead to very significant demand
destruction in the US and throughout the world as consumers change their behavior and countries that subsidize oil prices are
forced to lift subsidies as their treasuries buckle under the weight. This brings us back to cap and trade. Any legislation that
could be passed by this Congress this year and not vetoed by President Bush will have far less impact on consumer behavior
than market forces are already achieving. Republicans in Congress have a decent point when they say the last thing consumers
need right now is even higher prices due to federal legislation (though higher prices in the short and mid-term would likely lead
to longer-term cost savings for consumers as alternatives came online in a big way).
A better course of action would be for Congress to adopt a modest carbon tax, such as those proposed by Stark or Dingell, and
use the revenue to fund petroleum reduction planning efforts at the state and local level, and to fund alternatives to the status
quo. For example, a ten cent per gallon carbon tax (on top of the current 18 cent per gallon federal gas tax) could fund billions
in planning efforts and renewable technologies around the country. Ten cents per gallon is small enough that it wouldn't be a
huge burden on most consumers. For lower income consumers that may be harmed by an additional tax, Congress could
provide for annual or semi-annual rebates, eliminating the regressivity of such a tax. A carbon tax is also easier to administer
than a cap and trade system, and is less vulnerable to gaming and extreme price volatility. More information is available at
www.carbontax.org. The carbon tax idea has support from countless economists, the American Petroleum Institute, Al Gore,
and many other leaders and policymakers. It should be considered superior to cap and trade in many ways. Good government
policies can do much in times of normal energy prices. But with energy prices sky high, market forces will do far more to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions through reduced fossil fuel consumption. So government policies should, in such times,
simply try to guide consumers toward better long-term options. A carbon tax that is used to fund state and local planning
efforts, and alternative energy technologies, would be the right solution at this time.
Cap–and–Trade Bad – Econ
Cap–and–Trade kills the US economy
70
The Heritage Foundation, 5/22/2008, Morning Bell: Cap and Trade Already Killing US Economy,
<http://blog.heritage.org/2008/05/22/morning-bell-cap-and-trade-already-killing-us-economy/>
When the Senate returns from its Memorial Day recess on June 2, lawmakers will begin debating the Lieberman-Warner cap-
and-trade global warming bill. Many environmental activists are worried the bill will not pass this time, and they are counting
on a future legislative victory since all three remaining presidential candidates support nearly identical cap-and-trade global
warming plans. Unfortunately for the American people, past energy policy decisions are already slowing the U.S. economy in
fundamentally the same way a fully implemented cap-and-trade plan would.
Under a cap-and-trade system, the government sets a “cap” on overall economy-wide carbon emissions and anyone who
exceeds their government-allotted allowance is forced to buy credits (”trade”) from the government. These caps drive up
energy prices, which in turn incentivizes consumers to consume less carbon-emitting energy. Higher energy prices are
absolutely essential for cap-and-trade’s promised success. Without them, there would be little incentive to invest in new
technologies that could cut carbon emissions. Liberals have already been successfully “capping” the production of domestic
energy sources for years. In 1995 President Clinton blocked drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 2006 Senate
Democrats blocked drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion to 30
billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion barrels of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural
gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves). Estimates of ANWR alone show almost 5% of present U.S. oil use has
been “capped” out of existence.
And what has been the result of these caps on domestic oil production? Sky high energy prices. Retail gasoline is in its 15th
straight day of record highs. American Airlines is mothballing planes, cutting flights and raising prices. For the first time since
1991, the Department of Energy reported that gasoline use was down. Goldman Sachs predicts that oil could top $140 a barrel
this summer and average $200 a barrel next year. Such prices are already proving to be a major drag on the economy.
Implementation of Lieberman-Warner would only worsen these trends. The Heritage Foundation released a study this month
estimating that the impact of Lieberman-Warner on the U.S. economy would be a cumulative loss in gross domestic product of
at least $1.7 trillion. And this is on top of what the Congressional Budget Office shows would be a $1.21 trillion increase in
taxes between 2009 and 2018. No wonder so many Democrats are already backing away from their support of the bill. Sens.
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and Claire McCaskill (D-
Mo.) have all expressed second thoughts about the bill after considering how badly it would hurt their state economies.
Hopefully after a summer on the campaign trail listening to voters’ concerns about gas prices and the economy, America’s
presidential candidates will reach a similar conclusion.
71
Cap–and–Trade Bad
Cap–and–Trade doesn’t solve – Kyoto Protocol proves
Rep. Joe Barton, (R-Texas), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee., April 21, 2008, Cap-and-Trade Doesn't
Work, Hurts Economy, <http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=6718>
Just a year ago, “cap-and-trade” was about to save the planet from being cooked by global warming, if only we in Congress
could recognize the threat and embrace the elegant solution. That was then. Now the brave, new economic system that was
supposed to cap carbon dioxide emissions and let emitters buy and sell allowances in a government market that mimics
capitalism is proving to be less a solution than a problem. Even the Congress-knows-best crowd is admitting that they can’t
figure out how to make it work, and cap-and-trade’s most avid proponent in the House — Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) —
indicates that she may not get around to legislating this year, after all.
Her California colleague, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D), pushed a cap-and-trade bill that has turned out to be a window on the
difficulties. By some estimates, it would cut America’s gross domestic product by 2.3 percent inside of seven years and raise
average energy costs for households by $1,740 per year within 12 years. In the Midwest and Great Plains, the added cost for a
household tops $2,000, and in Texas and Oklahoma, it’s more than $3,000. We don’t have to see very far ahead to observe
what’s wrong, though. We can look to Europe right now and notice a cap-and-trade system that was created to meet emission
reduction goals under the Kyoto accords. Not only won’t the goals be met, both emissions and the cost of electricity are
increasing. Germany, for example, has achieved a 30 percent hike in the cost of wholesale electricity, along with a bulge in
unemployment to 9.5 percent. Higher emissions, higher prices and higher unemployment are not the results I want to emulate
in the United States. I’ve accepted the European lesson that prosperity is at risk under cap-and-trade, and maybe Democrats are
starting to recognize it, too.
72
Cap–and–Trade Key to Nuclear Power

Cap–and–trade helps create a nuclear program
Paul L. Joskow, Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management at MIT, 12-06, “The Future of Nuclear
Power in the United States: Economic and Regulatory Challenges”, http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1192.
All things considered, I believe that investment in new nuclear plants is likely to proceed more slowly than may be implied by
the recent euphoria in the industry. I believe that projects are most likely to proceed (a) on existing sites, (b) in states that have
not adopted competitive market models, and (c) where there is support from local authorities. Among the competitive states,
Texas is the most likely candidate for investment in new nuclear plants for both economic and political reasons. A nuclear
investment program will be larger and proceed more quickly if the nuclear equipment vendors and the construction firms are
willing to take on more of the construction cost
and operating performance risk than they did during the 1980s, at least until the first dozen of so plants are completed and
credible information about construction costs, construction time, and regulatory costs and delays have been confirmed by
actual experience rather than hypothetical spreadsheet calculations. Finally, if the U.S. adopts a
cap and trade program for CO2 emissions that yield prices in the range of $25 to $50/tonof CO2, it will make investment in
new nuclear power plants much more attractive financially than it is today, especially after the 2005 Act's subsidies are
exhausted.
73
Cap–and–trade better than European model

Cap-and-trade is crucial to establish a low-carbon economy – our plan avoids
the problems of the European model.
John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, former Chief of Staff to Clinton, Visiting Professor of
Law on the faculty of the Georgetown University Law Center, 1/23/2008, “Cap, Auction, and Trade: Allowance Auctions and
Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap-and-Trade”, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/auction_revenue_report.html
Moreover, cap-and-trade makes sense. Markets are essential to creating a low-carbon economy, and a cap-and-trade program should
be at the core of a greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy. Once businesses have to factor the cost of emitting CO2 (and other
greenhouse gases) into their bottom lines, the power of the marketplace will start to push toward efficiency, low-carbon fuels,
renewable energy, and carbon-capture-and-storage technologies for coal-fired power. Market-based pricing is a critical part of the
equation but will not work to rapidly transform our economy to a low-carbon model without accompanying public investment in
policies to reduce energy costs for low- and middle-income Americans and complementary clean energy and innovation policies.
A cap-and-trade system will identify the necessary level of carbon reductions, and then allow the marketplace to price the cost of those
emissions. Moreover, the cap-and-trade market model boasts a great track record in reducing acid rain. In fact, the United States
actually “wrote the book” on cap-and-trade, creating the oldest and arguably most successful emissions trading system for sulfur
dioxide under the acid rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which has reduced SO2 emissions at a fraction of
anticipated costs and engendered health benefits exceeding program costs by more than 40 to 1. In this case SO2 credits were given
away and not auctioned off as sources of SO2 were known and the technology to deal with this pollutant was readily available. With
CO2, technology to deal with the emissions is still embryonic and therefore we need revenue to spur new technology curb this
pollutant. In addition, giving away credits “would exacerbate the regressivity of the price increases,” according to Peter R. Orszag,
Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Further, by adopting a market-based model for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the United States can link up with the rapidly
growing international marketplace for carbon credits. The United States can learn from the growing pains in the European carbon
market in the design of our cap-and-trade system—giving too many credits away for free to carbon-intensive industries rather than
requiring those companies to purchase the credits on the open market, led to extreme price volatility in the European marketplace and
windfall profits for utilities.
74
Cap–and–trade – Solvency
Cap and trade programs are effective in reducing emissions – empirically
proven.
EPA, Clean Air Market Programs, 2008, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/ctessentials.pdf
In EPA’s experience, cap and trade programs have proven highly successful in the context for which they are best suited:
reducing emissions on a regional or larger scale from multiple sources that exhibit a range of control costs. While achieving
significant reductions on a regional scale, cap and trade programs can deliver substantial air quality improvements. As
effective as these programs are, however, they may not be the solution to every problem. For example, eliminating localized
concentrations of pollution is not their primary purpose.
The cap and trade approach is best used when:
• the environmental and/or public health concern occurs over a relatively large area;
• a significant number of sources are responsible for the problem;
• the cost of controls varies from source to source; and
• emissions can be consistently and accurately measured.
Under the right circumstances, cap and trade programs have proven extremely effective, providing substantial emission
reductions, complete accountability and unprecedented data quality and access. Existing cap and trade programs – the
Acid Rain Program and the NOx Budget Program – have the force of federal and state standards behind them, including
national health-based air quality standards. This ensures that local public health needs are met in conjunction with
achievement of regional or national emission reductions.
Caps, accountability, and simplicity are key to solving environmental problems.

EPA, Clean Air Market Programs, 2008, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/ctessentials.pdf
Three features critical to designing and implementing environmentally effective and economically efficient trading
programs are 1) the cap on emissions, 2) accountability, and 3) simplicity of design and operation.
Cap on Emissions. The cap on emissions is the central element of an effective and efficient cap and trade program. A
mandatory cap on emissions is critical to protect public health and the environment and to sustain that protection into the
future. The cap also serves to provide stability and predictability to the allowance trading market. Accountability. The
accurate measurement and reporting of emissions is essential, along with the rigorous and consistent enforcement of
penalties for fraud or noncompliance. Also critical is transparency, such as public access to source-level
emissions and allowance data. The coupling of stringent monitoring and reporting requirements and
the power of the Internet makes it possible for EPA to provide access to complete, unrestricted data
on trading, emissions, and compliance. This promotes public confidence in the environmental integrity of the
program and business confidence in the financial integrity of the allowance market. It also provides an additional level
of scrutiny to verify enforcement and encourage compliance. Finally, accountability requires ongoing
evaluation of the cap and trade program to ensure that it is making progress toward achievement of
its environmental goal. Simplicity. Rules should be clear and easily enforced. Markets function better and
transaction costs are lower when rules are simple and easily understood by all participants. Moreover, the
environment is more likely to be protected when rules are clear and consistently enforced. To the greatest extent
possible, simplicity should be applied to all elements of the program, including applicability thresholds
(determining which sources are affected), trading rules, reporting requirements and penalty
assessments. Program operation for both emission sources and regulating authorities is more certain,
more effective, and less costly and time-consuming if the rules are not overly complex and
burdensome.
75
EPA experience is critical to having an effective cap and trade program –
several reasons.
John Schakenbach, Robert Vollaro, and Reynaldo Forte, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, Washington, DC, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Volume 56, November 2006,
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/fundamentals.pdf
U.S. Cap-and-Trade Experience. EPA experience in implementing the ARP and NBTP has shown that for cap-andtrade
programs, centralized program implementation, including data reporting and verification, is efficient and works well. This
is particularly true when the designers of the program also implement it. There are several reasons for this: (1) all data
go through the same quality checking software, both at the source and at the regulatory agency; software updates are easily
provided to everyone via downloads from the regulatory agency’s web site; (2) all sources in the program are subject to the
same regulatory requirements; (3) the sources in the program are covered by the same interpretations of the regulatory
requirements and resolution of petitions; (4) the same audit procedures are used on all of the sources in the program;
(5) all data are publicly available; and (6) sources within the program are subject to common penalties and enforcement
procedures.
Incentives are crucial to reducing emissions.

Programs, Washington, DC, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Volume 56, November 2006,
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/fundamentals.pdf
U.S. Cap-and-Trade Experience. The ARP and NBTP are based on a monetary system of tradeable allowances (1 t of SO2
or NOx _ 1 allowance) that requires rapid, end-of-year reconciliation of emissions and allowances. Because of this, EPA had to
minimize the use of traditional enforcement procedures. (For the NBTP, which is an ozone season [May 1 through
September 30] program, reconciliation is done at the end of the ozone season.) If EPA had to process many traditional
enforcement cases through the court system, end-of-year reconciliation would be unacceptably delayed, introducing market
uncertainty into the program and increasing costs. In the cap-and-trade programs, enforcement activity is minimized by
creating incentives for compliance in the regulations and statutes, including: provisions for reduced frequency QA testing
when superior test results are achieved, progressively stringent missing data requirements, comprehensive electronic record
keeping and reporting requirements, and automatic statutory penalties that are greater than the cost of allowances. These
provisions are discussed in the following paragraphs.
In both the ARP and NBTP, the QA provisions have built-in incentives for better accuracy and self-enforcement.
For example, a source that uses fuel flow metering as one of its monitoring methodologies is required to calibrate the fuel
flow meter annually, unless quarterly data analyses comparing the measured fuel flow rates to the corresponding unit
loads are performed, demonstrating that the flow meter is still generating accurate data. In that case, the interval between
flow meter calibrations can be extended for _5 yr.
Similarly, a source using a CEMS that achieves excellent relative accuracy (RA) test audit (RATA) results (_7.5%; results
from RATAs under both the ARP and NBTP are averaging 2.5% accuracy or better) need only perform the RATA once per
year instead of twice per year. A one-tailed t test (bias test) is required to be calculated from the RATA data. If the bias test
fails, a correction factor must be applied to the reported emissions data to prevent underreporting. For many sources, the bias
test provides incentive to find and correct any underlying monitoring problems causing underreporting and helps us
avoid potential enforcement cases.
76
Cap and trade solves health problems, emission reduction, and air quality.
EPA, Clean Air Market Programs, 2003(?),http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/ctresults.pdf
The Acid Rain Program has produced remarkable and demonstrable results. It has reduced SO2 emissions faster and at
far lower costs than anticipated, yielding wide-ranging health and environmental improvements. In fact, a 2003 Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) study found that the Acid Rain Program accounted for the largest quantified human
health benefits – over $70 billion annually – of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years,
with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1.
Emission Reductions. In 2002, SO2 emissions from power plants were 9% lower than the year 2000 and 41% lower than
1980. NOx emissions from power plants also continue a downward trend, posting a 13% reduction in 2002 from 2000
levels and a 33% decline from 1990 levels.
Air Quality. The Acid Rain Program has reduced human exposure to pollutants that are known to cause chronic
bronchitis, asthma, hospitalizations for cardiac and respiratory diseases, and premature death. Ambient concentrations
of SO2 have decreased by as much as 40% since 1990 in the Northea9st and Mid-Atlantic. Sulfate concentrations, a major
component of fine particulate matter and regional haze, are as much as 30% lower than 1990 levels in most areas of the East.
Cap and trade with incentives reduces emissions and increases air quality –
ARP proves.
EPA, Clean Air Market Programs, 2003(?),http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/ctresults.pdf
Innovations and Incentives. Allowance trading, which places a value on emission reductions, provides an increasing reward
for innovation and use of more effective and efficient pollution reducing technologies. Acid Rain Program
implementation has been accompanied by reduced costs and improved performance of pollution control technologies,
which have led to lower than expected overall program compliance costs.
Next Steps Nearly ten years of experience with the Acid Rain Program has clearly demonstrated that market-based cap and
trade programs are an effective vehicle for achieving broad improvements in air quality by reducing emissions of a
regionally transported air pollutant. The environmental results observed under the Acid Rain Program show that the
combination of a stringent emissions cap with trading results in substantial reductions throughout the affected region,
with the greatest reductions achieved in the areas of highest pollution.
77
78
Air Pollution Impact – Food

Only stopping emissions allows natural sequestration catch up to excess carbon
EPA, 10/19/2006, Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, <http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html>
7. What is the potential for additional sequestration to offset greenhouse gas emissions?
At the global level, the IPCC Third Assessment Report estimates about 100 billion metric tons of carbon over the next 50 years
could be sequestered through forest preservation, tree planting and improved agricultural management. This would offset 10-
20% of the world's projected fossil fuel emissions. For the U.S., some analyses (e.g., McCarl and Schneider 2001) suggest that
between 50 and 150 million metric tons of additional carbon sequestration per year could be achieved through changes in
agricultural soil and forest management, tree planting, and biofuel substitution. These particular results consider the financial
incentive to improve land-use practices at prices of, respectively, $10 and $50 per metric ton of additional carbon stored. For
more information on analyses of the potential for additional sequestration in the U.S., visit the National Analysis section of this
Web site. 8. Do sequestration practices affect greenhouse gases other than CO2? Yes. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
are potent greenhouse gases that are also important to consider for forests, croplands and grazing lands. Practices that maintain
and sequester carbon can have both positive and negative effects on CH4 and N2O emissions. The relationship among practices
that affect CO2, CH4, and N2O can be especially complex in cropping and grazing systems. For example, if nitrogen-based
fertilizers are applied to crops to increase yields, this would likely enhance soil carbon but the benefit could be partially or
completely offset by increased emissions of N2O. The practice of rotational grazing can be beneficial across all three major
gases: soil carbon can be maintained and enhanced; livestock CH4 emissions should decline due to improved forage quality;
and N2O emissions can be avoided by eliminating the need for fertilizer applications on the pasture. These complex interactions
among gases mean that it is important to consider not only carbon but all the greenhouse gas effects for certain sequestration
practices. For more information on levels of CH4 and N2O emissions from U.S. agriculture, visit the National Analysis section
of this Web site. 9. What are the other environmental effects of sequestration practices? Practices that aim to reduce carbon
losses and increase sequestration generally enhance the quality of soil, water, air and wildlife habitat. Tree planting that restores
fuller forest cover may not only sequester carbon but could improve habitat suitability for wildlife. Preserving threatened
tropical forests may avoid losses in both carbon and biodiversity, absent any leakage effects. And reducing soil erosion through
tree planting or soil conservation measures can sequester carbon and improve water quality by reducing nutrient runoff. In
certain cases, there may be tradeoffs between carbon objectives and environmental quality. Replacing diverse ecosystems with
single-species timber plantations may generate greater carbon accumulation, but could result in less biodiversity, at least at the
scale of the plantation. For more information on some of the broader environmental effects of sequestration visit the Co-
benefits section of this Web site. 10. How could carbon sequestration be affected by climate change? According to a National
Academy of Sciences 2001 report, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human
activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." In addition to temperature, human-
induced climate change may also affect growing seasons, precipitation and the frequency and severity of extreme weather
events, such as fire. These changes can influence forests, farming and the health of ecosystems, and thus carbon sequestration.
Some argue that rising CO2 levels will enhance sequestration above normal rates due to a fertilization effect. However, the
concurrent changes in temperature and precipitation, along with local nutrient availability and harmful air pollutants,
complicate this view. Furthermore, recent studies of pine forests fumigated with elevated CO2 levels have shown that this
fertilization effect may only be short-lived (Schlesinger and Lichter 2001; Oren et al. 2001). Current projections of business-as-
usual U.S. sequestration rates under various climate change scenarios show both increases and decreases in carbon storage
depending on various assumptions. To date, few analyses of the potential for additional sequestration over time have
considered the future effects of climate change.
79

Air pollution kills the flowers’ aromas which make it harder for bees to find
The Daily Green, 4/11/2008, < http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/air-pollution-flowers-fragrance-
47041103>
Flowers just don't say "I love you" like they used to. Nor do they say, "Come pollinate me." Or anything for that matter. Air
pollution decreases the potency of the chemical messages flowers emit as fragrance, according to a new University of Virginia
computer model and research published in Atmospheric Environment. In short: stopping to smell the flowers used to be a lot
easier, because the scent of flowers used to emanate over a wider area. Before air pollution got in the way, scent molecules
from flowers could travel as far as 3,900 feet, according to co-author Jose D. Fuentes. Downwind of major cities, that number
is reduced to as little as 650 feet. "This makes it increasingly difficult for pollinators to locate the flowers," Fuentes said, noting
that this phenomenon also could explain some of the declines in pollinating insects documented around the world. It's a
potentially vicious cycle: If the bees can't find the flowers, they won't eat well, and the fewer flowers they find, the fewer are
pollinated and reproduce.
Here's how the university described the research: Other studies, as well as the actual experience of farmers, have shown that
populations of bees, particularly bumblebees, and butterflies have declined greatly in recent years. Fuentes and his team of
U.Va. researchers, including Quinn McFrederick and James Kathilankal, believe that air pollution, especially during the peak
period of summer, may be a factor. To investigate this, they created a mathematical model of how the scents of flowers travel
with the wind. The scent molecules produced by flowers are very volatile and they quickly bond with pollutants such as ozone,
hydroxyl and nitrate radicals, which destroy the aromas they produce. This means that instead of traveling intact for long
distances with the wind, the scents are chemically altered and the flowers, in a sense, no longer smell like flowers. This forces
pollinators to search farther and longer and possibly to rely more on sight and less on smell. The scientists calculated scent
levels and distances that scents can travel under different conditions, from relatively unpolluted pre-industrial revolution levels,
to the conditions now existing in rural areas downwind from large cities. "It quickly became apparent that air pollution destroys
the aroma of flowers, by as much as 90 percent from periods before automobiles and heavy industry," Fuentes said. "And the
more air pollution there is in a region, the greater the destruction of the flower scents."
Bees can’t find the plants to germinate – ultimately producing fewer

vegetation
The Daily Green, 4/11/2008, < http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/air-pollution-flowers-fragrance-
47041103>
Flowers just don't say "I love you" like they used to. Nor do they say, "Come pollinate me." Or anything for that matter. Air
pollution decreases the potency of the chemical messages flowers emit as fragrance, according to a new University of Virginia
computer model and research published in Atmospheric Environment. In short: stopping to smell the flowers used to be a lot
easier, because the scent of flowers used to emanate over a wider area. Before air pollution got in the way, scent molecules
from flowers could travel as far as 3,900 feet, according to co-author Jose D. Fuentes. Downwind of major cities, that number
is reduced to as little as 650 feet. "This makes it increasingly difficult for pollinators to locate the flowers," Fuentes said, noting
that this phenomenon also could explain some of the declines in pollinating insects documented around the world. It's a
potentially vicious cycle: If the bees can't find the flowers, they won't eat well, and the fewer flowers they find, the fewer are
pollinated and reproduce.
Here's how the university described the research: Other studies, as well as the actual experience of farmers, have shown that
populations of bees, particularly bumblebees, and butterflies have declined greatly in recent years. Fuentes and his team of
U.Va. researchers, including Quinn McFrederick and James Kathilankal, believe that air pollution, especially during the peak
period of summer, may be a factor. To investigate this, they created a mathematical model of how the scents of flowers travel
with the wind. The scent molecules produced by flowers are very volatile and they quickly bond with pollutants such as ozone,
hydroxyl and nitrate radicals, which destroy the aromas they produce. This means that instead of traveling intact for long
distances with the wind, the scents are chemically altered and the flowers, in a sense, no longer smell like flowers. This forces
pollinators to search farther and longer and possibly to rely more on sight and less on smell. The scientists calculated scent
levels and distances that scents can travel under different conditions, from relatively unpolluted pre-industrial revolution levels,
to the conditions now existing in rural areas downwind from large cities.
80

Germination is key to pollinate and proliferate vegetation
Department of Food & Agricultural, 1/25/2008, Honeybees and Pollination, <
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZT843?open#General>
Honeybees are the most important pollinators of agricultural and horticultural crops. Most fruit, small seed and many vegetable
crops require pollination for the production of economic yields. Pollination means the transfer of pollen from the male part of
the flower, the anthers, to the receptive female part, the stigma. Pollination is a pre-requisite to the fertilisation of ovules within
flowers which leads to the growth of seeds and fruit. Fertilisation occurs when the pollen grains on the stigma germinate and
grow down the stem of the stigma (the style). The sperms of the pollen unite with the ovules in the ovary of the flower and
subsequently produce seed. The value of the honeybee as a pollinator is far greater than its value as a honey producer. Not all
crops need pollination. Some can produce fruit without fertilisation of the flower. Some flowers are self pollinated, which
means that pollen is transferred from the anther to the stigma of the same flower or flowers on the same plant variety. Although
this transfer can be achieved by wind or rain, insect pollinators are the most effective. Other flowers are cross pollinated. In
these cases, the pollen is transferred from the anther of a flower on one plant variety to the stigma of a flower on a different
plant variety. Plants requiring cross pollination usually cannot produce fruit from their own pollen. Again, the most important
and efficient carrier of pollen from the anther to the stigma for such plants is the honeybee.
Low quantity on food drives up food prices

Keystone Marketing Services, leader in commodity market trading, No date given, <
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/learning/law_of_supply.html>
Supply joins demand as one of the components of fundamental commodity market analysis. Supply characteristics relate to the
behaviour of firms in producing and selling a product or service. An understanding of the factors affecting supply in the past
will help with the development of supply expectations in the future and the impact upon market price. The law of supply can be
approached from two different contexts. The first is that it represents the sum total of production plus carryover stocks. The
other context for supply describes the behaviour of producers. The market or total supply represents the quantities producers
are willing to sell over a range of prices for any given time period. At the individual level, you may be willing to produce a
given product as long as the market price is equal to or greater than the cost of producing that product. The total supply is the
sum of the individual quantities of product that each farmer brings to the market. Market supply is represented by an upward
sloping curve with price on the vertical axis and quantity on the horizontal axis ( figure 2) An increase in price in most
instances will result in farmers wanting to increase the quantity of a given product they will bring to the market, therefore the
relationship between the price and supply is positive. Market supply will be affected by other variables in addition to the price.
Factors that have been identified as important in determining supply behaviour include; the number of firms producing the
product, technology, the price of inputs, the price of other commodities which could be produced, and the weather.
With higher prices the producers of goods and services will receive greater profits. Greater profits will result in the means to
expand production increasing the supply. This increased supply will ultimately satisfy the existing demand such that any
additional production must be met with new demand in order for the price increases to be sustained. The firms which handle
your grain or livestock products are not free to set prices as they choose. They can raise prices only if consumers are willing
and able to pay more. The law of supply, as was the case with demand, illustrates the discipline of the marketplace. The market
doesn’t care what it costs you to produce something. Lower prices are the market’s signal to farmers that they have produced
too much of something or that it is something consumers do not want. To be a good marketer, you need to accept the
“discipline of the marketplace.’
81
A fall in food production causes world war three

William H. Calvin, University of Washington, A Brain for All Season, 2002 http://WilliamCalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/
NAcoast.htm Caporal)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try
to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at
home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to
take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons
to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem – and could
easily lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze.
82

Food price cause massive inflation
Reuters, 7/12/2008, World Bank’s Zoellick: Food prices High Until 2012,
<http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1247363020080712>
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - World Bank President Robert Zoellick said on Saturday he expected food prices to remain above
2004 levels until at least 2012 and energy prices would also remain high and volatile. He repeated that with food and fuel
prices in a "danger zone" there was a need for $10 billion to provide food and cash handouts for the world's poorest. Soaring oil
and food prices have fuelled inflation across the globe at the same time as economies slow, posing a sharp dilemma for
policymakers. Earlier this week, leaders of the Group of Eight rich nations in Japan agreed on the need to address global
inflation, particularly elevated oil and food prices. "I think the statement on food security was a good statement, but the test
will be on the delivery of the action," Zoellick said. "During the meeting I tried to emphasize that I feel we are in a danger zone
of high food prices and fuel prices and there is a great need for additional resources." He added that several countries had made
substantial contributions towards the $10 billion sum, but funds would be needed continuously over the next years.
Increased inflation forces the Fed to raise interest rates which pop the real
estate bubble, crush bonds and stocks and create another Great Depression
Doug Casey, economist and head of Casey research, 6/2006, What we know now, “The Greater Depression-an Update”<
http://www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=2588>
Well, one obvious indicator is how the price of gold is running. Gold is the only financial asset left in the world that’s either
safe or cheap. It’s also under owned and largely unrecognized, which is why the smart money has been moving into it. Then
there’s the CPI itself—although I don’t think it’s very accurate, in that all the adjustments, exclusions, weightings and what-
nots the government has insinuated into it over the years makes the CPI as much of a floating abstraction as the dollar itself.
It’s funny how the government plays with figures for fear of hurting confidence. They believe the economy rests mainly on
confidence, which, ironically, in today’s world, is true. Unfortunately, confidence can blow away like a pile of feathers in a
windstorm—and we have a class-5 hurricane coming. If the economy were sound and people for some reason lost confidence,
the currency and the banks would be unhurt, and the next day things would go back to normal. But that’s not the world we live
in. So, higher CPI numbers are another thing that could destroy confidence and supercharge the gold price. They’re coming.
Higher interest rates, which we’re already seeing, will inevitably burst the real estate bubble, which is floating on a sea of
mostly adjustable-rate debt, a lot of it interest-only or even with negative amortization. Higher rates will also crush bonds and
probably stocks. And they’ll devastate the economy since everybody is deeply in debt. However, I feel the Fed will keep short-
term rates—which are really the only ones they control—as low as possible for as long as possible. For one thing, they don’t
want a recession, which this time could snowball into the Greater Depression. For another, my guess is that they want to
gradually depreciate the dollar against other currencies, in part to decrease the chronic, massive trade deficit. And because
increasing the number of dollars makes people think they’re richer than they really are, it can stimulate some additional
spending… but these days that spending is mostly done on credit, so it is only illusionary.
83

High food prices causes massive nation-wide starvation – Africa proves
The World Bank, 2008, High Food Prices, a Harsh Reality, <
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/0,,contentMDK:21665883~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSi
tePK:469372,00.html>
In Mexico City, mass protests about the cost of tortillas. In West Bengal, disputes over food-rationing. In Senegal, Mauritania,
and other parts of Africa, riots over grain prices. And in Yemen, children march in public to call attention to child hunger. This
chain of events is in stark contrast to the falling food prices that consumers have come to expect over the past several decades.
On February 13, the FAO announced that 36 countries are in crisis as a result of higher food prices and will require external
assistance. In many of these countries, food insecurity has been worsened by conflict, floods, or extreme weather. Last month,
in Davos and in Addis Ababa, Bob Zoellick called for action to tackle hunger and malnutrition in a world of rising food prices.
"Hunger and malnutrition are the forgotten Millennium Development Goal. It has gotten less attention, but increased food
prices and their threat – not only to people but also to political stability – have made it a matter of urgency to draw the attention
it needs,” he said.
While headline news about high food prices is a relatively recent phenomenon, the broader upswing in commodity prices
began in 2001. Large structural shifts in the global economy—including growing demand in China and India—have been
steadily reflected in commodity price increases, especially of metals and energy. Food prices have increased in response to
many factors: higher energy and fertilizer prices; increased demand for biofuels, especially in the U.S. and the European
Union; and droughts in Australia and other countries. World grain stocks are at record lows and next year’s prices depend on
the success of the next harvest in the northern hemisphere. Wheat prices (US$) have increased by 200 percent, and overall food
prices (US$) have risen by 75 percent since the turn of the century. Adjusting for exchange rates and domestic inflation reduces
the price increases faced by developing countries—but these increases are still severe for millions of poor consumers. “The
increases in grain prices are not caused by short-term supply disruptions, as is the normal case, and it will likely take several
years for supplies to increase to rebuild stocks and allow prices to fall,” said Don Mitchell, Lead Economist in the
Development Prospects Group. Imagine a low-income family, say in Bangladesh, that might pay 20 cents for a kilogram of rice
one year and 30 cents the next. For poor people who often spend more than half their incomes on food, unrelenting increases in
the price of staples can be devastating Yemen, which imports about 2 million metric tons of wheat a year, illustrates how rising
food prices can increase poverty. After a year of record inflation, doubled wheat and wheat product prices might increase
national poverty by 6 percentage points. “If no action is taken, this could fully reverse the gains in poverty reduction that we’ve
seen in the country between 1998 and 2005,” said Thirumalai Srinivasan, Country Economist, Yemen.
While the urban poor are most affected, it is worth remembering that most rural people are buyers rather than sellers of food.
There could well be severe effects for landless rural workers whose subsistence wages may not increase apace with food prices.
84
AT – States CP
1) Absent federal leadership, states will implement a patchwork of conflicting regulations, crushing
competitiveness.
Richard Stavros, Public Utilities Fortnightly, “Playing Russian roulette?”, No. 11, Vol. 142; Pg. 4, 11-1-2004
It could mark the biggest bungle of the last two administrations-the decision to walk away from the Kyoto Protocol rather than
stay and negotiate to U.S. advantage. No one thought Russia would sign and put the treaty in force. But now that Russia's
ratification appears imminent, policy wonks in America are scrambling to assess the impact.
In our August issue, attorney Peter J. Fontaine laid out in stark detail what Russia's ratification could mean for energy prices,
and how the World Trade Organization (WTO) could force the United States to comply (see, "Global Warming: The Gathering
Storm," p. 50). And many other analysts now appear to agree, predicting that Kyoto's enactment could prove painful for the
United States, owing largely to our discordant state and federal environmental rules.Frustration with the current administration
has caused some state regulators to go it alone on environmental policy. Some states in the last few years have cut their own
deals with electric utilities on carbon emissions-deals that go out for years. Or they have developed mandatory portfolio
standards for renewable energy, or have sponsored emissions trading regimes with neighboring states or countries, such as
Canada. However noble these efforts, they could undermine America's economic competitiveness. Utilities, for instance, may
find themselves obliged to boost rates to pay for emissions reduction equipment forced upon them under the Kyoto plan. The
affect of those increased energy costs, experts worry, could render U.S. businesses less competitive. Evidently, at this point no
one really knows how these state environmental programs will mesh with the Kyoto treaty. Only now are experts beginning to
ask questions like, "Is New England too restrictive in its reduction of carbon emissions? Does Ohio need to be more
restrictive?" Conversely, others say that some state environmental programs may prove adequate for U.S. participation in a
Kyoto plan. A greater problem, they say, may be those states that have not enacted any kind of program and are likely to see
more of a dramatic shift in their rates. All of this has led some to worry that in the absence of a comprehensive national plan,
even more states may feel forced to strike out and cut their own sweetheart Kyoto deals or to protect businesses within their
borders. It recently was rumored in the international press that California might be working on a carbon-trading scheme linked
with the European or Kyoto programs. Now imagine 50 such deals, each with its own peculiarities. The biggest problem,
experts agree, is the lack of any national plan for the environment. Until we have one, America's energy sector could find itself
held hostage to world opinion.
2) Neg can’t solve terminal impact to global warming, they don’t access
spillover. Nothing the states can do will be large enough to prevent the impact
of global warming or be perceived by others. Modeling key to prevent
extinction; case outweighs
3) States can’t access the leadership advantage - states don’t individually play
a role globally. The only way to increase soft power is for the Unites States
Federal government to act. Extend doggitt 08 from the 1AC – Presidential
action key for international perception and soft power increase. Impacts are
nuclear annihilation and the war on terror which causes extinction. Neg can’t
outweigh – even with net benefit impact
4) States can’t guarantee they reach correct emission levels – the plantext is
based on a government study and has levels that work nationally. States can’t
split emissions lowering evenly because of size difference and lack of evidence
that says each state knows how much it must restrict carbon emissions. New
studies require vast effort and extend time frame substantially.
85
AT – Command/Control CP
Status Quo strict command-and-control regulations fail to develop alternative energy
[Robert N. Stavins; Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, Director, Harvard Environmental Economics Program
Chairman, Environment & Natural Resources Faculty Group, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Director of
Graduate Studies for Ph.D. in Public Policy and Ph.D. in Political Economy & Government; 2005; Implications of the US experience
with Market-based environment strategies for future climate policy; page 64; Cambridge University Press, New York; Edited by Bernd
Hansjurgens]
86
AT – Politics DA
No cap-and-trade now – it got shot down in a filibuster
John Plestina, Ely Times, 6/19/08, “Warner-Lieberman climate bill cools off for now”,
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2008/06/19/news/news06.txt
The intent of the bill introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., was to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gases being emitted nationwide. It would have tightened greenhouse emissions by electric utilities, transportation
and manufacturing over a period of more than four decades and introduced a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases for
reductions of nearly 70 percent by 2050. Reid has said he intends to reintroduce the legislation in 2009 after a new Congress
and president take office. The Lieberman-Warner Act died after Senate Democrats failed to overcome a GOP filibuster and
move the bill to final consideration. The vote was 48-36 to end the filibuster, 18 votes short of the required two-thirds majority
of the 100 Senate members. The Democrats then withdrew the bill. Reid voted to end the filibuster. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.,
voted to continue it.
Cap–and–trade is popular
NCEE (National Center of Environmental Economics), January 2001, The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for
Protecting the Environment, <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0216B-13.pdf/$File/EE-0216B-13.pdf>
. In the cap-and-trade approach, allowances for future emissions are sold or granted to existing sources. Uncapped credit
systems, on the other hand, do not establish any fixed ceiling on total emissions. Total emissions can increase if new sources of
pollution enter the market and as existing sources increase production.. In some areas, wetland mitigation credits can be
created, banked, and sold to offset the adverse effects of development. Trading programs have certain features that have made
them increasingly popular in the United States. In a trading program, capital moves between companies involved in trades,
and innovative, entrepreneurial companies can profit from low-cost reductions in emissions. In addition, cap-and-trade
programs can provide great certainty about the magnitude of environmental improvement that will be achieved. At the same
time, trading programs may have several drawbacks, including the potential for high transaction costs and inactive markets,
especially in credit or open-market systems. High costs can be attributed to the need to verify each reduction before authorizing
the credit. Clearly, trading programs should not be applied to all environmental problems. The long-term effects of trading
programs on technical innovation vary from program to program. Some have spurred considerable innovation, such as the acid
rain program, while others have not due to high transaction costs.
The public supports cap–and–trade

Programs, Washington, DC, 2006, Fundamental Successful Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification, under a Cap-and-Trade System <
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:kdkjlh9i0K4J:www.epa.gov/airmarket/cap-trade/docs/fundamentals.pdf++%22cap-
and-trade%22>
(1) compliance assurance through incentives and automatic penalties; (2) strong quality assurance
(QA); (3) collaborative approach with a petition process; (4) standardized electronic reporting; (5) compliance flex-
ibility for low-emitting sources; (6) complete emissions data record required; (7) centralized administration; (8)
level playing field; (9) publicly available data; (10) performance-based approach; and (11) reducing conflicts of in-
terest. Each of these elements is discussed in the context of the authors’ experience under two U.S. cap-and-trade
programs and their potential application to other cap-and-trade programs.. The authors believe that the elements described in
this paper greatly contributed to this success. EPA has used the ARP fundamental elements as a model for other cap-and-trade
programs, including the NBTP, which went into effect in 2003, and the recently published Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean
Air Mercury Rule. The authors believe that using these fundamental elements to develop and implement the MRV portion of
their cap-and-trade programs has resulted in public confidence in the programs, highly accurate and complete emissions data,
and a high compliance rate ( 99% overall).
87
AT – Biz Con DA
1. Competitiveness outweighs bizcon – a few companies freaking out are
irrelevant compared to losing major market share to Europe and Japan, which
spills over to every other industry – that’s Kammen.
2. States turn competitiveness – they’ll implement multiple conflicting

measures which create an uncertain environment for development – uniform
implenetation ensures predictability. That’s Stavros.
3. Businesses want to establish carbon caps. That’s Punk.

BusinessWeek, 8/16/04, “Global Warming”, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_33/b3896001_mz001.htm
Remarkably, business is far ahead of Congress and the White House. Some CEOs are already calling for once-unthinkable
steps. "We accept that the science on global warming is overwhelming," says John W. Rowe, chairman and CEO of Exelon
Corp. (EXC ) "There should be mandatory carbon constraints." Exelon, of course, would likely benefit as the nation's largest
operator of commercial nuclear power plants. But many other companies also are planning for that future. American Electric
Power Co. (AEP ) once fought the idea of combating climate change. But in the late 1990s, then-CEO E. Linn Draper Jr.
pushed for a strategy shift at the No. 1 coal-burning utility -- preparing for limits instead of denying that global warming
existed. It was a tough sell to management. Limits on carbon emissions threaten the whole idea of burning coal. But Draper
prevailed. Why? "We felt it was inevitable that we were going to live in a carbon-constrained world," says Dale E.
Heydlauff, AEP's senior vice-president for environmental affairs. Now, AEP is trying to accumulate credits for cutting CO2. It's
investing in renewable energy projects in Chile, retrofitting school buildings in Bulgaria for greater efficiency, and exploring
ways to burn coal more cleanly. Scores of other companies are also taking action -- and seeing big benefits. DuPont (DD ) has
cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 65% since 1990, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Alcoa Inc. (AA ) is
aiming at a 25% cut by 2010. General Electric Co. (GE ) is anticipating growing markets for its wind power division and for
more energy-efficient appliances. And General Motors Corp. (GM ) is spending millions to develop hydrogen-powered cars
that don't emit CO2. A low-carbon economy "could really change our industry," says Fred Sciance, manager of GM's global
climate issues team. As Exelon knows, the need for carbon-free power could even mean a boost for advanced nuclear reactors,
which produce electricity without any greenhouse-gas emissions.
Global warming could change other industries, too. Even if the world manages to make big cuts in emissions soon, the earth
will still warm several more degrees in coming decades, most climate scientists believe. That could slash agricultural yields,
raise sea levels, and bring more extreme weather. For businesses, this presents threats -- and opportunities. Insurers may face
more floods, storms, and other disasters. Farmers must adjust crops to changing climates. Companies that pioneer low-emission
cars, clean coal-burning technology, and hardier crop plants -- or find cheap ways to slash emissions -- will take over from
those that can't move as fast. "There is no silver bullet," says Chris Mottershead, distinguished adviser at BP PLC (BP ): "There
is a suite of technologies that are required, and we need to unleash the talent inside business" to develop them. Are we ready for
this carbon-constrained, warming world? In some ways, yes. "There is a case to be made for cautious optimism, that we are
making small steps," says BP's Mottershead. Indeed, there is surprising consensus about the policies needed to spur innovation
and fight global warming. The basic idea: mandatory reductions or taxes on carbon emissions, combined with a worldwide
emissions-trading program. Here's how it could work: Imagine that each company in a particular sector is required to cut
emissions by 20%. The company could meet the target on its own by becoming more energy efficient or by switching from
fossil fuels to alternatives. But it could also simply buy the needed reductions on the open market from others who have
already cut emissions more than required, and who thus have excess emissions to sell. Under a sophisticated worldwide
carbon-trading system, governments and companies could also get sellable credits for planting trees to soak up carbon or for
investing in, say, energy efficient and low-carbon technologies in the developing world. As a result, there is a powerful
incentive for everyone to find the lowest-cost and most effective cuts -- and to move to lower-carbon technologies.A key
element is long-term predictability. If the world sets goals for the next 50 years, as Britain has done, and then implements the
curbs or taxes needed to reach them, companies will figure out solutions.
88
AT – Biz Con DA
4. Failure for the US to comply with Kyoto causes the EU to sanction the US
and force protectionism, crushing confidence.
Peter Fontaine, Environmental Attorney, August 2004, “The Gathering Storm”, Public Utilities Fortnightly,
http://www.pur.com/pubs/4419.cfm
There is little question that CO2 reduction measures will increase the cost of energy in the EU, Japan, and the other industrialized
nations that have ratified Kyoto. As a result, Annex I countries that have not undertaken comparable measures to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, including the United States, Canada, and Australia, will enjoy a competitive advantage in the form of lower energy
costs and, in turn, lower costs of production. A fundamental impact of Kyoto therefore will be a global imbalance in the costs of
production among the United States, Australia, and virtually the rest of the industrialized world. This imbalance will prompt the EU to
seriously examine the option of imposing some form of countervailing duty on U.S. imports to compensate for the disadvantage and to
fund additional CO2 offset projects under the CDM mechanism.
The EU clearly is concerned about the potential for competitive harm associated with the recent greenhouse gas emissions program,
noting that EU emissions allowance trading scheme (ETS) "has the potential to lead to even further increases in power prices that
could cause significant damage to EU competitiveness, especially for energy intensive industries such as pulp and paper, iron and
steel, cement and lime, chemicals and others. ... It is essential that this situation be monitored and actions taken if these industries
become disadvantaged."7 Several non-governmental organizations also have advocated for trade sanctions against the United States,
arguing that: Until the U.S. ratifies and implements the Kyoto Protocol, there cannot be fair and free trade with the U.S. and the U.S.
will be in clear violation of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.8 Recent WTO Successes Against the U.S.
Nor is there any reason to question that the EU will use trade sanctions as a hammer when it finds that the U.S. has garnered an unfair
competitive advantage by subsidizing exports. Two recent examples, the sales corporation/extraterritorial income (FSC/ETI) and the
steel import cases, demonstrate that the EU will use trade sanctions when necessary to force a change in U.S. behavior. In both cases,
the EU successfully implemented countervailing duties of several billion dollars that were upheld by the WTO Appellate Body. In
both cases, the United States underestimated the EU's resolve to impose trade sanctions, and the sanctions prompted the United States
to act quickly to remove the subsidies.9
5. Loss of competitiveness spills over into every sector of the economy, and
causes a collapse
Connolly 2002 (Bernard| Chief Global Strategist, AIG| Dark Vision for the World Economy|
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Connolly.html|
But as capital accumulation proceeds, the rate of return on capital gradually subsides back towards its starting point, even if the
process takes several years. As it does, business investment does not just decelerate -- it falls in absolute terms. A similar story can be
told about consumer investment -- residential construction and purchases of consumer durables. As domestic demand falls back, net
exports need to rise to fill the gap, a gap made bigger by the increase in capacity produced by the preceding years of strong
investment. But, by definition, the exchange rate cannot adjust to aid this process. Instead, the lagged effects of past overheating,
showing up in inflation, actually worsen international competitiveness. With domestic demand falling and competitiveness worsening
simultaneously, the economy goes into a tailspin. Unemployment rises; inflation begins to fall back, even though for some time it
remains above levels in competitor countries. Since nominal interest rates are set outside the domestic economy, falling inflation
pushes real interest rates up while the rate of return on capital is coming down -- this combination produces falling asset prices,
worsening the decline in domestic demand. To re-balance the economy, domestic inflation has to fall below that in other countries
under the influence of recession and rising unemployment. But the process of disinflation (perhaps even deflation) constantly pushes
real interest rates up. Worse, asset deflation weakens balance sheets, including the government's. Bankruptcy and default, including
government default, become real possibilities. Credit spreads widen, exacerbating the problem of excessively high real interest rates.
Asset markets weaken further. The circle is vicious indeed. If nothing is done to break into it, the outcome will be not just economic
and financial collapse but social and political chaos.
89
AT – Biz Con DA
6. Our advantage is comparative – short-term effects of a cap-and-trade are
miniscule, and the effects of global warming are far worse. That’s Environment
Protection.
7. Businesses/corporate leaders want to invest now and a binding target works

better
Environmental defense 2004 “The Heat is on: a White paper on climate action”
http://www.edf.org/documents/3777_TheHeatIsOn.pdf
Delaying action now will cause more serious economic disruptions later. The bottom line is that businesses abhor uncertainty.
Many corporate leaders are convinced that the United States will eventually have to join in fighting global warming, and would
prefer to begin making capital investments now than waiting until the last minute, when the job will be more expensive.
Some corporate leaders are also worried that without binding targets, American companies will have less incentive to develop
technologies to reduce global warming gases, thereby ceding a lucrative emerging market to their European and Japanese
competitors.
90
AT – EU Relations DA
EU angry at US for lack of energy policy
Ewen MacAskill, Guardian’s DC bureau chief, diplomatic editor, chief political correspondent, 9/29/07,
“Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade'”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/29/usnews.climatechange
George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate
change ended without any progress. European ministers, diplomats and officials attending the Washington conference were
scathing, particularly in private, over Mr Bush's failure once again to commit to binding action on climate change. Although
the US and Britain have been at odds over the environment since the early days of the Bush administration, the gap has never
been as wide as yesterday. Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory
targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a "new approach" and "a historic
undertaking", remains totally opposed. The conference, attended by more than 20 countries, including China, India, Britain,
France and Germany, broke up with the US isolated, according to non-Americans attending. One of those present said even
China and India, two of the biggest polluters, accepted that the voluntary approach proposed by the US was untenable and
favoured binding measures, even though they disagreed with the Europeans over how this would be achieved. A senior
European diplomat attending the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meeting confirmed European
suspicions that it had been intended by Mr Bush as a spoiler for a major UN conference on climate change in Bali in December.
"It was a total charade and has been exposed as a charade," the diplomat said. "I have never heard a more humiliating speech
by a major leader. He [Mr Bush] was trying to present himself as a leader while showing no sign of leadership. It was a total
failure."
EU Angry at Bush
Roger Harrabin, British journalist and environmental analyst, 9/29/07 “Critics angry at Bush climate plan”,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7019346.stm
US President George W Bush infuriated his critics by professing world leadership on climate change at his meeting of the top
16 world economies - while offering no new substantive policy and implicitly rejecting binding emissions controls. Mr Bush,
who has been sceptical of climate change, said at the forum in Washington that our understanding of the science had moved on.
He agreed that energy security and climate change were major challenges and pledged to solve both problems - but dismissed
notions of despair. The American president said clean technologies like nuclear power and clean coal would protect the
economy as well as the environment. He said the US wanted to work with the United Nations towards a long-term goal on
greenhouse gases. Delegates upset He also proposed a new global fund from the US, Japan and Europe to channel clean
technology to developing countries. But some visiting delegates were outraged by what they said was a stream of spin running
through the speech. One (who understandably asked not to be named) said: "This is a total charade. "The president has said he
will lead on climate change but he won't agree binding emissions, while other nations will. "He says he will lead on technology
but then he asks other countries to contribute funds, without saying how much he'll contribute himself. "It's humiliating for him
- a total humiliation."
91
US refusing to sign Kyoto hurts relations
BBC news 2/13/05, “Campaigners Target US over Kyoto”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-
/2/hi/uk_news/4259569.stm
The protocol, agreed in 1997, sets legally-binding emissions reductions. Nearly 180 nations have signed up, but some have not
yet formally ratified it. It binds industrialised nations to reduce worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of
5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. The treaty nearly stalled after the US, which created 36% of emissions in
1990, pulled out. The protocol needed to be ratified by countries who were responsible for at least 55% of the world's carbon
emissions in 1990 to come into force. However, in 2004 Russia agreed to sign up, allowing that requirement to be met. Phil
Thornhill, of the Campaign Against Climate Change, which organised the march, said: "We want to express just how aghast we
are the US is not joining the rest of the world."Scientists say we have about 10 years to save the environment, we really have to
change the rate at which we act."Green MEP Caroline Lucas said it was time to get tough with Washington. "By refusing to
sign up to Kyoto, the US is demonstrating - yet again - that it is a rogue state pursuing its perceived national self-interest to the
exclusion of the peoples of the rest of the world."This is unacceptable and the world community must now look at ways of
holding the US accountable for damage its isolationist policies are inflicting on the rest of the world," she added. Friends of the
Earth director Tony Juniper said: "We are here to protest against the Bush administration and celebrate the fact Kyoto will
come into force this week, despite the Bush administration trying its hardest to kill it."
The New EU system hurts relations

Dan Hamilton, director for the Center for Transatlantic relations, 1/16/08, California and its allies join forces
with Europe to break the Bush administration's intransigence on aviation emissions
The new EU system, slated to go into effect in 2012, would cap carbon dioxide emissions for European and foreign airplanes
alike, while allowing airlines to buy and sell pollution credits on the EU carbon market. The initiative is yet another signal of
EU determination to tackle the climate change issue. EU governments agreed last spring to cut their greenhouse gas emissions
by as much as 30% by 2020. Not surprisingly, Europe’s airline industry is critical of these demands. While it has resigned
itself to the prospect that some EU airline emissions scheme is inevitable, it warns about higher costs to passengers and makes
the point that the EU could reduce emissions 12% simply by putting its single market under a single sky of air traffic control.
There are some big holes in the plan – big enough for an Airbus to fly through. Cost estimates vary wildly. Other pollutant
emissions from airplanes – water vapour, contrails or nitrogen oxides – are not included. The cost implications for travellers are
uncertain, but could result in fare increases ranging from 3 to 15 percent. The plan could undermine a groundbreaking US-EU
deal to open transatlantic skies that promises roughly $7 billion worth of cost reductions and a boost in transatlantic travel by
up to 24%. The pollution credit scheme could mean windfall profits for some companies and major losses for others. It is a
unilateral approach to a global problem. Undaunted, EU activists are pressing ahead, and have found American allies – not in
Washington, but in California and a host of other states. The states have petitioned the EPA to impose a cap-and-trade system,
similar to that of the EU, on domestic and foreign aircraft departing or landing at American airports. This European-
Californian pincer movement has raised the stakes in the battle both parties have been having with the Bush administration
over global environmental regulation. The Bush administration believes the EU scheme will prove unworkable, and has
rejected such a system at home. It places its hopes on technology innovation and improved air traffic management and
infrastructure. Federal officials have warned the Europeans that they risk breaking international law if they force non-European
airlines into their system. The United States engineered an agreement among the majority of countries in the International Civil
Aviation Organization, aviation's global rule-making body, against any unilateral actions – but that only energized the EU to
press ahead. If the EU proceeds along its current path, the United States will almost certainly charge the EU with unfair trade
practices before the World Trade Organization.
US fails to reduce carbon emissions-hurts relations
92
Kyodo News International 12/27/07, “U.S. eye climate summit before G-8 talks next year”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0XPQ/is_2007_Dec_29/ai_n27484905
The Bush administration regards the major economies' process, launched in September, as the main vehicle for setting future
climate change steps by Washington. The U.S.-led meeting brings together 16 major carbon emitters such as Japan, China,
India and European countries to discuss steps that are expected to be nationally determined, and voluntary cutbacks in
greenhouse gas emissions, an idea that Europe opposes Some nongovernmental organizations say it is wrong for Japan to tie
up with the United States on this issue, saying the Bush administration is trying to undermine the U.N. process aimed at
significantly cutting emissions with its voluntary-based climate change strategy, which experts believe will not be effective
enough to significantly reduce emissions. ''When the Bush administration launched the major economies' process in September,
it drew criticism from Europe and developing countries because it failed to produce substantial measures to reduce carbon
emissions,'' said Mika Obayashi, director at the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies in Tokyo.
93
AT – Spending DA
1. Spending is out of control now.
New York Times 6-26-08, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27earmarks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON — Despite a pledge by Congressional leaders to reduce pork-barrel projects, new information shows that both the
number and amount of earmarks have increased in several spending bills now making their way through Congress. The amount
of the earmarks in the House version of the labor, health and human services appropriations bill for the 2009 fiscal year, for example,
has jumped to $618.8 million from $277.9 million compared with the bill in 2008, according to Citizens Against Government Waste,
a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington. In the Interior Department spending bill, earmarks increased to $134.9 million
from $111 million from last year. Those amounts might change when the Appropriations Committee approves those bills. A
spokeswoman from the committee said the number and amount of earmarks would be kept at 2008 levels. A few years ago, the
Department of Homeland Security bill had no earmarks; the new House bill has more than 100. In all, lawmakers requested
3,796 earmarks worth about $2.7 billion in seven spending bills.
2. Plan doesn’t spend money – we only change the amount of pollutants the
electricity sector can emit.
3. Auctioning permits would increase government revenue.

Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, 2007, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/quickfacts_cap-
and-trade.cfm#7
Giving permits to firms provides large windfall gains for the recipients, who will be able to pass on higher prices to consumers
whether they pay for the permits or not. Auctioning permits generates substantial revenues, which the government can
then use to offset some or all of the adverse impact of higher energy prices and employment shifts on firms, workers,
and households by cutting taxes or providing transition assistance to workers (such as coal miners) who would be displaced by
a shift to a less carbon-intensive economy. Some of the revenue could also be used to fund research to develop alternative
energy sources.
4. The economy is in shambles – several reasons.

New York Times 7-19-08,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/economy/19econ.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1216495401-
M2RaZC9wx0HFQZytyVf5zQ
You have heard that Fannie and Freddie, their gentle names notwithstanding, may cripple the financial system without a large
infusion of taxpayer money. You have gleaned that jobs are disappearing, housing prices are plummeting, and paychecks
are effectively shrinking as food and energy prices soar. You have noted the disturbing talk of crisis hovering over Wall
Street. Something has clearly gone wrong with the economy. But how bad are things, really? And how bad might they get
before better days return? Even to many economists who recently thought the gloom was overblown, the situation looks
grim. The economy is in the midst of a very rough patch. The worst is probably still ahead. Job losses will probably
accelerate through this year and into 2009, and the job market will probably stay weak even longer. Home prices will
probably keep falling, shrinking household wealth and eroding spending power.
5. The neg can’t say how much spending pushes us over the brink, meaning
they get no risk of the disad.
94
AT – Spending DA
6. No impact - The world economy will continue to grow even amid a cooldown
of the US economy.
The International Herald Tribune 4-12-07
(“Global growth to continue in '07 despite U.S. slowdown, IMF says” http://web.lexisnexis.
com/universe/document?_m=dc35e94be0704a649a36d2ab7f67b8b2&_docnum=25&wchp=dGLbVzWzSkVb&_
md5=2019ab8b320cb888295d15e6391e5e6a)
The world economy will withstand a worse-than-forecast slowdown in the United States and expand at close to 5
percent for a fourth straight year, the International Monetary Fund said Wednesday.
The fund predicted global growth of 4.9 percent this year, the same as six months ago, following a 5.4 percent expansion
in 2006, according to its World Economic Outlook. The IMF forecast a 4.9 percent expansion next year.
Europe, Japan and China will help carry the global economy as a housing slump cuts growth in the United States, which
accounts for a fifth of worldcoutput. While the fallout from a wave of subprime mortgage defaults is likely to be muted, a
steeper U.S. downturn is among the risks to global growth, the IMF said.
''So far, the cooling of U.S. activity seems to have had a limited impact beyond its immediate neighbors, Canada and
Mexico,'' the report said. ''However, a further cooling of the U.S. economy that increasingly spreads to weakness in
consumption and business investment in 2007 would be challenging.''
Other risks include a rebound in oil prices, a resurgence of inflation and rising calls by politicians to increase barriers to
commerce to protect domestic industries from overseas competition.
''Overall risks to the outlook seem less threatening than six months ago but remain weighted on the downside, with concerns
increasing about financial risks'' that were reflected in recent volatility of global markets, the IMF wrote.
Policy makers should take advantage of a period of economic strength to press ahead with more ambitious efforts to tackle
''deep-seated structural challenges,'' the IMF said.
7. We had a recession in 2003 and the neg impacts didn’t happen, meaning the
DA has no probability.
95
AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good)

1. Gas prices are on the decline now.
Bloomberg News 7-18-08, http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/07/18/natural_gas_tumbles_oil_follows/
NEW YORK - Crude oil fell more than $5 a barrel, dropping below $130 for the first time in six weeks, as global economic
growth slows. Natural gas dropped more than 7 percent after a government report showed US supplies rose a greater-
than-forecast 104 billion cubic feet last week. Some users can switch between oil-based fuels and gas depending on cost. Oil
also fell because of reports showing the US and Chinese economies are slowing.
"The rout in natural gas is pulling oil lower," said Addison Armstrong, director of market research at TFS Energy LLS in
Stamford, Conn. "The sheer weight of the decline is bound to impact all the energy markets. A consensus was already forming
that [energy] prices were too high." Crude oil for August delivery fell $5.31, or 4 percent, to settle at $129.29 a barrel on the
New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since June 5. Futures are up 75 percent from a year ago. Futures have
dropped almost $18 from last week's record $147.27 a barrel on signs that US consumption is falling. Oil is down 11 percent
since July 14, the biggest three-day drop since December 2004. Prices closed below the 50-day moving average for the first
time since Feb. 8, an indication the bull market may be coming to an end. Traders use moving averages of different periods in
conjunction with other statistical patterns for buying and selling decisions.
Oil also fell because August options expired at the close of Nymex trading yesterday. August $130 puts, which represent the
right to sell at that price, were the most actively traded options contract on the Nymex yesterday.
Natural gas for August delivery declined 86.1 cents, or 7.6 percent, to settle at $10.54 per million British thermal units in
New York, the lowest close since April 17.US natural gas inventories were forecast to increase 88 billion cubic feet in the
week ended July 11, according to the median of responses from 22 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News.
2. The neg doesn’t say by how much prices need to fall before their impacts
happen, meaning they get no risk of their link.
3. Turn – chemicals:
a. GAS PRISE RISE DESTROYS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND COMPETITIVENESS
New York Times, September 28th 2005, As Natural Gas Prices Rise, So Do the Costs of Things Made of Chemicals,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/business/28chemical.html
High prices are a double whammy for the chemical industry. Natural gas is both its main fuel and its main raw
material, the starting point for the basic chemicals from which the fibers and compounds in shirts, eyeglasses and even
the wrappers for single-serve soups are derived. "Chemical companies have been under assault for several years," said Robert
Koort, an analyst at Goldman Sachs who has an attractive rating on the chemical sector. Diane H. Gulyas, chief marketing
officer of DuPont, said that, if anything, the hurricanes "acted as a wake-up call."
"It made us all realize how shocking the underlying fundamentals of our business have become," she said.
The industry has passed along costs, and it is likely to continue doing so for now. Since Katrina, almost every chemical
company has announced price increases. The trickledown effect to retail shelves is inevitable - soda and water come in
plastic bottles, computers use plastic housings, even organic greenmarkets pack fruits and vegetables in plastic bags.
"Consumers can expect to pay more for everything, from medicines to auto parts to computers to shampoo," said Kevin
Swift, chief economist for the American Chemistry Council, a trade association.
But industry specialists worry that if high gas prices curb consumer spending, the days of passing along constant price
increases may end. "The uncompetitive natural gas price in the U.S. is a long-term problem," said Gordon E. Slack,
business director for Dow energy business, who said that high gas prices had turned the chemical industry from a net
exporter to a net importer. Those rising prices have effectively wiped out the American chemical industry's main
competitive edge. Whereas most overseas chemical plants derive most of their raw materials from oil, gas has long been the
feedstock of choice here. According to Mr. Swift, natural gas accounts for about 60 percent of the value of chemicals made
here. Indeed, many chemical companies clustered their plants along the Gulf Coast, where so much gas is produced, to take
advantage of what Mr. Slack called "the best natural gas prices in the world."
96
AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good)

b. CHEMICALS ARE KEY TO THE ECONOMY
National Technical Information Service, May 25th 2001, http://www.technology.gov/Reports/Chemicals/chemical.htm
The Chemical Industry Today
The U.S. chemical industry is vital to the U.S. economy. It produces 1.9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). It is the
nation's number one exporter. It supplies more than $1 out of every $10 of U.S. exports and consistently runs large
international trade surpluses. It is a high-tech, research and development (R&D) oriented industry that is awarded about one out
of every eight U.S. patents. It employs over one million people at wages well above the U.S. manufacturing average, and it produces
over 70,000 different products. Most importantly, chemicals is a "keystone" industry -- one critical to the global competitiveness of
other U.S. industries. Because so many modern products depend on chemicals, the international competitiveness of other U.S.
industries requires a high-tech, globally competitive U.S. chemical industry that can supply new products at prices that give U.S.
producers an edge.
c. US ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR

Cook 07 (Richard C. Cook, 6/14/07, Writer, Consultant, and Retired Federal Analyst - U.S. Treasury Department, "It's Official: The
Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun," http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964)
Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music.
The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be
as bad as they were then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever,
have it in the chops. If they don’t want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes?
4. Extend Khalilzad ’95 – competitiveness is key to leadership also. Extend the

second Khalilzad card – leadership is key to preventing nuclear exchange and a
nuclear war since the world would listen to the US more.
5. Extend Ellerman ’05 – capping emissions solves global warming by

decreasing the amount of pollutants in the air. Since greenhouse gases spend
a great amount of time in the troposphere and heat up the earth, we access
the best internal link to global warming, meaning there is a net decrease in
the amount of global warming.
97
AT – Natural Gas DA (Low Prices Good)

1. NATURAL GAS PRICES AT RECORD HIGH
Mark Peters, Dow Jones Newswire, June 30, 2008, “US Gas: Futures Hit 29 Month High,” 6/30/08 (Dow Jones Newswire)
Natural gas futures hit a new 29-month high as prices climbed Monday, fueled by record oil prices and continued supply
concerns. Natural gas for August delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange was trading 16.7 cents, or 1.27%, higher
at $13.365 a million British thermal units after opening floor trade 19.2 cents higher at $13.39/MMBtu. Futures reached
$13.448 in combined floor and electronic trading, the highest price since December 2005. "This week's natural gas trade
should generally seek guidance from the petroleum complex unless the temperature forecasts provide some major
shifts," wrote Jim Ritterbusch, president of trading advisory firm Ritterbusch & Associates, in a note to clients Monday.
2. The neg doesn’t say by how much prices need to rise before their impacts
happen, meaning they get no risk of their link.
3. THE ENTIRE WORLD WOULD DEMAND THE USE OF NEW ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
INSTEAD OF NATURAL GAS, DECREASING THE PRICE OF NATURAL GAS.
Suad M. Al-Fattah, Writer for Petroleum Online, April 27, 2006, “Time Series Modeling for U.S. Natural Gas Forecasting.”
Nontraditional oil and gas exploration will provide the rest of the energy needed to satisfy the American and global hunger for
energy.
It is clear that American reserves of oil and natural gas are not sufficient to satisfy the needs of American industry, and foreign
oil is becoming increasingly expensive in both monetary and political terms. As conventional oil supplies run out there will
be serious problems with energy production, both in America and worldwide. As alternative energy supplies become
cost effective, alternative energy will supplement and eventually replace the scarce and environmentally unfriendly
traditional fossil fuels. Alternative energy is becoming popular not only in the USA, but around the world, in India,
Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, Scotland, England, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Denmark, the
Netherlands, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, Uganda, Nigeria, and Brazil, and many other places. The most exciting area in
energy today is alternative energy, and there are many opportunities for entrepreneurs, investors and companies that
are interested in this field
4. No link – the electricity sector uses coal to produce electricity and uses very
little, if any, natural gas. Plan doesn’t lead to a large enough increase in
prices to trigger the impacts.
5. Extend Kammen ’01 – renewable energies are key to maintaining US

technological superiority in the economy and world. Plan is needed to
increase technological breakthroughs, of which the chemical industry is one.
There is a net increase in competition.
98
AT – US Not Biggest Polluter

1) US is the worlds biggest polluter
CNN; ll/20/2000; U.S. singled out as world's largest polluter at Hague conference;
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/20/climate.conference.reut/
Chirac opened a crucial second week of U.N.-backed climate change talks with a direct call to the United States, the
world's biggest polluter, to take a lead in cutting pollution that scientists warn could have catastrophic consequences on
global weather patterns. "Each American emits three times more greenhouse gases than a Frenchman," Chirac told the
conference in the Hague.
2) America must take action now – leadership is key

Michael Shank, Government relations adviser, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University - Arlington,
Va; 7/14/08;U.S. needs to take lead on reducing emissions
Actually, the converse is true. America's per capita carbon emissions is a whopping 20 tons annually, roughly five times
that of China's and 10 times that of India's. Moreover, three-fifths of the world's carbon stock — that is, total carbon
emitted into the atmosphere — comes from high-income countries, with the USA leading by a nearly 30% share. American
leadership is needed now more than ever. Committing to a goal in 2050 is good; taking action today is better. For
President Bush and his administration to effectively lead developed and developing countries in climate change prevention, the
following principle must apply.
3) The US maintains the responsibility to act now because of the large amount
of carbon emissions and spillover that will cause the rest of the world to act
99
US = Model
US Action spurs world action
But far-reaching, mandatory U.S. action has to come first. Without that, the United States will have no credibility to argue for
broader global participation. American action will spur developing world action in two separate ways. First, the policy changes
needed to cut carbon emissions in the United States are job-producing and growth-generating actions. Other countries will
emulate them, just as China, Russia, Brazil, and other countries have adopted building energy codes and appliance efficiency
standards based on U.S. models. Second, the technologies needed to promote low-carbon economies are increasingly produced
and sold in a global market. When America buys compact fluorescent lamps, most of them are made in China, so China
automatically develops the manufacturing technology to use them domestically. When America requires that computers and
TVs become more efficient, it affects the market in India and Africa. And conversely, when America lags in efficiency or
renewable energy technology, either the rest of the world also lags or else other developed countries grab the market and
control the export sales to the developing world. Clearly there are many reasons why the United States needs to capture the
energy opportunity by creating a low-carbon economy. So, too, do the rest of the nations of the world. American leadership is
paramount, both at home and abroad.
100
AT – China won’t follow US regulation

1) China will follow the US lead in reducing carbon emissions
[Timothy Gardner; Reuters; 10/2/2007; Expert says China would follow U.S. lead on climate; Expert says China would follow
U.S. lead on climate]
China would soon follow the U.S. lead if Washington agrees to tackle its emissions in the next few years because China's
government takes the threat of global warming more seriously than the United States does, a climate expert said on
Tuesday. "My impression is that the national government -- top level ministry officials -- in China regard the threats of
global warming to their country with a much higher level of seriousness than their counterparts do here in the United
States," said David Hawkins of the environmental group National Resources Defense Council. Hawkins, head of the group's
climate center, spoke by telephone to the Reuters Environment Summit in New York. If the United States agrees to cut
emissions deeply with a baseline that gets tougher over time, it would spur U.S. manufacturers to build low-emissions
technologies like alternative energy and coal plants that store carbon dioxide underground. It could then market those
technologies to the world, forcing China to act. "The biggest carrot is to have the U.S. to take a leadership role," he said.
"Then countries like China are going to say, 'What does the United States know that we don't know?' and agree to their own
cuts," said Hawkins.
2) China uses the US as an excuse to maintain high carbon emissions

[Tom Pelton; 12/11/2007; Kerry: China will follow America on climate;
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/blog/2007/12/kerry_china_will_follow_americ.html]
China has committed to follow the U.S. and impose mandatory reductions on global warming gases if America, the
world's biggest polluter, acts first, Senator John Kerry said after meeting with Chinese representatives.
"We have to do a 'follow us,' not a 'you first,' Kerry said of America's leadership role during a telephone news conference in
Washington today (12/11/07). "If we do a 'follow us,' it's not going to happen.... up until now our absense has been an
excuse for a lot of countries to not do everything they could do."
3) China is already reducing carbon emissions

[The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental
specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 500,000 members
nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco; 6/15/2001; China is Cutting Carbon
Dioxide Emissions During Economic Boom, NRDC Finds; http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressReleases/010615.asp]
Despite Bush administration claims that China will soon become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, a new report
has found that China reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997 while its economy grew 36 percent. A
report released today by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) contradicts President Bush's assertion that China is
not addressing the global warming problem
101

Cap and Trade Affirmative

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cap and Trade Affirmative

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cap–and–Trade AFF

DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney>

Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 1/3..............................................................................................40

Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ..................................................................................................................58

OBSERVATION 1: GLOBAL WARMING

NOT ENOUGH IS BEING DONE TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING NOW

GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE SOLVED BY EMISSIONS TRADING – SPECIFIC ATMOSPHERIC

BIODIVERSITY IS KEY TO HUMAN SURVIVAL

OUR IMPACTS OUTWEIGH – SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF A CAP-AND-TRADE ARE

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES EXTINCTION

GLOBAL WARMING DECREASES FOOD AVAILABILITY

A FALL IN FOOD PRODUCTION CAUSES WW3

OBSERVATION 2: AIR QUALITY

REDUCING EMISSIONS WOULD DECREASE AIR POLLUTION.

ONLY STOPPING EMISSIONS ALLOWS NATURAL SEQUESTRATION CATCH UP TO SOAK UP

EMISSIONS SHORTEN LIFE SPANS AND KILL 60,000 A YEAR.

POLLUTION CAUSES EXTINCTION

SOFT POWER IS LOW NOW BECAUSE OF US INACTIVITY ON INTERNATIONAL

CAP–AND–TRADE KEY TO REVIVE US CREDIBILITY ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

US ACTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES WILL MONGER OTHER COUNTRIES TO

SOFT POWER KEY TO PREVENT NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION

SOFT POWER IS KEY TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR

TERRORISM CAUSES EXTINCTION – IT COLLAPSES THE ECONOMY AND TRIGGERS NUCLEAR

SUBPOINT B: ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP

US CREDIBILITY IS KEY TO PREVENT THE COLLAPSE OF WHALING REGULATIONS

EXTINCTION – WHALING WILL SUFFOCATE US ALL

THE US IS SLUGGISH ON LOW-CARBON TECH – INVESTING IN A GREEN ECONOMY IS

US RENEWABLES DOMINANCE IS CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING ITS TECHNOLOGICAL LEAD

COMPETITIVENESS IS KEY TO MAINTAIN LEADERSHIP.

THE TERMINAL IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR.

Hence the plan:

PLAN IS KEY TO AVOID THE THRESHOLD FOR CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE

EMISSIONS TRADING IS COST EFFECTIVE, FEASIBLE AND EASY TO MONITOR

CAP–AND–TRADE PRODUCES REVENUE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS WILL LEAD TO RESEARCHING ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES.

US ACTIONS WILL BE A MODEL FOR OTHERS IN EMISSIONS

2. Counter-interpretation - United States federal government:

3. Resolution basis – it only mandates the specificity of the

4. Infinitely regressive – if they can mandate more specificity

6. ASPEC is not a voter

5. Not a voters for the reasons above

Second, cap-and-trade programmes set a permanent emissions cap to be much lower

2. Counter Defintion: Substantially is to a large degree

4. Substantially creates and arbitrary brightline that becomes impossible to

5. Substantial is relative – different affs and policies require a different

6. The neg justifies judge intervention which is bad because it leads to

8. T is not a voter. Don’t vote on potential abuse.

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives

Cap–and–Trade provide powerful incentives for companies to pursue alternative energy

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives

Increased energy prices from cap–and–trade spur innovation for alternative

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives

2. Counter-interpretation – incentive means to drive action toward.

3. We meet our counter-interpretation – lower carbon emissions makes

4. We aren’t effects – the move to alternative energy is made immediately

6. We are reasonably topical since we lead to an increase in the use of

Auctioning Permits Good

Auctioning Permits Good

AT – Global Warming Slow

Global Warming Impacts – Drought/extinction

Global warming causes extinction

Not enough is being done to stop global warming now

Global warming causes pain