Msdi CafÉ Aff

Missouri State Debate Institute 2008 1
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ Affirmative
CAFÉ 1ac........................................................................................................................................................................3
CAFÉ 1ac........................................................................................................................................................................4
CAFÉ 1ac........................................................................................................................................................................5
CAFÉ 1ac........................................................................................................................................................................6
CAFÉ 1ac........................................................................................................................................................................7
CAFÉ 1ac........................................................................................................................................................................8
CAFÉ 1ac........................................................................................................................................................................9
***Oil***......................................................................................................................................................................10
Action Needed For Soft Landing..................................................................................................................................11
Fuel Inefficiency Increase Oil Use................................................................................................................................12
Fuel Inefficiency Causes Dependence..........................................................................................................................13
40mpg Solves Dependence...........................................................................................................................................14
39mpg Solves Dependence...........................................................................................................................................15
Small Efficiency Increase Solves Dependence.............................................................................................................16
Fuel Efficiency Solves Dependence..............................................................................................................................17
Energy efficiency key to solve energy crisis................................................................................................................20
......................................................................................................................................................................................21
***Alternative Advantages***.....................................................................................................................................21
Oil Spills Advantage.....................................................................................................................................................22
Caspian Advantage........................................................................................................................................................23
Resource War Advantage..............................................................................................................................................28
Resource War Advantage..............................................................................................................................................29
ANWR Advantage (Terror impact)...............................................................................................................................30
ANWR Advantage (Species Impact)............................................................................................................................31
ANWR Advantage (Culture).........................................................................................................................................32
***Caspian Extensions***...........................................................................................................................................33
CAFÉ Solves Caspian Instability..................................................................................................................................34
***ANWR Extensions***............................................................................................................................................35
Increased CAFÉ prevents ANWR drilling....................................................................................................................36
***2ac Add-ons***.......................................................................................................................................................37
2ac Add-on: Power Wars...............................................................................................................................................38
2ac Add-on: Proliferation..............................................................................................................................................39
2ac Add-on: Trade War.................................................................................................................................................40
2ac Add-on: Mideast War..............................................................................................................................................41
2ac Add-on: Pollution...................................................................................................................................................42
***Auto Industry***....................................................................................................................................................43
Increase Auto Industry..................................................................................................................................................44
CAFÉ Key U.S. Auto Industry......................................................................................................................................45
***Economy***...........................................................................................................................................................46
CAFÉ Boost Economy..................................................................................................................................................47
***Case Answers***....................................................................................................................................................48
A/T: Consumers will Drive More.................................................................................................................................49
A2: Safety.....................................................................................................................................................................50
A2: CAFÉ Cause High Oil............................................................................................................................................51
A2: CAFÉ Causes Low Oil...........................................................................................................................................52
A2: Oil Shocks..............................................................................................................................................................53
A2: Transition...............................................................................................................................................................54
CAFE Affirmative
A2: Increase Dependence..............................................................................................................................................55

CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ 1ac
Observation One: A policy without commitment
The U.S. government is investing heavily in oil subsidies and tax breaks which pushes fuel-
efficient vehicles and policies out
Tom Peters (executive director of Tennessean Citizen Action) June 9 2008 “Fuel policies unfairly tilt to
corporations”, The Tennessean,
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080609/OPINION01/806090352/1008
In the long run, the U.S. needs an energy policy that decreases our reliance on fossil fuels and puts us on a path
toward energy independence through development of environmentally friendly, renewable energy alternatives. Today,
oil companies get huge government subsidies in the form of huge tax breaks. These subsidies waste taxpayer
dollars by undermining government programs to promote fuel efficiency, alternative fuels and environmental protection.
Instead of giving handouts to Big Oil, we need to be investing in our priorities here in America, including more
comprehensive mass-transit systems and more fuel-efficient vehicles that will give people more options and save money
on commuting. Furthermore, the oil companies should have to invest more of those profits in alternative-fuel research and development so
that we turn the page on dependence on foreign oil. This long-term approach will take real policy change and a different set
of priorities that value people and families over corporations. The oil companies are obviously comfortable with "business as
usual" at the expense of consumers. Instead of giving billions more in taxpayer handouts to oil companies that are already making billions, we
need to be investing in America's priorities.
Without Federal incentives the auto industry will continue to block fuel-efficient vehicle
improvements or and increase in standards
Derrick Z. Jackson (columnist with the Boston Globe) June 13 2008 “Foresight lacking”, The Record,
http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/article/366219
As Asian automakers focused on smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Detroit kept feeding American delusions of unbridled power and
limitless privilege. In 2002, GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz extolled the Hummer as "luxury in the sense of acquiring more capability than
you will likely ever need." The automakers have bitterly fought U.S. federal and state efforts toward stringent standards
for fuel efficiency and emissions. They keep trying to fit the round peg of fuel efficiency in a square hole of
"smaller" Hummers and hybrid Tahoes and Yukons. Two years ago, GM offered to reimburse some new car buyers for any
gasoline they purchased over $1.99 a gallon. In 2005, Lutz boasted that he and Wagoner were putting their resources "where we've got positive
momentum, which is basically ... Cadillac, Hummer, and GMC." Later that same year, Lutz voiced confidence that the slumping SUV market
would rebound because, "I'm betting we're going to see regular under $2 a gallon again." This winter, Lutz went so far as to call global
warming, of which SUVs have become America's symbol of denial, "a crock of (expletive deleted)." The lack of American vision was
made complete last month as Asian automakers outsold Detroit for the first time in history, with the top four cars being
the Honda Civic and Accord and the Toyota Corolla and Camry.
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ 1ac
Advantage One: The End of Oil
Current estimates of oil supply are based on status quo consumption rates instead of future
consumption. Depletion of oil is accelerating.
David Goodstein (Physicist and Vice Provost at California Institute of Technology) 2004, Out of Gas, pg. 45-6
As we saw earlier, many experts think there is enough oil in the ground to last for decades and enough coal for hundreds of years, at the present
rate of consumption. Among other fallacies, that view rests on the unstated assumption that the oil crisis will occur when the
last drop of oil is pumped and likewise for coal and the other fossil fuels. The more sophisticated Hubbert analysis tells us that we
get into trouble when we reach the halfway point. That’s when the rate at which we can extract oil or other fuels starts to
decline. But that isn’t the only fallacy in that rosy picture. The present rate of consumption is the biggest myth of all. For one
thing, we Americans consume fuel at five times the average per capita rate of the rest of the world, and the rest of the world wants in. For
another there is a powerful inverse correlation between per capita energy consumption and female fertility. The richer the nation, the higher the rate of fuel
consumption and the fewer the number of children born. If the whole world is brought up to first-world status as quickly as possible, then sometime later in the
century there might be ten billion people on Earth living in relative comfort and burning lots of fuel. If, instead, the third world remains in poverty, there might be a
hundred billion people on Earth living in misery, and consuming the same total amount of energy. Either way, all the fossil fuel will run out a lot
faster than predicted by the present rate of consumption.
And, an end to oil is coming, oil shocks, global economic depression, and war are all
inevitable without reduced consumption
Paul Roberts (energy expert and writer for Harpers) 2004, The End of Oil, pg.12-13
Suppose, for example, that worldwide oil production hits a kind of peak and that, as at Ghawar, the amount of oil that oil companies and oil
states can pull out of the ground plateaus or even begins to decline — a not altogether inconceivable scenario. Oil is finite, and although vast oceans of it remain
underground, waiting to be pumped out and refined into gasoline for your Winnebago, this is old oil, in fields that have been known about for years or even
decades. By contrast, the amount of new oil that is being discovered each year is declining; the peak year was 1960, and it has been downhill ever since. Given
that oil cannot be produced without first being discovered, it is inevitable that, at some point, worldwide oil production
must peak and begin declining as well — less than ideal circumstances for a global economy that depends on cheap
oil for about 40 percent of its energy needs (not to mention 90 percent of its transportation fuel) and is nowhere even close to
having alternative energy sources. The last three times oil production dropped off a cliff — the Arab oil embargo of 1974, the Iranian
revolution in 1979, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War — the resulting price spikes pushed the world into recession. And these
disruptions were temporary. Presumably, the effects of a long-term permanent disruption would be far more gruesome. As
prices rose, consumers would quickly shift to other fuels, such as natural gas or coal, but soon enough, those supplies would also tighten and
their prices would rise. An inflationary ripple effect would set in. As energy became more expensive, so would such energy-
dependent activities as manufacturing and transportation. Commercial activity would slow, and segments of the global economy
especially dependent on rapid growth — which is to say, pretty much everything these days — would tip into recession. The
cost of goods and services would rise, ultimately depressing economic demand and throwing the entire economy into an
enduring depression that would make 1929 look like a dress rehearsal and could touch off a desperate and probably
violent contest for whatever oil supplies remained.
Immediate action is key to a soft landing

Paul Roberts (energy expert and writer for Harpers) 2004, The End of Oil, pg. 331
Frankly, though, the thought of any
kind of delay, no matter how rationally justified, terrifies me. No matter how successful or
diverse our technology portfolio is, and no matter what kind of time frame we are working with, the sheer
magnitude and complexity and unpredictability of the task at hand gives us little choice but to start transforming
our energy system now. Energy poverty is not some future problem that may or may not materialize, but one that is occurring
right now and will generate widespread instability and conflict if it is not immediately addressed. Even the long-
term energy problems, like the decline of cheap oil or rising CO2 concentrations, call for immediate action. It may be true
that we can take two or even three decades to deploy carbon-free technologies and policies without seriously exceeding our 550ppm carbon
budget. The point to remember here, though, is that to have those technologies ready by 2030, we need to start working on
them today. Starting now dramatically improves our chances of success, because it means we have more options,
more freedom in how we deal with our energy problems. Starting now will allow our solutions more time to work,
which means that we could take the cheaper, low-intensity routes — the incremental improvements in energy
efficiency, for example, or the gradual improvements from low- to no-emission cars, or the cost-effective phasing out of
coal-fired power plants — rather than having to make a last-minute, potentially ruinous leap to fuel cells. Starting now
means we can test a fuller range of energy technologies and develop a full range of energy tools and methods and
policies that give us an energy economy that is more diverse, more flexible, and, we hope, more effective.
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ 1ac
Inaction causes hard landing
Conversely, the costs of inaction are significant. Each year that we fail to commit to serious energy research and development
or fail to begin slowing the growth of energy demand through fuel efficiency, each year that we allow the markets to continue treating
carbon as cost-free, is another year in which our already unstable energy economy moves so much closer to the point
of no return. Every delay means that our various energy gaps, when we finally get around to addressing them, will
be wider and costlier to fill. By then, it will be too late for low-cost solutions and diverse portfolios and smooth,
incremental transitions. Instead, we will need largescale solutions that can be deployed rapidly. Little room will remain for concerns about
sustainability or efficiency or equity, and our chances for long-term success will be seriously impaired.
Hard landing ensures global economic collapse causing nuclear Armageddon

Bearden 2000 (Lt. Col. Tom, PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Zero-Point Energy”, April 25,
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm)
Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is
inevitable that some of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An
interesting result then—as all the old strategic studies used to show—is that everyone will fire everything as fast as
possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed
at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they
destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological
warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The
ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result.
In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now,
my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ 1ac
Advantage Two: Environmental Leadership
Lack of leadership on environmental issues is crippling American hegemony. Increased fuel

efficiency standards send a crucial message that reasserts our position
Norbert Walter (chief economist at Deutsche Bank Group) “An American Abdication,” August 28, 2002
At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most
powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international good will by
dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the administration's apparent
unwillingness to take a leadership role -- or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in fighting global environmental
degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever. American
authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush administration's decision to send a low-level delegation to the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is, relative to America's share of both the world economy and global pollution. The
absence of President Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been
dominated by environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions of dollars in
damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year
from respiratory disease. The pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and
otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be
cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a chief concern for people
everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But when a country that
emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in the
environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad. The administration seems to believe it is
merely an observer -- that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of
world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal dimension
of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict. In my view, there is a clear-cut price to be paid for ignoring the
views of just about every other country in the world today. The United States is jettisoning its hard-won moral and
intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic advantages that come with being a good steward of the international
political order. The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policymaking: necessary,
perhaps inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to
acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global environmental issues. No one can expect the United
States to provide any quick fixes, but one would like to see America make a credible and sustained effort, along with
other countries, to address global environmental problems. This should happen on two fronts. The first is at home in the United States,
through more environmentally friendly policies, for example greater fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks and
better insulation for buildings. The second is international, through a more cooperative approach to multilateral attempts at safeguarding the
environment. Simply rejecting international treaties (like the Kyoto Protocol) then failing to offer a better proposal cannot be an acceptable
option for American policymakers. Much of the world has come together to help the United States in the fight against terrorism, out of the
realization that a common threat can only be beaten through a cooperative effort. It is high time for the United States, metaphorically speaking,
to get out of its oversized, gas-guzzling S.U.V. -- and join the rest of the world in doing more to combat global warming and protecting the
planet.
US action to increase efficiency responds to our lack of action and sends a strong message
to allies
Politically, a new U.S. energy policy would send a powerful message to the rest of the players in the global energy
economy. Just as a carbon tax would signal the markets that a new competition had begun, so a progressive, aggressive American energy
policy would give a warning to international businesses, many of which now regard the United States as a lucrative dumping ground for older
high-carbon technology. It would signal energy producers — companies and states — that they would need to start making investments for a
new energy business, with differing demands and product requirements. Above all, a progressive energy policy would not only
show trade partners in Japan and Europe that the United States is serious about climate but would give the United States the
leverage it needs to force much-needed changes in the Kyoto treaty. With a carbon program and a serious commitment to improve
efficiency and develop clean-energy technologies, says one U.S. climate expert, “the United States could really shape a global
climate policy. We could basically say to Europe, ‘Here is an American answer to climate that is far better than Kyoto. Here
are the practical steps we’re going to take to reduce emissions, far more effectively than your cockamamie Kyoto protocol.”’
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ 1ac
US leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange.
Zalmay Khalilzad RAND, Washington Quarterly, Spring, 1995
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.
Specifically, soft power is key to solving global problems, specifically terrorism

Joseph Nye (Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard) Boston Globe, April 14, 2002,
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/nye_unilateralism_bg_041402.htm, accessed 10/15/02
Those who recommend a unilateralist American foreign policy based on such traditional descriptions of American power are relying on
woefully inadequate analysis. When you are in a three dimensional game, you will lose if you focus only on the military board and fail to
notice the other boards and the vertical connections among them. For instance, as the Bush administration seeks to persuade British Prime
Minister Tony Blair to support a campaign against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the British press reports that Blair has been weakened politically by
our recent unilateral impositions of tariffs on European steel imports. And many of these transnational issues cannot be solved
unilaterally or by the use of military power. The good news for Americans is that the United States will likely remain the
world's single most powerful country well into this new century. While potential coalitions to check American power could be
created, it is unlikely that they would become firm alliances unless the United States handles its hard coercive power
in an overbearing unilateral manner that undermines our attractive or soft power. As the German editor Joseph Joffe has written,
"unlike centuries past, when war was the great arbiter, today the most interesting types of power do not come out of the barrel
of a gun . . . Today there is a much bigger payoff in `getting others to want what you want,' and that has to do with cultural attraction and
ideology and agenda setting . . ." On these measures, China, Russia, Japan, and even Western Europe cannot match the influence of the United
States. The United States could squander this soft power by heavy-handed unilateralism. The bad news for Americans in this
three-dimensional power game of the 21st century is that there are more and more things outside the control of even a
superpower, such as international financial stability, controlling the spread of infectious diseases, cyber-crime and
terrorism. Although the United States does well on the traditional measures, there is increasingly more going on in the world that those
measures fail to capture. We must mobilize international coalitions to address shared threats and challenges. America needs the help and
respect of other nations. We will be in trouble if our unilateralism prevents us from getting it.
Terrorism ensures extinction

Alexander 2003 (Yonah prof and dir. of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Washington Times, August 28)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international
community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very
survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or
irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001,
Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's
commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of
terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive
diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States
and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"?
There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a
universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the
exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have
introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and
brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological,
chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security
concerns.
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ 1ac
Solvency:
Existing technology could be deployed to create an auto fleet averaging 40mpg and beyond
David Friedman is a senior transportation analyst in the UCS Clean Vehicles Program., Union of Concerned
Scientists, 12.06.2002, http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/nucleus.cfm?publicationID=317
Using conventional technologies, automakers could create a fleet of passenger vehicles that average more than 40
miles per gallon, nearly a 75% increase over today's fleet. Fuel cost savings to consumers could be as much as $3,000 to $5,000 over the
lifetime of the vehicle. These savings would more than make up for the cost of the fuel economy improvements. Under such a scenario, the
typical family car could reach over 45 mpg, while the cost of filling up an SUV could be cut in half with a fuel
economy of 40 mpg. Hybrid electric technologies could take fuel economy up a notch, bringing it to at least 55 mpg across the fleet. This
would more than double current fuel economy and could save consumers $3,500 to $6,500 in fuel costs. Hybrid family cars could reach nearly
60 mpg, while hybrid SUVs could cross the 50 mpg mark. Fuel cell cars offer the greatest benefit, potentially tripling fuel economy.
Incorporating SUVs, vans and small pick-up trucks into a more strict CAFÉ program
would significantly decrease US reliance on foreign oil
Colston Warne (founding Chair of the Board of Consumers Union) December 22 2002 Journal of Consumer
Affairs
A primary example is the problem of carbon emissions from fuels, particularly auto transportation, which contributes greatly to problems with
air quality and global warming. Average miles per gallon for personal vehicles is the lowest it's been since 1980--even as dependence on
foreign oil is a growing concern. A very practical step is to urge consumers to drive more economical vehicles, and to require that
manufacturers produce vehicles with better fuel efficiency. Consumers Union believes that sport-utility vehicles, vans, and small-
pickups should be required to meet the same miles-per-gallon standard that cars do. And we support increasing the
combined fuel economy for cars and light trucks to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2013. If this single change were
implemented, by 2020 it would save 2.53 million barrels of oil per day -- more oil than we currently import from the
Persian Gulf. I'm disappointed that Congress recently rejected improvements in CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, but
we shouldn't take no for an answer, and we'll be back to fight another day.
Even if some people drive more – overall the plan still drastically reduces consumption
David L. Greene 1997 Center for Transportation Analysis “Why CAFÉ Worked,”
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/000/700/725/cafeornl.pdf
Vehicle usage is well known to be negatively correlated with vehicle age, as is fuel economy for models years 1975 through
1983. Models estimated using survey data that include age as a right-hand side variable, carried out by Golob et al. (1996) and Goldberg
(1996) have produced cost per mile elasticities close to zero. The conclusion that the elasticity of VMT with respect
to fuel cost is small, is quite robust when recent data are used. Even Nivola and Crandall (1995) who assert in chapter 3 of their
book that the fuel price elasticity of VMT is -0.5, report in Appendix A of their book that their own econometric analysis produced a fuel price
elasticity of -0.1, entirely consistent with the results of other recent studies. In addition, they found that the elasticity of
fuel economy (MPG) was only 0.04 and not statistically significantly different from zero. In other words, Nivola and
Crandall’s (1995, p. 126) econometric results are consistent with the hypothesis that there is no rebound effect whatsoever. The idea
that the rebound effect may be smaller than the fuel-cost-per-mile elasticity of vehicle travel is further supported by recent analysis of
asymmetry in the price elasticity of demand for petroleum and petroleum prices. Dargay and Gately (1994) have shown that petroleum and
petroleum product demands appear to respond more to price increases than price decreases. Their econometric analysis
indicates an elasticity of about -0.21 for rising prices but only -0.04 for falling prices for oil demand in the U.S. transportation sector. Since
increasing fuel economy amounts to a decrease in the fuel cost of travel, this suggests that the rebound effect may well be smaller than the
average fuel cost elasticity of vehicle travel. Thus, recent estimates of the rebound effect based on the full experience with
fuel price and fuel economy changes over the past 25 years provide very strong evidence that it is quite small, on
the order of -0.1 in the short-run and about -0.2 in the long-run. The implication is that 80 percent to 90 percent of the
maximum potential reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions due to a technical change in
vehicle efficiency will be realized, even after the increase in vehicle miles due to lower per mile fuel costs has had
its full effect. Once again, the prima facie evidence is entirely consistent with this conclusion. Despite an 80 percent increase in
light-duty vehicle travel from 1975 to 1995, light-duty vehicle fuel use has increased by only 20 percent. The
difference is attributable to a 50 percent increase in on-road fuel economy over the same period. The average
annual growth in VMT of 3 percent is consistent with historical trends. The rebound effect has not obviated the
potential benefits regulatory-driven fuel economy gains. Instead, those improvements now reduce U.S. gasoline
use by about 45 billion gallons of gasoline per year and save motorists about $55 billion per year in gasoline costs.
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ 1ac
Empirics prove a federal action is needed for the success of fuel efficiency
Union of Concerned Scientists, February 24 2004
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_and_suvs/page.cfm?pageID=221
If improving fuel economy makes so much sense, why aren't automakers doing it already? Automakers have a
history of not incorporating cost effective technologies that benefit consumer safety and the environment until they
are required to do so. As a result, government has had to step in to protect consumers by setting safety, fuel economy
and emissions standards. One of the most recent in a line of examples is the air-bag that is now required in all new vehicles
- automakers resisted this technology even in the face of clear demonstration of its safety benefits and calls from
consumers for safer vehicles.
Federal regulations are the only effective way to motivate effective auto industry
innovation
Jack Doyle (founder/director of Corporate Sources) 2000 Taken for a Ride, P. 452-453
If there is a lesson in the long and tortured clean-car fight, it is one of countervailing power, and why a government
presence and outside pressure are important, indeed essential in moving the auto industry forward. In the US, the Big Three
have been quick in recent years to use the "command and control" pejorative to demean gov ernment regulation, offering
in its place "voluntary initiatives" and "governmentindustry collaboration." Yet the record in this industry, as troubled as it is
still, suggests things would be much worse without the deadlines and regulations that have so far been put into law.
The outside mandates have helped save the American auto industry from complete economic disaster, pushing it to
innovate. "Much as I hate to admit it," said Chrysler's Charlie Heinen, director of vehicle emissions in the late 1970s, "the EPA accelerated the pace at which we
studied combustion. The knowledge we've gained is important, whether applied to emission control or fuel economy." Henry Ford II also admitted the law was the
spur. "We wouldn't have the kinds of safety built into automobiles that we have unless there had been a federal law. We wouldn't have had the fuel economy unless
there had been a federal law, and there would not have been the emission control unless there had been a Federal law."24 Outsiders--ranging from the
National Academy of Sciences to journalists who have taken up residence inside one or more of the automakers for periods of time--have
said the same thing: laws and regulations have, on balance, been a good thing for Detroit. "[P]ractically every recent
move by US automakers to adopt advanced features--lightweight metals, high-strength plastics, electronic ignition management
devices--can be traced to the influence of government regulations," concluded Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysts C.
Kenneth Orski, Alan Altshuler, and Daniel Roos.
CAFE Affirmative
***Oil***
CAFE Affirmative
Action Needed For Soft Landing

Immediate action is key to a soft landing
Frankly, though, the thought of any kind of delay, no matter how rationally justified, terrifies me. No matter how
successful or diverse our technology portfolio is, and no matter what kind of time frame we are working with, the
sheer magnitude and complexity and unpredictability of the task at hand gives us little choice but to start
transforming our energy system now. Energy poverty is not some future problem that may or may not materialize,
but one that is occurring right now and will generate widespread instability and conflict if it is not immediately
addressed. Even the long-term energy problems, like the decline of cheap oil or rising CO2 concentrations, call for
immediate action. It may be true that we can take two or even three decades to deploy carbon-free technologies
and policies without seriously exceeding our 550ppm carbon budget. The point to remember here, though, is that
to have those technologies ready by 2030, we need to start working on them today. Starting now dramatically
improves our chances of success, because it means we have more options, more freedom in how we deal with our
energy problems. Starting now will allow our solutions more time to work, which means that we could take the
cheaper, low-intensity routes — the incremental improvements in energy efficiency, for example, or the gradual
improvements from low- to no-emission cars, or the cost-effective phasing out of coal-fired power plants — rather
than having to make a last-minute, potentially ruinous leap to fuel cells. Starting now means we can test a fuller
range of energy technologies and develop a full range of energy tools and methods and policies that give us an
energy economy that is more diverse, more flexible, and, we hope, more effective.
Inaction causes hard landing

Conversely, the costs of inaction are significant. Each year that we fail to commit to serious energy research and
development or fail to begin slowing the growth of energy demand through fuel efficiency, each year that we
allow the markets to continue treating carbon as cost-free, is another year in which our already unstable energy
economy moves so much closer to the point of no return. Every delay means that our various energy gaps, when
we finally get around to addressing them, will be wider and costlier to fill. By then, it will be too late for low-cost
solutions and diverse portfolios and smooth, incremental transitions. Instead, we will need largescale solutions that
can be deployed rapidly. Little room will remain for concerns about sustainability or efficiency or equity, and our
chances for long-term success will be seriously impaired.
Waiting to change causes a hard landing

In fact, the more we delay action, the more plausible such a crisis becomes — and not necessarily a neat, self-
contained crisis, like the 1974 Arab oil embargo, that taught us an important lesson about waste, yet left our energy
economy and the world it supports largely intact. Instead, the longer the world continues to rely on the current
energy system, and the greater the demands we place on it, the more likely we are to see the kinds of serious
system lapses that are only hinted at in media stories: nationwide blackouts; sabotage of critical infrastructure;
yearlong, economy-sapping price spikes; violent instability in energy-producing states; even political or military
conflict between big energy importers — any one of which could happen not in ten years or twenty-five years, but
right now. Comforting as it might be to imagine the decline of our energy economy as a long-term process — with
oil supplies peaking in 2025, say, or sea levels rising by 2050 — there are fewer and fewer reasons to believe that
our overtaxed energy system won’t have begun to collapse long before then.
Decreasing consumption is key to buy time to solve energy problems

David Goodstein, Physicist and Vice Provost at California Institute of Technology, 2004, Out of Gas, pg. 122
If the problem were widely understood and acknowledged, we could go a long way toward easing the pain that the
crisis will cause. We Americans are profligate users of energy. There are many ways in which we could reduce our
consumption of fuel without abandoning our comfortable way of life. That would give us more time to convert to a
temporary methane-based technology, while we build up our capacity for tapping other fuel supplies.
CAFE Affirmative
Fuel Inefficiency Increase Oil Use

Lack of improved fuel efficiency drastically increases US consumption of oil
Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers,2004, The End of Oil, pg. 154-5
Whatever their actual utility, SUVs and pickups are exceedingly popular among American drivers of all ages and incomes. In fact, the “light
truck” category, which includes pickups and SUVs, is the largest-selling category in the United States, accounting for 48 percent of all new
vehicle sales in 2003, and it may reach 60 percent by 2015. This, more than anything else, explains why the fuel economy of the average new
vehicle sold in the States is now less than twenty-one miles per gallon’2 — the lowest level since 1988, the peak year for fuel efficiency. To put
it another way, of the nearly twenty million barrels of oil that America uses every day, more than a sixth represents a direct consequence of the
decision by automakers to invest the efficiency dividend in power, not fuel economy. Or as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
concluded recently, if the 2003 vehicle fleet had the same average performance and weight distribution as vehicles made in 1981, the average
fuel economy would be a third higher. One consequence of these trends was that even as most of the rest of the U.S. economy was in the
doldrums in 2003, oil demand was growing at nearly 3 percent, a reminder to the rest of world why America is the most important oil market.
More generally, the trend toward larger cars and trucks, coupled with the expected growth in number of vehicles and
in miles traveled, helps us understand how oil consumption has increased in the United States from seventeen
million barrels per day in 1990 to twenty million today, and may rise as high as thirty-two million by 2020. Yet what
is most disturbing about our desire for ever-larger cars and houses, more gadgets, and ever-greater demand is that it is difficult to see where it
all ends. Where are the natural limits? Barring some massive disruption in energy supply, it is hard to see why consumers or companies would
willingly use less energy — or for that matter, why any political leader would suggest that they use less energy, or even that they slow the
growth in their energy demand. For all our astonishing improvements in technology and energy efficiency, an expanding economy is still seen
as inseparably linked to constant increases in energy use. And the rest of the world, especially the developing world, has noticed.
CAFE Affirmative
Fuel Inefficiency Causes Dependence

US oil production is limited, and lack of auto efficiency locks the US into foreign oil
dependence
Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers, 2004, The End of Oil, pg. 3-4
As is well known by now, SUVs and pickup trucks (known collectively, and somewhat deceptively, as “light
trucks”) consume a great deal of gasoline: the house-sized Ford Excursion I test-drove gets something like 4.6
miles per gallon in the city, and even the more sensible models rarely do better than 18. The cumulative effect of
so much unnecessary internal combustion is staggering: since the SUV craze began in 1990, the twenty-year- old
trend in the United States toward improving automotive fuel efficiency not only has halted but is now sliding
backward, dramatically increasing U.S. demand for oil. And here is the rub: the United States doesn’t have enough
of its own oil to meet that surging SUV-driven demand. After a century of full-bore drilling, oil companies are
finding precious little new oil in the Lower Forty-eight, and production — the number of barrels pumped per day
— is falling steadily each year. What this means is that the United States, despite being the third-largest oil-
producing nation in the world, now must import even more oil from the much-maligned “foreign” producers —
including many, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, whose populations regard the United States as an enemy. In one of
many energy ironies, during the months leading up to the second war with Iraq (charter member of the Axis of
Evil, greatest threat to the American way of life since the fall of the Soviet Union, etc.), the United States was
getting more than 10 percent of its imported oil from Iraqi fields.
CAFE Affirmative
40mpg Solves Dependence

Fuel efficiency increase to 40mpg would decrease use of oil and the need for oil from places
like ANWR
If fuel economy increases to 40 mpg by 2012, and then 55 mpg by 2020, oil use would decrease significantly.
Instead of growing unchecked, by 2015 it could be brought back to what it is today. And it could keep going down.
Fuel economy improvements would dwarf oil supplies from proposed expansion into environmentally sensitive
areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. By 2020, fuel savings would amount to more than four times
the oil economically recoverable from the Arctic. In addition, if Americans spend less money buying fuel, they'll have more to
spend elsewhere. The 9.8 billion dollars consumers could be saving by 2010 and the 28 billion by 2020 would be returned to the nation's
economy. In the auto industry, investments to improve fuel economy and the money saved by consumers, could create 40,000 jobs by 2010 and
100,000 by 2020. Furthermore, the environmental benefits in decreased emissions would be significant. By 2010, carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse-gas emissions from driving and providing fuel for cars and light trucks could be reduced by 273 million tons, diminishing
transportation's contribution to global warming. At the same time, nearly 150 million pounds of toxic emissions and 320 million pounds of
smog-forming pollutants would never find their way from refineries to our lungs. By 2020, emissions reductions would be even greater: 888
million fewer tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, 481 million fewer pounds of toxics, and 1,039 million fewer pounds of smog-
forming pollutants.
Had the 40 mpg law been enacted it would have saved the US 1 million barrels of oil a day
Union of Concerned Scientists April 10 2003
In 1990, Senators Richard Bryan and Slade Gorton tried to reverse the downward trend in fuel economy by
sponsoring a bill to raise fuel economy standards for both cars and light trucks over 10 years. The bill called for a
40 percent increase in CAFE standards. Had this bill become law, today’s cars would average 40 mpg and light
trucks 29 mpg. The United States would save 1 million barrels of oil a day (mbd) in 2003, on its way to saving 3
mbd. Instead, the average fuel economy of new vehicles is at a 21-year low.
40mpg program would lower oil consumption by 2.3 million barrels per day
The Santa Fe New Mexican (New Mexico), August 21, 2004
It's great to have DaimlerChrysler back in the diesel game on these shores. It might stimulate other carmakers,
especially the Japanese, to bring diesels here. If we were to have 20 to 30 percent of new cars achieve 20 to 30
percent better fuel economy with no performance compromises, just think of the fuel we'd save. Indeed, according
a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, if the average fuel economy of vehicles on the market were
increased to 40 mpg, the United States could lower its oil consumption by 2.3 million barrels per day. It's enough
to make you practice your motorcraft.
CAFE Affirmative
39mpg Solves Dependence

Increasing fuel efficiency to 39mpg would save us more than 15 times the likely yield from
ANWR
Sacramento Business Journal, June 29, 2001
The United States cannot drill its way to energy security. While America has only 2.6 percent of the world's oil
reserves, OPEC -- the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries -- holds 80 percent. Increased drilling will
not reduce our dependence on foreign oil and it threatens the viability of our environment. As the technological
giants of the world, we are capable of developing new and innovative sources of renewable energy. Increasing
fuel efficiency for automobiles to 39 miles per gallon over the next decade would save 51 billion barrels of oil
over the next 50 years -- more than 15 times the likely yield. from the Arctic Refuge.
CAFE Affirmative
Small Efficiency Increase Solves Dependence

Tiny increases in fuel efficiency standards would immediately eliminate our need for
foreign oil
Newsweek, November 17, 2003
Isn't Bush trying to wean America off its dependence on oil by pledging to spend $1 billion on producing a
hydrogen-powered car. If you really wanted to wean our dependence from oil, the obvious and most instantaneous
solution is corporate average fuel-efficiency standards, which impose fuel efficiency on the automobile industry. If
we raise the fuel efficiency in our automobiles by one mile per gallon, we save more oil than would be in two
Arctic National Wildlife Refuges. If we raise it by 2.6 miles per gallon, we save more oil than we get from Iraq
and Kuwait combined. If we raise it seven miles per gallon, we eliminate all the need for any imports from the
Persian Gulf. The president has instead embraced hydrogen fuels, but the way that he's done it is deceptive. The
environmental community likes hydrogen because it can be extracted from water and it's a clean fuel. But the
money the president has put aside for hydrogen fuel development uses another method that extracts hydrogen from
coal and oil, so you get the same amount of pollutants that you do from burning the coal and oil.
Small increases (2.7mpg) in fuel efficiency are key to end Gulf dependence
Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers,2004, The End of Oil, pg. 215
And these gains are only the palest shadow of what could be achieved. Around the world, at every level of society,
we squander an embarrassing volume of energy every day. Less than a quarter of the energy used in the standard
stove reaches the food. Power plants in the United States discard more energy in “waste” heat than is needed to run
the entire Japanese economy — and half the electricity generated in the United States isn’t needed to begin with.
Barely i~ percent of the energy in a gallon of gasoline ever reaches the wheels of a car — a missed opportunity
that, if exploited, would completely rewrite the geopolitics of oil. As Amory Lovins, one of the world’s most
outspoken efficiency advocates, likes to point out, “just a 2.7 miles-per-gallon gain in the fuel economy of this
country’s light-vehicle fleet could displace Persian Gulf imports entirely.”’
CAFE Affirmative
Fuel Efficiency Solves Dependence

Raising the fuel efficiency standard would immediately diminish US dependence on Middle
Eastern oil
MERRILL GOOZNER, director of the Integrity in Science project at the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, The American Prospect, May, 2004
Not surprisingly, the administration and its oil-industry patrons are alarmed by the growing public awareness that
environmental and national-security issues are converging. Even the Pentagon has begun planning for worst-case
scenarios, such as a coastal deluge caused at least in part by global warming. In last year's State of the Union
address, the president spoke about a clean-fuel technology 20 to 50 years down the road. Meanwhile, he ignores
things that could be done immediately to reduce greenhouse gases and diminish our dependence on Middle
Eastern oil, such as raising the fuel-efficiency standard, eliminating the SUV -- is-a-small-truck loophole, and
providing tax credits for buying and producing hybrid vehicles.
Vehicles are the primary source of emissions and oil consumption

Oliver A. Pollard is a senior attorney and leader of the Land and Community Project at the Southern
Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville, Virginia., Fordham Urban Law Journal, April, 2002
In addition, motor vehicles are a primary source of emissions that could cause disastrous economic and
environmental effects by altering the climate throughout the world. n47 Transportation produces thirty percent of
the carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas resulting from human activities) in the United States. n48 Each
vehicle emits an average of over one pound of carbon dioxide for every mile traveled, n49 and carbon dioxide
emissions from transportation are rising. n50 Excessive motor vehicle use has also led to unsustainable levels of
petroleum consumption. Americans account for a quarter of world petroleum consumption, two-thirds of which is
used for transportation. n51 Over half of the petroleum consumed in the [*1538] United States is imported. n52
Petroleum is the largest component of our trade deficit and the dependence on imported oil is a clear threat to
national security. Although vehicular fuel efficiency has improved substantially over the past few decades, the
Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") standards for passenger cars have not increased since 1985,
and the fuel efficiency for 2001 model year vehicles was the lowest since 1980. n53 The motor vehicle and road-
centered approach to transportation also has caused a dramatic rise in land consumption. Motor vehicles require
substantially more land than other modes of travel. n54 Public highways, streets, and adjacent rights of way
occupy approximately 20 million acres in the United States, an area the size of South Carolina. n55 An estimated
half of all space in cities is devoted to accommodating cars, n56 and parking areas alone may consume up to thirty
percent of city land. n57 Further, transportation investments shape the rate and location of development, and road-
centered policies have fueled sprawling development and consumed tremendous amounts of land.
The most obvious method for reducing oil dependence is increased fuel efficiency standards
Business Week, May 17, 2004
While there's enough supply in the global oil market to meet the increased demand for the near term, most of it is
coming from unstable or potentially unstable countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Angola, and Venezuela.
Indeed, terrorist action against oil pipelines, refineries, and loading facilities looms as an increasingly real threat,
especially after the murder of five Western oil workers on May 1 in Saudi Arabia. That leaves the U.S. ever-more
economically vulnerable to political turmoil around the world. The situation is especially disturbing given that,
over the past 20 years, the U.S. has done little to encourage oil conservation. Fuel-efficiency standards for cars are
no higher than they were in 1985. We need a comprehensive plan to reduce U.S. dependence on overseas oil.
Since gasoline is the biggest oil product, the most obvious and useful step would be a big increase in the fuel-
efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, as Senator John Kerry has proposed. Such a
measure, should be phased in over ten years to minimize its disruptive impact. The Bush Administration has
proposed ticking up mileage standards on light trucks over the next few years, but much bolder action is necessary
to cut gas consumption.
CAFE Affirmative

Increasing fuel efficiency decreases oil dependence
Newsweek, November 19, 2001
Beyond quick hits, decreasing dependence on Saudi oil means running vehicles on less of the stuff. The mileage
standards known as CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) already save the United States 3 million barrels of oil
a day. But those standards were set in 1973. Although the fuel efficiency of new vehicles doubled between then
and 1985, there's been no progress since. A big reason is that CAFE standards for SUVs (10 percent of the
passenger vehicles on the road) are so lenient. As a result, America's fleet now has the lowest average fuel
economy since 1980. Holding mileage gains steady rather than backsliding in the '90s would have saved half a
million barrels of oil daily. Nudging up average fuel economy by a single mpg saves 300,000 barrels of oil a day.
Or as Nemtzow says, "If you want to find more oil for America, drill in Detroit."
Increased fuel efficiency standards massively decreases oil dependence

News & Record, 2/19/2002
Increasing fuel-efficiency standards to 40 miles a gallon would save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by the year
2020. That's five times what we can expect from drilling in the Arctic refuge and roughly equal to what the Persian
Gulf provides today. If the Bush administration intends to truly practice what it preaches regarding the U.S.
addiction to Middle East oil, raising CAFE standards makes sense now more than ever.
Fuel efficiency standards will allow us to avoid drilling for oil in ecologically sensitive areas
The vehicles that will reach future fuel economy standards will not be much different from those we drive today.
We will not need to sacrifice performance and comfort, but will be able to buy higher fuel economy versions of the
same safe and reliable vehicles we now drive. Following this path to higher fuel economy will enable us to turn
back the clock on our car and light truck oil use while significantly reducing the environmental footprint we leave
behind all the while leaving more money in our pockets. Along the way, we will find that drilling for oil in
environmentally sensitive areas becomes a notion of the past as we use our existing resources more efficiently.
Efficiency solves energy demand and foreign entanglements*

In fact, however, energy efficiency has hardly ceased to make economic sense, in that plenty of potential remains
for energy savings. In the U.S. power sector alone, we could reduce our electricity rates by 40 percent and cut CO2
emissions in half by upgrading power plants and transmission systems.8 Replacing inefficient household furnaces
with high-performance models would, within fifteen years, reduce gas demand in North America by nearly 25
percent. And, as we have seen, automotive fuel efficiency could be doubled through technologies that are already
in use, thereby saving vast quantities of oil and, in theory, sparing us endless foreign entanglements.
Increasing auto efficiency solves warming and oil dependence*

Given such successes, it becomes clear why efficiency experts believe that industrialized societies have realized
only a small fraction of the total energy savings that would be possible if efficiency were approached not simply as
an afterthought but as a core element in industrial design. For example, reengineering the entire car concept around
fuel efficiency —that is, focusing not simply on building better engines, but also on making lighter, more
aerodynamic bodies — could yield gasoline-powered cars that get not just forty miles per gallon but sixty miles
per gallon or even eighty miles per gallon and, as a result, could dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and cut oil
demand. Introducing vehicles like this on a global scale would save as much oil as is produced by all the members
of OPEC combined — and effectively “conquer” the Gulf-dominated oil order without firing a single shot.
CAFE Affirmative

CAFE standards key to solve dependence and emissions
Nowhere has this reciprocal energy politics shown up more clearly than in the yearly fight over automotive fuel
efficiency standards. By any reasonable standard, the most important step the United States could take to
simultaneously improve energy security, cut CO2 emission, boost urban air quality, and deprive Middle Eastern
terrorists of financing would be to raise fuel efficiency requirements. American cars and trucks burn two of every
three barrels of oil used in the United States and one of every seven barrels used worldwide — a figure that is
hardly surprising, given that economy standards have been frozen since 1988. Today, American cars need to
achieve an average fuel economy of just 27.5 miles per gallon, while “light trucks’ that hugely popular category
that includes pickups and SUVs, need achieve only 20.5 miles per gallon. Even a modest improvement in fuel-
economy standards — say, thirty-two miles per gallon for cars and twenty-four miles per gallon for light trucks —
would by 2010 be saving 2.7 million barrels per day — or nearly twice as much as could be pumped every day
from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
CAFE Affirmative
Energy efficiency key to solve energy crisis

Efficiency is not a choice – it is necessary to solve the energy crisis
In fact, according to efficiency optimists like Lovins, the amount of oil, electricity, and other energy that could be
saved through better efficiency in the United States alone — the so-called “efficiency resource” — is actually
larger than our physical reserves of oil and gas. In other words, it is now possible to save more oil than we could
possibly find in the ground, and to do so at a per-barrel cost well below the average market price for oil. In this
context, aggressively improving energy efficiency would certainly seem as important as, say, researching hydrogen
fuel cells, or building LNG liquefaction trains — and perhaps even more so. Because while we are accustomed to
thinking of energy efficiency as optional — something we can choose, on the basis of the cost of fuel or our
personal politics — it will soon become an absolute necessity. Our rapidly growing population and economies will
soon exceed our ability to supply that population with low- and no-carbon energy. This means we can expect a gap
between the energy we need and what we can safely generate without permanently damaging our climate (or
sowing more geopolitical discord or economy-wrenching price volatility). Optimistic forecasts show much of this
gap being filled by new energy technologies — biofuels, solar power, clean coal, or hydrogen. On closer
inspection, however, it becomes clear that most forecasters are counting on a huge contribution from conservation
— both lower energy use and more efficient energy use. The reason: not only are the new energy technologies
emerging more slowly than optimists had hoped, but many of the new fuels and technologies lack high power
density and simply will not be able to deliver the same energy punch as the hydrocarbons they replace. To put it
another way, within the next two decades, extensive and sustained improvements in energy efficiency will be not
simply a sign of moral virtue, but an absolutely essential component of the future energy economy.
CAFE Affirmative
***Alternative Advantages***
CAFE Affirmative
Oil Spills Advantage

Raising CAFÉ standards is key to stopping oil spills
Noam Mohr and Joseph Shapiro (Researchers at the U.S. PIRG Education Fund) October 2000 “Pumping up
the Price: The Hidden Costs of Outdated Fuel Efficiency Standards”,
ttp://uspirg.org/reports/pumpinguptheprice2000.pdf
Transporting the excess oil needed to accommodate low mileage vehicles contributes to the danger of oil spills. In 1989, when the Exxon
Valdez spilled almost 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, Americans saw how environmentally devastating oil spills
can be.38 Yet while the Exxon Valdez received widespread media coverage, oil spills are hardly unusual events. Every year, the U.S. alone
experiences thousands of spills, amounting to millions of gallons of oil. Oil spills kill wildlife and release vapors which cause cancer
and respiratory disease. By reducing the amount of petroleum that must be stored and transported, updating CAFE
standards would prevent more than 808 oil spills on average each year in the United States, amounting to more than 3.2
million gallons of oil spillage annually.39 This is the equivalent of preventing an Exxon Valdez disaster about every three years.40 As
the U.S. imports half the oil it uses,41 the number of oil spills worldwide resulting directly from outdated fuel
efficiency standards is likely far higher.
Unchecked oil spills will crush marine oxygen production

Paul Stephen Dempsey (Professor of Transportation law and Director of the Transportation Law Program at
University of Denver College of Law) Summer 1984 “Oil Pollution of the Marine Environment by Ocean Vessels,”
Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business
Although large amounts of oil remain on the surface, much of it is mixed into the water column, either through wave action or
the use of dispersants applied to oil slicks. Unfortunately, as the spill breaks up, the environmental hazard does not disappear; it
increases. Dissolved oil and oil globules fall through the water column, growing more toxic as they approach bottom.
Concentrations of dissolved oil from 0.2 to 1 part per billion, a harmful level already found in coastal waters near many cities, can skyrocket to
as high as 250 parts per billion. 26 [*467] High levels of dissolved oil increase the concentration of toxic chemicals in commercial fish and
severely disrupt the marine food chain. Oil pollution reduces the ocean's phytoplankton in coastal areas, where most of the world's
commercial fish and oxygen are produced. Sea beds, an essential source of food for bottom dwelling commercial fish, become contaminated
and sterile. The ramifications of introducing such high concentrations of petroleum pollution into the oceans are
severe. Oil pollution disrupts phytoplankton, the microscopic plant life in the ocean that forms algae and serves an
important function in the ecosystem. First, oil interferes with phytoplankton photosynthesis. Such interference may
eventually reduce the oxygen output and the carbon dioxide uptake of ocean. Moreover, increased carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere may cause a "greenhouse effect," such that heat will not be allowed to radiate into space, causing an increase in global
temperatures. As a long term effect, the ice caps could eventually melt, causing the sea level to increase up to 200 feet, submerging most
coastal cities. 27 The second function of phytoplankton that is disrupted by oil pollution involves its contribution to
the food chain. Oil slicks poison and smother the smaller organisms at the base of the food chain, such as
phytoplankton and zooplankton. Those organisms that survive absorb oil components that mix with sea water. In this way, oil components
are introduced into the food chain. These components can cause cancer and mutations in living organisms. A study by Massachusetts Institute
of Technology found 100-200 pounds of known carcinogens in every 10,000 tons of oil spilled. 28 Through the process of bio-accumulation,
the situation becomes more dangerous to life forms higher on the food chain, including home sapiens.
That kills all life on earth

Donald A. Bryant (Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Penn. State University) August 19,
2003, “The Beauty in Small Things Revealed”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/17/9647
Oxygenic photosynthesis accounts for nearly all the primary biochemical production of organic matter on Earth. The
byproduct of this process, oxygen, facilitated the evolution of complex eukaryotes and supports their/our continuing existence.
Because macroscopic plants are responsible for most terrestrial photosynthesis, it is relatively easy to appreciate the importance of
photosynthesis on land when one views the lush green diversity of grasslands or forests. However, Earth is the "blue planet," and oceans
cover nearly 75% of its surface. All life on Earth equally depends on the photosynthesis that occurs in Earth's oceans.
A rich diversity of marine phytoplankton, found in the upper 100 m of oceans, accounts only for 1% of the total photosynthetic biomass,
but this virtually invisible forest accounts for nearly 50% of the net primary productivity of the biosphere (1). Moreover, the
importance of these organisms in the biological pump, which traps CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in the deep sea, is increasingly
recognized as a major component of the global geochemical carbon cycle (2). It seems obvious that it is as important to understand marine
photosynthesis as terrestrial photosynthesis, but the contribution of marine photosynthesis to the global carbon cycle was grossly
underestimated until recently. Satellite-based remote sensing (e.g., NASA sea-wide field sensor) has allowed more reliable determinations of
oceanic photosynthetic productivity to be made (refs. 1 and 2; see Fig. 1).
CAFE Affirmative
Caspian Advantage
Russia, China, and the US are cooperating in the Caspian now, but competition for
resources could turn the tide
Michael Richardson (former Asia editor of the International Herald Tribune, is a visiting senior research fellow at
the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore) May 21 2004 South China Morning Post
But Central Asia and the Caspian Sea oil and gas basin are very much in China's strategic sights. Indeed, China has re-emerged in
recent years as a major player in the region, along with Russia and the United States. The three appear to have a
common interest in working together to counter Islamic extremism and terrorism in the region. But this convergence of
interests could be upset by rivalry over oil and gas, especially between China and the US. A consortium of American,
European and Japanese oil companies is developing the Kashagan field, one of the world's largest deposits of untapped crude, in Kazakhstan's
section of the northern Caspian Sea region. Discovered in 2000, the Kashagan field is estimated to have 38 billion barrels of oil, making it one
of the largest discoveries in 30 years. Initial production is expected to start in 2008, with output rising to 1.2 million barrels a day, part of which
will be sent via a pipeline to an export terminal in Turkey.
Perceived arrogance of US actions in Central Asia causes resentment from Russia, China,
and Iran
Lutz Kleveman (free-lance journalist has worked for CNN, Daily Telegraph, Newsweek and book author) 2003,
The New Great Game, pg. 259-60
American arrogance of power will not fail to affect relations between the United States and its main rivals in the new
Great Game: Russia, Iran, and China. Long before the diplomatic rift over Iraq, those countries suspected that the Bush
administration was using its war against terror in Central Asia to seal the American Cold War victory against Russia, to
contain Chinese influence, and to tighten the noose around Iran. Faced with Bush’s verdict that “those who are not with us are against us,” the
regimes in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran became increasingly worried about what they perceived as an aggressive
U.S. foreign policy aimed at “fullspectrum dominance,” i.e., worldwide control of political, economic, and military developments.
In what reads like a deliberate allusion to Lord Curzon’s famous “chessboard” dictum, President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski argued as early as 1997 that “America is now Eurasia’s arbiter, with no major Eurasian issue soluble without America’s
participation or contrary to America’s interests. How the United States both manipulates and accommodates the principal geostrategic players
on the Eurasian chessboard and how it manages Eurasia’s key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America’s
global primacy.”
US bullying in a Central Asian “Great Game’ causes Russia and China to balance the US
Lutz Kleveman (journalist and author) February 16 2004 The Nation
Washington's Great Game opponents in Moscow and Beijing resent the dramatically growing US influence in their
strategic backyard. Worried that the American presence might encourage internal unrest in its Central Asian province of
Xinjiang--whose Turkic and Muslim population, the Uighurs, are striving for more autonomy--China has recently held joint military
exercises with Kyrgyzstan. The Russian government initially tolerated the American intrusion into its former empire, hoping
Washington would in turn ignore Russian atrocities in Chechnya. However, for the Kremlin, the much-hyped "new strategic
partnership" against terror between the Kremlin and the White House has always been little more than a tactical and temporary
marriage of convenience to allow Russia's battered economy to recover with the help of capital from Western
companies. The US presence in Russia's backyard is becoming ever more assertive, but it is unthinkable for the majority
of the Russian establishment to permanently cede its hegemonic claims on Central Asia. One man who is quite frank about this
is Viktor Kalyuzhny, the Russian deputy foreign minister and President Vladimir Putin's special envoy to the Caspian region, whom I
interviewed in Moscow last year. "We have a saying in Russia," he told me. "If you have guests in the house there are two times when you are
happy. One is when they arrive, and one is when they leave again." To make sure that I got the message, Kalyuzhny added, "Guests should
know that it is impolite to stay for too long." Unfazed by such Russian sensitivities, American troops in Central Asia seem
to be there to stay. Two years ago, when I visited the new US air base in Kyrgyzstan, I was struck by the massive commitment the
Pentagon had made. With the help of dozens of excavators, bulldozers and cranes, a pioneer unit was busy erecting a new hangar for F/A-18
Hornet fighter jets. Brawny pioneers in desert camouflage were setting up hundreds of "Harvest Falcon" and "Force Provider" tents for nearly
3,000 soldiers. I asked their commander, a wiry brigadier general, if and when the troops would ever leave Kyrgyzstan. "There is no time
limit," he replied. "We will pull out only when all Al Qaeda cells have been eradicated." Today, the troops are still there and many tents have
been replaced by concrete buildings. Increasingly annoyed, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has repeatedly demanded that
the Americans pull out within two years. Significantly, President Putin has signed new security pacts with the Central
Asian rulers and last October personally opened a new Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan. It is the first base Moscow has set up
outside Russia's borders since the end of the cold war. Equipped with fighter jets, it lies only twenty miles away from the US air base.
CAFE Affirmative
Caspian Advantage
This dangerous US involvement creates tension with Russia in the Caucasus, risking
regional conflict
The Economist, 11/29/2003
But what happens next in Georgia will have consequences for those neighbours too. Though it has few direct links to them,
all three can be proxy battlegrounds for influence between the two big countries that have interests in the region, Russia and
the United States. A tussle over one could spark a tit-for-tat dispute in another. Ex-Soviet politicians such as Mr Shevardnadze,
for all their weaknesses, are adept at the power games and bargains that keep competing interests--both domestic and foreign--in balance. And
he is the second such leader to depart this year. Heidar Aliev, who ruled Azerbaijan for the best part of three decades, has not been seen since
leaving the country for medical treatment in the summer. His son, Ilham, who officially took over after last month's election, is a western-
minded, well-educated polyglot like Mr Saakashvili, but with even less political experience. With the two flawed but dependable leaders
replaced by fresh but untested ones, the Caucasus is once again an open field for the great powers to jostle for influence.
The politics of pipelines What interests Russia and America most in the Caucasus are oil and gas, which the region has, and
terrorism, which they fear it might breed. Start with the energy. America depends heavily on Middle Eastern oil; western Europe,
on gas piped out of Russia (much of which comes from Central Asia). Both would like to depend less on those sources. Their hope lies in the
oil and gas fields in the Caspian Sea. The elder Mr Aliev encouraged foreign oil firms to explore them; his son will preside over the epoch in
which exploration becomes exploitation. Over the next 20 years Azerbaijan is expected to make $29 billion in oil revenues alone. The
pipelines that will carry this oil and gas westwards, across Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey, are now being built. But Russia already has
its own pipelines to Turkey and the Black Sea. Thanks to the competition, Russia stands to lose not only transit fees, but also
crucial levers of influence over the West. The state gas monopoly, Gazprom, signed a framework deal with Georgia this year whose
terms are vague, but which seems to give Gazprom the right to expand Georgia's gas network. Some think this means that it will try to use
Georgia as an export route for its own gas to Turkey, getting there before the trans-Caucasian pipeline is built. Moreover, Russia supplies
almost all of Georgia's gas. But in future Georgia will be able to get much of it from the trans-Caucasian pipeline at an extra-cheap rate. In the
past, Russia has cut off gas supplies in winter: theoretically for non-payment, but often apparently for political ends. Most notably, Russia has
put the heat (or rather the cold) on Mr Shevardnadze when rebels from Russia's war-torn republic of Chechnya have used Georgia's Pankisi
Gorge, across the border from Russia, as a hiding place. Russia's state electric company, UES, has also bought the main Georgian distributor,
Telasi. It clearly suits Russia to have a pliant government in Georgia. Mr Shevardnadze was despised by many in the Moscow old
guard for his role, as Mikhail Gorbachev's foreign minister, in dismantling the Soviet Union. His strong ties to the West, and the American
military aid that he accepted to fortify Georgia's ramshackle armed forces and fight terrorism, infuriated Russia. But his weakness also made
him easy to manipulate. The question is whether Russia will continue to use the levers that it has in the past.
Russian presence in Central Asia is inevitable. Growing US influence is making Russia feel
squeezed and will inevitably cause Russia to destabilize Central Asia
Kiplinger Business Forecasts December 4 2003
Although the U.S. and Russia remain friendly and cooperative on oil and other ventures, Russia's quiet moves to reassert its
influence throughout many of the former Soviet Union republics pose risks to U.S. interests in the region. Political instability
there can only hurt U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism and thwart business investment. Behind Russia's push for a
more commanding role is a desire to keep growing U.S. influence at bay. With the U.S. presence in Iraq and
Afghanistan and NATO entrenchment in eastern Europe, Russia is feeling a bit squeezed. Russian tinkering with its
neighbors' politics hit the headlines recently when Eduard Shevardnadze, the embattled president of Georgia, quit under a cloud of alleged
corruption and election fraud, with a nudge from Moscow. His replacement is likely to be Mikheil Saakashvili. Though even more pro-U.S.
than Shevardnadze, Saakashvili is less experienced and will have a tougher time keeping pro-Moscow secessionist forces at bay. Ultimately,
that will weaken Uncle Sam's hand in Georgia. Georgia is only the most visible example of Russian involvement in former
Soviet republics. Moscow is also encouraging pro-Russian movements in other neighboring countries many of which are
already none too stable. Armenia has had a running war with Azerbaijan that started even before the Soviet Union collapsed. Tajikistan had
a civil war that lasted through much of the 1990s. And Uzbekistan has a long-running border dispute with Kyrgyzstan. "You have a region
that is just sliding into anarchy," says Glen Howard, president of the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that
focuses on Eurasia. "Russia will maximize its opportunities, either covertly, overtly, or by a combination of the two." But
Russia is running a big risk in trying to beef up its own influence in the region while preventing strong, pro-U.S.
governments from taking root along its borders. The danger? Weakened states on Russia's borders, particularly in largely
Muslim central Asia, could become magnets for radical Islamists, as happened in Chechnya a considerable thorn in
Moscow's side. Moscow's gamble one that the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin thinks it can win is that pro-Moscow
forces in destabilized neighboring countries will win out over pro-U.S. forces and radical Islamists.
CAFE Affirmative
Caspian Advantage
US-Russian relations prevent Central Asian balancing
F. Stephen Larrabee, and Ian O. Lesser (policy analysts at RAND) 2003 Turkish Foreign Policy in an Age of
Uncertainty, http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1612/MR1612.ch5.pdf
At the same time, the events of September 11 and the war on terrorism are weakening old alignments and creating new ones. President Putin’s
decision to side with the United States in the war on terrorism could weaken the Russian-Armenian-Iranian-Syrian
axis. On one hand, it may increase Armenia’s room for maneuver and lead to a gradual reduction of Yerevan’s dependence on Moscow. On the
other hand, it could weaken Russian-Iranian cooperation, especially in the nuclear field. Both developments would work to
Turkey’s advantage.
Strong US-Russian relations are key to prevent escalating war in Georgia

CSM, The Christian Science Monitor, 8/12/2004
But others warn the region is a powderkeg that could explode, despite the best intentions in Moscow and
Washington. "Georgia is the No. 1 flash point between the US and Russia just now. There are competing interests
there which could be managed if Russia and the US cooperate closely, but could easily fly out of control if they
don't," says Vitaly Naumkin, director of the independent Center for Strategic and International Studies in Moscow.
Central Asian instability leads to thermonuclear war

M. Ehsan Ahrari, Professor of National Security and Strategy of the Joint and Combined Warfighting School at
the Armed Forces Staff College, August 2001 , “Jihadi Groups, Nuclear Pakistan and the New Great Game,”
South and Central Asia constitute a part of the world where a well-designed American strategy might well help
avoid crises or catastrophe. The U.S. military would provide only one component of such a strategy, and a
secondary one at that, but has an important role to play through engagement activities and regional confidence
building. Insecurity has led the states of the region to seek weapons of mass destruction, missiles and conventional
arms. It has also led them toward policies which undercut the security of their neighbors. If such activities
continue, the result could be increased terrorism, humanitarian disasters, continued low-level conflict and
potentially even major regional war or a thermonuclear exchange. A shift away from this pattern could allow the states of the
region to become solid economic and political partners for the United States, thus representing a gain for all concerned.
War in Central Asia goes nuclear and draws in the US, Russia, and India and Pakistan
Ira Shorr (analyst with Institute for Policy Studies in DC) October 14 2001, The Record
This process of keeping nuclear weapons on a hair-trigger means that leaders on both sides have just minutes to assess
whether a warning of an attack is real or false. And while the threats we faced during the Cold War came from Soviet strength -- the danger
today comes more from Russia's weakness. For example, Russia's troubled economy has led to the profound decay of its early warning
satellite system. A fire last May that destroyed a critical facility used to control Russian warning satellites has made things even worse.
"Russia has completely lost its space-based early warning capabilities," says Bruce Blair of the Center for Defense Information.
"In essence, the country's ability to tell a false alarm from a real warning has been nearly crippled. " False alarms on both sides have
already brought us to the brink of nuclear war. What will happen now if there is a war in the volatile neighborhood
of Central Asia -- a region that includes nuclear powers India, Pakistan, and Russia? Former Sen. Sam Nunn brought the
point home in a recent speech: "The events of Sept. 11 gave President Bush very little time to make a very difficult decision -- whether to give
orders to shoot down a commercial jetliner filled with passengers. Our current nuclear posture in the United States and Russia could provide
even less time for each president to decide on a nuclear launch that could destroy our nations. " Nunn called on Presidents Bush and Putin to
"stand-down" their nuclear forces to "reduce toward zero the risk of accidental launch or miscalculation and provide increased launch decision
time for each president. " In the spirit of the courageous steps his father took to decrease the nuclear threat 10 years ago, President Bush should
take action now to remove nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert. This would send a signal to the world that in this volatile time, the U.S. is
serious about preventing the use of nuclear weapons.
CAFE Affirmative
Caspian Advantage
War between China and the US likely to spark up soon over oil in central Asia
Bülent Gökay (senior lecturer in International Relations of Southeast Europe, Keele University) Summer 2002
Alternatives, Volume 1, Number 2, http://www.alternativesjournal.net/volume1/number2/gokay.htm
The largest American foreign military base constructed since Vietnam, Camp Bondsteel was built by the Brown & Root Division of
Halliburton, the world's biggest oil services corporation, which was run by Dick Cheney before he was made Vice-President.(38) On 2 June
1999, the US Trade and Development Agency announced that it had awarded a half-million dollar grant to Bulgaria to carry out a feasibility
study for the pipeline across the Balkans.(39)Rivalries being played out here will have a decisive impact in shaping the post-
communist Eurasia, and in determining how much influence the US will have over its development.(40) This situation has
worldwide and not just regional consequences. For instance, the expansion of US influence in Eurasia poses a direct
and immediate threat to China, because, among other factors, the expansion of the Chinese economy is directly
dependent on access to petroleum. China's oil needs are expected to nearly double by 2010, which will force the
country to import 40 percent of its requirements, up from 20 percent in 1995.(41) Driven by a burgeoning demand for energy, the
Chinese government has made securing access to the largely untapped reserves of oil and natural gas in the
Caspian region a cornerstone of its economic policy. China's focus is the construction of a 4200 km network of gas and oil
pipelines running from China's western province of Xinjiang to the major east coast metropolis of Shanghai. In 1997, the China National
Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) acquired the right to develop two potentially lucrative oilfields in Kazakhstan, outbidding US and European oil
companies. Feasibility studies are also underway for the construction of over 3000 kilometres of gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Xinjiang by
the state oil holding company, PetroChina Co. This east-west pipeline is China's biggest infrastructure project after the Three Gorges Dam.(42)
China's influence in the Caspian oil politics has increased as a result of a recent business deal in Azerbaijan: two subsidiaries of China National
Petroleum Corporation bought the 30 percent stake owned by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in two oil fields, the
Kursangi and Karabagli fields, in Azerbaijan for 52 million US dollars as part of China's move to diversify its resource base.(43) Theoretically,
oil and gas pipelines to China from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan could be extended to link into the pipeline networks of both Russia and Iran.
This model has been dubbed the "Pan Asian Global Energy Bridge", a Eurasian network of pipelines linking energy resources in the Middle
East, Central Asia and Russia to Chinese Pacific coast. China's pipeline network has the potential to bring about a significant strategic
realignment in the region. Central Asia with its huge reserves of oil, and natural gas, and strategic position is already a
key arena of sharp rivalry between the US, major European powers, Russia, Japan and China. All of the major
powers, along with transnational corporations, have been seeking alliances, concessions and possible pipeline routes in the
region. In the midst of this increasing competition, open conflict between the superpower US and important regional power
China seems highly likely.(44)
US-Chinese war would be a nuclear showdown

Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy March, 2000
Under such circumstances, the Haowangjiao article explains, Beijing anticipates the US intervention to escalate into a nuclear war ultimatum.
The PRC is ready for that confrontation as well. For more than 10 years now, the PLA has been working on "a new generation of
nuclear weaponry based on a new theory of nuclear physics" which presently enable the PLA to implement "a step-by-
step strategy" in order to escalate a regional conflict and "threaten America with nuclear war." Among these weapons
are "new, multiple-warhead long-range missiles". At the regional level, the PLA could also strike "US satellites and
military bases in the Pacific". The nuclear war anticipated by the PLA might include "a neutron bomb attack on Taiwan
and a nuclear showdown with the United States. The United States will not sacrifice 200-million Americans for 20-million
Taiwanese." The Haowangjiao article asserted that Beijing might even unilaterally threaten the United States with a nuclear attack if US troops
and presence were not withdrawn from the straits of Taiwan.
US pursuit of oil interests in the Caspian causes terrorism

Lutz Kleveman (journalist and author) 2/16/2004, The Nation
While it is too early to tell how things in Georgia will play out, one general lesson appears clear: The September 11 attacks have shown
that the US government can no longer afford to be indifferent toward how badly dictators in the Middle East and Central
Asia treat their people, as long as they keep the oil flowing. American dealings with Saudi Arabia have become a fatal affair.
President Bush acknowledged as much in recent speeches calling on Saudi Arabia to start democratic reforms to dry up the breeding ground for
terrorism. In Central Asia, however, the current US policy of aiding tyrants repeats the very same mistakes that gave rise
to bin Ladenism in the 1980s and '90s. Most Central Asians believe that US antiterror troops are stationed in their region
mainly to secure American oil interests. I lost count of how many Azeris, Uzbeks, Afghans and Iraqis I met during my travels who told me
that "it's all about oil." Right or wrong, this distrust of the US government's motives is one of the key factors in the
insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. The presence of US troops on their soil motivates angry Muslim men to sign up with Al
Qaeda-like terror groups. However terribly they suffered under Saddam Hussein, few Iraqis today believe that America would have sent its
young men and women to the region if there were only strawberry fields to protect.
CAFE Affirmative
Caspian Advantage
Caspian oil can’t solve Mideast dependence and only strengthens US imperative to secure
energy
Peter J. Cooper July 3 2002 AME Info, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates,
Moreover, continuous technological innovations mean that Oapec, which comprises the Gulf States and six other Arab oil producers, will be
able to easily increase its reserves in that period, according to the study, while boosting output. It claims that the UAE could double output to
5.1 million bpd by 2020, with Saudi Arabia producing 22.1 million bpd, Kuwait 4.8 million bpd and Iraq 5.5 million bpd. Most energy
experts agree that rival oil sources such as the Caspian Sea will not offer anything to touch this type of output
capacity, and indeed alternative sources will not come on stream fast enough to cope with increasing demand.
This will leave the world more reliant on the Arab world for its oil and gas than ever, and with an even clearer
geo-political imperative to ensure than oil and gas supplies remain in friendly hands. And regional GDP should rise by a
substantial multiple as a consequence, quite aside from the impact of economic reforms and foreign inward investment. So there is clearly
reason to expect higher economic growth in the Arab oil states over the next two decades than in the previous 20
years. That alone should secure the economic prosperity of the region.
Energy interests cause Bush to use the war on terror to further justify intervention for
energy interests
Lutz Kleveman, journalist and author, 2/16/2004, The Nation
Since September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration has undertaken a massive military buildup in Central Asia,
deploying thousands of US troops not only in Afghanistan but also in the newly independent republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and
Georgia. These first US combat troops on former Soviet territory have dramatically altered the geostrategic power
equations in the region, with Washington trying to seal the cold war victory against Russia, contain Chinese influence
and tighten the noose around Iran. Most important, however, the Bush Administration is using the "war on terror" to
further American energy interests in Central Asia. The bad news is that this dramatic geopolitical gamble involving thuggish
dictators and corrupt Saudi oil sheiks is likely to produce only more terrorists, jeopardizing America's prospects of defeating the
forces responsible for the September 11 attacks.
CAFE Affirmative
Resource War Advantage

US oil dependence makes resource wars inevitable
Michael Klare, Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire, 11/1/2001,
Multinational Monitor
MM: Is U.S. entanglement in resource wars inevitable so long as the nation relies so heavily on oil? Klare: I think resource wars are
inevitable so long as we rely so heavily on imported oil to make up for the shortfall in our own production and to the degree that
we do not engage in some kind of international system of resource allocation that's reasonably equitable. The problem is that we use a vast
amount of oil and we also want to engineer local politics in other countries to be friendly to serving that need. We want
local governments to be amenable to providing the U.S. with as much energy as we want at low prices. That means we get involved in local
politics, and very often we get involved in local politics in areas where there are a lot of pre-existing divisions - religious,
ethnic and political. We wind up taking sides and we get enmeshed in conflicts, which is what has happened in Saudi Arabia. The U.S.
has also risked getting involved in local conflicts in other countries because of its interest in their petroleum resources.
We've been enmeshed in the internal politics of Iran - we were very close to the Shah, and when the Shah was overthrown, there was a backlash
against us. Historically, we've been involved in conflicts in Mexico over oil. We're now involved in Colombia in a conflict that's as much about
oil as it is about drugs.
Even if markets can solve scarcity, perceived need for control of energy to meet demand
causes resource wars and conflict with China
New Statesman, 9/8/2003
In the 1990s, the faith of Spencer and Marx was repackaged and sold to governments. Given a spurious rigour by economists, it became the
intellectual basis for the global free market. Yet its influence over policy has never extended to defence planning. Bien-pensants economists
can babble on as much as they like about the pacifying effects of free markets, but military strategists continue to assume
that secure access to energy sources is a strategic imperative. Advanced industrial societies would collapse if they
were cut off from them for more than a few months. No new technology can prevent such a disaster. Talk of new sources of
energy replacing oil in the long run is all very well, but history is one short run after another. The first Gulf war was waged to protect western
oil supplies, and for no other reason. Iraq's vast oil reserves are not the only reason that country was invaded, but they are a vitally important
factor. If - as some strategists believe is likely - military conflict breaks out between China and the United States over the next
few decades, it will be partly because they are the chief competitors for the world's shrinking reserves of cheap oil.
The rising demand for energy has become a cause of war. Contrary to the theories of progress bequeathed to us from the 19th
century, worldwide industrialisation is not banishing scarcity in the necessities of existence and ushering in a new era of peace. It is
creating new scarcities and triggering new conflicts. Without oil, the energy-intensive agriculture on which we rely so
heavily could not exist. A steady supply of oil is as important in our lives as good weather was in the agrarian societies of the past.
CAFE Affirmative
Resource War Advantage

War between China and the US likely to spark up soon over oil in central Asia
Bülent Gökay, senior lecturer in International Relations of Southeast Europe, Keele University, Alternatives,
Volume 1, Number 2, Summer 2002, http://www.alternativesjournal.net/volume1/number2/gokay.htm
The largest American foreign military base constructed since Vietnam, Camp Bondsteel was built by the Brown & Root Division of
Halliburton, the world's biggest oil services corporation, which was run by Dick Cheney before he was made Vice-President.(38) On 2 June
1999, the US Trade and Development Agency announced that it had awarded a half-million dollar grant to Bulgaria to carry out a feasibility
study for the pipeline across the Balkans.(39)Rivalries being played out here will have a decisive impact in shaping the post-
communist Eurasia, and in determining how much influence the US will have over its development.(40) This situation has
worldwide and not just regional consequences. For instance, the expansion of US influence in Eurasia poses a direct
and immediate threat to China, because, among other factors, the expansion of the Chinese economy is directly
dependent on access to petroleum. China's oil needs are expected to nearly double by 2010, which will force the
country to import 40 percent of its requirements, up from 20 percent in 1995.(41) Driven by a burgeoning demand for energy, the
Chinese government has made securing access to the largely untapped reserves of oil and natural gas in the
Caspian region a cornerstone of its economic policy. China's focus is the construction of a 4200 km network of gas and oil
pipelines running from China's western province of Xinjiang to the major east coast metropolis of Shanghai. In 1997, the China National
Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) acquired the right to develop two potentially lucrative oilfields in Kazakhstan, outbidding US and European oil
companies. Feasibility studies are also underway for the construction of over 3000 kilometres of gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Xinjiang by
the state oil holding company, PetroChina Co. This east-west pipeline is China's biggest infrastructure project after the Three Gorges Dam.(42)
China's influence in the Caspian oil politics has increased as a result of a recent business deal in Azerbaijan: two subsidiaries of China National
Petroleum Corporation bought the 30 percent stake owned by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in two oil fields, the
Kursangi and Karabagli fields, in Azerbaijan for 52 million US dollars as part of China's move to diversify its resource base.(43) Theoretically,
oil and gas pipelines to China from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan could be extended to link into the pipeline networks of both Russia and Iran.
This model has been dubbed the "Pan Asian Global Energy Bridge", a Eurasian network of pipelines linking energy resources in the Middle
East, Central Asia and Russia to Chinese Pacific coast. China's pipeline network has the potential to bring about a significant strategic
realignment in the region. Central Asia with its huge reserves of oil, and natural gas, and strategic position is already a
key arena of sharp rivalry between the US, major European powers, Russia, Japan and China. All of the major
powers, along with transnational corporations, have been seeking alliances, concessions and possible pipeline routes in the
region. In the midst of this increasing competition, open conflict between the superpower US and important regional power
China seems highly likely.(44)
Friction between the US and China results in nuclear holocaust

Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 5/14/2001, The
Nation, Pg. 20
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China’s minuscule
nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads
versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most
dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no wanted, a misstep in
Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the
United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world’s most populous country and would be
defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the
nationalistic challenge to China’s sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on
China’s borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
CAFE Affirmative
ANWR Advantage (Terror impact)

Increased CAFÉ standards are the quick and most efficient way to avoid drilling in ANWR
Christopher Clements (commissioned as a Combat Engineer in the United States Army in 1997 and is an active
duty Captain preparing to enter the Judge Advocate Corps., J.D. candidate attending the College of William and
Mary School of Law. He received a B.A. in Economics and Philosophy from the College of William and Mary in
1997) Fall 2003 William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review,
Perhaps the quickest and single-most effective alternative to oil exploration in the ANWR is raising the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") standards. Raising these standards would make automobiles more fuel efficient and
save millions of barrels of oil per day. 243 Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) attempted unsuccessfully to
pass legislation in May 2001 that would increase mandatory miles per gallon ("mpg") for light trucks, SUVs, and mini-vans to 27.5 mpg by
2007. 244 Similar legislation was introduced in early 2002 that would have increased CAFE standards to 36 mpg by 2015 for SUVs and mini-
vans. 245 Despite these efforts, Congress has consistently killed these attempts and any other legislation that would attempt to curb gasoline
usage by Americans. 246 The administration has repeatedly held that the American standard of living should not be sacrificed for higher gas
mileage. 247 Critics of gas [*123] mileage standards point to vehicle safety among other arguments for not accepting higher standards. 248 If
Americans would accept higher standards for automobiles, however, the United States would be much less
dependent on oil. Furthermore, auto manufacturers can increase gas mileage using existing technologies. 249 A
National Academy of Science study found that new technology, some of it already in use, could improve gas
mileage by twenty-five to fifty percent. 250 It seems disingenuous for our government to ask American service members to make
sacrifices in the Persian Gulf, and then refuse to raise gas mileages on SUVs here at home. Legislating new CAFE standards could
save more oil than we could ever hope to extract from the 1002 Area of the ANWR.
Pipelines would become targets for terrorist attack.

Inter Press Service November 6 2002
Encouraged by energy companies, Bush, whose campaign was financed in major part by many of these same
industries, has renewed his drive to get Congress to approve his energy plan, which would permit drilling in the
environmentally sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and expand the use of nuclear power.
Environmental groups, which favor conservation and the development of alternative sources of energy, say nuclear
power stations are especially vulnerable to terrorist attack, as would be any pipelines built to transfer oil from the
ANWR. "The administration and many in Congress are pushing energy legislation that will actually weaken
national security," says Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth.
Bioterrorism causes extinction

John Steinbruner (senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the committee on international security and
arms control of the National Academy of Sciences) December 22, 1997 Foreign Policy
That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular
event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time
and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is
possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such
predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an
extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the
predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a
few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated
for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread
from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately
threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global
contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
CAFE Affirmative
ANWR Advantage (Species Impact)

Drilling displaces tons of species

Union of Concerned Scientists 2001 Backgrounder The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Is loss of a
pristine wilderness worth the oil that might be gained?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/biodiversity/page.cfm?pageID=780#eco
Taken altogether, ANWR is truly a pristine wilderness, one of the most unique and undisturbed ecosystems on
earth. Yet the potential for disturbance in this wilderness is high. In 1987, during the Reagan Administration, a
report to Congress from the Department of the Interior (the Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, LEIS)
concluded that oil development in the 1002 area would have major impacts on the caribou and muskoxen. "Major"
was defined as "widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality that would likely modify natural
abundance or distribution of species." Moderate impacts on wolves, wolverine, polar bears, snow geese, seabirds
and shorebirds, arctic grayling, and coastal fish were also predicted. More recently, in a letter to President Bush
signed by 506 scientists, the scientists expressed concern about drilling impacts not only on Porcupine caribou but
also on other wildlife in ANWR, most particularly polar bears, muskoxen, ad snow geese. The Scientists' Sign-On
Letter outlines these concerns: "Although many polar bears den on the pack ice, the refuge's coastal plain is the
most important land denning area for Beaufort Sea bears in Alaska. Muskoxen are year-round residents of the
coastal plain, and disturbance from industrial development, particularly in winter, holds the potential to increase
energetic costs and result in decreased calf production. Also, snow geese might be displaced from important
feeding and staging habitats prior to autumn migration, increasing energy expenditure and reducing their ability to
accumulate the fat needed for migration."
Biodiversity is key to preventing extinction

Richard Margoluis 1996 Biodiversity Support Program,
http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10
Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support
system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for
mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in
weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy
environment has become increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on
our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival.
CAFE Affirmative
ANWR Advantage (Culture)

Drilling in the ANWR will wipe out tribal cultures.

The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA) March 18, 2001
Biologists working for the oil companies say exploration and drilling can be performed with almost no impact on
the environment. The Gwich'in, however, are skeptical. They fear the disruption of a herd that allows them to live
a satisfying balance between Western and European-American traditions. Without a dependable supply of caribou
-- about 5,000 are harvested every year -- the Gwich'in would be forced to make major changes in their lifestyle,
and many would be forced to leave their ancestral home. Among environmentalists, the coastal plain of the
ANWR, with its rumbling Porcupine herd, is often called America's Serengetti. But a more apt comparison is to
the Great Plains of 200 years ago, when the bison herds sustained thousands of Native Americans. The annihilation
of those herds wiped out the tribal cultures; the Gwich'in fear drilling in the ANWR will do the same. "The caribou
is not just what we eat, but who we are," said Sarah James, a Gwich'in leader. "It is in our dances, stories, songs
and the whole way we see the world. Caribou is how we get from one year to the other."
Cultural survival is key to human survival

Maivan Clech Lam, Visiting Associate Professor at American University Washington College of Law, 2000, At
The Edge of the State: Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination, p. 205-206
Nevertheless, as anthropologists know, ethnicity is both an enabling and an inescapable condition of human
existence. It is a collective system of meaning that generates social energy which can be put to constructive and
destructive uses equally. Stavenhagen writes: Cultures are complex patterns of social relationships, material
objects, and spiritual values that give meaning and identity to community life and are a resource for solving the
problems of everyday life. That some very ugly campaigns in modern history, usually unleashed by the destructive
economic and military policies of the world’s powerful states, have tapped, frighteningly successfully, into ethnic
energy is undeniable. But it is just as undeniable that knowledge—of the universe, of a specific part of it, of
workable social relationships, of human nature—that is crucial to the project of human survival remains separately
encoded in the distinctive cultures of ethnic groups. No human community or ethnic group can construct an
informed and meaningful future if it is cut off from its cultural past. And alienation from meaning, as much as
exploited meaning, can lead to violence.
CAFE Affirmative
***Caspian Extensions***
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ Solves Caspian Instability

Increased CAFE standards would solve instability in the Caspian, Latin America, Africa
and the Middle East that results from oil related presence in those regions
LA Times, Los Angeles Times May 20, 2004 Thursday
To hear President Bush tell it on Wednesday, had Congress passed his administration's energy bill, SUV owners
would be using spare change instead of retirement funds to fill their gas guzzlers' tanks. But Bush's defense of his
troubled energy policy during a brief news conference doesn't wash. Start with the president's claim that opening
more of the Alaskan wilderness to drilling would have kept skyrocketing gasoline prices in check. Oil companies
might be able to economically extract 3.2 billion barrels of oil from these pristine lands, but that's only enough to
satisfy U.S. demand for about six months, and it would take more than a decade for the oil to reach gas pumps.
Tougher fuel-efficiency standards could save as much as 1.6 million barrels of oil a day, the equivalent of what the
U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia. Bush also chided Congress for failing to embrace his plan to cut dependence on
foreign energy sources. Yet a recent three-part Times series confirms that it was Vice President Dick Cheney's
handpicked energy task force that sent the U.S. down a dangerous road in 2001 by advocating strengthened ties
with oil-rich regimes in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and the Caspian region. Though Angola, Colombia,
Kazakhstan and their neighbors are blessed with a wealth of oil, "The Politics of Petroleum"
(www.latimes.com/oil) presents evidence that the oil revenues pouring into these countries are benefiting a small
minority of wealthy people, increasing the gap between rich and poor and potentially sparking the instability the
administration wants to prevent. The series underscores the dangers of striking deals that serve the short-term
interests of those regimes. American-trained troops in Colombia are defending an Occidental Petroleum pipeline
and a rich oil field against rebels. Money generated by that pipeline has been used both to prop up Colombia's
military and, by way of local provinces, to buy weapons for left-wing guerrillas. A massive influx of dollars in
Angola is failing to create promised jobs, even as government corruption grows. The country ranks 164th out of
175 countries on a United Nations index that measures citizens' quality of life. The Bush administration has
awarded key trade concessions to oil-rich Kazakhstan by claiming significant improvements in its human rights,
despite conclusions to the contrary by the State Department and other organizations. Meanwhile, Cheney has
dismissed conservation, the only sure way to reduce oil demand, as little more than "a possible sign of personal
virtue." Cheney's faulty logic ignores the reality that conservation works. The U.S. economy is 50% more energy-
efficient than it was in the 1970s because of tough conservation standards. Yet the Bush administration dragged its
feet for three years before approving new efficiency standards for air conditioners and refuses to embrace more-
stringent fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks. The equation couldn't be any simpler. Putting more
fuel-efficient vehicles on the road would ease pressure on consumers' pocketbooks as well as the need to side with
regimes that risk creating the very problems that the United States wants to avoid.
CAFE Affirmative
***ANWR Extensions***
CAFE Affirmative
Increased CAFÉ prevents ANWR drilling

Fuel efficiency saves ANWR
Jack Doyle, founder & director of Corporate Sources and its principal investigator 2000, Taken for a Ride, p264-5
Johnston believed that if his bill had enough “balance” in it—conservation provisions offsetting production
provisions—he had a chance of getting a national energy bill passed. Environmentalists, however, would not give
away ANWR for any reason, regardless of how strong a CAFE provision the bill might contain. They held that
each policy—protecting wilderness and promoting conservation—was vital in its own right, and that in fact,
tougher fuel economy standards would help make it unnecessary to exploit ANWR in the first place. For example,
in a February 1991 report, “Looking for Oil in All the Wrong Places,” Robert Watson of NRDC concluded,
“America’s largest unexploited oil and natural gas reserves lie not in environmentally sensitive coastal or Alaskan
fields, but in our inefficient buildings, appliances and transportation system.” Indeed, using various projections of
fuel economy through the years 2000 and 2010, Watson found that potential savings in the automobile sector alone
would exceed by a factor of five the total economic energy resources in both ANWR and the unleased offshore
resource base. An earlier study completed by Brooks Yeager, then with the Sierra Club, found that merely restoring
the 27.5 MPG standard on new vehicles by 1993 would yield a greater contribution to national energy needs (4.6
billion BELs) than would ANWR’s expected production (3.2 billion BBLs).56
CAFE Affirmative
***2ac Add-ons***
CAFE Affirmative
2ac Add-on: Power Wars

Reducing US demand is key to credibility and mulilateralism
Joe Barnes (research fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Police at Rice) Amy Jaffe (Fellow for Energy
Studies at the Baker Institute) and. Edward L. Morse (Executive Adviser at Hess Energy Trading Company and
was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Energy Policy in 1979–81) Winter 2003/2004
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2004/saudi-relations-interest-01-06.html
True, the Bush Administration has initiated dialogue with the EU on hydrogen fuel research and other alternative energy sources, but joint
research in energy technologies, like the purview of the IEA, must extend as broadly as possible to include the largest future oil consumers.
Still, before the United States can truly show leadership in forging links with fellow oil consumers, it must gain some
credibility by demonstrating a willingness to curb its own unrestrained oil addiction. Then, by example, America
might be in a position to initiate a truly global effort to encourage conservation policies, to conduct multilateral research and
development programs, and to disseminate promising energy technologies.
Unilateralism erodes American power and invites the rise of new great powers
Joseph Nye (Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard) April 14 2002 Boston Globe,
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/nye_unilateralism_bg_041402.htm
Those who recommend a unilateralist American foreign policy based on such traditional descriptions of American power are relying on
woefully inadequate analysis. When you are in a three dimensional game, you will lose if you focus only on the military board and fail to
notice the other boards and the vertical connections among them. For instance, as the Bush administration seeks to persuade British Prime
Minister Tony Blair to support a campaign against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the British press reports that Blair has been weakened politically by
our recent unilateral impositions of tariffs on European steel imports. And many of these transnational issues cannot be solved
unilaterally or by the use of military power. The good news for Americans is that the United States will likely remain the
world's single most powerful country well into this new century. While potential coalitions to check American power could be
created, it is unlikely that they would become firm alliances unless the United States handles its hard coercive power
in an overbearing unilateral manner that undermines our attractive or soft power. As the German editor Joseph Joffe has written,
"unlike centuries past, when war was the great arbiter, today the most interesting types of power do not come out of the barrel
of a gun . . . Today there is a much bigger payoff in `getting others to want what you want,' and that has to do with cultural attraction and
ideology and agenda setting . . ." On these measures, China, Russia, Japan, and even Western Europe cannot match the influence of the United
States. The United States could squander this soft power by heavy-handed unilateralism. The bad news for Americans in this
three-dimensional power game of the 21st century is that there are more and more things outside the control of even a
superpower, such as international financial stability, controlling the spread of infectious diseases, cyber-crime and
terrorism. Although the United States does well on the traditional measures, there is increasingly more going on in the world that those
measures fail to capture. We must mobilize international coalitions to address shared threats and challenges. America needs the help and
respect of other nations. We will be in trouble if our unilateralism prevents us from getting it.
Another power war causes extinction.

Gwynne Dyer December 30, 2004 Toronto Star "The End of War Our Task Over the Next Few Years is to
Transform the World of Independent States into a Genuine Global Village"
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1230-05.htm
War is deeply embedded in our history and our culture, probably since before we were even fully human, but weaning ourselves away from it
should not be a bigger mountain to climb than some of the other changes we have already made in the way we live, given the right incentives.
And we have certainly been given the right incentives: The holiday from history that we have enjoyed since the early '90s may be drawing to an
end, and another great-power war, fought next time with nuclear weapons, may be lurking in our future. The "firebreak"
against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the
proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming
crises, mostly environmental in origin, which will hit some countries much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation. Add in the
huge impending shifts in the great-power system as China and India grow to rival the United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40
years and it will be hard to keep things from spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able
to ride out the next half-century without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential
certainly exists for a major die-back of human population.
CAFE Affirmative
2ac Add-on: Proliferation

Multilateralism is key to non-proliferation

G. John Ikenberry (Professor of Geopolitics and Global Justice at Georgetown) September/October 2002
Foreign Affairs
The most immediate problem is that the neoimperialist approach is unsustainable. Going it alone might well
succeed in removing Saddam Hussein from power, but it is far less certain that a strategy of counterproliferation,
based on American willingness to use unilateral force to confront dangerous dictators, can work over the long
term. An American policy that leaves the United States alone to decide which states are threats and how best to
deny them weapons of mass destruction will lead to a diminishment of multilateral mechanisms -- most important
of which is the nonproliferation regime. The Bush administration has elevated the threat of WMD to the top of its
security agenda without investing its power or prestige in fostering, monitoring, and enforcing nonproliferation
commitments. The tragedy of September 11 has given the Bush administration the authority and willingness to
confront the Iraqs of the world. But that will not be enough when even more complicated cases come along --
when it is not the use of force that is needed but concerted multilateral action to provide sanctions and inspections.
Nor is it certain that a preemptive or preventive military intervention will go well; it might trigger a domestic
political backlash to American-led and military-focused interventionism. America's well-meaning imperial strategy
could undermine the principled multilateral agreements, institutional infrastructure, and cooperative spirit needed
for the long-term success of nonproliferation goals.
Nuclear proliferation causes nuclear war

Samuel Totten, Associate Professor in the College of Education at the University of Arkansas, The
Widening Circle of Genocide, 1994, p. 289
There are numerous dangers inherent in the spread of nuclear weapons, including but not limited to the following:
the possibility that a nation threatened by destruction in a conventional war may resort to the use of its nuclear
weapons; the miscalculation of a threat of an attack and the subsequent use of nuclear weapons in order to stave
off the suspected attack; a nuclear weapons accident due to carelessness or flawed technology (e.g., the accidental
launching of a nuclear weapon); the use of such weapons by an unstable leader; the use of such weapons by
renegade military personnel during a period of instability (personal, national or international); and, the theft
(and/or development) and use of such weapons by terrorists. While it is unlikely (though not impossible) that
terrorists would be able to design their own weapons, it is possible that they could do so with the assistance of a
renegade government.
CAFE Affirmative
2ac Add-on: Trade War

Unilateralism causes trade conflict

G. John Ikenberry (Professor of Geopolitics and Global Justice at Georgetown) September/October 2002
Foreign Affairs
The key policy tool for states confronting a unipolar and unilateral America is to withhold cooperation in day-to-
day relations with the United States. One obvious means is trade policy; the European response to the recent
American decision to impose tariffs on imported steel is explicable in these terms. This particular struggle
concerns specific trade issues, but it is also a struggle over how Washington exercises power. The United States
may be a unipolar military power, but economic and political power is more evenly distributed across the globe.
The major states may not have much leverage in directly restraining American military policy, but they can make
the United States pay a price in other areas.
Trade wars go nuclear

Spicer, economist and member of Parliament, 1996
The problem will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and
Inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocks will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion
and ultimately envy erupt into a major war. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium In
the years ahead.
CAFE Affirmative
2ac Add-on: Mideast War

Oil depletion causes greater OPEC control, leading to increased prices and war in the
Mideast
This, then, is the final act in the oil saga. According to even optimistic projections that take Russian oil into
account, non-OPEC oil production could peak by 2015 — at which point, the world’s big importing nations will be
forced to turn to the one supplier they trust least: OPEC. OPEC, of course, faces a peak of its own — probably
sometime in 2025. Yet as long as OPEC’s peak comes later, the effect is the same: world oil supply will come
increasingly under the control of a cartel with a history of rash behavior and dubious sympathy for the West. By
some estimates, as early as 2010, even before a non-OPEC peak, the countries of OPEC will be supplying
approximately 40 percent of the world’s oil, up from around 28 percent today. Presumably, its share will rise
dramatically as non-OPEC oil production falls. What this will mean for the oil markets, and for energy geopolitics
generally, is impossible to say. But to judge by deteriorating relations between the oil-consuming West (read: the
United States) and many players in the Arab Middle East (read: Saudi Arabia), few of the possible scenarios are
very encouraging. At the very least, OPEC countries would be fairly free to push prices higher than they are now,
without fear of competition from non-OPEC producers. The last time OPEC had such control over oil prices,
during the 1974 Arab oil embargo, Western powers came close to intervening militarily and simply taking the oil.
By some accounts, only the threat of a counterstrike by the Soviet Union kept them from doing so, and that
deterrent no longer exists.
Mideast war escalates and goes nuclear

John Steinbach, Hiroshima/Nagasaki Peace Committee, March 2002,
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331steinbachisraeli.htm
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious
implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour
Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against
Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong
probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and
the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of
Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet
targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer
needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at
the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for
their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass
destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a
world conflagration." (44).
CAFE Affirmative
2ac Add-on: Pollution

Motor vehicles cause more air pollution than any other single human activity:
Leslie Harrison Reed (Navy Office of General Counsel) 1997 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law
Review; Lexis)
Motor vehicles, considered as a whole, cause more air pollution than any other single human activity. n1 National
estimates attribute approximately fifty percent of the total air pollutants in the country's urban areas to vehicular
sources. n2 In California, mobile sources cause nearly sixty percent of the pollutants--hydrocarbons (HC) and
oxides of nitrogen (NO[x])--that react with the sun to form harmful ozone, and ninety percent of the carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions. n3 This huge share of total emissions occurs, despite more than two decades of
increasingly stringent controls in California and the rest of the nation, in part due to the ever-increasing numbers of
motor vehicles and the [*696] miles they are driven. n4 Thus, short of drastically changing the living and
commuting choices of a majority of Americans, n5 some of the regulatory options for significantly controlling and
reducing these emissions further include: requiring retrofitting of older in-use motor vehicles with emission
control equipment; imposing stringent transportation control measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
such as no-drive days or fees for VMT; squeezing more emission reductions from new gasoline-powered motor
vehicles; or developing an advanced transportation industry around either low-emission, alternative-fueled
vehicles or zero-emission vehicles, or both. Public resistance to retrofit requirements for used vehicles makes
effective implementation of these options nearly impossible. n6 Changing the driving habits or preferences of
Americans significantly, through transportation controls, presents a nearly insurmountable task as well, especially
in light of the post-World War II growth of the automobile industry and transportation infrastructure, suburban
sprawl, and our acclimation to the results. n7 These obstacles to change inevitably have led regulators to choose to
require motor vehicle manufacturers to [*697] meet stricter emissions standards for the new motor vehicles they
seek to produce. n8 However, compelling motor vehicle manufacturers to produce cleaner cars and trucks remains
a formidable task as well, especially when the regulations are far-reaching or technology-forcing. n9 Technology-
forcing mandates are particularly difficult to implement and enforce because the benefits are uncertain.
Pollution Threatens Billions of People

Roberts, Earth Policy Insitute, September 17, 2002 http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm
The World Health Organization reports that 3 million people now die each year from the effects of air pollution.
This is three times the 1 million who die each year in automobile accidents. A study published in The Lancet in
2000 concluded that air pollution in France, Austria, and Switzerland is responsible for more than 40,000 deaths
annually in those three countries. About half of these deaths can be traced to air pollution from vehicle emissions.
In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives
annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. This
scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of people.
CAFE Affirmative
***Auto Industry***
CAFE Affirmative
Increase Auto Industry

Increased fuel economy would create jobs in all sectors including the auto industry –
automakers will have time to adapt
Kara Rinaldi, Deputy Policy Director, 2002,
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/cleancars/cafe/briefing_book.pdf
Raising fuel economy would create new jobs in the automotive sector as a result of large-scale production and use of
up-to-date technologies and materials. The modest increase in sticker prices for fuel-efficient cars would be more than offset
by consumers' gas savings, which would be spent on products and services, creating new jobs throughout the
economy. On the other hand, if fuel economy continues to stagnate, the next oil shock could mean big trouble for the
U.S auto industry. Higher fuel economy standards would mean more auto industry jobs. • Due to increased investment in the industry, a
standard of 40 mpg by 2012, rising to 55 mpg by 2020 would create 40,000 new jobs in the automotive sector by 2010,
and 104,000 by 2020.1 Fuel economy improvements put money into consumers' pockets, creating jobs across the economy. • If fuel economy
reached 40 mpg by 2012, consumers would save $16 billion in annual fuel costs. The resulting spending would generate
job increases in almost all sectors—72,000 new jobs in ten years and 244,000 jobs in twenty years. The retail trade, agriculture,
restaurant, health services, construction, and other industries would all gain between 20,000 and 80,000 new jobs in twenty years.2 • While an
increase in fuel economy would result in a decline in oil drilling and refining jobs, the energy sectors are among the least labor-
intensive in the US economy, and much of our oil spending goes overseas. Transferring dollars from oil production to other
sectors produces a net increase in employment. The auto industry's claims that higher fuel economy standards mean fewer
jobs are based on faulty assumptions. In 1992, proposals to raise CAFE standards for cars from 27.5 mpg to 40 mpg by 2000 were
met by claims from the auto manufacturers' association that such a step would mean the loss of 150,000 to 300,000 jobs. A Los Angeles Times
investigation revealed the claim assumed that assembly lines and entire plants producing cars that did not meet the new
standards would simply be shut down.3 This extreme scenario does not reflect the reality that car and truck models will be
improved, not eliminated, and that the standards will be gradually introduced. In 2001, GM urged the St. Louis City
Council to pass a resolution against fuel economy improvements using the same specious argument. GM argued that it would respond to a 3
mpg increase in light truck fuel economy standards simply by eliminating the least efficient existing products causing the loss of 36,200
UAW/GM jobs. CAFE standards apply to fuel economies averaged across automakers’ fleets and do not restrict
production of individual vehicle models. Manufacturers would have time and flexibility to adapt to new standards. U.S.
manufacturers can’t afford to be industry laggards. Oil price hikes in the 1970s hit domestic automakers hard, because
foreign automakers such as Honda and Toyota then led the Big Three on fuel economy. High oil prices in the future could hit
American automakers hard, just as happened in the 1970s. A planned, phased-in increase of fuel economy standards will provide critical
insurance against a repeat of this scenario. After the oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1980s, Chrysler, in a temporary departure from
the Big Three's customary point of view, saw fuel-efficient cars as an important market to capture and opposed efforts to roll back CAFE
standards. According to a 1985 Chrysler ad, "…CAFE protects American jobs. If CAFE is weakened now, come the next energy crunch
American manufacturers will not be able to meet the demand for fuel-efficient cars…again. And American workers—both in the Auto Industry
and in the other industries that serve it— will be out on the street. Many of their jobs—as was true for the last two times around—will
disappear forever."4
Environment friendly autos are key to global market share

Automotive News, 12-1-2003
Carmakers that produce vehicles with lower CO2 emissions could see global market share increase and their
financial performance improve. OEMs that produce vehicles with higher CO2 emissions may see their global competitiveness decrease,
causing shareholder values to suffer. These are the conclusions of a study on the impact of present and future climate change policies on
competitiveness and value creation in the auto industry. Sustainable Asset Management (SAM), a Zurich-based independent asset management
company that focuses on environmentally friendly investments, said the cost of meeting CO2 reduction goals could vary by a factor of 25
across the industry. Luxury carmaker BMW may have to spend an average of $650 per vehicle to meet future pollution rules while Honda,
which sells cars with smaller, more fuel-efficient engines, faces only $25 per vehicle. Top carmakers surveyed SAM investigated how
climate change policies by governments in the top global automotive markets could affect 10 leading automakers
between now and 2015. The study looked at BMW, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, PSA, Renault, Toyota and
Volkswagen. The assessment covered the USA, European Union and Japan which together account for nearly 70 percent of global automotive
sales. Automakers' financial performance and competitiveness will be increasingly sensitive to C02-emission and
fuel-economy measures as more countries adopt new regulations to address fears over climate change. SAM and the
World Resources Institute (WRI), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, devised a method of measuring automakers' vulnerability to regulations
and commitments on CO2 emission reductions up until 2015. Significant effects The study's two key measurements of the risks facing
carmakers were: 1. The "carbon intensity of profits" - the degree to which current profits of automakers are derived from high CO2-emitting
vehicles. 2. The "value exposure" - an estimate of the costs that carmakers face to meet new CO2 reduction regulations.
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ Key U.S. Auto Industry

Failure to adapt to the coming EV auto transformation will screw the US auto industry
Jack Doyle (founder and director of Corporate Sources and its principal investigator) 2000, Taken for a Ride, p.
446
Today, some American activists and politicians look at Detroit and worry that the mistakes and missed opportunities of the past may be
repeated in the future."There's a competitive threat coming, significantly, but not exclusively driven by environmental
realities that Michigan leaders, both inside and outside the auto industry, are loathe to acknowledge," says Lana Pollack, a former
Michigan state senator who now heads up the Michigan Environmental Council. "Foreign manufacturers and domestic startups
pioneering the new technologies could take a huge market share before the slower-moving traditional auto industry
has had the opportunity to adapt and recover." Pollack is now working with labor and other interests in Michigan to persuade the
automakers to heed the warning signs. "We lost market share that we never fully regained," she says, referring to the 1970s. "Now we face a
similar threat. . . . Not being first out of the box could have a tremendous, more or less permanent depressive effect on
the domestic auto industry. This isn't a matter of environment over economics. Either they move together, or we're going to inflict
tremendous damage on ourselves."
CAFE Affirmative
***Economy***
CAFE Affirmative
CAFÉ Boost Economy

Fuel efficiency will boost the economy by providing jobs and consumer savings
Union of Concerned Scientists, 11.06.2002, http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=228
For more than three decades automakers have claimed that installing safety, fuel economy and pollution improvements in their
products would be a "business catastrophe." Not only has history proved them wrong, but a new economic analysis
released today shows that increasing fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2012 would create a net gain
of over 182,000 jobs throughout the economy by 2015 -- with more than 41,000 new jobs created in the motor
vehicles industry alone. "Putting technology to work means jobs, whether it's in the computer industry or the auto industry,"
said David Friedman, author of the new study and Senior Analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Building
safe SUVs, better cars, and powerful trucks that go farther on a gallon of gas will have a positive ripple effect
throughout the economy." Moving to a 40 mpg average fuel economy standard will provide consumers a net
savings of more than $29 billion by 2015 because savings at the pump far outweigh any added vehicle costs. The
money saved would be spent throughout the economy, generating 73,900 new jobs in the service industry; 31,900
jobs in the finance, insurance, and real-estate industries; 29,900 jobs in the manufacturing industry; and 22,500
jobs in the retail trade industry. The automotive industry and their suppliers will see 41,100 additional jobs from
consumer re-spending and investments in producing better cars and trucks. Thousands of other jobs would be created
in agriculture, construction, transportation, utilities, and government. Oil and associated industries would see their job
forecasts drop by 48,000 jobs, though these jobs would be shifted to other sectors of the economy, yielding a net increase of
182,700 new jobs. "Fuel economy will be an engine for economic growth," said Friedman. "It's time for the auto
industry to stop crying wolf." The Union of Concerned Scientists used a macroeconomic model that includes industry-
specific data derived from a government designed analysis tool to analyze 528 different industrial sectors and
evaluate the potential job impacts. Overall, states that use more gasoline and that have more industry will gain the most jobs. California
will add 23,600 jobs, Michigan 11,500 jobs, New York 10,100 jobs, Florida 9,700 jobs, and Ohio 9,200 jobs.
CAFE Affirmative
***Case Answers***
CAFE Affirmative
A/T: Consumers will Drive More

Cross Apply the Greene evidence from solvency it says even if consumers drive more
initially it doesn’t matter because cars die at the same mileage no matter what.
And, the evidence goes onto to cite recent studies that found there was not rebound effect.
90% of the reduction in fuel consumption is due to change in vehicle efficiency, EVEN after
the increase in vehicles miles has had its full effect. Overall, the plan reduces consumption.
The majority of driving is done by commuters who only drive to work once a day
Donald O. Mayer (Professor of Management at Oakland University) March 2002 Vanderbilt Journal of
Transnational Law
The denial of global warming or global climate change as a serious policy problem was part of U.S. automakers' approach to [*626] corporate
advocacy well into the 1990s. 217 Detroit automakers reacted to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 by denying that global climate change was a
problem that needed to be addressed. 218 Other arguments against CAFE have merit, but are also open to debate. It is true that doubling fuel
efficiency for all vehicles - including light trucks - would not necessarily conserve gasoline if people drove twice
as much. The majority of driving, however, is done by commuters; presumably, commuters would not drive to
work twice as often, but they might live further from work. Still, commuting times may already be approaching their
maximums in a number of U.S. metropolitan areas. 219 The safety of smaller cars can be enhanced by decreasing numbers of very
large vehicles, and technologies exist to make smaller cars even safer than they are today. 220 In claiming that developing nations' emissions
will far outweigh any savings that may be generated in the United States, there is both a denial for past European and North American
contributions to carbon emissions and an assumption that the automobile future in nations like China must be similar to the U.S. past. Major
automakers will play a part in the kinds of vehicles sold in China, however, and those need not be based on the internal combustion of gasoline
unless there are truly no good economic alternatives. That, in turn, depends on what is meant be "economic" if alternate fuels have a viable
infrastructure, if the full costs of gasoline are factored into its price, and if subsidies to oil could be phased out, other kinds of vehicles could
very well be economical.
Cars die at the same mileage no matter what – consumers can’t drive more miles after the
plan
Andrew N. Kleit and Randall Lutter AEI Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:7bfQEVdkLkgJ:aei-
brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php%3Fid%3D989+%22drive+more%22,+CAFE+standards&hl=en June
2004
In a perhaps somewhat rambling discussion, GL (at 8-10), while agreeing that (at 10) “the rebound effect is real,”
attempt to argue that it is perhaps very small. The core of the argument seems to be stated at page 9: Driving a
vehicle more implies either that a vehicle is scrapped at an earlier age or that they [drivers] put more miles on a
vehicle before scrapping it. This leads to the question of when and why consumers scrap vehicles. If consumers
scrap vehicles purely because they become unfashionable, then we expect that miles driven would increase. If, on
the other extreme, vehicles were “one-hoss shays,” that disintegrate into dust at 150,000 miles, then no additional
miles would be driven with this vehicle. Perhaps better stated, the existence of the rebound effect implies that
either consumers drive their cars more miles, or they purchase cars more quickly after driving their vehicles more
intensely. The second hypothesis seems somewhat unlikely, given that automobile manufacturers do not
generally support higher CAFE standards.
CAFE Affirmative
A2: Safety
We reduce the amount of unsafe vehicles like hummer’s on the road and we have the
technology now to make smaller vehicles safe.
Fuel efficiency would reduce fatalities on the road

Improving fuel economy does not mean making vehicles less safe in crashes. Most of the improvements in fuel
economy can be achieved using more efficient powertrains, which will have no impact on vehicle safety.
Additional gains can be achieved by reducing the weight of light trucks and altering their design to make them less
dangerous to the other vehicles on the road. This strategy would not only improve fuel economy, but would also
reduce the number of fatalities from pickup and SUV crashes.
Safety will increase with less SUVs on the road and tech exists to make small cars more safe
Donald O. Mayer, Professor of Management, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, Vanderbilt Journal of
Transnational Law, March, 2002
The denial of global warming or global climate change as a serious policy problem was part of U.S. automakers' approach to [*626] corporate
advocacy well into the 1990s. 217 Detroit automakers reacted to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 by denying that global climate change was a
problem that needed to be addressed. 218 Other arguments against CAFE have merit, but are also open to debate. It is true that doubling fuel
efficiency for all vehicles - including light trucks - would not necessarily conserve gasoline if people drove twice as much. The majority of
driving, however, is done by commuters; presumably, commuters would not drive to work twice as often, but they might live further from
work. Still, commuting times may already be approaching their maximums in a number of U.S. metropolitan areas. 219 The safety of
smaller cars can be enhanced by decreasing numbers of very large vehicles, and technologies exist to make smaller
cars even safer than they are today. 220 In claiming that developing nations' emissions will far outweigh any savings that may be
generated in the United States, there is both a denial for past European and North American contributions to carbon emissions and an
assumption that the automobile future in nations like China must be similar to the U.S. past. Major automakers will play a part in the kinds of
vehicles sold in China, however, and those need not be based on the internal combustion of gasoline unless there are truly no good economic
alternatives. That, in turn, depends on what is meant be "economic" if alternate fuels have a viable infrastructure, if the full costs of gasoline are
factored into its price, and if subsidies to oil could be phased out, other kinds of vehicles could very well be economical. 221
CAFE Affirmative
A2: CAFÉ Cause High Oil

Cross Apply the Roberts Card from Advantage 1. High oil prices, shocks, economic
depression and war are inevitable in the status quo unless plan is passed.
And High Oil prices means we will be able to transition to hybrid cars more efficiently and
there will be less people driving.
Low oil prices cause scarcity by undermining additions to existing reserves

Leonardo Maugeri, ENI SPA's senior vice-president of corporate strategies and international relations, senior
fellow at the World Economic Laboratory at MIT, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Association, and a member
of the executive council of the Center for Social Investment Studies, degree in petroleum economics and a PhD in
international political economy,, 12/15/2003, Oil & Gas Journal
Given current oil consumption levels, every additional percentage point of recovery means 2 more years in terms
of the life-index of existing reserves. Overall, cost and price are the pivotal variables for increasing reserves.
Cheap oil (i.e., oil with a price that does not significantly exceed the breakeven cost of producing and marketing
oil in the long term) leads to a reduction of investment in both new exploration and technology, thus undermining
future additions to existing reserves
High oil prices are key to the Russian economy

The National Interest, Summer 2003
The improved appearance of Moscow (although not the rest of the country) is indisputable, but it is mainly a
product of the high price of oil. Every dollar difference in the price of oil translates into roughly $1 billion in
budget revenue; a high price for oil has therefore become the key to the government's ability to balance the
budget, pay state employees and repay Russia's foreign debt. If the price should fall significantly and stay
relatively low, as it did in much of the 1980s and 1990s, Russia will be plunged into a severe economic crisis.
The fragile Russian economy is the only thing holding back a Russian civil war and a
worldwide nuclear war.
Steven David, Prof. of political science at Johns Hopkins, 1999, Foreign Affairs
If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50
percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two
percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut
spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for
transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most
analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule
kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships
between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and
medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may
enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another
danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed
forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since
the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system
that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy
collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which
make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against
Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should
the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even
Russia succumb to internal war,
though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from
enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could
easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much
of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the
privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the
violent
disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war,
but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw
material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss
of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and
supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents
the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos
that would follow a Russian civil war.
CAFE Affirmative
A2: CAFÉ Causes Low Oil

Decline in oil prices causes a stock market rally
The Business Times Singapore 9-4-2004
High oil prices and the concerns for higher interest rates have been the two factors that led to the poor performance
of global stock markets this year, and most probably have already been discounted. Therefore, the catalysts for a
stock market rally might be the fall in oil prices, coupled with a belief that John Kerry is winning the US election.
Asian stock market valuations are attractive at current levels despite rising interest rates, and are set to take off as
the US market stabilises or even rallies.
They have no empirical evidence that CAFÉ will lower oil prices. We are going to argue
that high oil prices leads to a market a freakout and the impact of economic collapse and
the case impacts outweigh and come first in this round.
A surge in oil prices would cause an inflationary spiral, hurting the US economy
Jonathan Tepperman, senior editor at Foreign Affairs, 5/1/2004, Charleston Daily Mail
A surge in oil prices would hurt everyone: consumers, by making transportation and heating far more expensive;
and producers, by increasing the cost of their energy and other raw materials. This would raise the price of finished
goods, decreasing sales and hitting consumers yet again. Worse, as we saw in the 1970s, a sudden jump in oil
prices could also cause interest rates to skyrocket, setting off a dangerous inflationary spiral.
High oil prices hurt the global economy. Lower prices are good for the world economy and
especially indebted countries
Don Egginton, June 14, 2004, Oil and Gas Journal
High oil prices hurt the world economy's GDP growth. While GDP is not a complete measure of welfare -- it
misses out environmental costs, for example -- slower growth, especially in the HIPCs, is not to be welcomed. A
stronger case may have been made that high oil prices are good for the world's welfare if McKillop had
highlighted the environmental costs of hydrocarbon fuel use. Does this mean that a very low price is good for the
world economy? Again, ignoring the environmental impacts, the answer is: Yes, in aggregate, the world's GDP will
be greater even if the effects on GDP are smaller due to asymmetry effects. There would be losers, of course,
including the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, but in principle at least they can be
compensated for their losses through transfers from the increase in the world's GDP. In particular, low oil prices
would have significant benefits for HIPCs and, given the predicament of these countries, a rise in their GDP would
have to be a welcome development.
CAFE Affirmative
A2: Oil Shocks

Cross Apply the Roberts Card from Advantage 1. High oil shocks, economic depression and
war are inevitable in the status quo unless plan is passed.
Next Cross-Apply the Second Roberts card. We won’t be able to predict the peak of oil so
we will be unable to respond to oil shocks pre-plan unless we reduce consumption because
oil companies with hold supplies occasionally. And cross-apply our Roberts cards that says
Immediate action is key to soft landing and preventing oil shocks
Shocks are inevitable in the coming energy transition—the only question is our response
This is why, for many energy experts, true change in the global energy system is virtually impossible, except in
response to some serious shock. In this somewhat pessimistic view, the question is not whether the world can
avoid some kind of energy-related disaster, but whether our response will be reactionary and short-term, or
constructive and long-term.
Fuel efficiency would insulate consumers from gas price shocks

Union of Concerned Scientists, 04.19.2004,
The 2004 gasoline price spikes are not new to consumers. Gasoline prices have been spiking for the past four
years, with no relief in sight. The most effective way to insulate consumers from these price spikes is to increase
fuel economy standards, but government has not learned a 30-year lesson: high energy costs combined with low
efficiency hurt the economy. The last four major price shocks (1973-74, the late 1970s/early 1980s, and early
1990's) were all followed by recessions. While today’s gasoline prices may not hit consumers as badly as peaks
during the late 1980’s (due to inflation), current “record” prices are placing a significant drain on the economy—a
drain that could be avoided if consumers had cars and trucks with better fuel economy.
CAFE Affirmative
A2: Transition
The technology exists in SQ for non-fuel dependant vehicles. A federal mandate will lead to
a smooth transition to this technology.
A transition of alternative forms of fossil fuel hasn’t been feasible in the status quo because
they are unable to compete in an oil based market.
Even without hybrids – the tech existed to achieve 48mpg in 1990

Jack Doyle, founder and director of Corporate Sources and its principal investigator 2000, Taken for a Ride, p241-
242
First, Claybrook’s notice found that the auto industry itself had projected on two earlier occasions—once in 1979 and once in 1980—that it
would attain significantly higher fuel economy in the post-1985 period, reaching levels in excess of3o MPG by 1985. Other automakers were
also demonstrating significant gains with new models. Volkswagen, for example, had a four-seat turbocharged Rabbit with a diesel engine that
achieved 6o MPG in a combined EPA test cycle. Assuming industry’s 30 MPG post-1985 levels would continue to rise into the 1990S and
using the industry’s own 1985 plans and financial assumptions, NHTSA proceeded to sketch out a product development/new model scenario
for the Big Three. The agency projected that average fuel economy for GM, Ford, and Chrysler could rise to more
than 40 MPG by 1990 and over 48 MPG by 1995. Claybrook and NHTSA suggested these gains could be made
through a number of production and technological improvements, including the mix of vehicle sizes; utilization of
front-wheel-drive; weight-saving body construction; engine enhancement; transmission improvements; and other
changes. Claybrook and NHTSA sought public and industry feedback on these findings.
First change in fleets will be weight reduction

Jack Doyle, founder & director of Corporate Sources and its principal investigator 2000, Taken for a Ride, p252-3
The suppliers believed that weight reduction throughout various vehicle components was one key way to achieve
the needed fuel economies. Lighter metals for chassis components, casting and wheels, as well as some use of new
plastic compounds, developed jointly with the carmakers, could all make a difference. “Everybody tends to look at
the powertrain for the answer,” explained Landesman, still citing his survey results, “but the majority think that
weight reduction is the first key.” They also pointed to additional efficiency gains through engine enhancements,
the development and wider use of alcohol fuels, improved aerodynamics, and, only as last resort, vehicle
downsizing. The suppliers emphasized they did not want to return to the day of poor performing “econo-boxes”
that gave American cars a bad name.
Tech is a bigger part of fuel efficiency success that weight savings

Jack Doyle, founder and director of Corporate Sources and its principal investigator 2000, Taken for a Ride, p259
An April i~i review of CAFE from 1974 through 1991 completed by the Center for Auto Safety found, in part, that
CAFE improvements over that period came largely from technology, not small cars. CAS found, for example, that
86 percent or ii.8 MPG of the 13.8 MPG improvement during that period came from technologies; 13.1 percent or
only i.8 MPG from weight savings; and only 1.4 percent or 0.2 MPG came from a shift to smaller cars.47
CAFE Affirmative
A2: Increase Dependence

(Can read the Caspian advantage as an answer to these arguments. The Cooper cards says
Caspian oil can’t solve for Mideast dependence. Entering into the Caspian actually will
leave the world more reliant on the Arab world for its oil and gas and with an even clearer
geo-political imperative to ensure supplies remain in friendly hands.)
Next we don’t claim to solve for oil dependence, we just decreases it dramatically. We
transition away from oil related energy sources.
Raising the fuel efficiency standard would immediately diminish US dependence on Middle
Eastern oil
MERRILL GOOZNER, director of the Integrity in Science project at the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, The American Prospect, May, 2004
Not surprisingly, the administration and its oil-industry patrons are alarmed by the growing public awareness that
environmental and national-security issues are converging. Even the Pentagon has begun planning for worst-case
scenarios, such as a coastal deluge caused at least in part by global warming. In last year's State of the Union
address, the president spoke about a clean-fuel technology 20 to 50 years down the road. Meanwhile, he ignores
things that could be done immediately to reduce greenhouse gases and diminish our dependence on Middle
Eastern oil, such as raising the fuel-efficiency standard, eliminating the SUV -- is-a-small-truck loophole, and
providing tax credits for buying and producing hybrid vehicles.

Msdi CafÉ Aff

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

Msdi CafÉ Aff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Missouri State Debate Institute 2008 1

A2: Increase Dependence..............................................................................................................................................55

Immediate action is key to a soft landing

Hard landing ensures global economic collapse causing nuclear Armageddon

Lack of leadership on environmental issues is crippling American hegemony. Increased fuel

Specifically, soft power is key to solving global problems, specifically terrorism

Terrorism ensures extinction

Action Needed For Soft Landing

Inaction causes hard landing

Waiting to change causes a hard landing

Decreasing consumption is key to buy time to solve energy problems

Fuel Inefficiency Increase Oil Use

Fuel Inefficiency Causes Dependence

40mpg Solves Dependence

39mpg Solves Dependence

Small Efficiency Increase Solves Dependence

Fuel Efficiency Solves Dependence

Vehicles are the primary source of emissions and oil consumption

Fuel Efficiency Solves Dependence

Increased fuel efficiency standards massively decreases oil dependence

Efficiency solves energy demand and foreign entanglements*

Increasing auto efficiency solves warming and oil dependence*

Fuel Efficiency Solves Dependence

Energy efficiency key to solve energy crisis

Oil Spills Advantage

Unchecked oil spills will crush marine oxygen production

That kills all life on earth

Strong US-Russian relations are key to prevent escalating war in Georgia

Central Asian instability leads to thermonuclear war

US-Chinese war would be a nuclear showdown

US pursuit of oil interests in the Caspian causes terrorism

Resource War Advantage

Resource War Advantage

Friction between the US and China results in nuclear holocaust

ANWR Advantage (Terror impact)

Pipelines would become targets for terrorist attack.

Bioterrorism causes extinction

ANWR Advantage (Species Impact)

Drilling displaces tons of species

Biodiversity is key to preventing extinction

ANWR Advantage (Culture)

Drilling in the ANWR will wipe out tribal cultures.

Cultural survival is key to human survival

CAFÉ Solves Caspian Instability

Increased CAFÉ prevents ANWR drilling

2ac Add-on: Power Wars

Another power war causes extinction.

2ac Add-on: Proliferation

Multilateralism is key to non-proliferation

Nuclear proliferation causes nuclear war

2ac Add-on: Trade War

Unilateralism causes trade conflict

Trade wars go nuclear

2ac Add-on: Mideast War

Mideast war escalates and goes nuclear

2ac Add-on: Pollution

Pollution Threatens Billions of People

Increase Auto Industry

Environment friendly autos are key to global market share

CAFÉ Key U.S. Auto Industry

CAFÉ Boost Economy

A/T: Consumers will Drive More

Fuel efficiency would reduce fatalities on the road

A2: CAFÉ Cause High Oil