2NC.

OPERATION MINTY
HIPPO IS IN EFFECT.
Deep Ecology Kritik
First let's do the overview. Wolkie straight concedes the framework, the impacts, and the alternative.
All I have to do to win the round is prove that he links in ONE way, and it's game over. So let's do that
now.

His link responses.

1.)“Cross-x doesn't link”: First of all, there was a misunderstanding. He thought I was basing this
completely off the joke he made in cross-ex. I'm not. He says he hasn't shown any “nuke the whale”
attitude, just that human life is more important than beetle life. That's somewhat the point. The entire
point of the K is that your ecology is SHALLOW ecology- that nature is good, but not vital, it's cool to
have, but we wouldn't miss it that much if we could survive without it. We need to recognize how vital
nature and the biosphere are, and stop perceiving ourselves as inherently outside or “other” than it,
because we're not. However, that wasn't the only link. Note that his criterion of public health was
ENTIRELY about humans, and the criterion is intended to say “hey, look at public health, not xyz other
issue.” If we had brought up an ecological disad and not challenged the criterion, you can bet dollas to
doughnuts that he'd have spiked out of it.
2.)“Our admission”: Judge, it's fine to solve problems that only affect humans. That's true, but that's
not the point. The point is that he only cares about nature as far as it can be used to help humans. You'll
note that even though he had 600 more words to use in the 1AC, there's no mention of the ecological
damage of the pollution, the ecosystems destroyed by the toxins in the water. It's fine to solve problems
that only affect humans, as long as you still approach the problems from a deep ecological standpoint,
which he doesn't do.
3.)“Not our plan.” Judge, this would be a good response if this were a disadvantage, but it's not. It's a
kritik. What this card does is identify the mindset of shallow ecology. Obviously, the mindset is going
to translate into reality a little differently in different circumstances, but the core ideology remains the
same. He's still not approaching what's an environmental issue from a deep ecological standpoint.
4.)“Benefits the environment.” Judge, again, it's not a disad. We aren't arguing about the post-fiat
affects of the plan, we're talking about the pre-fiat mindset of the team. Sure, the plan benefits the
environment, but that doesn't matter because they don't value the environment for its own sake, they
don't see it as integral to human survival and identity, they see it as a tool, and that links in to the K.

In c-x he said that the counter-K was a joke, so don't weigh it in the round, plz, kthxbai.
COUNTERPLAN
1.)Subsidies:
A.) It helps. Judge, he makes no contention that hemp DOESN'T need subsidies, which means that to
win this part of the debate I only need to say that they help. If subsidies can HELP hemp energy,
exactly as they've done with ethanol, then this part of the debate flows Neg.
B.) Contradicts solvency: Look, his contention under solvency contradicts this- he says hemp doesn't
need subsidies, and then he says it can't replace coal. If it can't replace coal, it obviously needs
subsidies. If it's so awesome that it doesn't need to be subsidized like every other form of energy, then it
can obviously replace coal.
2.)Solvency:
A.) Cross-apply everything in the response above.
B.) His cards: Judge, if “can” and “will” are so mad different, let's look at the qualifiers in HIS cards!
Under point 1 of his advantage of “cleaner air”, his card in the unread portion says the goal was to
show that the systems COULD decrease pollution. Obviously, he's going to defend that “could” in that
instance means “will” when viewed in the context of his plan, so let's look at...
C.) What they mean: Our author says hemp “can” replace coal because hemp is currently deadlocked.
Obviously he doesn't say it “will” replace coal, because nobody's growing it because it's illegal. If we
make it possible to grow it (which we do) and people start growing it (which they will), then that “can”
becomes a “will”, just like the “could” in his card becomes a “would” when the systems of his plan get
enacted.
D.) Incentives created: Judge, the incentives are created when hemp opens up. Coal companies are
fundamentally profit-seeking just like the rest of us. As we've contended and he says under the
“subsidies” point, hemp makes economic sense. At that point, a good buddy of mine named Adam
Smith comes in with the invisible hand, and people start making hemp energy, which then replaces
coal.
3.)Exclusivity:
A.) That's what you get - theoretically, you could have both coal and hemp, but not under the plans
presented in the round. It was HIS choice to specify funding in the 1AC, not ours. If you want the
benefits of specifying funding, you've got to accept the risks. Don't punish me for his shoddy plan
writing and extra-topical mandates.
B.) In-round plans only- Only the plans in the round matter, otherwise this faux-perm strategy will
always win. If the affirmative can compare their plan to non-existent counterplans with different
funding, the neg has no chance because he steals ALL counterplan ground.
C.) Not a perm- He never makes any articulation that the USFG should do both, or that the alleged
(and incorrect) “lack of exclusivity” means the aff is still a good idea. Instead, he throws around
buzzwords like “exclusivity” instead of making arguments. Don't do his work for him, and don't
assume it's a perm until he says it is.
D.) No perm text- Even if he tries to clarify and say “oh yeah it's a perm”, he presents no perm text
which is MAD abusive because I can't access a stable advocacy to leverage offense on. Can't have the
perm debate if I don't know what the perm IS.
4.)O-Spec:
I mostly covered this on the Ospec. Bottom line, it's a double bind. If he keeps running the exclusivity
theory on the CP, you pull the trigger on the O-spec and he loses instantly. If I kick the CP, same thing.
5.) Energy independence bogus:
What the heck? Judge, this advantage is off-case. I'm not talking about independence from COAL here,
I'm talking about independence from oil. Oil dependence is bad, and we solve for it. We also solve for
coal- our card under the “WE SOLVE CASE” 1NC contention says that hemp can replace “ALL fossil
fuels”. That's coal and it's also oil. Both are bad, and we solve both.
6.)Timeline:
1.) Magnitude outweighs- Judge, it might take a long time to stop coal, but when we do, not only will
we solve his harms, but we also solve all the other reasons that coal is bad- stripmining, black lung,
miner deaths, et cetera.
2.) No proof- We've seen no basis for him thinking that replacing coal would take a long time. We
solve at THE SPEED OF FREE ENTERPRISE.
3.) Him too!- We've seen no timeline for HIS plan, either! For all we know, it could take just as long
for his plan to work. He claims in cross-ex that it's “40-50 plants per year”, but we've seen no cards that
say that's even possible, and it sure as HECK isn't in the plan text, so you should disregard his
response.
7.)Infrastructure:
1.) Yes there is- Our cards mention that hemp can be made into ethanol. We can use existing ethanol
distilleries for that.
2.) Free market- If there's demand, the free market inevitably steps in, bro. There's demand, so as soon
as we legalize hemp and prime that pump bidness with the subsidies, all of a sudden, there's MONEY
TO BE MADE!
8.)Irresponsibility:
1.) Hemp needs help- His argument contradicts his solvency argument where he claims that hemp
won't stop coal. If it can't stop coal it obviously needs our help.
2.) Non-unique to squo- Obama's wasting BAJILLIONS of dollars in the squo. DA is non-unique.
3.) Non-unique to the plan- If it's wasting money for us to be doing the counterplan, which gets all of
his advantages plus more, then it's obviously ALSO wasting money for him to be doing the plan using
the same funding, because he doesn't get HALF the advantages that the counterplan does. If we waste
money, he wastes money.
4.) No impact- Wasted money isn't an impact, dogg. We've seen no damage to the economy, no damage
to the environment, no damage to human life. Just “wasted money”, which sounds TERRIBLE, but
doesn't outweigh the CP advantages, not by a long shot.
9.)Evidence date:
1.) Recession doesn't stop- There's no internal link between the recession and stopping investment
besides “people won't spend.” Actually, they will, because...
2.) Recession BOOSTS innovation!- Historically, people make big breakthroughs when they're most
desperate for money. In a thriving economy, you go with what works. In a bad economy, “what works”
isn't working, so you're forced to try new things. Things like hemp. Everybody's trying to make them
some money, and hemp is the place to do it.
CP Advantages
We're going to be articulating exactly why the fact that hemp solves for coal is awesome. What
I'm saying is that I'm unleashing Burl.

1.) Coal mining kills hundreds of thousands.

Jeff Biggers [Writer for The Washington Post], “'Clean' Coal? Don't Try to Shovel That.”, published
by the Washington Post, March 2, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html
“Here's the hog-killing reality that a coal miner like Burl or my grandfather knew firsthand: No
matter how "cap 'n trade" schemes pan out in the distant future for coal-fired plants, strip mining and
underground coal mining remain the dirtiest and most destructive ways of making energy.
Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly.
More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have
died from black lung disease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and
water. The injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable.”

2.)Strip mining trashes biodiversity, communities, and the environment

Rebecca Lindsey [Member of NASA's Earth Science News Team], “Coal Controversy In Appalachia”,
published by NASA's Earth Observatory, December 21, 2007
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MountaintopRemoval/
“When it comes to coal, perhaps the only thing more controversial than what to do about the
heat-trapping carbon dioxide it generates is what to do about the social and environmental costs of
getting it out of the ground. Nowhere is the debate over how far we are willing to go for inexpensive
energy more contentious than in the coalfields of the Appalachian Mountains, where technology and
engineering have allowed the scale of surface coal mines to reach gigantic proportions.

The most controversial mines are known as mountaintop removal mines because coal companies
literally remove the tops of mountains with dynamite and earth-moving machines, called draglines, in
order to reach coal seams. The waste rock—the remains of the mountains—is piled into neighboring
hollows in towering earthen dams called valley fills. The largest fills can approach 800 feet in height
and swallow more than a mile of streambed. In southern West Virginia, where the practice is most
widespread, some of these behemoth mines are several thousand acres and still growing.

The scale of these mines is matched by the social and environmental problems they create.
Downstream of mountaintop removal and valley fill sites, water quality and stream life are often
degraded. Water, streambed sediments, and fish tissue often harbor concentrations of potentially
toxic trace elements, including nickel, lead, cadmium, iron, and selenium, that exceed
government standards. The diversity of fish and other aquatic life declines. Hundreds of
thousands of acres of some of the world’s most biologically diverse forests outside of the tropics
have been lost or degraded, and, to date, efforts to restore them have had limited success. Valley
fills have worsened flash flooding during heavy rain events. Blasting has cracked house
foundations. Floods from the collapse of valley fills and coal sludge impoundments, though rare,
have devastated some watersheds and communities.

Since the late 1990s, environmental groups and coalfield residents have brought lawsuits against coal
operators and regulatory agencies over these mines. Using streams as a landfill for mining waste is
illegal under the Clean Water Act, they argue, and the flattened ridge lines and valley fills are a
violation of the core requirement of the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act: that mining
companies restore the land to its original shape—the “approximate original contour”—as best they can.
Variances could be granted if the coal operator offered specific plans for post-mining development that
would benefit the community, such as schools, housing, or shopping centers, but in most cases, the
development never materialized.
In West Virginia, the rise in lawsuits created a demand for a state-wide accounting of the impact of
mountaintop removal mines, which the agencies responsible for regulating them—the federal Office of
Surface Mining, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection—could not initially provide. They couldn’t say conclusively say how many mountaintop
removal mines existed, how many streams had been buried by valley fills, how many “approximate
original contour” variances had been granted, or whether the promised reclamation and development
had actually occurred.
As part of a settlement of a 1998 lawsuit over a mountaintop removal mine near Blair, West Virginia,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed to conduct an environmental impact study on
the cumulative impact of mountaintop removal mining, which it published in 2005. In the
roughly 12-million-acre region of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and
eastern Tennessee where mountaintop removal mining takes place, nearly 7 percent of the land
had been or would be disturbed by mountaintop removal mines between 1992-2012. More than
1,200 miles of streams had been degraded by mountaintop removal mining. At least 724 miles of
streams were completely buried by valley fills between 1985 and 2001. Permits issued since then
will affect thousands of additional acres and hundreds of miles of streams.