You are on page 1of 6

Shipsey 1NR.



Inherency and Jobs DA


And DA extensions
Inherency: DA so far.

Superfund tax being reinstated. Shipsey concedes but says he implements now so we get
another year of Supertax.

Uniqueness: Tax isn’t reinstated until the economy recovers in 2011.

DA: In a time of economic crisis, we can’t enact a ‘Job Killer’ Tax.

DA card with better warrants than the last one… here.

Superfund tax will impact the chemical industry in a time of economic crises

Cal Dooley (CEO, American Chemistry Council) Published by National Journal Expert Blogs Energy & Environment at "Should The U.S. Resurrect Superfund?" Published
March 2, 2009; accessed August 29, 2009

The chemistry industry is facing unprecedented financial challenges. Reinstating

Superfund taxes would unduly impact the business of chemistry at a time of economic
crisis. Reinstating the chemical excise tax would impose a $310 to $450 million cost on
chemical manufacturing every year, even though the products subject to the tax are not
necessarily associated with Superfund cleanups. Reinstating the tax on just two products
— chlorine and ammonia — would essentially offset any economic return on sales to
current producers, making those segments non-competitive in the global market.
Moreover, an excise tax on chlorine would increase the cost of disinfecting water; while
the cost of fertilizer (which depends on ammonia) would also increase. Reinstating the
corporate environmental income tax would add another tax burden on an industry already
affected by significantly higher fuel and feedstock and increased global competition. The
U.S. is already losing production and jobs to other areas of the world where energy costs
are lower.

Impact: Patrick enacts a job killing Superfund tax before the economy recovers before the
economy recovers which is bad. If you even like the Superfund tax, you should vote neg
because the squo provides all the benefits and avoids the Job Killing DA.
Justification 1: More cleanups.

He says states aren’t a valid method of comparison. He uses Adler ‘8 to support his point
by saying the fed sites are waaaaaaaaay bigger. But, he failed to quote the next three or
four sentences that still show that the states are a valid method of comparison.

Adler ‘8 Shipsey’s same study………

Without question, some so-called “mega sites” in the federal program are the largest, most
complex, and most difficult sites to remediate in the nation. Such sites may demand continued
federal involvement. Yet there is no reasons states cannot assume greater authority for the
majority of sites now handled under the federal Superfund program. Transferring primary
regulatory authority over hazardous waste to state and local governments could lead to
substantial environmental improvements. A lessening of federal regulatory requirements could
induce states to further enhance their own programs.153 Furthermore, insofar as hazardous waste
policy involves trade-offs among competing subjective values, decentralized control would lead
to greater accountability and consideration of competing environmental policy goals.

MPX: States still work on more and do more. No significant increase in cleanups.
Response 2: Shipsey talks about states having more resources… not true.

1. According to Newswire, a national news release service, in 1995, State action is

Newswire (U.S. Newswire is a U.S. national news release wire service established in 1986 and distributes media materials on
behalf of a variety of customers particularly the U.S. government and non-profit agencies.)
Published at
"Think Tank Says 'Turn Superfund Over to States'; State-Level Cleanup Programs Cost Less, Take Less Time Than Federal
Program" Published September 18, 1995; accessed December 22, 2009

"Dr. J. Winston Porter, president of the Waste Policy Center in Leesburg, Va. and author
of the study that recommends that Superfund be turned over to the states where over 40
states already have their own waste site cleanup programs. According to Porter, "The
states are spending about $700 million annually working on about 11,000 sites, while the
EPA spends approximately $1 billion annually dealing with about 1,000 sites. While
federal Superfund sites can sit in limbo for over a decade before cleanup begins, state-
level cleanup programs, such as those in Minnesota, can routinely take only two or three
We see that states clean more with less…

Response 3: More cleanups does NOTHING. There’s no risk in the first place.

Most Superfund "risks" don't pose a threat to human health.

Cross apply 2NC cards saying that the sites left on the NPL pose ZERO risk to human
Impact: NO Decrease in health risks. No unique offence. No justifications. AND a neg

Justification 2: Preemption eliminates abuse because it triggers my DA. He’s dead now.
Turn all his responses on eliminating abuse because of a threat of trial because he’s
advocating those unjust trials. The only reason that any abuse could be eliminated is
because he’s threatening to try them with the unfair trial system.

Justification 3: Environmental Justice. I’m going to turn this even harder. Right now, he
can’t prove any tangible impacts for minorities waiting for cleanups and I turn
environmental justice with the lack of due process. But now let’s look at how the opinion of
Minorities is the ONLY deciding factor in what gets cleaned up with Superfund.
1. Political Pressure is the ONLY factor in determining cleanups
Daniel K. Benjamin (Research Fellow at the Independant Institute and the Property and Environment Research Center.)
Published at
"Superfund Follies" [PERC Reports: Volume 17,
No.4]. Published December 1, 1999; accessed January 26, 2010
"What could possibly lead to such abysmal decision-making by the EPA? The answer, it
seems, is plain old politics. Viscusi and Hamilton use local voter turnout as their proxy
for political pressure. They find that higher turnout pushes the EPA into more
stringent cleanups--and does so in the worst possible manner. For sites with cost-
effectiveness at the median or better, political forces actually have little effect. But at
the most inefficient sites, where costs per cancer case averted are in the billions,
political factors have their strongest effect. Thus, in answer to the question: does
politics matter in determining EPA policy, the answer is "yes"--by inducing local
EPA managers to pursue ridiculously costly cleanups. For anyone who doubts that
Superfund ranks with the worst of Congress's policy choices, I can only hope that this
study will end their skepticism."
Impact: Political will is the only reason for tougher cleanups.

So now Environmental Justice has been turned with a massive DA. Inherency has linked
me with a jobs loss DA. His other two Justifications are totally shot and now let’s extend
the waste DA.

1. Can solve 99.5% of cancers with 5% of expenditures

Daniel K. Benjamin (Research Fellow at the Independant Institute and the Property and Environment Research Center.)
Published at
"Superfund Follies" [PERC Reports: Volume 17,
No.4]. Published December 1, 1999; accessed January 26, 2010
"In a study actually funded by the EPA, Kip Viscusi and James Hamilton (1999)
have found that EPA cleanups of Superfund sites cost an average of almost $12
billion for every cancer case prevented. Even more amazing is that virtually all--99.5
percent--of the cancer cases that will be averted by EPA efforts are prevented by the
first 5 percent of the agency's expenditures. The remaining 95 percent of
expenditures avert only 0.5 percent of the cancer cases--at a cost per case of an
astonishing $200 billion."
If waste didn’t flow NEG at the end of the 2AC. It absolutely does now. With its total of 30
billion dollars in expenditures, Superfund, according to these numbers, has averted a
grand total of two… maybe three cancer cases. MPX: No substantial cleanup

Overview of the round so far.

Inh. – Shipsey concedes that Prez Obama will pass by 2011. Squo avoids economics DA and
if Obama doesn’t pass, Squo doesn’t funnel money into a failed black hole. Shipsey
however, passes the plan now triggering huge job losses.

Justification 1: More cleanups. Not only does Patrick link to no increases in health benefits,
he doesn’t provide ANY advantages. Cr of net benefits fails and instead we have a net disad
through Jobs loss, Waste, and Injustice DA’s.

Justification 2: Preemption Effect – How it’s flowing now – Preemption effect only happens
because of absolutely terrible injustice. There isn’t a risk to the sites, AND people who
didn’t even pollute the sites are being forced to pay.

Justification 3: Environmental justice – straight turned. Environmental injustice and his

evidence doesn’t have any articulated impact and no health risks impacts as I’ve shown
there ARE NO health risks. Further, political pressure is the ONLY deciding factor in the
pace of cleanups and how well things are cleaned up.

DA 1. Waste : Flowing neg because Superfund has stopped a max of 3 cancer cases with 30
billion dollars. I carry articulated impacts, this alone is a net DA. Shipsey will argue
uniqueness but the fact remains we’re throwing more money into a black hole.

DA 2. Injustice. Flat conceded in the 2AC – Shipsey stands ZERO chance of getting out of
this one as he’s conceded uniqueness that Superfund can’t sue in the squo. DA 2 flows neg

DA 3. Nuclear war. I win also because with Shipsey bleeding out at the feet of Hillary
Clinton, he’s been smacked by a WOMAN PRESIDENT because she’d succeed Obama if
he gets Biden and Pelosi also. (Worse impacts if Shipsey doesn’t get Pelosi).

You’re voting neg.