You are on page 1of 41

NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5

Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

NEG – CO2 Deregulation – CON


SOURCE INDICTMENTS.......................................................................................................2
1. Heritage Associates..........................................................................................................................................2

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 1 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

2) Ocean Acidification
SOURCE INDICTMENTS
1. Heritage Associates
Heritage associates lack credentials and value quantity over accuracy

Norman Solomon [founder & executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a national consortium of policy
researchers & analysts], “The Media’s Favorite Think Tank: How the Heritage Foundation Turns Money into Media,” Extra! A publication of
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, July/August 1996, http://www.fair.org/extra/9607/heritage.html [FW]

Professor Lawrence Soley* of Marquette University observes that ‘among beltway think
“But in his book The News Shapers,
tanks, Heritage associates have the weakest scholarly credentials.’ Instead of seeking quality, ‘the Heritage
Foundation appears to strive for quantity’ – feeding a glut of material to Congress & the news media. He adds that ‘the
biggest names at this think tank are not thinkers, but former Republican officials.’ (These days they include Heritage ‘fellows’ Edwin
Meese, Jack Kemp & William Bennett, all highly paid for their expertise.) ‘Given the backgrounds of individuals at the Heritage Foundation, there
is little question as to why it is more accomplished at lobbying than research.’ Soley describes Heritage position
papers as ‘sophomoric’ (which means ‘unsophisticated’ or ‘immature’).”

*Soley is a Professor of Communication at Marquette University with a Ph.D. from Michigan State University

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 2 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

INHERENCY
1. Lawsuits Can Block Regulations
The Competitive Enterprise Institute plans to file a lawsuit against the EPA if they regulate large power
plants

Julie Schmit [writer for USA Today], “EPA’s carbon dioxide emissions ruling could raise energy costs,” Article Published by USA
Today, December 8, 2009, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-12-08-carbontoll08_ST_N.htm [PB]

“The EPA’s decision is expected to face legal challenges. Shortly after the announcement, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, a public interest group, said it would file a lawsuit to overturn the EPA’s finding on the grounds
that EPA ignored scientific issues around global climate modeling.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 3 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

2. If the Problem Gets too Big, Congress Can Step in


Everybody – including the EPA – wants congress to do the regulation/legislation, and if congress wants to,
they may override or retain the EPA’s regulations

Julie Schmit [writer for USA Today], “EPA’s carbon dioxide emissions ruling could raise energy costs,” Article Published by USA
Today, December 8, 2009, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-12-08-carbontoll08_ST_N.htm [PB]

“Instead of EPA regulation, industry wants Congress to pass climate change legislation to limit carbon emissions – a
stance also taken by the EPA and the White House. Such efforts are underway in the House and Senate. That way,
emission cuts could be made more strategically and ‘soften the impact on consumers,’ says Dan Riedinger of the
Edison Electric Institute, a power industry trade group. He says energy costs will ‘go up more under EPA regulation.’ As a result of EPA regulation, U.S.
companies could also face higher operating costs than foreign competitors, says Larry Kavanagh of the American Iron and Steel Institute. The [American Iron and Steel]
institute wants legislation crafted to help U.S. companies stay competitive – while still cutting emissions – via trade
measures, rebates and other incentives. Congress could override EPA’s regulations or retain them.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 4 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

3. Legislation May Block Regulations


1. Legislation had been presented to prevent EPA regulations of GHGs

Nick Loris [Research Assistant at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies; studies energy,
environment and regulation issues such as the economic impacts of climate change legislation, a free market approach to nuclear energy and the
effects of environmental policy on energy prices and the economy; ], “Legislation Would Block EPA’s CO2 Regulations,” The Heritage
Foundation, January 11, 2010, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/11/legislation-would-block-epa%E2%80%99s-co2-regulations/ [PB]

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to do what Congress couldn’t: regulate carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases because allegedly ‘greenhouse gases threaten both the public health and the public
welfare, and that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to that threat.’ To prevent this backdoor
policy that would grant the EPA unprecedented authority over American economy, Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) introduced legislation on
Friday that would prohibit the agency from implementing national greenhouse gas emissions standards.”

2. Senator Lisa Murkowski has threatened to block the EPA’s funding for GHG regulations, and she’s
thinking about doing it again – this may be successful

David Roberts [the primary staff writer for Grist Magazine], “Hanging EPA regulations around Democrats’ necks,” Article Published
by Grist Magazine [online environmental publication, hailed the most recognizable voice in environmental journalism], January 20,
2010, http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-20-hanging-epa-regulations-around-democrats-necks/ [PB] [brackets added]

“Last year, [Senator Lisa] Murkowski threatened to attach a rider to the annual EPA funding bill that would block
funding for implementation of GHG [regulations]. It would have been a political disaster, [blocked] not only regulations on
power plants and factories (so-called stationary sources) but the auto efficiency increases that have already been carefully
worked out between EPA and the Department of Transportation. [Senator Harry] Reid managed to talk her out of it,
but she’ll be emboldened by the loss of the Democratic supermajority and Reid, well, he [has] got lots of problems on his
hands these days. [Murkowski’s] office has said she’s considering trying [to block EPA funding for regulation of
greenhouse gases] again. I wrote about this tactic in a previous post – the idea is to piggyback on an appropriations bill, which
requires only a bare majority to pass. Since appropriations bills contain all kinds of goodies for all kinds of congress-critters,
there’s lots of pressure to vote for them. This is how Republicans blocked Clinton’s efforts to boost CAFE standards
for almost five years.”

3. Murkowski may also introduce an amendment that would block EPA regulations on stationary sources (i.e.
the large power plants the EPA plans to regulate)

David Roberts [the primary staff writer for Grist Magazine], “Hanging EPA regulations around Democrats’ necks,” Article Published
by Grist Magazine [online environmental publication, hailed the most recognizable voice in environmental journalism], January 20,
2010, http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-20-hanging-epa-regulations-around-democrats-necks/ [PB]

Murkowski may or may not introduce a more carefully tailored amendment that would block the EPA only from
“Today,
implementing regulations on stationary sources (it will be attached to a bill on raising the debt ceiling). She’s been wavering on whether to put forward the
amendment, which her ally Sen. Chuck Grassley conceded on Monday has little chance of passing. She caught a ton of heat last week when it emerged that she’d written it in consultation to a
pair of dirty energy lobbyists at Bracewell Giuliani, and it’s only been building. That will probably burn her enough to make her back off this time. But the same amendment could
be attached to any number of bills going forward.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 5 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

SIGNIFICANCE
1. The Harms of CO2 Regulations Predicted by Heritage Will Result from a COST on CO2
The harms that that the affirmative team says will be caused refer to an actual cost on CO2

Ben Lieberman [J.D.; attorney; Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies at The Heritage Foundation] & Nicolas Loris [Research Assistant, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies], “Five
Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming,” The Heritage Foundation, April 23, 2009,
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm2407.cfm [PB]

“Since 85% of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, imposing a COST on CO2 is
equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon
dioxide cuts found cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars), single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years (in
inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars), energy cost increases of 30 percent or more, and annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing, which will see job
losses in some industries that exceed 50%.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 6 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

2. The EPA Will Just Regulate Power Plants and Increase CAFÉ
1. LINK #1: Part of the EPA’s plan will increase fuel efficiency

Dave Michaels, “EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gases gets criticism, cheers in Texas,” Article Published by the Dallas Morning
News, December 8, 2009, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120809dnbuseparule.428e4c7.html [PB]

“The EPA can also now move toward limiting carbon emissions from automobiles, power plants and factories. The agency says
it plans to complete a rule in the spring that would require a 40 percent increase in the fuel efficiency of cars and
light-duty trucks.”

2. LINK #2: Other than that, the EPA is just requiring plants and factories that emit over 25,000 tons of CO2
to implement better control technology – this would leave out farms, commercial buildings and hospitals

Dave Michaels, “EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gases gets criticism, cheers in Texas,” Article Published by the Dallas Morning
News, December 8, 2009, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120809dnbuseparule.428e4c7.html [PB]

“Separately, the EPA has proposed that power plants and factories that emit over 25,000 metric tons of carbon-
dioxide equivalent gases per year install what is called the ‘best available control technology’ to limit emissions. A
study by Duke University found that large power plants, oil refineries, lime manufacturers and most paper mills would have to comply with the proposed rule. But
farms, commercial buildings and most hospitals would fall outside its scope.”

3. IMPACT: EPA is not placing a cost on CO2, they are merely making big polluters use better technology –
which will save us in the long run because pollution causes more problems than global warming (lung cancer,
for example)

Dave Michaels, “EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gases gets criticism, cheers in Texas,” Article Published by the Dallas Morning
News, December 8, 2009, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120809dnbuseparule.428e4c7.html [PB]

“The EPA says limits on carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases would benefit Texans, who suffer the health
effects of increased pollution and more severe storms caused by global warming.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 7 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

3. The EPA Plans to Exempt Small Businesses from Regulations


1. EPA will just require large polluters to obtain permits showing they will use the best available technologies
to control pollution, and they must only do this before they construct or significantly modify their facilities –
not a huge burden if you ask me
2. The EPA has just reported that it is only regulating large polluters in order that no burden be placed on
the economy
3. EPA plans to reduce emissions from automobiles, power plants and manufacturers only
4. GHG rules are to exempt small businesses
5. EPA is giving assurance that small and medium businesses will not be regulated, and is merely sending a
message to the big polluters that they can be regulated
6. The Obama administration will exempt small businesses from regulations
7. Small businesses would be excluded to prevent strain on economy
8. Currently only power plants are regulated for CO2

1. EPA will just require large polluters to obtain permits showing they will use the best available technologies
to control pollution, and they must only do this before they construct or significantly modify their facilities –
not a huge burden if you ask me

Climate Progress, “Breaking: New EPA rule will require use of best technologies to reduce greenhouse gases from large facilities when
‘constructed or significantly modified’ – small businesses and farms exempt,” Reporting Breaking News and quoting the Los
Angeles Times, September 30, 2009, http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/30/big-breaking-news-new-epa-rule-will-require-use-of-best-
technologies-to-reduce-greenhouse-gases-from-large-facilities-when-constructed-or-significantly-modified-small-businesses-and-farms-exe/
[PB]

“LOS ANGELES – U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce today in a keynote address at the
California Governor’s Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator will announce a proposal requiring large
industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits
covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy
efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.”

2. The EPA has just reported that it is only regulating large polluters in order that no burden be placed on
the economy

Climate Progress, “Breaking: New EPA rule will require use of best technologies to reduce greenhouse gases from large facilities when
‘constructed or significantly modified’ – small businesses and farms exempt,” quoting EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, September
30, 2009, http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/30/big-breaking-news-new-epa-rule-will-require-use-of-best-technologies-to-reduce-greenhouse-
gases-from-large-facilities-when-constructed-or-significantly-modified-small-businesses-and-farms-exe/ [PB]

“‘By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest
greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority
of our economy,’ said EPA Administrator Jackson. ‘This is a common sense rule that is carefully tailored to apply to
only the largest sources – those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
sources. This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive
technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an
undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.’”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 8 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

3. EPA plans to reduce emissions from automobiles, power plants and manufacturers only

Dave Michaels, “EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gases gets criticism, cheers in Texas,” Article Published by the Dallas Morning
News, December 8, 2009, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120809dnbuseparule.428e4c7.html [PB]

“The Environmental Protection Agency said Monday that greenhouse gases spewed by power plants, oil refineries
and vehicles constitute a public health threat, a verdict that positions the government to set new limits on global-warming
emissions. Such rules would have a significant effect on Texas, which emits more heat-trapping gases than any other state. The ‘endangerment finding’ allows
the EPA to pursue limits on carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and to require power plants and
manufacturers to install technology that reduces such emissions.”

4. GHG rules are to exempt small businesses

Dave Michaels, “EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gases gets criticism, cheers in Texas,” Article Published by the Dallas Morning
News, December 8, 2009, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120809dnbuseparule.428e4c7.html [PB]

“Governor Rick Perry filed a 38-page rebuttal of the EPA’s proposal and said the ruling continues a pattern of
‘aggressive federal encroachment into every farm, business, church and household in America.’ The EPA and other
researchers, however, have said greenhouse gas rules would exempt small businesses.”

5. EPA is giving assurance that small and medium businesses will not be regulated, and is merely sending a
message to the big polluters that they can be regulated

Dave Michaels, “EPA plan to regulate greenhouse gases gets criticism, cheers in Texas,” Article Published by the Dallas Morning
News, December 8, 2009, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/120809dnbuseparule.428e4c7.html [PB]
[brackets added]

“‘What we’ve done is primarily deregulatory,’ [EPA Administrator Lisa] Jackson said. ‘It’s given assurances to
small businesses and medium businesses that they would not be regulated, while giving a clear signal to larger
emitters... that regulations can come under the Clean Air Act.’”

6. The Obama administration will exempt small businesses from regulations

Steve Gorman [journalist for Reuters] & Peter Henderson [journalist for Reuters], “EPA to exempt small business from greenhouse
rule,” Article published by Reuters [a reliable news source], September 30, 2009,
http://www.reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE58T7GF20091001 [BK]

The Obama administration moved on Wednesday to exempt small businesses from new industrial
“LOS ANGELES -
smokestack controls on emissions of carbon dioxide and other planet-warming greenhouse gases. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency said its proposed greenhouse rule would require only large industrial facilities to
install the most up-to-date emissions control equipment and energy-efficiency measures when they are built or
modified. The regulations would apply to power plants, refineries and factories that emit at least 25,000 tons of
greenhouse gas emissions a year.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 9 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

7. Small businesses would be excluded to prevent strain on economy

Steve Gorman [journalist for Reuters] & Peter Henderson [journalist for Reuters], “EPA to exempt small business from greenhouse
rule,” Article published by Reuters [a reliable news source], September 30, 2009,
http://www.reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE58T7GF20091001 [BK]

“The regulations would apply to power plants, refineries and factories that emit at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse
gas emissions a year. Businesses such as farms, restaurants and other smaller facilities would be excluded to avoid
placing an undue strain on the economy, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in announcing the proposal. ‘We
have carefully targeted our efforts to exempt the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses,’ Jackson said
at a global climate conference in Los Angeles. ‘We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful
carbon reductions.’”

8. Currently only power plants are regulated for CO2

Randy Lee Loftis [reporter for Dallas News], “Public Citizen sues state, urging regulation of carbon dioxide emission,” Article
Published in Dallas News, October 7, 2009, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-
texaswarming_07pro.ART.State.Edition1.4c39379.html [BK]

“The EPA said last week that it intends to require CO2 controls on new power plants and other major industrial
facilities. It also plans to require major sources to count and report their emissions. Currently, only power plants
report their carbon dioxide to the EPA. Texas emitted 677 million tons of carbon dioxide from coal-burning plants in
2007, Public Citizen said; five new plants awaiting permits and six others permitted in the past four years would add
77 million tons a year, the group estimated.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 10 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

4. Endangerment Finding
1. Endangerment finding only allows EPA to regulate new motor vehicle (i.e. CAFÉ standards) – that’s all
2. The narrow endangerment finding may mean an NAAQS program in the future, but this would only allow
for the EPA to regulate large power plants and refineries (which EPA doesn’t even want to do) – hardly an
economy-killing power grab
3. What’s the impact of the endangerment finding? It doesn’t give the EPA power to destroy the economy –
only to regulate new cars
4. The findings do not impose anything on the industry – the findings are for light-vehicle regulations

1. Endangerment finding only allows EPA to regulate new motor vehicle (i.e. CAFÉ standards) – that’s all

Nathan Richardson [a Visiting Scholar at Resources for the Future], “The Endangerment Finding: What Does It Actually Do?”
Published in Weathervane [a Climate Policy Blog from Resources for the Future], December 10, 2009,
http://www.rff.org/wv/archive/2009/12/07/regulating-ghgs-can-the-epa-dodge-two-trains.aspx [PB]

“First, coverage of the endangerment finding has focused on what it does or enables, and hardly at all on what it
does not do. The finding is actually very limited. There are a lot of regulatory programs under the broad umbrella of the CAA, and the endangerment finding only
applies to one of them. Specifically, it only allows the EPA to regulate GHGs from new motor vehicles. Transportation sector emissions are
about 30% of total U.S. GHG emissions, and this includes emissions from aircraft and other non-road vehicles not covered by the endangerment finding. In other words, the
endangerment finding only allows the EPA to regulate sources responsible for somewhere around a quarter of U.S.
emissions, and even then only through new vehicles as they enter the market. The EPA also doesn’t have unlimited
powers to regulate even this slice of emissions – it is limited by what the statute allows it to do. In practice, this
means standards (CAFE-like) on new cars. This won’t be enough to get to the President’s stated 17% cut from 2005 levels by 2020 goal, much less more ambitious
goals based on 1990 levels. Reports that suggest that EPA regulation of GHGs will suddenly crush the economy or suddenly
solve the GHG emissions problem are therefore overblown. On its own, the endangerment finding just doesn’t do or
even allow all that much.”

2. The narrow endangerment finding may mean an NAAQS program in the future, but this would only allow
for the EPA to regulate large power plants and refineries (which EPA doesn’t even want to do) – hardly an
economy-killing power grab

Nathan Richardson [a Visiting Scholar at Resources for the Future], “The Endangerment Finding: What Does It Actually Do?”
Published in Weathervane [a Climate Policy Blog from Resources for the Future], December 10, 2009,
http://www.rff.org/wv/archive/2009/12/07/regulating-ghgs-can-the-epa-dodge-two-trains.aspx [PB]

It is possible (I think likely) that this relatively-narrow


“One important caveat to this is the subject of my recent paper that I blogged about on Monday.
endangerment finding will fulfill the requirements of another endangerment provision in the CAA – that for the
expansive National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program. If that happens, the EPA will have the
power (and the mandate) to regulate most ‘stationary’ GHG sources in the country – power plants, refineries, etc.
The agency doesn’t want this power, however, since it and most analysts believe the NAAQS are a poor fit for GHG
regulation. The endangerment finding might therefore be broader than I [suggested earlier], but it can hardly be
characterized as an economy-killing power grab.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 11 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

3. What’s the impact of the endangerment finding? It doesn’t give the EPA power to destroy the economy –
only to regulate new cars

Nathan Richardson [a Visiting Scholar at Resources for the Future], “The Endangerment Finding: What Does It Actually Do?”
Published in Weathervane [a Climate Policy Blog from Resources for the Future], December 10, 2009,
http://www.rff.org/wv/archive/2009/12/07/regulating-ghgs-can-the-epa-dodge-two-trains.aspx [PB]

“So what’s the practical impact of the endangerment finding? It:


1. doesn’t give the EPA the power to destroy the US economy.
2. doesn’t give the EPA the power to make big GHG cuts.
3. does force the EPA to regulate new cars.”

4. The findings do not impose anything on the industry – the findings are for light-vehicle regulations

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment,”
December 2009,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7ebdf4d0b217978b852573590040443a/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument [JSc]

“On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six
key well-mixed greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO ), methane (CH ), nitrous oxide (N O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
2 4 2

sulfur hexafluoride (SF ) – in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
6

• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed
greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas
pollution which threatens public health and welfare.
These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a
prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles,
which were jointly proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 12 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

5. Regulations Have Barely Begun – there is no Empirical Evidence to Show they are Bad
1. EPA just now deciding CO2 is dangerous in March 2009
2. Regulations on CO2 just now implemented in April
3. In February 2009, Obama decided CO2 was a danger and was planning on regulating
4. EPA acts on regulations for CO2 for the first time in February
5. CO2 recognized as harmful and EPA is urged to regulate in October
6. CO2 just announced as harmful in February 2009, and planned on regulating for first time in U.S.

1. EPA just now deciding CO2 is dangerous in March 2009

Fox News, “EPA says global warming public danger,” FOXNews.com, March 23, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/epa-
says-global-warming-public-danger/ [BK]

“The Supreme Court two years ago directed the EPA to decide whether greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide
from burning fossil fuels, pose a threat public health and welfare because they are warming the earth. If such a
finding is made, these emissions are required to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, the court said. But several
congressional officials, also speaking on condition of anonymity because the draft declaration had not been made
public, said the transmission makes clear the EPA is moving to declare carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a
danger to public health and welfare and views them as ripe for regulation under the Clean Air Act.“

2. Regulations on CO2 just now implemented in April

JoAnne Allen [journalist for Reuters], “EPA expected to act on carbon dioxide regulation,” Article Published by Reuters [a reliable
news source], February 18, 2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51I0SF20090219 [BK]

“WASHINGTON –The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act soon to regulate carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing senior Obama administration officials. EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson has asked her staff to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare documentation for
a finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare, the newspaper said. There is wide
expectation that Jackson will act by April 2, the second anniversary of a Supreme Court decision that found that
EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse pollution under the U.S. Clean Air Act.”

3. In February 2009, Obama decided CO2 was a danger and was planning on regulating

Ian Talley [journalist for the Wall Street Journal], “EPA set to more toward CO2 regulation,” Article Published by the Wall Street
Journal, February 23, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123531391527642021.html [BK]

President Barack Obama's climate czar said the Environmental Protection Agency will soon determine
“WASHINGTON –
that carbon-dioxide emissions represent a danger to the public and propose new rules to regulate emissions of the
greenhouse gas from a range of industries.”

4. EPA acts on regulations for CO2 for the first time in February

John Broder [journalist for the New York Times], “Environment,” Article Published by the New York Times, February 18,
2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html?_r=1 [BK]

“WASHINGTON —The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama
administration officials. The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would
have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress
of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 13 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

5. CO2 recognized as harmful and EPA is urged to regulate in October

Randy Lee Loftis [reporter for Dallas News], “Public Citizen sues state, urging regulation of carbon dioxide emission,” Article
Published in Dallas News, October 7, 2009, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-
texaswarming_07pro.ART.State.Edition1.4c39379.html [BK]

the EPA said greenhouse gases meet the law’s definition of a pollutant and should be regulated – the
“Given such impacts,
same conclusion the Supreme Court reached in Massachusetts vs. EPA in 2007. That 5-4 decision said the Clean Air
Act required the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide unless it found strong scientific evidence against such a move. Coal-
burning power plants, the state’s biggest industrial sources of CO2, are where a rule on greenhouse gases would have the first impact.”

6. CO2 just announced as harmful in February 2009, and planned on regulating for first time in U.S.

John Broder [journalist for the New York Times], “Environment,” Article Published by the New York Times, February 18,
2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html?_r=1 [BK]

“WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-
trapping gases to be pollutants that endanger public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that will lead to
the regulation of the gases for the first time in the United States.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 14 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

6. A2: EPA Regulating More Strictly in the Future


The EPA’s current policy avoids a situation in which millions of small GHG emitters would have to undergo
a permitting process; if, however, they are forced (via lawsuit) to enact an NAAQS for GHGs, then all CAA
regulations would be blocked – and all that would remain would be CAFÉ standards and mobile source
regulations (i.e. no regulations on power plants)

Nathan Richardson [a Visiting Scholar at Resources for the Future], “Regulating GHGs: Can the EPA Dodge a Train?”
Published in Weathervane [a Climate Policy Blog from Resources for the Future], December 7, 2009,
http://www.rff.org/wv/archive/2009/12/07/regulating-ghgs-can-the-epa-dodge-two-trains.aspx [PB]

Those who have been following the


“What does this mean for climate policy? A few things: first, it presents another challenge to GHG regulation under current laws.
EPA’s moves to regulate GHGs under the CAA are familiar with the agency’s proposed tailoring rule which, if it
passes legal scrutiny, would avoid a situation in which millions of small GHG emitters would have to undergo a
permitting process. Even if the agency can dodge this oncoming train, another one lies behind it – a suit over a
NAAQS for GHGs. This is the suit that I predict the EPA would ultimately lose, resulting in what most analysts
believe would be a relatively inefficient regulatory regime. It is true that the EPA might have a lot of flexibility on
timing of NAAQS regulation, both because the court process is slow and because the NAAQS program itself can be
delayed significantly. This is as much a curse as a blessing, however, not only would there be no NAAQS regulation
during the delay, but regulation under other programs in the CAA would in many cases be blocked as soon as the
initial steps in the NAAQS process are taken. With no legislation and stationary source regulation blocked by courts
and EPA inaction, CAFE standards and other mobile-source regulations would be the only GHG policy in place. This
would be a true disaster – each of the three branches of government would have played a part in American failure to take any
real action on GHG emissions.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 15 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

7. The Sources the EPA Plans to Regulate are Already Subject to Such Regulations
Approximately 14,000 sources would be required to lower GHG emissions – this wouldn’t be a big deal
because they are already subject to other regulations because they pollute so much!

Climate Progress, “Breaking: New EPA rule will require use of best technologies to reduce greenhouse gases from large facilities when
‘constructed or significantly modified’ – small businesses and farms exempt,” referring to the EPA’s new release, September 30,
2009, http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/30/big-breaking-news-new-epa-rule-will-require-use-of-best-technologies-to-reduce-greenhouse-
gases-from-large-facilities-when-constructed-or-significantly-modified-small-businesses-and-farms-exe/ [PB]

“With the proposed emissions thresholds, EPA estimates that 400 new sources and modifications to existing sources
would be subject to review each year for GHG emissions. In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would need
to obtain operating permits that include GHG emissions. Most of these sources are already subject to clean air
permitting requirements because they emit other pollutants.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 16 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

8. Fuel Efficiency
1. New EPA “regulations” include CAFÉ standards that will reduce CO2 emissions by 950 million metric
tons and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicle sold
2. A2: “The EPA doesn’t make CAFÉ standards” – actually, they help enforce them, and if the EPA was
somehow cut off from regulating CO2 in any way, CAFÉ standards would obviously end
3. CAFÉ standards help Americans by reducing dependence on oil imports and using less oil
4. The new program to improve CAFÉ standards will conserve billions of barrels of oil, save consumers
money at the pump, increase fuel economy, and reduce millions of tons of GHG emissions
5. According to EPA, Americans will save more money, pollute less and help reduce oil dependence that send
billions of dollars out of our economy every year under the new CAFÉ standards
6. According to the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, the new CAFÉ standards will save consumers money at the
pump, help the environment, and decrease dependence on oil while at the same time giving consumers a full
range of vehicle choices

1. New EPA “regulations” include CAFÉ standards that will reduce CO2 emissions by 950 million metric
tons and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicle sold

The Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulations and Standards,” Site last updated December 8, 2009,
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations.htm [PB]

“On September 15, 2009, EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration
(NHTSA) proposed a historic National Program that would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve
fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The combined EPA and NHTSA standards that
make up this proposed National Program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated
combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (MPG)
if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these proposed standards would cut
carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 950 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of
the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016). Under this proposed National Program, automobile manufacturers would be able to build a single light-duty
national fleet that satisfies all requirements under both the National Program and the standards of California and other states, while ensuring that consumers still have a full range of vehicle
choices.”

2. A2: “The EPA doesn’t make CAFÉ standards” – actually, they help enforce them, and if the EPA was
somehow cut off from regulating CO2 in any way, CAFÉ standards would obviously end

The Consumer Energy Alliance [a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that supports the thoughtful utilization of energy resources to help
ensure improved domestic and global energy security and stable prices for consumers], “CAFÉ Standards,” January 2010,
http://consumerenergyalliance.org/primary/effiency-conservation/cafe-standards/ [PB]

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculates the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. CAFE
certification is done in either one of two ways: 1) the manufacturer provides its own fuel economy test data; or 2) the
EPA will obtain a vehicle and test it in its Office of Transportation & Air Quality facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
EPA will do actual tests on about 30 percent of the existing vehicle lines, using the same laboratory test that they use
to measure exhaust emissions.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 17 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

3. CAFÉ standards help Americans by reducing dependence on oil imports and using less oil

The Consumer Energy Alliance [a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that supports the thoughtful utilization of energy resources to help
ensure improved domestic and global energy security and stable prices for consumers], “CAFÉ Standards,” January 2010,
http://consumerenergyalliance.org/primary/effiency-conservation/cafe-standards/ [PB]

“CAFE standards benefit U.S. consumers by reducing dependence on oil imports. The U.S. consumes 44% of total
global daily gasoline consumption, and 80% of American consumers agree that America needs to reduce oil imports.
Current fuel economy standards save approximately 55 billion barrels of fuel annually. By raising current CAFE
standards by five percent annually until 2012 and three percent annually thereafter, 1.5 million barrels of oil could
be saved annually by 2010 with a total of 4.5 million barrels of oil saved by 2020. At that rate, approximately 67
billion barrels of oil could be saved during the next 40 years.”

4. The new program to improve CAFÉ standards will conserve billions of barrels of oil, save consumers
money at the pump, increase fuel economy, and reduce millions of tons of GHG emissions

The U.S. Department of Energy, “Proposed Rulemaking Announced for CAFE Standards and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” September
16, 2009, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/ddown.php?afdc/WHATS_NEW/910/ [PB]

“U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Ray LaHood and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson today jointly proposed a rule establishing a national program that would
improve vehicle fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG). The proposed program would conserve billions
of barrels of oil, save consumers money at the pump, increase fuel economy, and reduce millions of tons of GHG
emissions.”

5. According to EPA, Americans will save more money, pollute less and help reduce oil dependence that send
billions of dollars out of our economy every year under the new CAFÉ standards

The U.S. Department of Energy, “Proposed Rulemaking Announced for CAFE Standards and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” September
16, 2009, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/ddown.php?afdc/WHATS_NEW/910/ [PB]

“‘American drivers will keep more money in their pockets, put less pollution into the air, and help reduce a
dependence on oil that sends billions of dollars out of our economy every year,’ said EPA Administrator Jackson.
‘By bringing together a broad coalition of stakeholders – including an unprecedented partnership with American
automakers – we have crafted a path forward that is win-win for our health, our environment, and our economy.
Through that partnership, we’ve taken the historic step of proposing the nation’s first ever greenhouse gas emissions
standards for vehicles, and moved substantially closer to an efficient, clean energy future.’”

6. According to the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, the new CAFÉ standards will save consumers money at the
pump, help the environment, and decrease dependence on oil while at the same time giving consumers a full
range of vehicle choices

The U.S. Department of Energy, “Proposed Rulemaking Announced for CAFE Standards and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” September
16, 2009, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/ddown.php?afdc/WHATS_NEW/910/ [PB]

“‘The increases in fuel economy and the reductions in greenhouse gases we are proposing today would bring about a
new era in automotive history,’ Transportation Secretary LaHood said. ‘These proposed standards would help
consumers save money at the gas pump, help the environment, and decrease our dependence on oil – all while
ensuring that consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices.’”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 18 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

SOLVENCY
1. CO2 Deregulation – not Solving for GHG Regulations
1. EPA is regulating GHGs as a whole – removing CO2 from the list would not end the regulations (whether
they hurt the economy or not)
a. EPA’s new fuel standards are purposed to reduce GHG emissions
b. Power plant regulations are for GHGs
c. GHGs include six different gases – the affirmative team is only deregulating one
d. Motor vehicle engines contribute to GHG pollution
e. Power plants contribute to GHG emissions

1. EPA is regulating GHGs as a whole – removing CO2 from the list would not end the regulations (whether
they hurt the economy or not)

a. EPA’s new fuel standards are purposed to reduce GHG emissions

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment,”
December 2009,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7ebdf4d0b217978b852573590040443a/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument [JSc]

“On-road vehicles contribute more than 23% of total U.S. GHG emissions. EPA’s proposed GHG standards for
light-duty vehicles, a subset of on-road vehicles, would reduce GHG emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons and conserve
1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of model year 2012-2016 vehicles.”

b. Power plant regulations are for GHGs

The United States Environmental Protection Agency,” New EPA Rule Will Require Use of Best Technologies to Reduce Greenhouse
Gases from Large Facilities/Small businesses and farms exempt,” September 30, 2009,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a883dc3da7094f97852572a00065d7d8/21acdba8fd5126a88525764100798aad!OpenDocument [PB]

U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced today in a keynote address at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit
“LOS ANGELES –
to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator
that the Agency has taken a significant step
announced a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain
construction and operating permits covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best
available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are
constructed or significantly modified.”

c. GHGs include six different gases – the affirmative team is only deregulating one

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment,”
December 2009,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7ebdf4d0b217978b852573590040443a/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument [JSc]

“The Administrator [of the EPA] finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed
greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) – in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of
current and future generations.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 19 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

d. Motor vehicle engines contribute to GHG pollution

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment,”
December 2009,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/7ebdf4d0b217978b852573590040443a/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252!OpenDocument [JSc]

“The Administrator [of the EPA] finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new
motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public
health and welfare.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 20 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

DISADVANTAGES
1) CAFÉ Standards

I. Peak Oil

A. Link: The Affirmative Team’s Plan Removes the EPA’s Ability to Regulate CO2,
Ending their Newest Efforts to Curb CO2 Emissions
B. Internal Link #1: Part of the EPA’s New Efforts to Curb CO2 Emissions is
through the Use of CAFÉ Standards
The Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulations and Standards,” December 8, 2009,
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations.htm [PB]

“On September 15, 2009, EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration
(NHTSA) proposed a historic National Program that would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve
fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The combined EPA and NHTSA standards that
make up this proposed National Program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these vehicles to meet an estimated
combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (MPG)
if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these proposed standards would cut
carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 950 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold
under the program (model years 2012-2016). Under this proposed National Program, automobile manufacturers would be able to build a single light-duty national fleet that satisfies all
requirements under both the National Program and the standards of California and other states, while ensuring that consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices.”

C. Internal Link #2: The EPA Enforces CAFÉ Standards – Therefore, if the
Affirmative Team’s Plan is Passed, not only Will the CAFÉ Increase not Happen,
but CAFÉ Standards Will End
The Consumer Energy Alliance [a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that supports the thoughtful utilization of energy resources to help
ensure improved domestic and global energy security and stable prices for consumers], “CAFÉ Standards,” January 2010,
http://consumerenergyalliance.org/primary/effiency-conservation/cafe-standards/ [PB]

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculates the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. CAFE
certification is done in either one of two ways: 1) the manufacturer provides its own fuel economy test data; or 2) the
EPA will obtain a vehicle and test it in its Office of Transportation & Air Quality facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
EPA will do actual tests on about 30 percent of the existing vehicle lines, using the same laboratory test that they use
to measure exhaust emissions.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 21 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

D. Brink: Peak Oil is Coming, and it’s Nasty


Paul Roberts [writes and lectures frequently on the complex interplay of economics, technology, and the natural
world; Roberts has also written for The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and The (UK) Guardian and has appeared in Slate, USA
Today, The New Republic, Newsweek, The Christian Science Monitor, Rolling Stone, Seed, and Outside magazine; Roberts was a finalist for
the New York Public Library Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism in 2005; a long-time observer of
energy issues and politics, Roberts appears regularly on national and international television and radio news shows, including the BBC, PBS
NewsHour, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, CNN American Morning, CNBC with Erin Burnett, Bloomberg Television, MSNBC, CBS Evening News, and on
NPR’s Morning Edition, On Point, Marketplace, Weekend Edition, and Fresh Air], “The end of oil: on the edge of a perilous new world”,
Pages 12-13, Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, May 15, 2004, ISBN-10: 0618239774, ISBN-13: 978-0618239771 (HEG)

“Suppose, for example, that worldwide oil production hits a kind of peak and that, as 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% of its energy needs (not to mention about 90% 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-dependant activities as manufacturing and transportation. Commercial Activity would slow, and segments of the global economy
especially dependant on rapid growth – which is to say, pretty much everything in those 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.”

E. Internal Link #3: CAFÉ Standards are Needed to Help Address Peak Oil
Paul Roberts [writes and lectures frequently on the complex interplay of economics, technology, and the natural
world; Roberts has also written for The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and The (UK) Guardian and has appeared in Slate, USA
Today, The New Republic, Newsweek, The Christian Science Monitor, Rolling Stone, Seed, and Outside magazine; Roberts was a finalist for
the National Magazine Award (1999) and for the New York Public Library Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in
Journalism in 2005; a long-time observer of energy issues and politics, Roberts appears regularly on national and international television
and radio news shows, including the BBC, PBS NewsHour, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, CNN American Morning, CNBC with Erin Burnett, Bloomberg
Television, MSNBC, CBS Evening News, and on NPR’s Morning Edition, On Point, Marketplace, Weekend Edition, and Fresh Air], “The end of
oil: on the edge of a perilous new world”, Pages 12-13, Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (May 15, 2004), ISBN-10: 0618239774,
ISBN-13: 978-0618239771 (HEG)

“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 large-scale 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.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 22 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

C. Impact: Global Economic Collapse and Subsequent War over Resources


T. E. Bearden [LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc., Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS),
Fellow Emeritus at the Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)], “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to
Solve It Quickly,” June 12, 2000, http://www.franz-lee.org/files/bearden_energy_crisis.doc (HEG)

As
“Resulting World Economic Collapse Bluntly, we foresee these factors — and others {i} not covered – converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years.
the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are
forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic
collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the
arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released.
As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S.
forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China – whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States –
attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw
other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that,
under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then
compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one’s adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is
almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as
As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of
rapidly and massively as possible.
the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and
perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 23 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

II. Oil Spills

A. (Cue or refer to the first three parts of the first DA)


B. Internal Link: CAFÉ Standards are Key to Preventing Oil Spills

Noam Mohr [Instructor at New York University Polytechnic Institute; former State Legislative Specialist at The Humane
Society of the United States; with a Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Physics from Yale University] & Joseph
Shapiro [covers health, aging, disability, and children and family issues for NPR; spent 19 years at U.S. News & World Report, where he
wrote about healthcare and medicine, aging and long-term care, disability and chronic illness, children and families, poverty, civil rights, and
other social policy issues; served as a White House correspondent and congressional reporter; His journalism has won
numerous awards, including honors from the Society of Professional Journalists for public service, the Casey
Journalism Center for Children and Families for coverage of disadvantaged children, Harvard University’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the
Press, Politics and Public Policy for investigative journalism, the National Easter Seal Society, and the Education Press Association; attended
the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and Carleton College], “Pumping up the Price: The Hidden Costs of Outdated Fuel
Efficiency Standards,” Page 8, Published by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund [a non-profit, non-partisan public interest
advocacy organization; in association with state PIRGs in 28 states; conducts research and public education on public health, environmental,
consumer, and democracy issues], October 5, 2000, http://static.uspirg.org/reports/pumpinguptheprice2000.pdf (HEG)

“Oil Spills – 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. Yet while the Exxon Valdez received widespread media coverage, oil spills are hardly
Every year, the U.S. alone experiences thousands of spills, amounting to millions of gallons of oil. Oil spills
unusual events.
By reducing the amount of petroleum that must be stored and
kill wildlife and release vapors which cause cancer and respiratory disease.
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. This is the equivalent of preventing an Exxon
Valdez disaster about every three years. As the U.S. imports half the oil it uses, the number of oil spills worldwide
resulting directly from outdated fuel efficiency standards is likely far higher.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 24 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

B. Impact: Unchecked Oil Spills will Crush Phytoplankton – without this Creature,
we will either Suffocate Due to Lack of Oxygen Production of Die Via Accumulation
of Toxins through Seafood
Paul Stephen Dempsey [Tomlinson Professor of Global Governance in Air and Space Law and Director of the Institute of Air and Space
Law at McGill University, held the endowed chair as Professor of Transportation Law and Director of the Transportation Law Program at the
University of Denver; was Director of the National Center for Intermodal Transportation; served as an attorney with the Civil Aeronautics
Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission in Washington, D.C.; was Legal Advisor to the Chairman of the ICC; has written more
than fifty law review and professional journal articles, scores of newspaper and news magazine editorials, and several books;
holds a Bachelor’s of Arts Degree in Journalism, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Georgia, a Master of Laws from
the George Washington University; and a Doctor of Civil Law from the McGill University; is admitted to practice law in Colorado,
Georgia and the District of Columbia; was a Fulbright Scholar; was awarded the Transportation Lawyers Association Distinguished Service
Award, and was designated the University of Denver’s Outstanding Scholar, the Colorado transportation community named him “Educator of
the Year,” and inducted him into the Colorado Aerospace Hall of Fame; was faculty editor of the Transportation Law Journal; served on the
Editorial Boards of the Denver Business Journal, and The Aviation Quarterly (Lloyds, London); Vice Chairman & Director of Frontier Airlines,
Inc., and Director of the Jordan Center for Aviation Safety Security, in Amman, Jordan; served as a founder and first Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Certified Claims Professional Accreditation Council, Inc., and President and Director of the Genesee Foundation, Inc; served
as a consultant to U.S. and foreign airlines, railroads, motor carriers, transportation labor organizations, government agencies, and
telecommunications companies], “Oil Pollution of the Marine Environment by Ocean Vessels,” Published in the Northwestern Journal of
International Law and Business [a student-run, student-edited publication of the Northwestern University School of Law; the Journal is
dedicated to the analysis of transnational and international laws and their effects on private entities; the Journal’s substantive focus – private
international law and business – distinguishes the Journal from many other publications in the international field], Vol. 6, No. 1, No. 2,
Summer 1984 (HEG) [brackets added]

“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. 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 [the]
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. 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 [the]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology found 100-200 pounds of known carcinogens in every 10,000 tons of oil
spilled. Through the process of bio-accumulation, the situation becomes more dangerous to life forms higher on the
food chain, including home sapiens.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 25 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

Extension:
1. Phytoplankton is responsible for 50% of the oxygen that we breathe and is key to maintaining the delicate
balance of the food chain

United Press International [has been a leading provider of critical information to media outlets, businesses, governments and researchers
worldwide], Article by Rosalie Westenskow [United Press International Correspondent], “Acidic oceans may tangle food chain,” quoting
David Adamec, June 6, 2008, http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-
Wars/2008/06/06/Acidic_oceans_may_tangle_food_chain/UPI-84651212763771/print/ (HEG)

“If small organisms, like phytoplankton, are knocked out by acidity, the ripples would be far-reaching, said David
Adamec, head of ocean sciences at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ‘If the amount of
phytoplankton is reduced, you reduce the amount of photosynthesis going on in the ocean,’ Adamec told United Press International.
‘Those little guys are responsible for half of the oxygen you’re breathing right now.’ A hit to microscopic organisms
can also bring down a whole food chain. For instance, several years ago, an El Nino event wiped out the
phytoplankton near the Galapagos Islands. That year, juvenile bird and seal populations almost disappeared. If ocean
acidity stunted phytoplankton populations like the El Nino did that year, a similar result would occur – but it would last for much longer than one year, potentially leading to extinction for some
species, Adamec said.”

2. Phytoplankton produces 50% of productivity in the biosphere

Donald A. Bryant [of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Pennsylvania State University], “The
beauty in small things revealed,” Article Published by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
[one of the world’s most-cited multidisciplinary scientific serials; continues to publish cutting-edge research reports, commentaries, reviews,
perspectives, colloquium papers, and actions of the Academy; coverage spans the biological, physical, and social sciences], August 13, 2003,
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1834558100, PNAS August 19, 2003 vol. 100 no. 17 9647-9649 (HEG)

“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 100m of oceans, accounts only for about 1% of the total photosynthetic biomass, but this
virtually invisible forest accounts for nearly 50% of the net primary productivity of the biosphere. 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. 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.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 26 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

III. Hegemony

A. (Cue or refer to the first three parts of the first DA)


B. Internal Link: 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,” Article Published by the New
York Times, August 28, 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/opinion/an-american-abdication.html (HEG)

the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most powerful country in the world stands to
“At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of

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% 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%
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
not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of world
seems to believe it is merely an observer – that environmental issues are not its issues. But
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.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 27 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

C. Impact: Hegemony is Key to Upholding Human Rights, Preventing the Spread of


WMDs, and Advancing Democracy

Stephen M. Walt [Robert and Renee Belfer Professor International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University; received his doctorate in political science from the University of California, Berkely; research fellow at
Harvard University and assistant professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University; has been a resident associate at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, and a professor political science at the University of
Chicago, where he was master of the Social Science Collegiate Division and deputy dean of the Graduate Division of Social Sciences],
“AMERICAN PRIMACY: Its Prospects and Pitfalls,” © 2002 Stephen M. Walt, Naval War College Review, Vol. LV, No. 2, Spring 2002
(HEG)

“Thus,anyone who thinks that the United States should try to discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction,
promote human rights, advance the cause of democracy, or pursue any other positive political goal should recognize
that the nation’s ability to do so rests primarily upon its power. The United States would accomplish far less if it
were weaker, and it would discover that other states were setting the agenda of world politics if its own power were
to decline. As Harry Truman put it over fifty years ago, ‘Peace must be built upon power, as well as upon good will
and good deeds.’ The bottom line is clear. Even in a world with nuclear weapons, extensive economic ties, rapid communications, an increasingly vocal chorus of
nongovernmental organizations, and other such novel features, power still matters, and primacy is still preferable. People running for president do not
declare that their main goal as commander in chief would be to move the United States into the number-two
position. They understand, as do most Americans, that being number one is a luxury they should try very hard to
keep.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 28 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

2) Ocean Acidification

Shell:
A. Link: The Affirmative Team’s Plan Removes the EPA’s Ability to Regulate CO2
as a Pollutant Under the Justification that CO2 is not a Pollutant
B. Internal Link #1: While CO2 May not Cause Global Warming, it is the Cause of
Ocean Acidification
The ocean has absorbed 1/3 of CO2 emissions – this has resulted in acidification of the ocean

The NANOOS (the Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems) [the Regional Association of the national Integrated
Ocean Observing System (IOOS) in the Pacific Northwest, primarily Washington and Oregon; NANOOS has strong ties with the observing
programs in Alaska and British Columbia through our common purpose and the occasional overlap of data and products; NANOOS is a
partnership of over 30 entities, including industry, state agencies, local governments, non government organizations, and educational
institutions], “Ocean Acidification is on the Rise,” Accessed January 2010,
http://www.nanoos.org/data/products/noaa_ocean_acidification/summary.php [PB]

“Ocean acidification refers to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans caused by the uptake of carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere. For the last 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil, natural gas – for energy, cement production, and deforestation
pumps carbon dioxide or CO2 into the atmosphere. The ocean has absorbed about 1/3 of this CO2, which when
combined with water, forms a weak acid. The drop in pH increases the hydrogen ion concentration in the ocean thereby making the oceans less alkaline. The impacts
of ocean acidification are an urgent issue because of the potential global-scale effects they present across a broad spectrum of marine life.”

C. Internal Link #2: Ocean Acidification Reduces Calcification Rates in Ocean


Organisms
The NANOOS (the Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems) [the Regional Association of the national Integrated
Ocean Observing System (IOOS) in the Pacific Northwest, primarily Washington and Oregon; NANOOS has strong ties with the observing
programs in Alaska and British Columbia through our common purpose and the occasional overlap of data and products; NANOOS is a
partnership of over 30 entities, including industry, state agencies, local governments, non government organizations, and educational
institutions], “Ocean Acidification is on the Rise,” Accessed January 2010,
http://www.nanoos.org/data/products/noaa_ocean_acidification/summary.php [PB]

“The absorption of excessive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere is changing the chemistry of seawater by
increasing the acidity and lowering the seawater’s naturally occurring carbonate ion, a building block of the calcium
carbonate required of many marine organisms to grow their shells and skeletons. Ocean acidification reduces
calcification rates in corals, leaving reef structures vulnerable to storm damage, and may affect economically
important shellfish species such as oysters, scallops, mussels, clams, sea urchins, crabs, and lobsters.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 29 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

D. Internal Link #3: The Impacts of Reduced Calcification in Ocean Organisms are
Very Large
1. There are broader impacts and socio-economic impacts of ocean acidification

The NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), “State of the Science FACT SHEET: Ocean Acidification,” May 2008,
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/Ocean_Acidification%20FINAL.pdf [PB]

“What Are the Broader Impacts of Ocean Acidification? The reduced rate of coral reef building could lead to
diminished resiliency from bleaching, disease, and coral death at potentially increased frequency as a result of
warmer ocean temperature. Reef building rates could decrease to levels insufficient to maintain reefs in any oceans
when atmospheric CO2 levels reach [about] 840ppm (Figure 1), which may be reached by the year 2100. Marine
plankton is a vital food source for many marine species and their decline could have serious consequences for the
marine food web. What Are the Potential Socio-Economic Consequences of Ocean Acidification? Ocean acidification will have
long-term implications for the global carbon cycle and climate, although the range and magnitude of biogeochemical and biological effects and their socio-economic impacts are currently too
we do know that such impacts are likely to be substantial. The U.S. is the third largest
uncertain to accurately quantify. However,
seafood consumer in the world – total consumer spending for fish and shellfish is approximately $60 billion per
year. Coastal and marine commercial fishing generates as much as $30 billion per year and nearly 70,000 jobs.
Healthy coral reefs are the foundation of many of these viable fisheries, as well as the source of tourism and
recreation revenues. Approximately half of all federally managed fisheries depend on coral reefs and related habitats
for a portion of their life cycles yielding an estimated value to U.S. fish stocks over $250 million. Changes to the
stability of coastal reefs may reduce the protection they offer to coastal communities against storm surges and
hurricanes.”

2. When we undermine the lives of calcareous ocean species, we undermine one of our most important
sources of food

Dr. Bill Chameides [Ph.D. from Yale University; dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University (2007], “Ocean
Acidification Time Bomb Is Ticking,” Article Published by the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke
University, August 5, 2009, http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/oceanacidification0809 [JM]

“As the acidity of the ocean increases, calcareous species find it more and more difficult to form their shells and
exoskeletons and their lives become more precarious. Should we care about the existence of calcareous ocean
species? You bet. They include species like plankton, mollusks, coral reefs and crustaceans – all of which play
critical roles in the ocean food web which supports the fisheries which in turn provide protein for more than two
billion people worldwide. Undermine the lives of calcareous ocean species, and in the long run we undermine one of
our most important sources of food.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 30 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

E. Brink: The Only Way to Stop Ocean Acidification is to Significantly Lower CO2
Emissions
The only practical way to minimize the risk of large-scale and long-term changes to the oceans caused by
acidification is to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Professor John Raven et al. [Boyd Baxter Professor of Biology at the University of Dundee; studied botany at the University
of Cambridge, and stayed on for a Ph.D. in plant biophysics], Dr. Ken Caldeira [Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the New York
University Department of Applied Science (1991); Master’s of Science Degree in Atmospheric Sciences from the New York University
Department of Applied Science (1988); Bachelor’s of Arts Degree in Philosophy from Rutgers College (1978)], Professor Harry Elderfield
[Professor of Ocean Geochemistry and Paleochemistry at Cambridge University (1999); Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Chemistry
(Oceanography) from the University of Liverpool (1965); PhD from the University of Liverpool (1970);], Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
[Professor at the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland in Australia], Professor Peter Liss [Professor at the School of
Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia], Professor Ulf Riebesell [Professor at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel,
Germany], Professor John Shepherd [Ph.D.; Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System Science at the National Oceanography Centre at the
University of Southampton], Dr. Carol Turley [Plymouth Marine Laboratory; has over 30 years experience in marine research with over 100
research papers and a similar number of reports], Professor Andrew Watson [marine and atmospheric scientist; expert in processes that affect
atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations; Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia], Mr.
Richard Heap [Manager of The Royal Society], Mr. Robert Banes [Science Policy Officer at The Royal Society] & Dr. Rachel Quinn [M.D.;
Specializes in Family Medicine and Family Medicine with Obstetrics; Senior Manager of The Royal Society], Policy Document: “Ocean
acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Article Published by The Royal Society, June 2005,
http://www.scar.org/articles/Ocean_Acidification(1).pdf [PB]

“Ocean acidification is essentially irreversible during our lifetimes. It will take tens of thousands of years for ocean chemistry to return to a condition similar to that occurring at pre-industrial
Our ability to reduce ocean acidification through artificial methods such as the addition of
times (about 200 years ago).
chemicals is unproven. These techniques will at best be effective only at a very local scale, and could also cause damage to the marine environment. Reducing CO2
emissions to the atmosphere appears to be the only practical way to minimize the risk of large-scale and long-term
changes to the oceans.”

F. Impact: No Decrease and a Definite Increase in Ocean Acidification, Destroying


Coral Reefs, the Organisms that Depend on them, and in the End Our Most
Important Sources of Food

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 31 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

Extensions:
A) Status Quo Solvency
The sources that the EPA will regulate contribute to 90% of our CO2 emissions

Mark Clayton [staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor], “Carbon emissions pose danger, EPA finds,” Article Published by the
Christian Science Monitor [an international newspaper published daily online, covering international and United States current events],
April 17, 2009, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Global-Warming/2009/0417/carbon-emissions-pose-danger-epa-finds [BB]
“Even without Friday’s finding, thousands of U.S. companies were preparing to report their CO2 emissions in anticipation of another new EPA rule. That proposal would require about 13,000
Companies that emit 25,000 or more metric tons of CO2
facilities nationwide to report annual greenhouse-gas emissions beginning in 2011.
equivalents a year are responsible for as much as 90% of the nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions, the EPA
estimates.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 32 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

B) Internal Link #1: CO2 Causes Ocean Acidification


1. Oceans have absorbed 50% of CO2 emissions – this causes acidification
2. Estimated quantity of CO2 in the ocean is already substantial
3. 20-year measurement research shows ocean acidity increasing
4. The relation of CO2 increases to changes in the pH of the surface ocean involves relatively simple physical
chemistry – ocean acidification is real

1. Oceans have absorbed 50% of CO2 emissions – this causes acidification

NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), “State of the Science FACT SHEET: Ocean Acidification,” May 2008,
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/Ocean_Acidification%20FINAL.pdf [PB]

“The oceans have absorbed about 50% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released from the burning of fossil fuels,
resulting in chemical reactions that lower ocean pH. This has caused an increase in hydrogen ion (acidity) of about
30% since the start of the industrial age through a process known as ‘ocean acidification.’”

2. Estimated quantity of CO2 in the ocean is already substantial

Dr. Bill Chameides [Ph.D. from Yale University; dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University (2007], “Ocean
Acidification Time Bomb Is Ticking,” Article Published by the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke
University, August 5, 2009, http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/oceanacidification0809 [JM]

“It is estimated that of the 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 that have been emitted to the atmosphere since the Industrial
Revolution from fossil fuel and biomass burning, some 530 billion tons have found their way into the ocean.”

3. 20-year measurement research shows ocean acidity increasing

Dr. Bill Chameides [Ph.D. from Yale University; dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University (2007], “Ocean
Acidification Time Bomb Is Ticking,” Article Published by the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke
University, August 5, 2009, http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/oceanacidification0809 [JM]

“In case anyone had any doubt that ocean acidification is real, a recent paper by John Dore of Montana State
University and colleagues published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences should dispel them.
The authors report on 20-years of pH-measurements from seawater collected at the ALOHA experiment station near
Hawaii. The data show a clear upward trend in ocean acidity over the time period with a magnitude and rate of
change in keeping with what has been predicted based on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 33 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

4. The relation of CO2 increases to changes in the pH of the surface ocean involves relatively simple physical
chemistry – ocean acidification is real

John A. Raven[Boyd Baxter Professor of Biology at the University of Dundee; studied botany at the University of Cambridge,
and stayed on for a Ph.D. in plant biophysics], “Rising CO2, Ocean Acidification, and Their Impacts on Marine Microbes,” Expert
Meeting organized by the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the Center for Microbial Oceanography: Research and Education, East-West Center
of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, February 26, 2009, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3ApQJ6TW8Dxh4J
%3Acmore.soest.hawaii.edu%2Foceanacidification%2Fdocuments%2Foceanacidification_2009_abstracts.pdf+CO2+ocean+acidification+site
%3Aedu&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQr7Es0GQ2vVBTVMrMC76F3L48YkQ&pli=1 [PB]

“The relation of the present anthropogenic increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide to changes in the inorganic
carbon chemistry and pH of the surface ocean involves relatively simple physical chemistry, with fewer problems in determining the
timing and extent of changes than for effects of carbon dioxide on climate. However, there was a significant delay in widespread appreciation of these oceanic effects after Keeling’s
demonstration (1950s onwards) of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The effects of the dissolution of some of the additional atmospheric carbon
dioxide into the surface ocean are to increase the concentrations of dissolved carbon dioxide and bicarbonate (smaller
relative, but greater absolute, effect on bicarbonate than on dissolved carbon dioxide), and decrease the carbonate concentration and pH.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 34 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

C) Ocean Acidification is Real


Ocean acidification is increasing in Alaska’s coastal oceans

Science Daily News [an online news source providing daily coverage of the most popular science and technology news], “Increased Ocean
Acidification In Alaska Waters, New Findings Show,” August 14, 2009, Jeremy Mathis has a Ph.D. in Oceanography and is an Assistant
Professor of Chemical Oceanography at the School of Fisheries and Ocean Science at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813163158.htm [PB]

“According to new findings by a University of Alaska Fairbanks scientist, Alaska’s oceans are becoming
increasingly acidic, which could damage Alaska’s king crab and salmon fisheries. This spring, chemical
oceanographer Jeremy Mathis returned from a cruise armed with seawater samples collected from the depths of the
Gulf of Alaska. When he tested the samples’ acidity in his lab, the results were higher than expected. They show that
ocean acidification is likely more severe and is happening more rapidly in Alaska than in tropical waters. The results
also matched his recent findings in the Chukchi and Bering Seas. ‘It seems like everywhere we look in Alaska’s
coastal oceans, we see signs of increased ocean acidification,’ said Mathis.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 35 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

D) Internal Link #3: Huge Impacts


1. A growing number of studies have demonstrated adverse impacts on marine organisms
2. The reality of Ocean acidification is well-established among researchers, and it can hamper the ability of a
wide variety of marine organisms to form skeletal structures
3. There is convincing evidence that acidification will adversely affect tropical, subtropical and cold-water
coral reefs and the organisms that depend on them
4. Other calcifying organisms like tiny sea snails are also affected by ocean acidification – these organisms are
an important food source for salmon, mackerel, herring, cod, and even whales
5. Ocean acidification affects a large amount of calcareous creatures – the balance of calcium and carbonate
is being upset
6. The most widely recognized biological effects of acidification are the decreasing rate of production of
calcium carbon skeletons
7. Shift in ocean’s equilibrium will lead to a shift in the ecosystem
8. Increasing ocean acidity in Alaska could destroy all of their commercial fisheries
9. While it is unclear how broad the impacts of ocean acidification will be, it is clear that it threatens Alaska’s
commercial fisheries

1. A growing number of studies have demonstrated adverse impacts on marine organisms

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), “State of the Science FACT SHEET: Ocean Acidification,” May 2008,
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/Ocean_Acidification%20FINAL.pdf [PB]

“A growing number of studies have demonstrated adverse impacts on marine organisms, including: The rate at
which reef-building corals produce their skeletons decreases (Figure 1). The ability of marine algae and free-
swimming zooplankton to maintain protective shells is reduced (Figure 2). The survival of larval marine species,
including commercial fish and shellfish, is reduced.”

2. The reality of Ocean acidification is well-established among researchers, and it can hamper the ability of a
wide variety of marine organisms to form skeletal structures

Science Daily News [an online news source providing daily coverage of the most popular science and technology news], “Global Scientists
Draw Attention To Threat Of Ocean Acidification,” February 5, 2009, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201124553.htm
[PB]

“It is well established among researchers that the uptake of increased amounts of carbon dioxide will make ocean
water more acidic as the gas dissolves to create carbonic acid. Ocean chemistry is changing 100 times more rapidly than in the 650,000 years that
preceded the modern industrial era and since the late 1980s, researchers at Scripps Oceanography and others have recorded an overall drop
in the pH of the oceans from 8.16 to 8.05. This increased acidity can hamper the ability of a wide variety of marine
organisms ranging from coral to abalone to form calcium carbonate shells and skeletonal structures. Researchers
believe that at crucial stages in the larval and juvenile stages in the lives of many marine invertebrates, ocean
acidification inhibits calcification, and also appears to affect reproduction and growth in some organisms.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 36 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

3. There is convincing evidence that acidification will adversely affect tropical, subtropical and cold-water
coral reefs and the organisms that depend on them

Professor John Raven et al. [Boyd Baxter Professor of Biology at the University of Dundee; studied botany at the University
of Cambridge, and stayed on for a Ph.D. in plant biophysics], Dr. Ken Caldeira [Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the New York
University Department of Applied Science (1991); Master’s of Science Degree in Atmospheric Sciences from the New York University
Department of Applied Science (1988); Bachelor’s of Arts Degree in Philosophy from Rutgers College (1978)], Professor Harry Elderfield
[Professor of Ocean Geochemistry and Paleochemistry at Cambridge University (1999); Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Chemistry
(Oceanography) from the University of Liverpool (1965); PhD from the University of Liverpool (1970);], Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
[Professor at the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland in Australia], Professor Peter Liss [Professor at the School of
Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia], Professor Ulf Riebesell [Professor at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel,
Germany], Professor John Shepherd [Ph.D.; Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System Science at the National Oceanography Centre at the
University of Southampton], Dr. Carol Turley [Plymouth Marine Laboratory; has over 30 years experience in marine research with over 100
research papers and a similar number of reports], Professor Andrew Watson [marine and atmospheric scientist; expert in processes that affect
atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations; Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia], Mr.
Richard Heap [Manager of The Royal Society], Mr. Robert Banes [Science Policy Officer at The Royal Society] & Dr. Rachel Quinn [M.D.;
Specializes in Family Medicine and Family Medicine with Obstetrics; Senior Manager of The Royal Society], Policy Document: “Ocean
acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Article Published by The Royal Society, June 2005,
http://www.scar.org/articles/Ocean_Acidification(1).pdf [PB]

there is convincing evidence to


“Predicting the direction and magnitude of changes in a complex and poorly studied system such as the oceans is very difficult. However,
that acidification will affect the process of calcification, by which animals such as corals and mollusks make
suggest
shells and plates from calcium carbonate. The tropical and subtropical corals are expected to be among the worst
affected, with implications for the stability and longevity of the reefs that they build and the organisms that depend
on them. Cold-water coral reefs are also likely to be adversely affected, before they have been fully explored.”

4. Other calcifying organisms like tiny sea snails are also affected by ocean acidification – these organisms are
an important food source for salmon, mackerel, herring, cod, and even whales

The NANOOS (the Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems) [the Regional Association of the national Integrated
Ocean Observing System (IOOS) in the Pacific Northwest, primarily Washington and Oregon; NANOOS has strong ties with the observing
programs in Alaska and British Columbia through our common purpose and the occasional overlap of data and products; NANOOS is a
partnership of over 30 entities, including industry, state agencies, local governments, non government organizations, and educational
institutions], “Ocean Acidification is on the Rise,” Accessed January 2010,
http://www.nanoos.org/data/products/noaa_ocean_acidification/summary.php [PB]

“Other calcifying organisms like tiny sea snails known as pteropods are also affected by the chemistry changes.
Shelled pteropods are an important food source for salmon, mackerel, herring, cod, and even whales. So, if
pteropods are adversely impacted, salmon could be too, and then other fish could move in and make it hard for
salmon to come back. Bottom line, if calcifying organisms are unable to sustain their populations, many other
species are likely to be affected.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 37 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

5. Ocean acidification affects a large amount of calcareous creatures – the balance of calcium and carbonate
is being upset

Dr. Bill Chameides [Ph.D. from Yale University; dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University (2007], “Ocean
Acidification Time Bomb Is Ticking,” Article Published by the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke
University, August 5, 2009, http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/oceanacidification0809 [JM]

“Now, the amount of acidification expected by 2050 is modest – just a few tenths of pH units, if you are familiar with the pH scale for
acidity. No big deal, right? Wrong. The ocean is filled with creatures whose bodies are made in part of calcium
carbonate; they are called calcareous. The reason ocean species use calcium carbonate is that both calcium and carbonate are abundant in the ocean, calcium carbonate is
a hard substance, and the calcium carbonate solution chemistry in the ocean is just right. Calcium and carbonate exist in dissolved form so that calcareous species can easily extract them from
calcium and carbonate are not too soluble and so the bodies of calcareous species don’t just
seawater to make their bodies. But
dissolve away. The key factor in maintaining that balance is the acidity of the ocean. Increase the ocean’s acidity,
and you shift the equilibrium in favor of more dissolved calcium and carbonate and less solid calcium carbonate.
The trouble is it only requires a very small change in pH, on the order of magnitude discussed here, to upset that
delicate balance. And it’s already happening. In a paper out earlier this spring, researchers documented how acidification of the Southern Ocean is causing some
calcifiers to grow thinner, lighter shells compared to pre-industrial times. (See my post on this.) Other research points to regions of the ocean that may reach the point of disequilibrium faster than
previously thought.”

6. The most widely recognized biological effects of acidification are the decreasing rate of production of
calcium carbon skeletons

John A. Raven[Boyd Baxter Professor of Biology at the University of Dundee; studied botany at the University of Cambridge,
and stayed on for a Ph.D. in plant biophysics], “Rising CO2, Ocean Acidification, and Their Impacts on Marine Microbes,” Expert
Meeting organized by the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and the Center for Microbial Oceanography: Research and Education, East-West Center
of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, February 26, 2009, http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3ApQJ6TW8Dxh4J
%3Acmore.soest.hawaii.edu%2Foceanacidification%2Fdocuments%2Foceanacidification_2009_abstracts.pdf+CO2+ocean+acidification+site
%3Aedu&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQr7Es0GQ2vVBTVMrMC76F3L48YkQ&pli=1 [PB]

“The most widely recognized biological effects are in decreasing the rate of production, and the possibility of
retention, of calcium carbon skeletons, with the distinct possibility of the extinction of some taxa. The inorganic
carbon and pH changes increase photosynthetic carbon assimilation in many primary producers, with less effect on
growth (as cell division) rates, and also impact negatively on many animals as well as influencing non photosynthetic
micro-organisms. Exacerbating these biological effects is the large extent (greater dissolved inorganic carbon changes and pH decrease than has
been seen for at least the last 800,000, and probably many million, years) and rate (much faster than glacial - interglacial variations) of these anthropogenic changes.
These factors interact in making difficult any genetic adaptation to the changed inorganic carbon and pH regime,
especially for organisms with long generation times. While ultimately these effects on surface ocean chemistry will be largely reversed by natural processes
this will take thousands of years and will not save us from changes predicted for ‘business as usual’ over the next few centuries.”

7. Shift in ocean’s equilibrium will lead to a shift in the ecosystem

William R. Howard [Sedimentologist at the University of Tasmania], “Reduced calcification in modern Southern Ocean
planktonic foraminifera,” Article Published by the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center and Southern Ocean Studies,
March 8, 2009, http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n4/abs/ngeo460.html#a1[JM]

“Previous laboratory experiments have shown that decreased carbonate ion concentrations cause many marine
calcareous organisms to show reduced calcification rates. If these results are widely applicable to ocean settings,
ocean acidification could lead to ecosystem shifts. Planktonic foraminifera are single-celled calcite-secreting
organisms that represent between 25 and 50% of the total open-ocean marine carbonate flux and influence the
transport of organic carbon to the ocean interior.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 38 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

8. Increasing ocean acidity in Alaska could destroy all of their commercial fisheries

Science Daily News [an online news source providing daily coverage of the most popular science and technology news], “Increased Ocean
Acidification In Alaska Waters, New Findings Show,” August 14, 2009, Jeremy Mathis has a Ph.D. in Oceanography and is an Assistant
Professor of Chemical Oceanography at the School of Fisheries and Ocean Science at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813163158.htm [PB]

“[Jeremy Mathis, a chemical oceanographer, says that] ‘[t]he increasing acidification of Alaska waters could have a
destructive effect on all of our commercial fisheries. This is a problem that we have to think about in terms of the
next decade instead of the next century.’”

9. While it is unclear how broad the impacts of ocean acidification will be, it is clear that it threatens Alaska’s
commercial fisheries

Science Daily News [an online news source providing daily coverage of the most popular science and technology news], “Increased Ocean
Acidification In Alaska Waters, New Findings Show,” August 14, 2009, Jeremy Mathis has a Ph.D. in Oceanography and is an Assistant
Professor of Chemical Oceanography at the School of Fisheries and Ocean Science at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813163158.htm [PB]

“[Jeremy] Mathis, [a chemical oceanographer] said that it is still unclear what the full range of effects of ocean
acidification will be, but that it is a clear threat to Alaska’s commercial fisheries and subsistence communities.

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 39 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

D) Brink: Action is Needed


1. Action against ocean acidification must be taken – we must significantly reduce our CO2 emissions
2. Ocean Acidification is real, and it can only be stopped by limiting future CO2 emissions
3. The science of ocean acidification is not in question, scientists implore that political leaders launch urgent
actions to limit the source of the problem (CO2)
4. Unless humans significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, ocean acidification is likely to reduce coral
reef growth to critical levels before the end of the century

1. Action against ocean acidification must be taken – we must significantly reduce our CO2 emissions

Professor John Raven et al. [Boyd Baxter Professor of Biology at the University of Dundee; studied botany at the University
of Cambridge, and stayed on for a Ph.D. in plant biophysics], Dr. Ken Caldeira [Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the New York
University Department of Applied Science (1991); Master’s of Science Degree in Atmospheric Sciences from the New York University
Department of Applied Science (1988); Bachelor’s of Arts Degree in Philosophy from Rutgers College (1978)], Professor Harry Elderfield
[Professor of Ocean Geochemistry and Paleochemistry at Cambridge University (1999); Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Chemistry
(Oceanography) from the University of Liverpool (1965); PhD from the University of Liverpool (1970);], Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
[Professor at the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland in Australia], Professor Peter Liss [Professor at the School of
Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia], Professor Ulf Riebesell [Professor at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel,
Germany], Professor John Shepherd [Ph.D.; Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System Science at the National Oceanography Centre at the
University of Southampton], Dr. Carol Turley [Plymouth Marine Laboratory; has over 30 years experience in marine research with over 100
research papers and a similar number of reports], Professor Andrew Watson [marine and atmospheric scientist; expert in processes that affect
atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations; Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia], Mr.
Richard Heap [Manager of The Royal Society], Mr. Robert Banes [Science Policy Officer at The Royal Society] & Dr. Rachel Quinn [M.D.;
Specializes in Family Medicine and Family Medicine with Obstetrics; Senior Manager of The Royal Society], Policy Document: “Ocean
acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Article Published by The Royal Society, June 2005,
http://www.scar.org/articles/Ocean_Acidification(1).pdf [PB]

“Ocean acidification is a powerful reason, in addition to that of climate change, for reducing global CO2
emissions. Action needs to be taken now to reduce global emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere to avoid
the risk of irreversible damage to the oceans. We recommend that all possible approaches be considered to prevent
CO2 reaching the atmosphere. No option that can make a significant contribution should be dismissed.”

2. Ocean Acidification is real, and it can only be stopped by limiting future CO2 emissions

Science Daily News [an online news source providing daily coverage of the most popular science and technology news], “Global Scientists
Draw Attention To Threat Of Ocean Acidification,” February 5, 2009, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201124553.htm
[PB]

“More than 150 leading marine scientists from 26 countries are calling for immediate action by policy-makers to
sharply reduce CO2 emissions so as to avoid widespread and severe damage to marine ecosystems from ocean
acidification. The scientists issued this warning Jan 30, 2009 in the Monaco Declaration, a statement based on the conclusions of participants at last October’s 2nd international
symposium on The Ocean in a High-CO2 World. Professor Andrew Dickson, a marine chemist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego and professor Victoria Fabry, a visiting
The scientists note that ocean acidification is already detectable and is
research scientist at Scripps, were among the signatories to the declaration.
accelerating. They caution that its negative impacts can be avoided only by limiting future atmospheric CO2 levels.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 40 of 41
NEG – CO2/GHG Deregulation CON HSD Research Club – Assignment #5
Preston Black – Black/Cotton Podium Sodium Debate Club – NC

3. The science of ocean acidification is not in question, scientists implore that political leaders launch urgent
actions to limit the source of the problem (CO2)

Science Daily News [an online news source providing daily coverage of the most popular science and technology news],
Article: “Global Scientists Draw Attention To Threat Of Ocean Acidification”, February 5, 2009,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201124553.htm [PB]

“‘The chemistry is so fundamental and changes so rapid and severe that impacts on organisms appear unavoidable,’
said James Orr of the Marine Environment Laboratories (MEL-IAEA) and chairman of the symposium. ‘The questions are now how
bad will it be and how soon will it happen. The report from the symposium summarizes the state of the science and priorities for
future research, while the Monaco Declaration implores political leaders to launch urgent actions to limit the source
of the problem.’”

4. Unless humans significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, ocean acidification is likely to reduce coral
reef growth to critical levels before the end of the century

Science Daily News [an online news source providing daily coverage of the most popular science and technology news], “Ocean
Acidification In The Caribbean Significant, Yet Variable,” November 28, 2008, Study was led by Dwight Gledhill, Ph.D. in Chemical
Oceanography, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081121163353.htm [PB]

“[A new] study [Conducted by scientists from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University
of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science] supports other findings that ocean acidification
is likely to reduce coral reef growth to critical levels before the end of this century unless humans significantly
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. While ocean chemistry across the region is currently deemed adequate to support coral reefs, it is rapidly changing as atmospheric carbon
dioxide levels rise.”

“Global Warming is BOGUS!!! That means we shouldn’t regulate CO2, right?” “Ummm… No.”

Page 41 of 41