Bozarth-Voell Carbon Tax Affirmative Extension

Carbon Tax: Affirmative Backup Page 1 of 123
Bozarth|Voell Vector Debate Society
Carbon Tax: Affirmative Backup

Bozarth|Voell
Openers
N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard said: “Basic economics tells us
that when you tax something, you normally get less of it.” …Unfortunately, current US
policy is ignoring basic economics which guarantee a successful policy. The only way to
effectively decrease pollution and improve our image, is to take Mankiw’s advice, tax the
root of the problem.
“With all the pollution in the air, if it weren’t for our lungs, there would be no place to
put it.” ~ NYT Columnist
Economist 09 -
Stemming the tide; Unprecedented levels of government debt may require radical solutions”,
The Economist, November 19 2009, <accessed February 12, 2010>,
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14903024, (ZV)
“An alternative or complement to either of those reforms would be a tax on carbon emissions.
This would raise revenue, penalise consumption and encourage energy
efficiency. The most economically efficient method [of reducing
pollution] would be a carbon tax. Mr Obama and Congress are instead pursuing a cap-and-
trade system; that could do the same thing, provided permits to emit carbon dioxide are sold rather than
given away. Raising the current federal fuel tax would have similar benefits with fewer complications: a 50-
cent boost, to 68 cents a gallon, would raise some $60 billion a year. Whether America adopts a broader-
based income tax with lower rates, or a VAT, or any serious tax reform, depends more on politics than
economics. Each of the tax code’s loopholes has fierce defenders. Yet it might be even harder to persuade
almost everyone to pay a new federal tax where none has existed.”
Value
1. Quality of Life
Michael Leavitt 01 – Primary role of government is to protect

its citizens
MICHAEL O. LEAVITT [GOVERNOR OF UTAH], “EXECUTIVE DOCUMENT: Governor's Executive Order
Renewing and Continuing the Governor's Council on Driving Under the Influence,” Issued: March 7, 2001,
(PV) http://www.rules.utah.gov/execdocs/2001/e2001-03-07.htm
the primary role of government is to protect the health, safety,
“Whereas,
and welfare of citizens”
Thomas West 02 – Governments’ role is to secure the rights of

the people who formed it
Thomas G. West [Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University in 1974.director and senior fellow of the
Claremont Institute, Professor of Politics at the University of Dallas, where he has taught since 1974. He
served in Vietnam as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army in 1969-70. He was Bradley Resident Scholar at the
Heritage Foundation in 1988-89 and Salvatori Visiting Scholar at Claremont McKenna College from 1990-
92.] Published in his book "vindicating the founders: , Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins of America"
(winner of the Bagehot Council's Paolucci Book Award, for the best book in American history or politics.)
published by: Claremont Institute, 2002.pg. 157
“The purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people, that
is the citizens of the people who formed the government.”
2. AT: Net Benefits
- Short Term: Net Benefits looks to the here and now and says
will there be any difference tomorrow under the aff, compared to
tomorrow under the neg?” We need to look to the long term
effects, and sure, consider the short term too.
- 1% Mindset: One of Net Benefits faults is that it only strives to
vote for the policy that has a increase of even 1%. If X policy has
a 1% increase of Y policy, we should do X. This mindset is not a
mindset that will lead to success, because we need to look past
1% benefit for today, right now and then once that benefit is
gone, possibly be left with something far worse.
- Empty Cocoon: Net Benefits really is an empty value—it tells us
nothing. What is a benefit? Well that needs to be defined by the
area that we are specifically benefiting. So we need something to
fill that ‘empty cocoon’…how about Quality of Life which the aff
presented in the first speech. Whichever team benefits our
quality of life more, that team should be voted for.
Topicality
1. AT: Tax Policy Press
A. Definition of Environmental Policy
Reasons to Prefer:
i. Breadth
Broad scope on a topic increases educational benefit and is especially

important when making a policy.
ii. Reasonability
Affirmative definition is more than reasonable in the real world and

especially in a policy setting because it includes many options for
dealing with environmental policy, which just so happens to be what
we are debating about.
iii. Affirmative right to define
iv. Field contextually
We need to define terms that are applicable to the context that we are
dealing with. A method of dealing with environmental issues is taxing
the production of fossil fuels, which our definition includes.
B. Means to an End
The tax is not the enviro policy or the policy change itself – reducing
carbon emissions is the change, the tax is just a means to that end.
Example: Tariffs – lifting or imposing tariffs, which are technically a

form of tax, would not at all be considered tax policy but rather trade
policy. Why? Because the tax is a means to the end of whatever trade
change is trying to be made.
C. Resolution Demands Effects-T

The resolution demands that a case be effects topical. Why? Because
the way we measure environmental policy is its effect on the
environment, or how effective it is.
2. Definitions and Analysis
A. USFG
Federal Government - Federal means relating to the national

government of the United States
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1999, (Ethos)
Federal Government - United States: Usually means the federal

government centered in Washington, D.C.
West’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary, 1985, p. 744, (Ethos)
i. Analysis 1: Agency and Enforcement says it all! The

Internal Revenue Service and the Energy Department
are clearly and indisputably part of the United States
Federal Government
ii. Analysis 2: The Fed’s are the only ones who are
constitutionally able to levy a national tax so we by
necessity have to use the feds
B. Significantly
Significance - a. the quality of being important : moment b. the quality

of being statistically significant –
Merriam-Webster Online. 20 August 2009 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significance (Ethos)
Significance - Full of meaning or import; highly expressive or

suggestive
- Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition 1989, (Ethos)
i. Analysis 1:The US is the world largest carbon

emitter, no other nation comes close [Stanford
Environ Law Journal - 09] |Opener to 1AC|
ii. Analysis 2: Carbon emissions is the largest
contributor to environmental damage and a warming
climate
[Stanford Environ Law Journal - 09] |last card under
‘Warming is Happening|
iii. Analysis 3: Anything/any number can be dwarfed by
comparison.
C. Reform
Reform - To put or change into an improved form or condition

- Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary Copyright 2009, (Ethos)
Reform - verb to change something to make it better; the group is

pressing for the health service to be reformed.
- Dictionary of Government and Politics, Peter Collin Publishing (1997). Retrieved 28 August 2006, from
xreferplus. http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/1043827, (Ethos)
i. Analysis 1: Really, any action taken on

environmental policy to change it in some manner, is
to reform it, because it is being altered and will not
be left the way it was.
ii. Analysis 2: [reference both definitions] the ‘thing’
we are reforming or ‘putting into a better condition’
is the current method of the United States to reduce
Co2 emissions.
D.Environmental Policy
Environmental Policy - The purposes of this Act [42 USCS §§ 4321 et

seq.] are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive
and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and
biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the
understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources
important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental
Quality.
- USCode [42 USCS § 4321] Congressional declaration of purpose, (Ethos)
Environmental Policy - Official statements of principles, intentions,

values, and objective which are based on legislation and the governing
authority of a state and which serve as a guide for the operations of
governmental and private activities in environmental affairs.
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Untied States Department of Agriculture, (Ethos)
i. Analysis 1: Carbon emissions and environmental

issues are inseparably linked for the reason that Co2
emissions are the main contributing factor to the
environmental damage of our atmosphere today. We
are not merely affecting the environment, we are
dealing directly with the main cause of damage to
the environment.
ii. Analysis 2: Common sense! When we hear of
‘Carbon emissions’ we don’t think of health car policy
or Foreign Trade policy, we think of environmental
issues.
3. Affirmative Counterstandards
I. Reasonability
Quick Summary: The negative can always find some definition that
the affirmative doesn’t meet, we should rather accept any reasonable
interpretation of terms.
Longer Explanation: Since words have many meanings, negatives

can always find definitions/interpretations that affirmatives don’t meet;
there is always some standard that can be set so that the affirmative
fails to meet it. Instead of looking for the most limiting interpretation,
the judge should accept any reasonable interpretation of the term(s).
Reasonable interpretations still provide opportunities for the solid
negative arguments.
II. Field Context
Quick Summary: Terms should be taken to mean what they are

understood to mean in the topic they are being used in.
Longer Explanation: Terms should be taken to mean what hey are

generally assumed to mean in the topic specific literature. Affirmative
teams will often find topic-specific meanings when researching their
affirmative case and advocate these in the debate round.
III. Affirmative Predictability
Quick Summary: The affirmative is not at all able to predict every

weird definition a negative may come up with.
Longer Explanation: Affirmative teams cannot fairly predict every

odd definition of a term that the negative could read. Interpretations of
the topic should be limited to common-sense meanings.
IV. AT: Educational Value
Quick Summary: Truly learning does not come from being confined to
learn about one single isolated topic with out being able to talk about
anything else or being able to see the topic in context.
Longer Explanation: The negatives interpretation of what

“educational value” comes from is completely misguiding, because if
we were non-topical, being educated does not come from being
confined to talk about “X” topic and anything outside of that is not
allowed and will be sternly discouraged; not at all! Learning comes
from a diversity of subjects and a variety of information. Additionally,
we need to look at the surroundings of a topic to be able to grasp a
better understanding about where the topic fits in the happenings of
the world today.
V. Affirmative’s Right to Define
Quick Summary: The affirmative sets the pace of the round and we
are given the right to define terms within a reasonable and
contextually acceptable manner.
Longer Explanation: As the affirmative team, we set what the round

is going to be about. We are the ones who provide the case to debate,
the facet of the resolution to discuss, et cetera. This is not said in a
prideful manner, but we are given the right to define terms within a
reasonable and contextually acceptable manner.
Background
1. Renewables in SQ
- OBAMA ONLY INVESTING IN ENERGY GRID, not DEVELOPMENT.
- ANY SQ INVESTEMENT IS INADEQUATE
NYT 08 - current investments in renewable energy will be

insufficient to replace declining oil production
JAD MOUAWAD “Amid High Oil Prices, Danger Signs in Production”, The New York Times, April
28, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/worldbusiness/28oil-WEB.html?
pagewanted=2, (ZV), brackets added
“To make up the shortfall, the world is increasingly turning to fuels made from unconventional
sources, like biofuels or heavy oil. Canadian tar sands, for example, have attracted large
investments, and biofuels have accounted for much of the growth in fuel supplies in the last
two years. The International Energy Agency estimates that current
investments [in renewable energy] will be insufficient to replace
declining oil production, let alone increase overall output. The energy
agency said it would take $5.4 trillion by 2030 to increase global
output, a level of investment that is unlikely to be met. It said a crisis
“involving an abrupt run-up in prices” could not be ruled out before
2015.”
2. Carbon Tax is Not Happening is SQ
Wyoming Law Review 07 - increased carbon taxes have, to

date, proven politically untenable in the United States
Joshua P. Fershee, [visiting Assistant Professor, Penn State Dickinson School of Law. J.D., Tulane Law
School, 2003; B.A., Michigan State University, 1995],“WYOMING ENERGY SYMPOSIUM: ARTICLE: LEVELS OF
GREEN: STATE AND REGIONAL EFFORTS, IN WYOMING AND BEYOND, TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS”, Wyoming Law Review, 2007, (7 Wyo. L. Rev. 269), <accessed January 12, 2010>, (ZV)
“A carbon tax would place an excise tax on fossil fuel sales, i.e., sales of coal, petroleum products, and
natural gas, based on the fuel's carbon content. n124 A federal carbon tax has been promoted by several,
and diverse, sources. Duke Energy, one of the largest energy companies in the United States, is an ardent
supporter of a carbon tax, arguing that it "is an effective fiscal policy option that would simultaneously
support federal tax reform initiatives, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and promote sound energy
policies." n125 On the other end of the spectrum, [*290] former Vice President Al Gore is also a strong
proponent of carbon taxes n126 and has even suggested using a carbon tax in place of some payroll
increased carbon
taxes. Despite growing appeal at both the federal and global level, n128
taxes have, to date, proven politically untenable in the United States.
As noted above, the Bush Administration n129 and many members of Congress adamantly oppose carbon
Although there
taxes, n130 arguing that such a tax would improperly impose economic harm. n131
are some indications that politicians from both sides of the aisle are
more open to (at least some) carbon taxes than ever before, n132 no serious
proposals are on the horizon.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - Not even modest carbon taxes have been the
subject of much discussion
Shi-Ling Hsu, [Associate Dean for Special Projects, University of British Columbia Faculty of Law], “Nine
Reasons to Adopt a Carbon Tax”, May 8, 2009, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1405944, (ZV)
“Government subsidies exist in countless forms, but the two main forms of carbon pricing –carbon taxes
and cap-and-trade programs – are scarce.10 Cap-and-trade programs are politically
challenging, but not nearly as unpopular as carbon taxes. Not even
modest carbon taxes like Quebec's, which costs drivers less than a penny per liter at the
gasoline pump, have been the subject of much discussion.”
Robert Hahn 09 - for the foreseeable future, any policy

anchored on the T-word is anathema
Robert W. Hahn, [senior fellow at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, executive director
of the Reg-Markets Center at AEI, and a visiting senior fellow at the Smith School at Oxford], “Climate
Policy and the Art of the Possible”, April 2009, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1394739, (ZV)
“Third, pricing carbon today would generate experience on how to run a market-based emissions-
containment system, creating a framework for a far larger and more expensive containment effort later on.
Economists like to argue about whether a system that directly set emissions prices (think taxes) or one
that capped emissions quantities (think market-based allowance-trading programs) is better. Taxes have
the advantage of making the costs of addressing climate change – as well as the rewards to reducing
for the
emissions – transparent. The tax route may also be less prone to corruption. But
foreseeable future, any policy anchored on the T-word is anathema. So
developing that approach could be a waste of time.”
3. AT: Current Measures are Effective
A. Emissions are increasing
Stanford Environmental Law Review 09 – Global emissions are

increasing drastically
Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, [Irwin I. Cohn Professor of Law and the Director of the International Tax LLM Program
at the University of Michigan Law School], and David M. Uhlmann, [Jeffrey F. Liss Professor from Practice
and the Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Program at the University of Michigan Law School],
“Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax Is a Better Response to Global Warming Than Cap
and Trade”, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, February 2009, 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 3, <accessed via
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Yet the global rate of greenhouse gas emissions is not stabilizing; it is
accelerating. The rate of global greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity grew by seventy
percent between 1970 and 2004. With the rapid industrialization of China and
India, and absent efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions there
and in the rest of the world, carbon dioxide emissions are projected to
grow by fifty-five percent globally between 2004 and 2030.”
John Houghton 09 - Carbon Emissions are drastically being

emitted in hugely large amounts
John Houghton, [Professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at
the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre], “Global Warming”, Institute Of Physics Publishing, May 4
2005, (Rep. Prog. Phys. 68 (2005) 1343–1403), <accessed September 24, 2009>,
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/6/R02/, (ZV)
“In figure 3 emissions from the main greenhouse gases were identified in the infrared spectrum. As was
mentioned in section 2, water vapour provides the largest contribution to the natural greenhouse effect
[21]. But, the most important gas that is increasing in the atmosphere because of human activities is
If, for the moment, we ignore the effects of the CFCs and
carbon dioxide.
changes in ozone, which vary considerably over the globe and which
are therefore more difficult to quantify, the increase in carbon dioxide
(CO2) has contributed about 70% of the enhanced greenhouse effect
to date, methane (CH4) about 24% and nitrous oxide (N2O) about 6%
(figure 13). CO2 provides the dominant means through which carbon is transferred in nature between a
number of natural carbon reservoirs (the atmosphere, oceans and the land biosphere)—a process known
as the carbon cycle (figure 10). About one-fifth of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is cycled in and out
each year, part with the land biota (e.g. through respiration and photosynthesis) and part through physical
and chemical processes across the ocean surface. The land and ocean reservoirs are much larger than the
amount in the atmosphere; small changes in these larger reservoirs could, therefore, have a large effect
on the atmospheric concentration.”
Pepperdine Law Review 08 - Economic expansion, more

electricity, gasoline, petroleum, expanding industrial
productivity, GHG Emissions are predicted to drastically rise by
2020
Seth W. Eaton, [J.D. Candidate 2008, Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, CA; Bachelor of Arts in
History from Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, Class of 2004], “Winter is Frigid, n1 so I Say Bring on the
Greenhouse Effect! A Legal and Policy Discussion of the Strategies the United States Must Employ to
Combat Global Warming”, Pepperdine Law Review, 2008, 35 Pepp. L. Rev. 787, <accessed via
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Those concerned with the recent trend in greenhouse gas emissions use the year 1990 as a starting
point. n41 Additionally, important regulatory legislation and other efforts to reduce annual levels of
greenhouse gas emissions have used 1990 levels as a baseline. n42 Between 1990 and 2004, the total
annual emissions in the United States have risen by almost sixteen percent. n43 The reasons for such
figures are predictable, in that they are the result of our increasing appetite for energy. n44 With
economic expansion, a larger population, and an increased tendency
to travel, our nation has also demanded more electricity, gasoline, and
petroleum to run our businesses, expand industrial production, and
drive our automobiles. n45 Seeing as there is no indication our
population will level off or that our economy will slow down,
greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise significantly by the
year 2020.”
B. Kyoto = insignificant
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – The Kyoto Protocol

methods are insignificant
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was the first international agreement with
mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Kyoto
Protocol, developed nations agreed to decrease their emissions by
2012 by at least five percent below 1990 levels on average. Once more,
however, the United States objected to mandatory emission controls based on economic concerns. n61 The United States
was particularly vocal in its protests about the lack of mandatory limits on the emissions of developing nations. n62
Although the [*18] United States made the symbolic gesture of signing the agreement, it did so only while stating that it
would not submit the agreement to the United States Senate for ratification until major developing countries agreed to do
more. n63 Indeed, at the time it would have been futile to submit the agreement for ratification, since the Senate had
already stated in a 95-0 Resolution that it was the "sense of the Senate" that the United States should not sign any
agreement that did not require developing countries to limit their own emissions. During the Bush Administration, the
United States did not relent in its opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. President George W. Bush
publicly stated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, which prompted a fierce international reaction, as might have been
expected since over 175 other countries - representing near unanimity throughout the entire world - have ratified the
protocol. n67 The United States and Kazakhstan are the only countries that signed but have not ratified the Kyoto
Although the Kyoto Protocol was an important step in the right
Protocol.
direction, commentators have noted that it was "but a baby step in

reducing world carbon use and output."
Solvency
1. Plan Advocacy
A. Agency and Enforcement
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - Advocacy for Agency

and Enforcement of Affirmative plan
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Implementation and enforcement of a carbon tax would occur through
existing programs within the Internal Revenue Service and the Energy
Department.”
B. Time Line
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - A Carbon Tax would

be implemented almost immediately
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Because a carbon tax could be implemented and become effective
almost immediately, it would be a much quicker method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
than a cap and trade system.”
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 – within a decade,

adequate enforcement and administration will be established
but the system is largely self implementing
Michael J. Zimmer, [an attorney at Thompson Hine LLP in the energy practice and also serves this
academic year with the Ohio University Consortium of Energy, Economics and the Environment], “IN THIS
ISSUE: CLIMATE LAW REPORTER: CARBON TAX: READY FOR PRIME TIME?”, Sustainable Development Law
& Policy, Winter 2008, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 67, <accessed via LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Tax treaties and the World Trade Organization are in place to administer international consequences.
Within a decade, administrative precedents could be established, and
staffing management would likely decline as the tax system is largely
self-implementing thereafter.”

be implemented almost immediately
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Because a carbon tax could be implemented and become effective almost immediately, it
would be a much quicker method of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions than a cap and trade system.”
C. Tax Rate
Congressional Budget Office 08 – advocacy for a tax of $15 per

metric ton on U.S. emissions of CO2
Congressional Budget Office, “Efficiency Implications of Different Policy Designs”, February 2008,
<accessed September 3, 2009>, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/Chapter1.5.1.shtml, (ZV)
“To understand how a tax could offer efficiency advantages over a cap, assume that the future benefits of
limiting emissions have a present value of $15 per metric ton of CO2 (or $55 per metric ton of carbon),
that those benefits would be constant over the range of potential emission reductions during the initial
years of the policy, and that the tax or cap would take effect in the United States in 2017.4 If the costs of
cutting emissions turned out to be as expected, the tax and the cap would be equivalent. But if those costs
differed from the government’s expectations, a tax would be the more efficient policy. For example, given
if lawmakers imposed a tax of $15 per metric ton on
the assumptions above,
U.S. emissions of CO2, and if the costs of limiting emissions equaled
expectations, the $15 tax would reduce U.S. emissions in 2017 by 437
million metric tons (see the top panel of Figure 1-1). That amount represents a cut
of roughly 6.5 percent from the 6.7 billion metric tons that would
otherwise be emitted that year, CBO estimates.5 Alternatively, lawmakers could set a cap
that was 437 million metric tons below the baseline level of U.S. emissions, and if the costs of reducing
emissions were what they had expected, the incremental cost of meeting the cap would be $15 per metric
ton.”
Congressional Budget Office 08 – $15 carbon tax would yield

net benefits of $3.5 billion in its first year
Congressional Budget Office, “Efficiency Implications of Different Policy Designs”, February 2008,
<accessed September 3, 2009>, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/Chapter1.5.1.shtml, (ZV)
“Under the illustrative assumption that each ton of emission reductions
would produce $15 worth of avoided damage and using information
about the cost of emission reductions derived from various models,
CBO estimates that either policy would yield net benefits of $3.5 billion
in its first year (see the lower panel of Figure 1-1).”
D. Tax Imports
Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 – Taxing the amount of

carbon that X imported units of fossils fuels will emit, is vital
Gilbert Metcalf, [Professor of economics at Tufts University and research associate at the National Bureau
of Economic Research], and David Weisbach, [Walter J. Blum professor of law and Kearney director of the
program in law and economics at the University of Chicago and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute], “The Design of a Carbon Tax”, American Enterprise Institute Center for Regulatory and Market
Studies, January 2009, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1327260, (ZV)
“There are two principles, one physical and one economic, which allow
us to substantially reduce the collection and enforcement costs for a
tax on emissions from fossil fuels. The first is that a unit of fossil fuel
will emit the same amount of carbon regardless of when or where it is
burned. For carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion, there is a
perfect correspondence between input and output. Therefore, we can
tax the input – the fossil fuel – rather than the output – the emission.
(The exception to this rule is for fossil fuel permanently sequestered, such as fuel used for tar or carbon
that is captured and stored. This issue is discussed in section _ below.)”
Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 – Unless the imports are

taxed, it provides an incentive to trade abroad instead of
having to pay the tax
“In a related vein, some of these gases are used in the production of other goods, such as the use of
perfluorocarbons in semiconductor manufacturing. Unless imports of goods
manufactured with these chemicals are subject to tax, taxing domestic
production would create an incentive to shift production abroad,
particularly because the tax would be many times the cost of the
chemical (due to the high global warming potential). Moreover, an accurate tax on imports might be
difficult to assess because the tax should be on the emission of these gases and emissions from
manufacturing abroad would not be observable. Therefore, depending on how easy it is to shift
manufacturing using these gases abroad, a lower tax rate may be appropriate. This is simply another
example of the border tax problem that we discuss below.”
Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 – Imports from a

country without a CT will be necessary
“So long as the two trading countries both have a carbon price, however, border tax adjustments are not
necessary. If both trading partners have carbon prices, neither would gain an advantage in trade with the
other. Therefore, we can substantially reduce administrative costs by using an origin basis system (i.e., no
Imports from
border tax adjustments) for trade between countries with an adequate carbon price.
countries without an adequate carbon price would, however, most likely
need to be subject to a tax at the border as a substitute for their lack
of a carbon price, and below we discuss ways to administer such a system. Exports to these
countries could either be allowed a rebate for carbon taxes here or not; there may be modest efficiency
advantages to allowing a rebate but the administrative costs might be substantial.”
Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 – China is not the main

exporter to the US of fossil fuels
“Although trade discussions often explicitly or implicitly focus on China
because of its increasing share of imports into the United States, China
is a relatively small exporter of carbon intensive goods. Canada is
instead the dominant exporter of such goods to the U.S. Below we reproduce
data from Houser, T., R. Bradley, B. Childs, J. Werksman and R. Heilmayr (2008) on imports by origin for
steel, aluminum, chemicals, paper, and cement. As can be seen, China is significant only with respect to
cement and Canada dominates all categories except for chemical imports, where it is second.”
2. Specifications/Details
a. Tax Collection
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 – the tax

collection process…its super simple!!!
Michael Waggoner, [Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Colorado. A.B., European History,
Stanford University; LL.B. Harvard Law School. Professor Waggoner's research and teaching interests
include taxation and civil procedure], “Why and How to Tax Carbon”, Colorado Journal of Environmental
Law and Policy, March 24, 2009, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1367746, (ZV)
“At its core, a carbon tax is fairly simple because relatively few entities
control virtually all carbon production. Although particular entities may
own thousands of coal mines or petroleum or natural gas wells, these
entities tend to be relatively large and their extraction activities have
fixed locations at the source—unlike sellers or transporters or
manufacturers, whose locations may easily shift—which simplifies the
process of identifying them and collecting the carbon tax. There are
about 13,000 oil and natural gas extractors in the United States,
although the largest fifty control over seventy percent of both
markets.13 Thirty “major coal producers” control eighty-six percent of
the U.S. coal market.14 The tax need not be collected from other
entities along the chain of extraction, refining, manufacturing,
distribution, and finally consumption, because of two effects. First, the tax
may cause a reduction in carbon output, making less carbon available along the chain and thus lowering
carbon emissions. Second, the tax will be passed along the chain to a substantial extent, giving entities
and individuals at all places along the chain an incentive to reduce carbon consumption.”
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 - There

will always be inefficiencies in collecting taxes
“Along with the benefits discussed above, there is an additional reason why a carbon tax is desirable.
Taxes are necessary to provide revenue to pay for government programs, but any tax has ill effects.
There will always be inefficiencies in collecting taxes. Taxpayers incur costs to
plan and comply with taxes, to avoid taxes, or perhaps to evade taxes. Tax collectors incur costs to
enforce taxes. Tribunals incur costs to resolve disputes over taxes. These costs waste resources. In
addition, any tax distorts behavior, slowing economic activity by withdrawing funds from the economy and
reducing incentives to work, innovate, and take risks. What is taxed may affect these harms. A tax on
income, for example, may reduce incentives for working, saving, and financial risk taking. A tax on
consumption may reduce expenditures on food, clothing, shelter, health care, and entertainment, which
are some of the main goals of human activity and should not be discouraged unnecessarily. In contrast, a
tax on carbon discourages carbon use, which should have two major benefits. The first is the reduction of
carbon emissions that threaten to accelerate global warming. The second is the value of carbon in its
native form. Coal and petroleum can be the raw materials for chemicals and medicines that can have great
value to society.8 To burn those raw materials unnecessarily is wasteful. We will, of course, continue to tax
incomes and consumption, but we must ask how much higher to push the marginal tax on each, or how
much of a tax reduction on either to forgo, as opposed to imposing a tax on carbon. While there are clear
losses to society in discouraging either income or consumption, it is hard to see a comparable loss to
society from a reduction in carbon usage.”
b. Carbon Content of Fossil Fuels
EPA 05 - Carbon Content of Gasoline and Diesel

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from
Gasoline and Diesel Fuel”, February 2005, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.pdf, (ZV)
“One of the primary determinants of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from mobile sources is the amount of
carbon in the fuel. Carbon content varies, but typically we use average carbon content values to
estimateCO2 emissions. The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 600.113) provides values for carbon
content per gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel which EPA uses in calculating the fuel economy of vehicles:
Gasoline carbon content per gallon: 2,421 grams Diesel carbon content
per gallon: 2,778 grams Note that for the "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks," EPA estimates CO2 emissions from fuel from the heat content of the fuel and carbon content
coefficients in terms of carbon content per quadrillion BTU (QBTU), using data from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA). EIA’s numbers are derived from carbon content by mass, and equate to roughly the
same carbon content per gallon of fuel as the values provided in 40 CFR 600.113. EPA uses heat content
data from Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) “Annual Energy Outlook 2003" and carbon content
from EIA’s “Emissions of Green-house Gases in the United States, 2000.”
EPA 09 - Carbon content of Coal

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Green Power Equivalency Calculator Methodologies”,
March 24, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/grnpower/pubs/calcmeth.htm#vehicles, (ZV)
“Average heat content of coal in 2005 was 22.68 million btu per metric
ton (EPA 2007). Average carbon coefficient of coal in 2005 was 25.34
kilograms carbon per million btu (EPA 2007). Fraction oxidized is 100
percent (IPCC 2006). Carbon dioxide emissions per ton of coal were determined by multiplying heat
content times the carbon coefficient times the fraction oxidized times the ratio of the molecular weight of
carbon dioxide to that of carbon (44/12). The amount of coal in an average railcar was assumed to be
100.19 short tons, or 90.89 metric tons (Hancock 2001).”
EPA 09 - Carbon content for Crude Oil

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Green Power Equivalency Calculator Methodologies”,
March 24, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/grnpower/pubs/calcmeth.htm#vehicles, (ZV)
“Average heat content of crude oil is 5.80 million btu per barrel(EPA 2007).
Average carbon coefficient of crude oil is 20.33 kg carbon per million
btu (EPA 2007). Fraction oxidized is 100 percent (IPCC 2006). Carbon dioxide emissions
per barrel of crude oil were determined by multiplying heat content times the carbon coefficient times the
fraction oxidized times the ratio of the molecular weight of carbon dioxide to that of carbon (44/12).”
EPA 08 – Carbon content of Biomass

United States Environmental Protection Agency, “ESTE Joint Verification Statement”, April 2008,
http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/600etv08018s.pdf, <October 3, 2009>, (ZV)
“The average heating value of the woody biomass was 4,645 Btu/lb.
Under normal operations, each boiler generates approximately
175,000 lb/h steam which is used to power a 15 MW steam turbine and
provide process steam to the Blandin mill. The boilers typically cofire
woody waste, primarily bark, at a nominal coal:biomass fuel ratio of
15:85 percent. The woody biomass waste is of sufficient supply nearly all year long with the
exception of spring months. During periods of reduced wood waste supply the facility increases the
amount of coal used to fuel the boilers.”
EPA 05 - [Formula for calculating emissions from the amount of

carbon content]
United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from
Gasoline and Diesel Fuel”, February 2005, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.pdf, (ZV)
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines for calculating emissions inventories
require that an oxidation factor be applied to the carbon content to account for a small portion of the fuel
that is not oxidized into CO2. For all oil and oil products, the oxidation factor used is 0.99 (99 percent of
to
the carbon in the fuel is eventually oxidized, while 1 percent remains un-oxidized.)1 Finally,
calculate the CO2 emissions from a gallon of fuel, the carbon emissions
are multiplied by the ratio of the molecular weight of CO2(m.w. 44) to
the molecular weight of carbon (m.w.12): 44/12.
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x
(44/12)= 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon
CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) =10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon =
22.2 pounds/gallon
Note: These calculations and the supporting data have associated variation and uncertainty. EPA may use
other values in certain circum-stances, and in some cases it may be appropriate to use a range of values.”
3. Renewable Energy
Dr. John Berger 00 – What qualifies as renewable energy

John J. Berger, [independent energy and environmental consultant, holds a bachelors degree in political
science and a Masters degree in energy and natural resources as well as a Ph.D. in ecology], “Beating the
Heat: Why and How we must combat Global Warming”, Berkeley Hills Books, 2000, ISBN: 1893163059,
(ZV), |page 81|,
“Solar, hydropower, geothermal, and wind resources all provide high
quality energy sources with out carbon emissions. They are called
“renewable” resources because they are endlessly replenished by
nature. By contrast, fossil fuels, such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas, were created over millions of
years; exist in limited quantities; and are not renewable. We consume them, and the more we use the less
remains. Because economically exploitable deposits of these carbon fuels will one day be exhausted, as
sustainable energy economy must rely on renewable energy sources.”
Dr. John Berger 00 – Why not nuclear power?

(ZV), |page 82|,
Why not include nuclear power on this menu?
• Nuclear power fuel is made form uranium ores which are in
limited supply and nonrenewable. To produce nuclear power
indefinitely, uranium eventually would have to be replaced with
highly radioactive, reprocessed plutonium, creating serious
safety, proliferation, and economic problems.
• Nuclear power generation presents safety and environmental
hazards. They range form routine radioactice emissions from
power plants to catastrophic accident risks due to power plant
malfunctions, earthquakes or terrorism, as well as dangers
arising from nuclear material transport and storage.
• Nuclear power plants are exceptionally costly to build, maintain,
and decommission.
• The nuclear fuel cycle involves uranium mining, milling, and fuel
fabrication, all of which use energy from fossil fuel, and generate
radioactive waste.2
i. Revenue must be invested in
Renewables
Monica Prasad 08 - Carbon tax will only work if revenue goes

to incentives for clean tech – Denmark proves
Monica Prasad [assistant professor of sociology & faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at
Northwestern University], “On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend,” The New York Times, 25 March, 2008,
(Section A; Column 0; Editorial Desk; Op-Ed Contributor; Pg. 27)
“Carbon tax discussions always seem to devolve into gleeful
suggestions for ways to spend the revenue. Reduce the income tax?
Give the money to low-income consumers? Use it to pay for health
care? Everyone seems to forget that the amount of revenue is directly
tied to the amount of pollution that is still going on. Denmark avoids
the temptation to maximize the tax revenue by giving the proceeds
back to industry, earmarking much of it to subsidize environmental
innovation. Danish firms are pushed away from carbon and pulled into
environmental innovation, and the country’s economy isn’t put at a
competitive disadvantage. So this is lesson No. 1 from Denmark.”
Monica Prasad 08 – the Carbon tax worked in Denmark because

it was easy for firms to switch to renewables with was made
possible by using the CT revenue to invest in renewables
“The second lesson is that the carbon tax worked in Denmark because it was
easy for Danish firms to switch to cleaner fuels. Danish policy makers
made huge investments in renewable energy and subsidized
environmental innovation. Denmark back then was more reliant on
coal than the other three countries were (but not more so than the United States is
today), so when the tax gave companies a reason to leave coal and the
investments in renewable energy gave them an easy way to do so,
they switched. The key was providing easy substitutes.”
Monica Prasad 08 - if we want to reduce carbon emissions,

then we should follow Denmark’s example: tax the industrial
emission of carbon and return the revenue to industry through
subsidies for research and investment in alternative energy
sources
“Instead, if we want to reduce carbon emissions, then we should follow
Denmark’s example: tax the industrial emission of carbon and return
the revenue to industry through subsidies for research and investment
in alternative energy sources, cleaner-burning fuel, carbon-capture
technologies and other environmental innovations.”
Phil Davies 07 - Carbon tax revenue should fund R&D for green
technology
Phil Davies [Senior Writer], “Putting a Price on Carbon,” The Region [a publication of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Minneapolis], December, 2007, (Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 6+)
“There are also fiscal advantages to price controls, specifically carbon taxes. A
tax on fossil fuels would generate significant revenue, compensating
for higher prices induced by the tax. Government could use this
revenue to fund technological research, mitigate the harmful effects of
global warming and jump-start emission reductions in developing
countries.”
Natural Resources Defense Council 04 - The US Government

must invest and development on less carbon emitting and
renewable fuel sources
Natural Resources Defense Council, “The New Energy Economy: Putting America on the path to solving
global warming”, December 2007, www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/energy/contents.asp, (ZV)
“The government must adopt performance standards and other
policies to promote ‘learning by doing’ and rapid development and deployment
of emerging technologies such as low-carbon fuels, renewable
electricity, and carbon capture and disposal. We must also
simultaneously move to adopt a strict international system to control
global warming pollution. The cost of inaction—to our health, our
environment, and our economy—is a price that we cannot afford to
pay. We must act now, and act decisively, to prevent the dangerous
impacts of global warming and to drive investment in the next generation of buildings,
vehicles, fuels and power production.”
Robert Hahn 09 - Washington ought to consider a wide array of

options to promote R&D, including unusual ones like cash
prizes for achieving key goals
“By the same token, a long-term commitment should include incentives to increase the supply of skills in
relevant fields of science and technology. Market incentives alone are not likely to be sufficient, since the
lag between making the work financially attractive and training an army of technologists is very long.
Washington ought to consider a wide array of options to promote R&D,
including unusual ones like cash prizes for achieving key goals. We
must recognize that positive incentives (subsidies) are complements to
negative incentives (putting a price on emissions) – not substitutes for them.”
Reuters 09 - The climate crisis challenges us to invent the new

technologies and industries that will transform life
Frank Ackerman, “The Economic Case for Slashing Carbon Emissions”, Reuters New Service, October 21,
2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/mnCarbonEmissions/idUS5797573120091021, (ZV)
“The climate crisis challenges us to do it again, to invent the new
technologies and industries that will transform life in the mid-21st
century and beyond. We know it's possible: We can afford to protect
the climate, and leave a livable world to future generations.”
ii. Renewable Energy is HOT

Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - a massive switch from coal-fired power plants
to natural gas-fired plants is desirable, and a further switch to
renewable carbonless or low-carbon sources such as wind,
solar, geothermal, tidal, solar thermal better still
“Much is often said about the need to completely restructure our
economies to be less carbon intensive; to reduce reliance on coal for
electricity generation, make more fuel-efficient cars, drive less, build
communities that require less driving, make buildings and appliances
more energy efficient, transport goods in more efficient ways, and a
plethora of other climate-friendly actions. Clearly, a massive switch
from coal-fired power plants (currently about half of all electricity generation in the US12)
to natural gas-fired plants is desirable, and a further switch to
renewable carbonless or low-carbon sources such as wind, solar,
geothermal, tidal, solar thermal (currently about five percent in the U.S. excluding
hydro13), better still. Perhaps best of all, there are a myriad of ways to
conserve energy and utilize energy more efficiently than we currently
do. And over the longer term, it makes abundant sense to reconsider
the way that entire cities and societies are physically laid out, built as
they currently are in North America to accommodate automobiles
guzzling gas at low prices. How do we choose which measures to adopt, and to what extent?
How do we create incentives to discover still more ways to increase energy efficiency?”
Dr. John Berger 00 – [Precedent] 5 countries who have 100% of

reliance on renewable energy
(ZV), |page 82|,
“Renewables are already playing a large part in the energy supply of
other nations. Iceland and Norway get almost 100 percent of their
electricity from renewable energy sources—mainly hydropower.
Iceland gets almost 100 percent of its heat from renewable sources—
mainly from geothermal energy. Denmark will get fifty percent of its
electricity from wind power by 2030. New Zealand gets about three-
quarters of its electricity from hydro and geothermal sources.”
UC Berkley News 04 - Investing in renewable energy would

produce more American jobs
Robert Sanders, “Investment in renewable energy better for jobs as well as environment”, UC Berkley
News, April 13, 2004, http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/13_kamm.shtml, (ZV)
“Investing in renewable energy such as solar, wind and the use of
municipal and agricultural waste for fuel would produce more American
jobs than a comparable investment in the fossil fuel energy sources in
place today, according to a report issued today (Tuesday, April 13) by researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley. "Across a broad range of scenarios, the renewable
energy sector generates more jobs per average megawatt of power
installed, and per unit of energy produced, than the fossil fuel-based
energy sector," the report concludes. "All states of the Union stand to gain in
terms of net employment from the implementation of a portfolio of
clean energy policies at the federal level.”
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy 02 - renewable

energy and energy efficiency technologies can help to foster
energy independence for the United States while also
addressing the challenge of global climate change
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, “THE RENEWABLE ROADMAP TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE”, February 21, 2002,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77847.000/hsy77847_0f.htm, <accessed January 11,
2010>, (ZV)
“Chairperson Biggert, Members of the Subcommittee, and other invited guests, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today to provide testimony on how renewable energy and
energy efficiency technologies can help to foster energy independence
for the United States while also addressing the challenge of global
climate change. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Woolsey and Professor Alexandra von
Meier of Sonoma State University for arranging for this hearing to take place in a building that provides
such a dramatic example of the comfort, quality, and greater energy efficiency that is possible today.
Sadly, without public sector leadership, far too little attention and
construction goes into this sort of smart and green, both
environmentally and economically, design. I hope this hearing will provide the
impetus to move the U.S. significantly toward that goal.”
John Berger 98 - The way to reduce pollution without inflicting

economic pain is through a major expansion in our reliance on
renewable energy
science and a Masters degree in energy and natural resources as well as a Ph.D. in ecology], “Charging
ahead: the business of renewable energy and what it means for America”, University of California Press,
1998, pg. 16-17, ISBN: 0-520-21614-8, <accessed via GoogleBooks>, (ZV)
“The way to meet these rapidly swelling demands [to reduce pollution]
without overtaxing environmental systems or inflicting economic pain
is through a major expansion in our reliance on energy efficiency
technology and renewable energy. Those partners are the most
practical way to cut emissions as drastically as they must be cut. Odd
as it may sound, codevelopment of efficiency and renewables is a
planetary insurance policy to protect against possible global climate
catastrophe.”
Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 07 - wind,

geothermal, and hydroelectric power are successful energy
sources
Rustin P. Diehl, [Junior Staff Member, Journal of Land, Resources & Environmental Law; J.D.
candidate 2008], “Transitioning to a Clean Renewable Energy Network in the West”, Journal of
Land, Resources, & Environmental Law, 2007, (27 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 345),
<accessed April 8, 2010>, (ZV)
“Not all energy is produced equally, and in addition to political support
and consumer education, the transition to a clean renewable energy
infrastructure requires the right choices of energy production. While
many "renewable energies" exist in fact or theory, only a couple of
renewable energy production technologies are truly clean and
currently available at an affordable price. Rather than wait for [*347]
renewable energy production technologies to catch up, or prices to fall,
a transition to a renewable energy production grid could be
accomplished in the near future through a combined use of those
technologies which are the most developed, clean energy sources:
wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric.”
John Berger 98 - If global warming is indeed the menace that

the vast majority of scientists believe, then efficiency and
renewables are not just our best hope; they are the world's
only hope
1998, pg. 17, ISBN: 0-520-21614-8, <accessed via GoogleBooks>, (ZV)
“Anyone who finds it difficult to take the idea seriously now that we
could disrupt such enormous energy flows as those of global climate
should recall that the partial destruction of the worlds stratospheric
ozone layer which protects us form skin cancers and cataracts, also
sounded highly implausible when first predicted in the 1970s. Skepticism
also greeted early concerns about acid rain, which sterilized thousands of lakes and about DDT, which
If global warming is indeed the menace that the
wiped out millions of songbirds.
vast majority of scientists believe, then efficiency and renewables are
not just our best hope; they are the world's only hope.”
Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 07 –

Renewable energy costs are falling and this trend is going to
continue
“Job creation aside, renewable energy costs are falling, and that
downward trend is expected to continue as larger multi-megawatt
renewable energy production sites are mass-produced.”
A. Wind
John Berger 98 - The United States possesses an energy

bonanza -- We are a Saudi Arabia of wind
“The United States possesses an energy bonanza, yet no dictator, sheik, or oil
America has
mogul controls its wells and spigots -- or charges by the barrel or ton for wind.
hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of this free, non depletable
resource. We are a Saudi Arabia of wind.”
John Berger 98 - WIND is available and competitive

“At 5 cents a kilowatt-hour, wind power, even without special
renewable energy tax credits, is cost competitive with most new
hydropower facilities and a range of fossil fuel technologies, including
some natural gas and new combined-cycle coal plants. However, the National
Energy Policy Act of 1992 contains a 1.5 cent per kilowatt-hour production tax credit for wind-generated
electricity, which further reduces the net cost of wind energy.”
Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 07 – wind

energy by itself is not a reliable energy source but with a
combo of geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric power, we can
have a 100% successful energy supply
“Although wind has great potential to provide clean and cheap
renewable energy, one of the strongest critiques of wind power is that
wind facilities are only active during the 20-30 percent of time when
wind is blowing. n40 Often, the wind blows most during the morning and
evening, presenting problems during summer daytimes when air
conditioning increases power needs. This intermittent property of wind power
makes it necessary to keep traditional power sources running for supply security, forcing
operators to run conventional plants below optimal thermal efficiency, resulting in greater
emissions. A recent European Nuclear Society study estimates that the equivalent of one third
of the pollution saved from wind generation is lost to these inefficiencies n41 However, by
developing wind power in conjunction with geothermal power and then
supplementing peak demand times, when wind power is lowest, with
releases from current hydroelectric plants, the concerns about wind
power's intermittent power generation could be mitigated. n42 By
developing a multi-source energymatching up wind generation
capacity to equal the existing hydroelectric capacity and gradually
supplementing the remaining parts with geothermal generation
capacity, these renewable energies could completely offset the low-
power or intermittent outputs that both wind and hydroelectric
experience. Geothermal energywould act as a more constant source of energy used to
keep a constant base line of energy output.”
Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 07 – Wind is

abundant, inexpensive, and is widely used worldwide
“Because of its abundance and inexpensiveness, wind energy is the
world's fastest-growing energy technology, and the World's wind
generation capacity more than quadrupled between 1999 and 2005.
n30 As of 2006, the United States has over 11,000 megawatts of wind generating capacity,
which is almost enough to energy to power 3 million households.”
European Wind Energy Association – Wind Energy Support…AT:
Birds Death DA
European Wind Energy Association, “Wind Energy and the Environment”, <accessed January 11, 2010>,
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/press_releases/factsheet_environment2.pdf,
(ZV)
“Collisions with turbines have been an issue at some older wind farm sites form the 1980s,
especially the Altamont Pass in California – a result of poor siting, out-moded turbines and
tower technology. Subsequent experiences in Germany and Denmark show
that such effects can be avoided by responsible planning practice.
Proper siting of turbines is important if adverse impacts are to be
avoided. In the United States, a study in 2001 estimated an average of 2.2 fatalities for
each turbine. By comparison, between 100 and 1,000 million birds are estimated to die each
year in the US from colliding with vehicles, buildings, power lines and other structures. That is
wind-related avian collision fatalities represent 0.01 - 0.02% of annual avian fatalities in the
US. In Spain, a study in the province of Navarre showed that 0.13 birds had died per year per
turbine. The impact of birds must be placed in context. 99% of threats to
birds are human related, from habitat loss to industrialization, over
exploitation of natural resources, hunting, the pet trade, pollution, etc.
Habitat loss is the single greatest threat to birds, and 12% of the
world’s 9,800 bird species face extinction.”
B. Solar
Business Week 08 – Solar Pwr creates jobs, reduces energy

costs and solar energy costs are decreasing
Adam Aston, “Are solar photovoltaics just too costly?”, Business Week, February 23, 2008,
<accessed April 8, 2010>,
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/02/is_solar_photov.htm
l, (ZV)
“Yet its proponents maintain that government subsidies are justified. The
public money will speed the solar PV’s evolution and lower its price. This has happened. Improving
economies of scale in manufacturing, lower installation costs, and

chips which do a better job of converting more of the sun’s photons in
electricity have dramatically solar PV costs. Yet not by enough, or fast enough, says
Borenstein in his January paper, “The Market Value and Cost of Solar Photovoltaic Electricity Product”. Borenstein found
that, even after considering that the panels reduce greenhouse gases, their installation and operating costs still far
outweigh their economic and social benefits. He asks then whether the subsidies would be better spent on basic R&D to
improve solar PV technology rather than paying for more households and businesses to erect more subsidy-choming
panels up on their roofs. “We need a major scientific breakthrough, and we won’t get it by putting panels up on houses,”
he said in a statement. Solar PV players are fighting back. “Borenstein’s recent paper on solar policy is predicated on a
host of faulty assumptions that are simply out of touch with the success of solar market development in California and
around the world,” said Julie Blunden a spokesperson at SunPower, the biggest installer of solar PV in the US, in a written
The industry has also grenerated millions of jobs and
response to the study.
stabilizes the costs of electricity for those who use it. And to make the
point, at the PiperJaffray solar investment conference in New York in February, SunPower announced it will cut
installed solar system costs [will be cut] to meet equal retail prices by
2012.”
John Berger 98 – SOLAR is available and competitive

“Electricity costing less than ten cents a kilowatt-hour can be
generated using PV [photovoltaic cell] concentrator technology, and
less than five cents a kilowatt-hour is quite possible." -Eldon Boes and Antonio
Luque”
C. Tidal

Hydropower is a good energy source, but its use has been
declining because of stupid regulations
“Although there are several types of hydroelectric power generators,
they are all powered by the kinetic energy of flowing water turning
turbines and generators to convert the kinetic energy into electricity.
n20 The United States has over 80,000 MW of hydroelectric power,
making it the country's largest source of renewableenergy. n21
Hydroelectric power currently generates about 6.5% of the United States' power, and the
Department of Energy estimates that the United States has undeveloped hydroelectric
capacity of about 30,000 MW. n22 Despite this, hydroelectric produces about 10% of the
Mountain West's energy, and almost 15% of California's energy, making it a larger source of
energy. n23 This is due in large part to the mountainous landscape of the mountain west,
which more easily allows man-made dams to be built. However, the percentage of
hydroelectric energy in comparison to other sources has been
declining since the early 1900's, n24 and experts expect that number
to continue to decline because of environmental complications n25 and
regulatory complexities. n26 Despite these obstacles to [*349]
hydroelectric energy, this power source, in combination with a well-
developed geothermal energy capacity is still capable of meeting peak
energy needs.”
Villanova Environmental Law Journal 08 – Tidal Energy iz good;

Britain Proves
Michael B. Walsh, “A RISING TIDE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY: THE FUTURE OF TIDAL IN-STREAM
ENERGY CONVERSION (TISEC)”, Villanova Environmental Law Journal, 2008, (19 Vill. Envtl. L.J.
193), (ZV)
“Using alternative energy could be the answer to reducing the demand
for fossil fuels. n87 A recent study found "Britain could generate up to
20 percent of the electricity it needs from waves and tides... about
12,000 megawatts a day at current usage, or three times what
Britain's largest power plant produces now." n88 The amount of energy
produced through tidal energy could greatly reduce the current
reliance on oil, and it could replace, or at least lengthen, the lifespan of the fossil
fuels.”
Villanova Environmental Law Journal 08 – Inadequate funding

is perhaps the most debilitating barrier to tidal energy
Michael B. Walsh, “A RISING TIDE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY: THE FUTURE OF TIDAL IN-STREAM
ENERGY CONVERSION (TISEC)”, Villanova Environmental Law Journal, 2008, (19 Vill. Envtl. L.J.
193), (ZV)
“Inadequate funding is perhaps the most debilitating barrier to TISEC
[tidal energy] commercialization. n292 Without funding, there is little
hope companies will be able to build and test prototypes and develop
competitive technology. n293 Wind power serves as a good historical guide to the
effects of proper funding for an emerging technology.”
D. Geothermal

Geothermal may not be a perfect source of energy but it is
clean, reliable, and the US has LOTS of geothermal tap-able
sutes
“Although geothermal technology might not be quite as renewable as
wind energy since "hot spots" cool after some decades, n33 it can be
readily engaged to [*350] keep power grids constantly running at a
base level between hydro electric releases and windy times of day.
Ironically, geothermal energy, like many forms of fossil fuel energy, is
a derived by tapping into resources that lie beneath the earth's
surface. n34 When the hot water is released from the pressure of the
deep reservoir, the sudden drop in pressure causes some of the water
to vaporize to steam, which spins a turbine to generate electricity.
However, in contrast to fossil fuels, the geothermal energy potential in the uppermost 6 miles
of the Earth's crust amounts to 50,000 times the energy of all known oil and gas resources in
the world. n35 But current geothermal use is only a fraction of the total
potential of geothermal energy. U.S. geothermal resources alone are
estimated to be sufficient to supply 750,000-years of energy needs for
the entire United States at current rates of consumption. n36 It is not
possible to tap into every reserve of geothermal energy, but tapping
into even a fraction of this potential could provide significant
renewable resources for years to come.”
iii. AT: US isn’t ready
Dr. John Berger 00 – the US is ready and able to rely on

renewable energy
(ZV), |page 81|,
“At the same time, trillions of dollars in fossil fuel costs and devastating environmental and public health
impacts would be avoided. Although this future [of reliance on renewable
1
energy] may sound unattainable, it isn’t. The U.S. and the world have
the technology today to cleanly meet their energy need.”
Washington Post 09 – Obama has pledged $825 dollars for

improvement of US energy grid
Jon Ward, “Obama asks to fix electric grid”, The Washington Post, January 24, 2009,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/24/obama-gives-more-details-stimulus/, (ZV)
“President Obama on Saturday revealed more details about his economic
recovery package, stating that the $825 billion program will in part go
to fund a new electricity grid to route power from alternative energy
sources such as wind and solar to American homes and businesses. Mr. Obama, in
his weekly radio and video address, promised to "lay down more than 3,000 miles
of transmission lines to convey this new energy from coast to coast."
He also disclosed that 10,000 schools will be modernized with "state-
of-the-art classrooms, libraries, and labs," benefiting about 5 million
students, and said that making 75 percent of federal buildings more
energy efficient will save taxpayers $2 billion annually. And, he said, a new
website, recovery.gov, will track all of the government spending under the massive program, as part of an
effort to identify and eliminate wasteful uses of taxpayer money.”
CNN 09 – Obama making plans to re-boost failing US energy

grid
“A $2 trillion bet on powering America”, January 8, 2009, CNN, <accessed January 23, 2010>,
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/smart_grid/index.htm, (ZV)
“On Thursday, President-elect Barack Obama called for a similar investment,
perhaps billions, to begin work on a new "smart" electric grid to
replace the nation's old, fragmented and inefficient system. "We'll also
do more to retrofit America for a global economy," Obama said in a speech
stumping for the passage of a massive government stimulus plan to jump-start the economy, expected to
"That means updating the way we get our
pass Congress in the next few weeks.
electricity by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us
money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver
clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation.”
Politcal Economy Research Institute 09 – clean-energy

investments will go to improving the electricity grid
Robert Pollin, [professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the
University of Massachusetts-Amherst], James Heintz, [associate research professor and associate director
for PERI], Heidi Garrett-Peltier, [a PERI research fellow], “Clean-Energy Investments Create Jobs in North
Carolina”, Politcal Economy Research Institute, June 2009,
http://images2.americanprogress.org/CAP/2009/06/factsheets/peri_nc.pdf, (ZV)
“The largest share of clean-energy investments will go toward energy
efficiency, including funds for building retrofits, public transportation,
and a smart grid electrical transmission system. Important new
investments will also be devoted to developing renewable energy
sources, including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal power. The overall
clean-energy investment program will provide a major boost to the construction and manufacturing
sectors, in North Carolina and throughout the United States.”
iv. [Ethanol]
a. No ↓ of Fossil Fuels
NYT 09 - Ethanol will not replace U.S. gasoline

Michael Grunwald, SEPT. / OCT. 2009 Seven Myths About Alternative Energy, Michael Grunwald, (a senior
correspondent at Time magazine, is an award-winning environmental journalist and author of The Swamp:
The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise.) Foreign Policy, (Equal parts scout and translator, we
draw on the world’s leading journalists, thinkers, and professionals to analyze the most significant
international trends and events of our times, without regard to ideology or political bias.),
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29efficient.html
“Even if the United States switched its entire grain crop to ethanol, it
would only replace one fifth of U.S. gasoline consumption.”
Miguel Altieri and Elizabeth Bravo 07 -

Miguel A Altieri, [Professor of Agroecology at UC Berkeley], and Elizabeth Bravo, [experienced
in agriculture], “The ecological and social tragedy of crop-based biofuel production in the
Americas”, March 20, 2007, http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1662, <accessed March 16, 2010>,
(ZV)
“Dedicating all present U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels
would meet only 12% of the country’s gasoline needs and 6% of diesel
needs. Agricultural land area in the US totals 625,000 square acres. At
present rates, meeting oil demand from biofuels would require 1.4
million square miles of corn for ethanol or 8.8 million square miles of
soy for biodiesel (Korten 2006). South Dakota and Iowa already devote
more than 50% of their corn to ethanol production, which has led to a
diminishing supply of corn for animal feed and human consumption.
Though one fifth of the US corn harvest was dedicated to ethanol
production in 2006, it met only 3% of the US’s total fuel needs (Bravo
2006).”
b. Energy Inefficiency
Miguel Altieri and Elizabeth Bravo 07 -

Miguel A Altieri, [Professor of Agroecology at UC Berkeley], and Elizabeth Bravo, [experienced
in agriculture], “The ecological and social tragedy of crop-based biofuel production in the
Americas”, March 20, 2007, http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1662, <accessed March 16, 2010>,
(ZV)
Ethanol production is extremely energy intensive. To produce 10.6
billion liters of ethanol, the U.S. uses about 3.3 million hectares of land,
which in turn requires massive energy inputs to fertilize, weed and
harvest the corn (Pimentel 2003). These 10.6 billion liters of ethanol
only provide 2% of the gasoline utilized by cars in the U.S. per year.
Despite the studies of Shapouri et al (2004) from the USDA that report
a net energy positive return for ethanol production, Pimentel and
Patzek (2005), utilizing data from all 50 states and accounting for all
energy inputs ( including farm machinery manufacture and repair and
fermentation-distillation equipment) conclude that ethanol production
does not provide a net energy benefit. Rather, they claim it requires
more fossil energy to produce than it produces. In their calculations,
corn ethanol production requires 1.29 gallons of fossil fuels per gallon
of ethanol produced, and soy biodiesel production requires 1.27
gallons of fossil energy per gallon of diesel produced. In addition,
because of the relatively low energy density of ethanol, approximately
three gallons of ethanol are needed to displace two gallons of gasoline.
UC Berkley News 03 -
UC Berkley News, “Producing ethanol from corn drains resources, says new report by UC
Berkeley researchers”, Sarah Yang, June 5, 2003, <accessed March 16, 2010>,
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/05_ethanol.shtml, (ZV)
"When you first consider ethanol, it feels like you're being progressive
and environmentally friendly," said Jason Lee, an undergraduate at UC Berkeley who
helped author the paper. "But, if you dig underneath, you find that it's really
misleading. The amount of fuel and oil needed to use ethanol is greater
than the value of energy ethanol provides. It's ridiculous to think it would
decrease our dependence on oil." Patzek and his students found that by the time
ethanol is burned as a gasoline additive in our vehicles, the net energy
lost is 65 percent, a figure that factors in the energy spent growing the corn and
converting it into ethanol. They conducted the study over a period of four months, reviewing
data from government agencies, industry figures and published research papers.”
UC Berkley News 03 -
UC Berkley News, “Producing ethanol from corn drains resources, says new report by UC
Berkeley researchers”, Sarah Yang, June 5, 2003, <accessed March 16, 2010>,
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/05_ethanol.shtml, (ZV)
“In addition, ethanol does not pack as much energy as gasoline because
of its lower heating value. The paper points out that the energy of 2.66
gallons of ethanol is equivalent to 1.74 gallons of gasoline. In other
words, the energy input of 4.93 gallons of gasoline equivalent leads to
an energy output of 1.74 gallons of gasoline equivalent, or a net
energy loss of 65 percent.”
v. AT: Subsidies Bad
Robert Hahn 09 - without government support, the pace of

investment in R&D is likely to be too slow
“Fourth, there is an important role for government-supported research
and development in climate-change strategies. For without
government support, the pace of investment in R&D is likely to be too
slow. All that said, economists are divided on other important issues in climate-change policy. Some
argue that in choosing how much to invest in climate stabilization today, we should discount expected
future benefits at a very low rate. In essence, they argue that we should defer to the interests of future
generations, rather than focusing on our own costs and benefits. There is also disagreement about the
right way to weigh the cost of the unknown risks of a climate-change catastrophe – say, the very rapid rise
of sea levels or the collapse of vital ecosystems.”
Reuters 09 - The role of government in climate policy and of

the public sector is to guide research on clean energy
technologies
Frank Ackerman, “The Economic Case for Slashing Carbon Emissions”, Reuters New Service, October 21,
2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/mnCarbonEmissions/idUS5797573120091021, (ZV)
“The role of government in climate policy is not only to set appropriate
price signals through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system; the public
sector must also guide research on clean energy technologies. Despite
free-market mythology to the contrary, this has worked well in the
past. Wind power is profitable today as a result of decades of
government investment in the United States and Europe. In another arena,
the U.S. government essentially invented microelectronics in the 1950s and 1960s: At first, almost all
transistors, integrated circuits, and the like were bought by agencies such as the Pentagon and NASA,
because no one else could afford them. Just a few decades of massive government purchases of these
items turned microelectronics into the premier private-sector success story of the late-20th century,
transforming everyone's life in countless unexpected ways.”
4. Countries with Carbon Taxes
Associated Foreign Press 09 - Four other countries have

adopted such methods to curb carbon emissions
Associated Foreign Press, “French panel to recommend carbon tax on fuel”, July 23, 2009,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5haE8sry_CmhafF2IOhdVUifQ8Lqw, (ZV)
“Sarkozy's government has said it hopes eventually to extend the carbon contribution to all goods and
services, to shift part of the overall French tax burden from labour towards polluting goods. Four
European countries -- Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Britain -- have
so far adopted similar measures to curb consumption of energy-hungry
products. The French climate contribution is separate from a proposal floated by Sarkozy in March for
a carbon tax on imports from countries which have lower environmental standards than France.”
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - Carbon taxes have

been successful in numerous other countries
Reuven S. Avi-Yonah [Professor of Law & Director of the International Tax LLM Program at the University of
Michigan Law School], & David M. Uhlmann [Professor from Practice & Director of the Environmental Law &
Policy Program at the University of Michigan Law School], “Combating Global Climate Change: Why a
Carbon Tax Is a Better Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade,” Stanford Environmental Law
Journal, February, 2009, (28 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 3)
“In contrast to the limited experience in the U.S. with cap and trade, carbon taxes have been successfully
implemented in a growing number of countries. Carbon taxes have been implemented in Quebec and
British Columbia as part of Canadian efforts to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. In addition,
Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden have
introduced carbon taxes in combination with energy taxes.”
A. Norway
Annegrete Bruvoll and Bodil Larsen 02 - average emissions per

unit GDP was reduced by 12 percent under the carbon tax
between ’90 – ‘99
Annegrete Bruvoll, [Masters of Economics, Research area is in Energy and Environmental Economics], and
Bodil Merethe Larsen, [Master of Economics, Senior Researcher in the fields of Consumer behavior, Energy
and environmental policy, and Household energy use], “Greenhouse gas emissions in Norway; Do carbon
taxes work?”, Statistics Norway; Research Department, December 2002,
http://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/337.html, (ZV)
“The Norwegian emissions of CO2 increased by 19 percent from 1990
to 1999. This growth is significantly lower than the GDP growth of 35
percent. In other words, average emissions per unit GDP was reduced
by 12 percent over the period. We find that the most important emission reducing factors
are more efficient use of energy and a substitution towards less carbon intensive energy. The energy
intensity and energy mix components contributed to a reduction in CO2 emissions over the period by 14
percent. The effect of carbon taxes on these emission-reducing components has been small. The model
simulations indicate that the carbon tax contributed to a reduction in emissions of 2.3 percent. Also, the
effect of the carbon taxes in Norway is strongly dominated by the Norwegian oil and gas sector. For
onshore sectors only, the carbon tax effect on emissions is 1.5 percent.”
Tax Rate: $65 per ton
B. Denmark
David Rich 04 - Denmark’s carbon tax policy reduced carbon

dioxide emissions by four percent between 1992 and 2000
David Rich, [received a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from UC Berkeley, with a NASA sponsored
dissertation related to ignition of solid fuels. Dr. Rich has worked as a fire protection engineer and is
currently an adjunct professor at Santa Clara University (California) where he teaches Fluid Mechanics,
Combustion, and Fire Dynamics. Dr. Rich's primary area of expertise is development of experimental
platforms for the study of fire phenomena such as ignition and flame spread], “Climate Change, Carbon
Taxes, and International Trade: An Analysis of the Emerging Conflict between the Kyoto Protocol and the
WTO”, UC Berkley, December 9, 2004,
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/fall2006/NotableStudent04/ClimateChangeRich.pdf, (ZV)
“As a result, many countries have adopted carbon taxes as part of their strategies to meet Kyoto Protocol
commitments. Carbon taxes have been introduced in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom,8 while Germany, Austria, Belgium, and Japan have adopted broader
Since their adoption, carbon taxes have proven to be largely
energy taxes.9
effective. For example, Denmark’s carbon tax policy, which includes
using revenue from the tax to finance energy efficiency investment,
reduced carbon dioxide emissions by four percent between 1992 and
2000.10 Finland’s carbon tax, enacted in 1990, is credited with reducing carbon dioxide emissions
seven percent by 1998,11 while Sweden’s carbon tax is estimated to have reduced carbon dioxide
emissions roughly twenty percent between 1991 and 2000, in part by spurring a significant substitution of
biomass energy for fossil fuels.12 Because of their success, carbon taxes are likely to become increasingly
common as part of national efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Kyoto
Protocol.”
C. Canada
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - Carbon taxes have

been implemented in Quebec and British Columbia as part of
Canadian efforts
Reuven S. Avi-Yonah [Professor of Law & Director of the International Tax LLM Program at the University of
Michigan Law School], & David M. Uhlmann [Professor from Practice & Director of the Environmental Law &
Policy Program at the University of Michigan Law School], “Combating Global Climate Change: Why a
Carbon Tax Is a Better Response to Global Warming Than Cap and Trade,” Stanford Environmental Law
Journal, February, 2009, (28 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 3)
“In contrast to the limited experience in the U.S. with cap and trade,
carbon taxes have been successfully implemented in a growing
number of countries. Carbon taxes have been implemented in Quebec
and British Columbia as part of Canadian efforts to meet the
requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands,
Norway, and Sweden have introduced carbon taxes in combination with energy taxes.”
D. Finland
David Rich 04 - Finland’s carbon tax is credited with reducing

carbon dioxide emissions seven percent by 1998
energy taxes.9 Since their adoption, carbon taxes have proven to be largely effective. For example,
Denmark’s carbon tax policy, which includes using revenue from the tax to finance energy efficiency
investment, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by four percent between 1992 and 2000.10 Finland’s
carbon tax, enacted in 1990, is credited with reducing carbon dioxide
emissions seven percent by 1998,11 while Sweden’s carbon tax is estimated to have
reduced carbon dioxide emissions roughly twenty percent between 1991 and 2000, in part by spurring a
significant substitution of biomass energy for fossil fuels.12 Because of their success, carbon taxes are
likely to become increasingly common as part of national efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
accordance with the Kyoto Protocol.”
E. Sweden
David Rich 04 - Sweden’s carbon tax is estimated to have

reduced carbon dioxide emissions roughly twenty percent
between 1991 and 2000
energy taxes.9 Since their adoption, carbon taxes have proven to be largely effective. For example,
Denmark’s carbon tax policy, which includes using revenue from the tax to finance energy efficiency
investment, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by four percent between 1992 and 2000.10 Finland’s
carbon tax, enacted in 1990, is credited with reducing carbon dioxide emissions seven percent by 1998,11
Sweden’s carbon tax is estimated to have reduced carbon dioxide
while
emissions roughly twenty percent between 1991 and 2000, in part by
spurring a significant substitution of biomass energy for fossil fuels.12
Because of their success, carbon taxes are likely to become increasingly common as part of national
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol.”

F. China
Trevor Houser, Rob Bradley, Britt Childs, Jacob Werksman,

Robert Heilmayr, China actually has implemented a carbon tax,
after all
Trevor Houser, [visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is a partner at the
Rhodium Group (RHG), a New York-based research firm, and adjunct professor at the City College of New
York. His work focuses on energy markets, climate change, and the role emerging Asian countries play in
both], Rob Bradley, [is Director of WRI’s International Climate Policy Initiative. Bradley’s training was
originally as a physicist, with a BSc in Physical Sciences from University College London and an MSc in
Environmental Sciences from the University of East Anglia. Since then he spent 10 years consulting for
private, public and NGO sector clients on issues such as international climate policy, innovative financing
for renewable energy, solar energy marketing, market assessments for wind energy, economic impact of
environmental policy and geopolitical aspects of energy agreements], Britt Childs, [a research analyst with
the international climate policy team at the World Resources Institute], Jacob Werksman, [the program
director of the Institutions and Governance Program at the World Resources Institute], and Robert
Heilmayr, [a research assistant for the Green Power Market Development Group team at the World
Resources Institute. His work is focused on federal climate change policy and corporate deployment of
renewable energy], “Leveling the Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and US Climate Policy
Design” Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics and World Resources Institute, 2008 pg.70
“For carbon-intensive industries, policy coordination could come in the form of an agreed carbon tax for
internationally traded goods, similar to agreements on border tariff levels as part of the World Trade
Organization. But in the case of carbon, it would be a negotiated minimum price rather than a maximum
tariff. While an economy wide carbon tax might be a nonstarter for developing countries, there is more
potential for agreement on taxes for specific internationally traded industries. As mentioned earlier,
China recently imposed the equivalent of a $50/ton carbon tax on steel
exports to achieve energy and environmental outcomes and did so
voluntarily and unilaterally.”
G. AT: Taiwan
WSJ 09 – If Taiwan instituted a CTX, they would be the first

Asian country to do so…what does this mean? THEY DON”T
HAVE ONE YET! ; )
Max Lin, “Taiwan: Choosing Carbon Taxes Over Carbon Tariffs”, Wall
Street Journal, October 21, 2009, <accessed February 9, 2010>,
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/21/taiwan-
choosing-carbon-taxes-over-carbon-tariffs/tab/article/, (ZV)
“Here’s an interesting idea: The threat of slapping carbon tariffs on “dirty” countries might just be paying
dividends after all. Taiwan could become the first country in Asia to pass a
carbon tax, part of the country’s plan to steadily reduce greenhouse-
gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2025. Hang on–wouldn’t a carbon tax be a millstone on
the economy, especially one as export-focused as Taiwan’s? There are those fears—plenty of voices in
Taipei point out that a carbon tax would increase prices for fuel and power, which would affect the
competitiveness of Taiwanese goods.”
Justifications:
1. Soft Power
a. US Soft Power is Declining
Joseph Nye 04 - Anti-Americanism has increased in the past

few years
Joseph S. Nye, [Professor of international relations at Harvard, and earned a PhD in political science from
Harvard. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the
National Intelligence Council, and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and
Technology] “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”, June 22, 2004,
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2364796/Soft-power-and-American-foreign.html, (ZV)
“Anti-Americanism has increased in the past few years. Thomas
Pickering, a seasoned diplomat, considered 2003 "as high a zenith of
anti-Americanism as we've seen for a long time." (1) Polls show that our
soft power losses can be traced largely to our foreign policy. "A
widespread and fashionable view is that the United States is a
classically imperialist power.... That mood has been expressed in different ways by different
people, from the hockey fans in Montreal who boo the American national anthem to the high school
students in Switzerland who do not want to go to the United States as exchange students." (2) An
Australian observer concluded that "the lesson of Iraq is that the US's
soft power is in decline. Bush went to war having failed to win a broader military coalition or
UN authorization. This had two direct consequences: a rise in anti-American sentiment, lifting terrorist
recruitment; and a higher cost to the US for the war and reconstruction effort." (3) A
Gallup
International poll showed that pluralities in fifteen out of twenty-four
countries around the world said that American foreign policies had a
negative effect on their attitudes toward the United States.”
Joseph Nye 04 - We are liked in other countries by the younger

generation because of pop culture, but our foreign policy =
crap
“A Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believe that
the United States tends to play a negative role in fighting global
poverty, protecting the environment, and maintaining peace in the
world. (4) When asked in a Pew [Research Center] poll to what extent
they thought the United States "takes your interests into account," a
majority in twenty out of forty-two countries surveyed said "not too
much" or "not at all." (5) In many countries, unfavorable ratings were
highest among younger people. American pop culture may be widely
admired among young people, but the unpopularity of our foreign
policies is causing the next generation to question American power.”
Center for Strategic and International Studies 08 - U.S.

primacy is declining
“Recentering the Global Economy: Gulf capital and the future of wealth”, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, March 26, 2008,
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/events/080326_gulf_roundtable_summary.pdf, (ZV)
“These concerns play into growing anxiety about the place of the
United States in the world. Sharply increasing economic growth in the
developing world, combined with slowing growth in the developed
world means that U.S. primacy is declining. Although the traditional view is that most
economies around the world depend on a healthy U.S. economy to prosper, many economists and
businessmen see a possibility that the U.S. and world economy may no longer be so inextricably linked. On
a more popular level, concerns that unscrupulous Chinese businessmen are trying to poison Americans
while Arabs are trying to use their American dollars to undermine U.S. interests in the Middle East resonate
strongly in some quarters.”
b. Environmental Leadership Solves Soft Power
Harvard International Review 03 - Governments around the

world base foreign policy strategies on their interpretations of
US attitudes
Makram Haluani, [Department of Economics and Business Administration], “Benign neglect: cooperation in
the Western Hemisphere”, Harvard International Review, Winter 2003,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb137/is_4_24/ai_n28976081/, (ZV)
“Governments around the world base foreign policy strategies on their
interpretations of US attitudes. They look for both consistencies and
changes in the speeches, press conferences, and remarks of senior US
officials. The course of international events depends on these
attitudes, and the rest of the world knows it. This practice is especially
true of Latin American countries, whose governments have followed
recent trends in US presidential discourse with some concern. On August
25, 2000, Republican presidential candidate George Bush proclaimed, "Should I become president, I'll look
south, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment." He assured his audience that he would
be the "mejor amigo" of Latin America. Indeed, as president, Bush's first visit abroad was to Mexico and
not to Canada, a significant departure from tradition. According to Bush, Latin America holds a central
place in US foreign policy. He even rejoiced in the "new century of the Americas" when he received
Mexican President Vicente Fox at the White House in early September 2001. During that particular state
visit, just days before the September 11 attacks, Bush described US ties to Mexico as "our most important
relationship."”
Council on Foreign Relations 08 – US environmental action is

necessary is we want other countries to follow us
GEORGE E. PATAKI, THOMAS J. VILSACK, MICHAEL A. LEVI, and DAVID G. VICTOR, “CONFRONTING CLIMATE
CHANGE: A STRATEGY FOR U.S. FOREIGN POLICY”, Council on Foreign Affairs, 2008, (INDEPENDENT TASK
FORCE REPORT No. 61), http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Climate_ChangeTF.pdf, (ZV)
“Without deep U.S. emissions cuts, it will be impossible to achieve a global reduction in emissions to half
of1990 levels by 2050. An ambitious U.S. effort is essential since U.S.
emissions are such a large share of the world total, and because visible
U.S. leadership is essential to getting other nations, especially the
rapidly growing developing countries, to make significant efforts. As of
2005, the United States accounted for approximately 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, more
than any other country aside from China—and most analysts believe that China’s emissions surpassed the
U.S. level in 2007.35 Those emissions—most of which were CO2 from electricity and heat production and
from transportation—were 20 percent higher than U.S. emissions in 1990.36 The IEA projects that, without
new policies, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will increase by 10 percent by 2015 and by 20 percent by
2030. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) projects that non-CO2 emissions will increase by 20
percent by 2020.”
John Ikenberry and Charles Kupchan 04 – US needs to regulate GHG’s
G. John Ikenberry, [Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University], Charles A. Kupchan, [Professor of
international affairs at Georgetown University and former director for European affairs at the National Security Council], “Liberal
realism: the foundations of a Democratic foreign policy”, National Interest, Fall 2004,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n27800632/?tag=content;col1, (ZV)
“Given the damage done to American legitimacy, a new administration needs to
undertake urgent steps to repair its social and political capital abroad. Bold and visible
gestures will be required. Washington provoked considerable ill will abroad by turning its back
on the Kyoto Protocol; it should now pursue a follow-up initiative and commit to its own plan for
reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. The United States should take the lead in reforming the UN. This
initiative may entail reorganization of the UN Security Council and the earmarking of multinational military forces for UN-mandated
peacekeeping operations. The United States should also enter into talks with its security partners to develop a common strategic vision about
emerging security threats and the preventive use of force. Finally, the United States should make a dramatic initiative to repair the Atlantic
Alliance. This effort might initially entail a revised Atlantic Charter, followed by new institutional commitments to consultations and joint
planning .”
Washington Post 07 - China will not act because the US has not
acted on climate change—it will after the US does
Maureen Fan, “China Outlines Modest Environmental Goals”, The Washington Post, June 5, 2007,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060401759.html, (ZV)
“BEIJING, June 4 -- China released its first-ever national climate change
policy Monday, rejecting mandatory caps on emissions of greenhouse
gases as unfair and a threat to the development that has contributed
to the country's meteoric economic growth. Although China is one of the world's
largest producers of carbon dioxide, the government made clear that it will not shoulder the burden
necessary for change. "It is neither fair nor acceptable to us to impose too early, too abruptly or too bluntly
measures which one would ask of developed countries," Ma Kai, minister of the cabinet-level National
Development and Reform Commission, said at a news conference. The government outlined a series of
environmental goals it is seeking to meet by 2010, from speeding up research and development to raising
public awareness about conservation. But the plans included little in the way of initiatives. Instead, they
appeared designed to put the best face on environmental efforts so far and to preempt criticism likely to
come later this week when President Hu Jintao attends a meeting of Group of Eight leaders in Germany.
The United States and China are pointing fingers at each other in a
standoff over who bears greater responsibility for curbing emissions. As
a developing nation, China is exempt from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the international pact that imposed
mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases. The Bush administration has refused to ratify it. Meanwhile,
although the United States currently emits more greenhouse gases than any other nation, China is
Analysts said Monday that China's rejection
expected to surpass it in the next few years.
of mandatory caps puts more pressure on the United States.”
Council on Foreign Relations 08 – US Climate action will

improve alliances, soft power, and cooperation, et cetera
“To be certain, the United States has adopted a variety of policies that will lead emissions to be lower than
they otherwise would be, something discussed in more detail in the next chapter. But combined with an
the U.S. approach to the climate problem has
array of other policy differences,
harmed the transatlantic alliance, long a bedrock of U.S. foreign policy.
With climate change a top priority for most major U.S. allies in Europe,
engaging in a way that is seen as serious and constructive has the
potential to rebuild weakened relationships and accrue goodwill that
would be useful across the U.S. foreign policy agenda. At the same
time, climate change diplomacy, which will involve every major
country in the world, also provides the United States an opportunity to
build and intensify relationships that will be important well beyond the
climate arena. U.S. leadership on climate change would also help steer
any global approach in a direction that the United States finds to be in
its interests.”
Council on Foreign Relations 08 – Precedent: Latin American

Countries
“The report provides important insights and recommendations at a critical time both for U.S. political
leadership and in the global treaty negotiations. I particularly endorse the Task Force’s recognition that
climate change cooperation strengthens our international
relationships: collaboration on clean energy and climate change with
the Latin American governments in the 1990s built trust through
shared mutual challenges and opportunities, benefited their
development objectives, and opened up new markets for U.S. firms. It
also diversified U.S. foreign policy relationships beyond long-standing
difficult issues like the illegal drug trade and immigration.”
NYT 07 - China and the United States are using each other’s
inaction as an excuse to do nothing about climate change
“Warming and Global Security”, New York Times, April 20, 2007, <accessed January 20, 2010>,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/opinion/20fri2.html, (ZV)
“An overwhelming majority of nations voiced grave concerns about
climate change, and many urged stricter worldwide controls on
greenhouse gases. Among the few doubters were the United States
and China — neither of which has mandatory controls (the Bush administration
actively opposes them). Both argued that the Council was the wrong place to raise the issue. What
they were really saying was that they don’t want to be pushed. In an
alliance of denial, China and the United States are using each other’s
inaction as an excuse to do nothing. That is yet another reason why Congress should be
moving ahead with legislation to curb and reverse America’s production of greenhouse gases. With
members of the military elite joining mayors, governors and business leaders in demanding action, the
Democrats in Congress have all the arguments they need to take the lead.”
Joseph Nye 04 – Soft Power is increased when we enact policies

that other countries like
“Soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction
rather than coercion or payments. When you can get others to want
what you want, you do not have to spend as much on sticks and
carrots to move them in your direction. Hard power, the ability to coerce, grows out of
a country's military and economic might. Soft power arises from the attractiveness
of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies. When our policies
are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others, our soft power is
enhanced.”
Sen. Christopher Dodd 07 – A Carbon Tax would send a
powerful message that the US is taking action of climate
change
Senator Christopher Dodd, [Se. Dodd was a Democratic candidate for president in the 2008 elections], "A
corporate carbon tax" Boston Globe, April 27, 2007,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/27/a_corporate_carbon_tax/
<accessed November 14, 2009>, (ZV)
“But above all else, a corporate carbon tax sends a powerful message: that
America will lead the world on climate change, helping polluting
countries from developing nations to China take the steps they need to
get this crisis under control. With the right leadership, the United States will emerge as that
leader. But if the last six years is any indication, it won't happen on its own. It will take choices that are not
only tough but smart and a president who is honest with the American people about the stakes. A
president who shows us that with the right leadership, America will not suffer by tackling global warming
and ridding ourselves of Middle East oil, but prosper.”
Council on Foreign Relations 08 – The US could suffer serious

economic harm is other countries retaliated because a lack of
US action and imposed heavy carbon tariffs
“In addition to the immediate quantitative need to reduce the U.S. contribution to global emissions, there
is also a broader case for aggressive U.S. action and leadership. Without it, the United States will have far
less leverage in moving the rest of the world toward emissions cuts in a way that is most attractive to the
United States. Moreover, by not taking early action, the United States will give up opportunities to rebuild
critical alliances, to create jobs in new industries, and to bolster support for near-term measures that could
strengthen energy security. Indeed, it [the U.S.] could endure real economic harm
if, retaliating for a lack of U.S. action, other countries imposed tariffs
on emissions-intensive U.S. exports, as some in Europe have
threatened to do. To be certain, precipitous action and inflexible policy
would entail dangerous economic risks—but, as the Task Force has already found,
efficient, equitable, and adaptable climate policy would make those risks far smaller.”
c. Impact: Soft Power
Foreign Affairs 05 - The US should not exit the International

arena, but rather rebuild its crumbling image
Stephen M. Walt, [Professor of International Relations at Harvard University], “Taming American Power”,
September 1, 2005, Foreign Affairs, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-136226840/taming-
american-power.html, (ZV)
“How do you deal with American power? This question is one for which every world leader must have an
answer. And the response of other states to U.S. power is something Americans must care about as well.
Basic security is at issue, as the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks demonstrated. So is the health of
with the market share of U.S. firms declining in key
the U.S. economy,
overseas markets due to anti-American sentiment. The time to worry is
now. To be sure, many governments still value U.S. power and seek to
use it to advance their own interests. Yet even Washington's close
allies are now looking for ways to tame the United States' might. Many
countries fear U.S. influence, and they have devised numerous
strategies to manage and limit it. The United States will not and should
not exit the world stage anytime soon. But it must make its dominant
position acceptable to others -- by using military force sparingly, by
fostering greater cooperation with key allies, and, most important of
all, by rebuilding its crumbling international image.”
Joseph Nye 04 – the attractiveness of the United States will be

crucial to our ability to achieve the outcomes we want
“In the global information age, the attractiveness of the United States
will be crucial to our ability to achieve the outcomes we want. Rather
than having to put together pick-up coalitions of the willing for each
new game, we will benefit if we are able to attract others into
institutional alliances and eschew weakening those we have already
created. NATO, for example, not only aggregates the capabilities of advanced nations, but its
interminable committees, procedures, and exercises also allow these nations to train together and quickly
become interoperable when a crisis occurs.”
Joseph Nye 04 – if the United States is an attractive source of

security and reassurance, other countries will set their
expectations in directions that are conducive to our interests
“As for alliances, if the United States is an attractive source of security
and reassurance, other countries will set their expectations in
directions that are conducive to our interests. Initially, for example, the U.S.-Japan
security treaty was not very popular in Japan, but polls show that over the decades, it became more
attractive to the Japanese public. Once that happened, Japanese politicians began to build it into their
The United States benefits when it is regarded as a
approaches to foreign policy.
constant and trusted source of attraction so that other countries are
not obliged continually to re-examine their options in an atmosphere of
uncertain coalitions. In the Japan case, broad acceptance of the United States by the Japanese
public "contributed to the maintenance of US hegemony" and "served as political constraints compelling
the ruling elites to continue cooperation with the United States. (18) Popularity can contribute
to stability.”
Joseph Nye 04 – Dismissing the importance of attraction

ignores key insights from new theories of leadership as well as
the new realities of the information age. We cannot afford that
“Finally, as the RAND Corporation's John Arquila and David Ronfeldt argue, power in an
information age will come not only from strong defenses but also from
strong sharing. A traditional realpolitik mind-set makes it difficult to
share with others. But in an information age, such sharing not only
enhances the ability of others to cooperate with us but also increases
their inclination to do so. (19) As we share intelligence and capabilities
with others, we develop common outlooks and approaches that
improve our ability to deal with the new challenges. Power flows from
that attraction. Dismissing the importance of attraction as merely
ephemeral popularity ignores key insights from new theories of
leadership as well as the new realities of the information age. We
cannot afford that.”
Joseph Nye 04 – Soft Power is not something that can just be

discounted and labeled as unimportant
“It is not smart to discount soft power as just a question of image,
public relations, and ephemeral popularity. As I argued earlier, it is a form of power--
a means of obtaining desired outcomes. When we discount the importance of our
attractiveness to other countries, we pay a price. Most important, if the
United States is so unpopular in a country that being pro-American is a
kiss of death in their domestic politics, political leaders are unlikely to
make concessions to help us. Turkey, Mexico, and Chile were prime examples in the run-up
to the Iraq war in March 2003. When American policies lose their legitimacy and
credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester and
further reduce our leverage”
2. US Economy
a. Job Creation
UC Berkley News 04 - Investing in renewable energy would

produce more American jobs
Robert Sanders, “Investment in renewable energy better for jobs as well as environment”, UC Berkley
News, April 13, 2004, http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/04/13_kamm.shtml, (ZV)
“Investing in renewable energy such as solar, wind and the use of
municipal and agricultural waste for fuel would produce more American
jobs than a comparable investment in the fossil fuel energy sources in
place today, according to a report issued today (Tuesday, April 13) by researchers at the University
of California, Berkeley. "Across a broad range of scenarios, the renewable
energy sector generates more jobs per average megawatt of power
installed, and per unit of energy produced, than the fossil fuel-based
energy sector," the report concludes. "All states of the Union stand to gain in
terms of net employment from the implementation of a portfolio of
clean energy policies at the federal level.”
Citizens Climate Lobby - a Carbon Tax will earn more money,

thus creating jobs
Citizens Climate Lobby, “Economic Impact of a Carbon Tax”, (article had no original date), <accessed
September 9, 2009>, http://citizensclimatelobby.org/files/Economic%20Impact%20of%20a%20Carbon
%20Tax_0.pdf, (ZV)
“Additional Economic benefits of a Carbon Tax: 1. Raising the price of
carbon will make less carbon intensive and carbon-free industries more
competitive. They will earn more money, thus creating jobs. 2. There is huge
potential for job creation and growth in the renewables industry. In 2008 the wind industry grew by 70%
on a year earlier to employ more people (85,000) than the coal mining industry (81,000). By contrast, the
coal mining industry has shrunk by 50% since 19865.These are jobs that can’t be exported. 3. Because a
carbon tax would build on an existing tax-collection infrastructure, the implementation cost would be less
than that of a cap-and-trade program. In the case of an inflexible cap and trade system (i.e. one without
carbon price ceilings and floors or “safety-valves”), a carbon tax would cost 1/5 as much6.”
Citizens Climate Lobby – The Wind sector experienced major

job increase, and so will other renewables sectors
%20Tax_0.pdf, (ZV)
“Additional Economic benefits of a Carbon Tax: 1. Raising the price of carbon will make less carbon
intensive and carbon-free industries more competitive. They will earn more money, thus creating jobs. 2.
There is huge potential for job creation and growth in the renewables
industry. In 2008 the wind industry grew by 70% on a year earlier to
employ more people (85,000) than the coal mining industry (81,000).
By contrast, the coal mining industry has shrunk by 50% since
19865.These are jobs that can’t be exported. 3. Because a carbon tax would build on
an existing tax-collection infrastructure, the implementation cost would be less than that of a cap-and-
trade program. In the case of an inflexible cap and trade system (i.e. one without carbon price ceilings and
floors or “safety-valves”), a carbon tax would cost 1/5 as much6.”
b. Federal Deficit
Todd Litman 08 – Norway proves that federal deficit is reduced

Todd Litman, [independent researcher], “Carbon Taxes: “Tax What You Burn, Not What You Earn””, August
27 2008, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, <accessed February 13, 2010>, http://www.vtpi.org/cgi-
bin/403/www.vtpi.org, (ZV)
“A particularly good example is Norway, which was a major petroleum producer
during the 1980s and 1990s, but maintained high fuel taxes to
encourage domestic energy efficiency and to finance economic
development programs such as education and healthcare. As a result, now that its oil
reserves are depleted Norway has an efficient and diverse economy. In
contrast, current North American energy policies are comparable to countries
such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria, which squander their oil wealth through
low fuel prices, and economic development that relies excessively on
resource extraction industries.”
c. Impact: Global Economy
Bloomberg 07 – the US’ spending amount makes it vital to the

global econ
Michael R. Sesit, [a Bloomberg News columnist], “Europe, Asia Won't Weather a U.S. Slowdown: Michael R.
Sesit”, Bloomberg News, March 15, 2007, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601039&refer=columnist_sesit&sid=alXkzT5rSN30, (ZV)
“From 2001 through 2006, the U.S. and China combined contributed an
average of 43 percent to global growth, measured on the basis of
purchasing-power parity, according to Roach. And there may be more fallout
from a U.S. decline. “Allowing for trade linkages, the total effects could
be larger than 60 percent,'' he says. “Globalization makes decoupling
from such a concentrated growth dynamic especially difficult.'' As the U.S.
economy faltered in early 2001, many Wall Street gurus predicted that Europe would outpace the U.S.”
Bloomberg 07 – US is key2 global econ, Europe proves

“As the U.S. economy faltered in early 2001, many Wall Street gurus
predicted that Europe would outpace the U.S. European Vulnerability “It didn't
happen -- a lesson investors should bear in mind today,'' says Joseph Quinlan,
chief market strategist at Bank of America Capital Management in New York. Even though only
about 8 percent of European exports go to the U.S., Europe is
vulnerable to a U.S. slowdown through its businesses abroad. The
earnings of European companies' U.S. units plunged 64 percent in
2001, according to Quinlan. Those declines in the biggest and most-profitable
market for many German, U.K., French and Dutch enterprises resulted
in reduced orders, lower profit, slower job growth and weak business
confidence. After expanding 3.9 percent in 2000, euro-area growth shrank to 1.9 percent in 2001,
0.9 percent in 2002 and 0.8 percent in 2003.”
Bloomberg 07 - The ability of other countries to emerge from

the U.S. economy's long shadow may reflect more wishful
thinking than logic
“The ability of other countries to emerge from the U.S. economy's long
shadow may reflect more wishful thinking than logic. No doubt, it will eventually
happen, especially as some of the bigger emerging countries mature. Right now, the world
still needs the U.S. consumer. The global economy is too dependent on
exports to the U.S., whose trade deficit was $765.3 billion in 2006,
while Asia and Europe lack sufficient domestic demand to offset
reduced U.S. spending on overseas goods, says Stephen Roach, chief economist at
Morgan Stanley in New York.”
d. AT: Economy Stable/Up
Dr. Robert Pollin 08 - As of September 2008, there were 9.5

million people officially unemployed
Dr. Robert Pollin, [Professor of Economics], “Hearing on “Building an Economic Recovery Package:
Creating and Preserving Jobs in America”, October 24, 2008, <accessed February 14, 2010>,
http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/2008-10-24-RobertPollin.pdf, (ZV)
“As of September 2008, there were 9.5 million people officially
unemployed within the U.S. labor force of 154.3 million, producing an
official unemployment rate of 6.1 percent, according to the most
recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For purposes of
illustration, let’s assume that the $150 billion stimulus program is
enacted amid roughly September 2008 labor market conditions.”
e. AT: Energy Prices
A. Precedent: Quebec
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 – Quebec’s Carbon Tax costs less than a penny

per liter of gasoline
“Government subsidies exist in countless forms, but the two main forms of carbon pricing –carbon taxes
and cap-and-trade programs – are scarce.10 Cap-and-trade programs are politically challenging, but not
carbon taxes like Quebec's, which
nearly as unpopular as carbon taxes. Not even modest
costs drivers less than a penny per liter at the gasoline pump, have been
the subject of much discussion.”
B. Turn: High Energy Prices Good [Safety]
A. Institute for Energy Research 09 – High gas prices simply

lead to a decrease in driving
“Carbon Taxes: Reducing Economic Growth—Achieving No Environmental Improvement”,
Institute for Energy Research [Non-profit organization that conducts intensive research and
analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets],
March 11, 2009, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/03/11/carbon-taxes-reducing-
economic-growthachieving-no-environmental-improvement/, (ZV)
“Consider automobile use and gas prices. People have begun to transition toward fuel-efficient
the real impact of high gasoline prices in 2008 was to reduce
cars, but
vehicle miles traveled. Just as higher fuel prices led to less driving,
higher energy prices will lead to reduced energy consumption. That will
lead to a corresponding drop in our ability to make economic choices.”
B. Dom Nozzi 03 - Driving is a public safety hazard

Dom Nozzi, [BA in environmental science, Masters Degree in planning], “Bigger Roads Are Less
Safe”, March 4, 2003, http://www.walkablestreets.com/safer.htm, (ZV)
“Of course-human nature being what it is-such a design encourages reckless, high-speed, inattentive
driving because human psychology compels us to tend to drive at the highest speed that still feels safe.
After all, we are always "running late." We are always in a hurry. And we are so busy. The forgiving
roadway lulls us into a false sense of security. Vigilance and concentration wane on the forgiving road. Is it
any wonder that today, we increasingly see motorists driving at high speeds with one hand, while putting
on make-up, drinking coffee, or chatting on the cell phone with the other? Since
we tend to be
busy and in a hurry, forgiving streets deliver lots of motorists who drive
as fast as they can and "multi-task" while driving. Why? To save time.
The predictable result: An increase in crashes due to speeding,
inattentiveness, and recklessness. Ironically, motorist safety declines and driving skills
atrophy, because the forgiving street conditions motorists to be less careful drivers, and lowers the need
Increasingly, American motorists drive
to maintain or improve driving skills.
dangerously, and more ineptly.”
C. Turn: High Energy Prices Good [Pollution]
Eberhard Rhein 08 - High oil prices are a blessing in disguise

as they reduce CO2 emissions. It’s counterproductive to pay
attention to the negative aspects or instituting policies that
drop the price of oil
Eberhard Rhein, [Senior Analyst for European Policy Centre], “The High Oil Price is a Blessing in Disguise”,
blogactiv.eu, http://rhein.blogactiv.eu/2008/07/07/the-high-oil-price-is-a-blessing-in-disguise/, (ZV)
“Last not least, the high oil price will lead to a more efficient use of heating
fuel, which is a major source of C02 emissions in the northern
hemisphere. The inadequate thermal insulation of most buildings in the world, especially in the USA
and the former socialist countries, engenders an extraordinary waste of costly energy. With or
without public support programmes for thermal insulation home
owners will have little choice but to retrofit their buildings. The
necessary investments for double glazing, insulated roofing etc. will
pay much faster because of the prohibitive cost of heating fuel. The high
prices will, no doubt, unleash an investment boom in retrofitting of buildings, the results of which will
high oil price will be blessing in
become visible in a few years. In conclusion, the
disguise. It would be wise for politicians to emphasise the positive
aspects of the rising oil prices, instead of only bemoaning their
negative impact. It would therefore be contra-productive to offset the
higher oil prices by providing tax reductions on fossil energy or specific
subsidies for heating or commuting. If governments want to remedy the pinch high oil
prices may cause to poor citizens, they should focus on supplementary income payments limited to the
very poor.”
Business Week 97 - The expensive oil of the 1970s and early

1980s had one virtue: is discouraged oil consumption, thus
lessening pollution
Peter Coy, “COMMENTARY: CLEAN AIR IN AN ERA OF CHEAP OIL”, Business Week, 1997, <accessed January
8, 2010>, http://www.businessweek.com/1997/44/b3551008.htm, (ZV)
“The expensive oil of the 1970s and early 1980s had one virtue: By
discouraging consumption, it lessened the pollution caused by the
burning of gasoline, diesel, and other petroleum products.
Environmentalists hoped rising oil prices would promote a switch to
cleaner energy sources, such as solar power. If oil instead remains cheap for
decades to come, the harm to the environment from sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, particulates, and other poisons could be enormous. Combustion of oil, coal, and other
carbon-based fuels may also overheat the planet by creating an insulating layer of carbon dioxide. Indeed,
cheap oil is bound to complicate efforts to achieve a treaty on global warming in Kyoto, Japan, this
December (page 158).”
D. Turn: High Energy Prices Good [Renewables]
I. Precedent: Asia
Associated Foreign Press 05 – High global oil prices are
spurring Asian governments into accelerating their search for
alternative power sources
Associated Foreign Press, “High oil prices spurring Asia to seek alternative energy sources: officials”,
March 3 2005, http://www.mywire.com/a/AFP/High-oil-prices-spurring-Asia/739282/?
extID=10037&oliID=229&tag=mywire-article, (ZV)
“SINGAPORE, (AFP) — High global oil prices are spurring Asian governments
into accelerating their search for alternative power sources and
encouraging energy conservation, regional officials said here.
Governments are increasingly diversifying their "fuel mix" to cut
dependence on imported oil by developing other power sources such
as natural gas, geo-thermal, hydro, liquefied natural gas and
renewable fuels, they said. Speaking at the annual Asia Power Conference here, the Southeast
Asian energy officials said the region's oil-importing countries were helpless to influence soaring global
prices and must learn to live with the situation. World crude prices shot to a four-month high above 53
dollars a barrel in New York on Wednesday amid persistent market concerns over growing global demand,
especially from fast-growing Asian economic giants China and India.”
International Herald Tribune 07 - High crude oil prices are

spurring interest in biofuels projects as investors seek
renewable energy
Leony Aurora, “Biofuel venture initiated BUSINESS ASIA by Bloomberg”, International Herald Tribune,
January 10, 2007, <accessed via Highbeam>, |http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-133218857.html|, (ZV)
“China National Offshore Oil, the third-largest Chinese oil company,
plans to partner with Sinar Mas Agro Resources & Technology to invest
$5.5 billion in biofuel projects in Indonesia, the companies said
Tuesday. The two companies along with Hong Kong Energy will invest
in the planting of oil palm, cassava and crops that can be used to make
biofuels in Papua and Borneo, the companies said in a joint statement in Jakarta. The
investment will be made over eight years. High crude oil prices are spurring interest
in biofuels projects as investors seek renewable energy.”
International Herald Tribune 06 - Indonesia plans to invest $22

billion, over the next five years to promote the use of
alternative fuels
Leony Aurora, and Claire Leow, “Indonesia tests fuel alternative in palm oil Promoting biofuels is a $22
billion effort BUSINESS ASIA by Bloomberg”, International Herald Tribune, July 14, 2006, <accessed via
HighBeam>, | http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-126325639.html|, (ZV)
“Indonesia plans to invest 200 trillion rupiah, or $22 billion, over the next five
years to promote the use of alternative fuels using crops such as palm
oil, Energy Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro said Thursday. About $6 billion will be spent securing 6 million
hectares, or 14.8 million acres, of land, in an as-yet-unspecified location, and the rest will fund factories,
roads and other supporting services, he said. Plant-based
fuels can be mixed with
gasoline, diesel and kerosene, now subsidized by the government.
Biofuel ''can replace fuel in the transportation sector,'' Purnomo said Thursday at
an event in Jakarta to promote biofuel. It also helps communities raise their level of fuel self- sufficiency
Indonesia, Southeast Asia's biggest oil producer and
and creates jobs, he said.
user, still imports a third of its fossil-fuel requirements, and the
government wants to use more vegetable oils to reduce overseas
purchases of petroleum and refined products.”
International Herald Tribune 06 - Higher crude oil prices, which
have tripled since 2002, are spurring greater government and
investor interest in biofuels worldwide
Leony Aurora, and Claire Leow, “Indonesia tests fuel alternative in palm oil Promoting biofuels is a $22
billion effort BUSINESS ASIA by Bloomberg”, International Herald Tribune, July 14, 2006, <accessed via
HighBeam>, | http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-126325639.html|, (ZV)
“Higher crude oil prices, which have tripled since 2002, are spurring
greater government and investor interest in biofuels worldwide. Global
supply of biofuels may almost double in the next five years, the
International Energy Agency, an adviser to 26 oil-using nations, said
Wednesday. The growth is ''a supply and policy response to high oil
prices,'' the agency said. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said July 3 that Indonesia should focus
on making biofuels from four commodities, palm oil, cassava, jatropa, a plant that yields castor oil, and
sugar left over from processing. Indonesia is already the world's second-largest producer of palm oil, the
price of which has gained 5.6 percent since the year started to 1,497 ringgit, or $409, a metric ton.
Production may reach 15 million tons this year, Derom Bangun, chairman of the Indonesian Palm Oil
Producers' Association, said on June 21.The
government plans to spend about 51
trillion rupiah over the next five years to develop land for more oil
palm, rubber and cocoa plantations to spur growth and create jobs, Supra
Tamtama, deputy director for estate crops in the Ministry of Agriculture, said June 29. Three-quarters of
Biofuels will account for 10 percent of the
the funds will be for palm oil, he said.
content in fuel products, Purnomo said Thursday.”
II. Precedent: United States
Emory University 08 - higher prices also encourages the

development of alternative energy sources
Emory University’s ‘Knolwedge @ Emory’ Division, “Will High Gasoline Prices Spur Innovation?”, May 14,
2008, http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1141, (ZV)
“Hill: Yes and no. As far as the macro-economy is concerned, higher prices function like a tax from abroad,
which lowers our real income. This reduction in real income is something we have to accept; trying to
reverse it through economic stimulus will just take us back to the stagflation of the 1970s. On the positive
side, higher prices signal to Americans the need to cut back on consumption and to the oil industry
the need to search for and develop sites that were too expensive to extract a few years ago. Attention to
also encourages the development of alternative energy sources,
price
the object of considerable investment these days. The Saudis don’t like it when
the oil price crosses higher thresholds for exactly this reason. When oil hit $40 a barrel in 1980-81, the
Iranians were chiefly responsible, which irritated the Saudis. They warned Iran that the West would
develop sources of alternative energy that would put them all out of business a lot sooner than they
wanted. This is a notion economists call limit pricing. Indeed, the price of oil dropped after that. The Saudis
have always believed that oil prices should vary within a certain range. They recognize that high prices
encourage the development of fuel cell technology or something else, which once developed, won’t go
away, undercutting the value of oil. But in the face of current worldwide supply problems, coupled with a
burst of demand from China and India, the Saudis have lost control over pricing. If
prices don’t
drop, we’ll see an even bigger investment in alternative energy
sources. Once that investment is made, those alternatives will be
around forever.”
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 01 -

Stanley D. Calvert, [J.D., California Western School of Law, B.A., Brown University], Susan M. Hock,
[director of NREL’s Electric and Hydrogen Technologies and Systems Center], “United States Wind Energy
Growth and Policy Framework”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, July 2001,
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/30553.pdf, (ZV)
“On the state level, Green Power Purchasing Programs have been very
successful. An increasing number of states are offering their residential
and commercial customers an option to purchase electricity produced
from environmentally friendly sources at a premium price. Typically, a
small premium is paid for green power, depending on the renewable
resource and on the supplier. For wind power the premium is as low as $0.01/kWh, with an
average of approximately $0.025/kWh for all renewable technologies. Many companies that are large
power consumers are embracing renewable energy purchases as a hedge against increasing natural gas
prices. One consortium, called the Green Power Market Development Group, is working to develop 1,000
MW of new renewable energy capacity. Companies in this consortium include DuPont, General Motors, IBM,
Interface, Johnson & Johnson, Kinko’s, and Pitney Bowes. Table 1 shows the technology market shares for
green power purchased through programs operated by utilities. In a similar analysis on private (non-utility)
green power programs, wind captured 92% of the market.”
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 01 - The price of

conventional fuels, specifically oil and natural gas, is another
driver for wind energy development
“The price of conventional fuels, specifically oil and natural gas, is
another driver for wind energy development. In 1972, 16% of U.S.
electricity came from oil-fired generation. Utilities have since shifted
away from use of oil as a fuel because of large price fluctuations and
environmental concerns. Today less than 2% of U.S. electricity comes
from oil. The share of natural gas generation has increased
dramatically in recent years, averaging nearly 11% annual growth from
1996 to 2000 [6]. This increase was a result of historically low prices
and lower emissions compared to coal. In 1999, natural gas provided
about 16% of U.S. electricity. However, recent price fluctuations have
refocused attention on balancing natural gas use with alternative
energy options. The relationship between oil and gas prices and events in the wind energy
program are shown in Figure 4.”
f. AT: Competitiveness
A. Renewables Development spills over into the Aerospace

Sector
Ainsley Jolley 99 -
Ainsley Jolley, [Director of the Emerging Technologies and Asian Growth Program at the Centre
for Strategic Economic Studies], “Transport Engineering Technologies”, October 1999, (CSES
Working Paper No. 13), http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp13.pdf, <accessed March 16,
2010>, (ZV)
“The nature of the technologies employed, and the intensive R&D that
lies behind them, makes aerospace close to the most technology-
intensive of all manufacturing industries. Of crucial importance are the
spillover effects associated with the utilisation of these technologies.
The synergies between civil and military aerospace are well-known,
and are currently expected to increase (Scott 1999). The technological
linkages between aerospace and shipbuilding, less well-known hitherto in
Australia (although well-appreciated in countries like Japan and Russia), are becoming
increasingly important with the developing similarities between
airframe, hull design and construction, and the extensive use of
electronics. In the longer run, given the increasing importance of new
materials technology, aerodynamic styling and on-board electronics,
these linkages could extend across the whole transport equipment
sector, including motor vehicles. These technological interdependencies rest on the
delivery of key technologies which are capable of transforming production in a range of
industries – advanced materials (which have significance for aerospace, motor vehicles,
shipbuilding, other transport equipment, and building and construction), embedded
information and communications technologies (aerospace, motor vehicles, shipbuilding, other
transport equipment and transport system infrastructure), and aerodynamic design.”
Ainsley Jolley 99 -
Ainsley Jolley, [Director of the Emerging Technologies and Asian Growth Program at the Centre
for Strategic Economic Studies], “Transport Engineering Technologies”, October 1999, (CSES
Working Paper No. 13), http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp13.pdf, <accessed March 16,
2010>, (ZV)
“Innovation in its broader sense also implies spillovers across the
whole transport equipment and transport systems with respect to life-
cycle design and manufacturing systems, maintenance and repair
systems, and the development of a comprehensive approach to safety.
Defence contracts can provide a spur to technology in civil aerospace
as well as other transport and engineering industries with respect to
materials, electronics and on-board diagnostics. Civil aerospace, in
turn, provides a lead to the defence sector with respect to computer-
aided design and virtual prototyping, life-cycle planning, maintenance
and repair, and developments in air safety.”
B. Aerospace Advancement K2 Competitiveness
Chad Manske 01 -
Chad T. Manske, [Major, USAF], “LOOKING AHEAD AT THE FUTURE OF AIRLIFT: A CAPABILITIES-
BASED APPROACH TO DESIGNING THE NEXT GENERATION STRATEGIC AIRLIFTER”, April 2001,
https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2001/acsc/01-080.pdf, <accessed March 16, 2010>,
(ZV)
“Second, the evolution of technology suggests that —advanced high
bypass engines“ or even advanced, non-air breathing engines that
operate near space could be manufactured for aircraft of the future.2
The driving factors behind this evolutionary technology could be one of
several reasons. Among them include the advantage gained by
projecting power faster to a theater of operations before potential
adversaries have time to react; or the need to respond to a
humanitarian crisis quickly. A good reason for needing faster responding airlift forces
is the USA‘s goal of transporting a division ready brigade-medium force anywhere on the globe
within 96 hours after takeoff.”
~~~~~
I. Check their warrants. In most cases, there is NO WARRANTS
WHATSOEVER!
II. Check their application. Sometimes the evidence will apply to cap
and trade and not even mention carbon tax.
III. Ask for, and Read their evidence. Most times it will say that Carbon
Tax will have serious implications for global trade. Why? If its because
we tax imports, that is a non-existent issue; the US’ position in the
international trade arena will not be disturbed simply because we are
making efforts to protect the environment.
g. AT: Consumers
Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy

08 - Producers will absorb some of the costs of a carbon tax
Michael Waggoner [Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Colorado. A.B., European History,
Stanford University; LL.B. Harvard Law School], “Why and How to Tax Carbon,” Colorado Journal of
International Environmental Law & Policy, Fall, 2008, (20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1)
“Second, it is not clear that the price of consumed carbon will rise by the
amount of the carbon tax. Some of the tax may be absorbed by the
producers of carbon. The degree of price-shifting depends on the
relative elasticities of supply and demand, but it is unlikely that the tax
will be borne entirely by consumers. One would expect sales of carbon-
based products to fall because of the price increase created by the
carbon tax. To mitigate that drop in sales, the producer of those
carbon-based products might slightly reduce the price to avoid an
overly steep drop in sales, thus absorbing part of the tax.”
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 - it is not

clear that the price of consumed carbon will rise by the amount
of the carbon tax
“Second, it is not clear that the price of consumed carbon will rise by the
amount of the carbon tax. Some of the tax may be absorbed by the
producers of carbon. The degree of price-shifting depends on the relative elasticities of supply5
and demand,6 but it is unlikely that the tax will be borne entirely by consumers. One would
expect sales of carbon-based products to fall because of the price
increase created by the carbon tax. To mitigate that drop in sales, the
producer of those carbon-based products might slightly reduce the
price to avoid an overly steep drop in sales, thus absorbing part of the
tax.”
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 – the tax

will probably have some effect on consumers but the end
result will be a change in behavior
“Note that these three mechanisms are cumulative. As discussed in the first point, other taxes will be
reduced by the full amount of the carbon tax. Additionally, it is likely that some of the tax
will be borne by producers, so that consumers’ carbon tax burden will
be less than the benefit of the income tax cut. Finally, as explained in the third
point, consumers can change their behavior to further reduce the impact
of the carbon tax, coming out still further ahead.”
h. AT: Trade Hurt
Citizens Climate Lobby - There is no evidence to date that the

European carbon price affected their trade competitiveness
%20Tax_0.pdf, (ZV)
“US at competitive disadvantage: Representative Larson’s HR 1337 includes a
stipulation that the carbon tax would be waived for any US goods
exported to countries without a comparable carbon price. Similarly,
any carbon-intensive goods imported into the US would have the
carbon tax imposed on them at the border4. Thus US exports would
have no carbon penalty, and foreign imports would have no
competitive advantage. This effectively renders this argument moot. It
is also worth noting that there is no evidence to date that the
European carbon price affected their trade competitiveness2.”
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 - Carbon taxes are

better for business confidence – UK proves
Michael J. Zimmer [an attorney at Thompson Hine LLP in the energy practice], “Carbon Tax: Ready For
Prime Time?” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Winter, 2008, (8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 67)
“Over fifty percent of U.K. companies today are struggling with long-
term strategic and business modeling decisions in the face of the
current unstable policy and tax environment. Interestingly, after global
cap-and-trade emissions trading experience, almost sixty-six percent
of U.K. companies welcome the use of the tax system to provide
incentives for them to become carbon neutral. Only the public policy processes fail
to recognize this current market-based distinction in managing what has been characterized as one of the
greatest market failures in the world today--that failure to clearly account for the externalities of fossil fuel
use.”
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 - A carbon tax clear

signals the costs that industry must factor into the cost of
doing business
“A carbon tax sets a market clearing price that encourages predictable
energy prices. Predictability is important because when future energy
and power prices can be reliably calculated in advance, energy-critical
decisions can be made with the full awareness of carbon price signals.
Once these price signals are added to the costs that industry must
factor into the cost of doing business, they can affect plant and
building design considerations, new clean technology development,
electricity storage and deployment for industry, and appliance
selection and the purchase of the family car for the individual.”
i. Generic Responses
1. Precedent: Denmark
Monica Prasad 08 - Empirically Denied - Denmark imposed a

carbon tax but continued to experience economic growth
“The one country in which carbon taxes have led to a large decrease in
emissions is Denmark, whose per capita carbon dioxide emissions were
nearly 15 percent lower in 2005 than in 1990. And Denmark
accomplished this while posting a remarkably strong economic record
and without relying on nuclear power.”
2. Action > No Action
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - The economic pain of reducing carbon

emissions will in almost any case be less than the future
economic pain of doing nothing
“Making decisions on how to reduce carbon emissions is not just a vital environmental decision; it is an
important economic decision, and one that could play a large part in whether regulation is successful or
The economic pain of reducing carbon emissions will in almost any
not.
case be less than the future economic pain of doing nothing, but
unnecessarily increasing the economic pain could jeopardize the
political ability to undertake the requisite amount of emission
reduction.”
Environmental Defense Fund 09 - The United States can enjoy

robust economic growth over the next several decades while
making ambitious reductions in global warming pollution
“What will it cost to protect ourselves against potentially catastrophic global warming?”, Environmental
Defense Fund, October 2009, http://www.edf.org/documents/10458_EDF_Cost-Brief_Oct2009.pdf, (ZV)
“This policy brief examines the potential impact on the American economy of a cap on the heat-trapping
pollution that causes global warming. We start by focusing on analyses of the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454, ACES), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June. We then take
a wide-angle perspective to put these recent studies in the context of our previous survey. The conclusion
we reached in that earlier report remains just as valid now: The
United States can enjoy
robust economic growth over the next several decades while making
ambitious reductions in global warming pollution. If we put a cap on
carbon now, we can tackle climate change at a minimal cost to our
economy.”
3. No Credible Evidence
Frank Ackerman 09 – Economic ruin from cutting emissions has

not at all been proven
Frank Ackerman, [senior economist with the Stockholm Environment Institute at Tufts University. He is
also a co-founder of Economists for Equity and Environment (E3), and the lead author of E3’s “Economics
of 350” study], “The Economic Case for Slashing Carbon Emissions”, Yale University, October 20, 2009,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2200, (ZV)
“These projections of economic ruin have not been reproduced by any
major academic or non-profit research group. Many economic models
find that the modest steps called for in recent U.S. proposals would
have very small costs and virtually undetectable effects on total
employment — as documented in a report by Nathaniel Keohane and Peter Goldmark for the
Environmental Defense Fund. But to reach 350 ppm, we will have to go far beyond the emission reductions
considered in recent U.S. proposals. How much will it cost to reach this more ambitious target? Until
recently, most economic research focused on higher targets such as 450 ppm or more. There are,
however, four major climate economics modeling groups — all at European universities — that have
analyzed the costs of reaching 350 ppm.”
3. Pollution
Refutation of “Co2 Helps Trees!”: So we dismiss all of the harmful

effects to human health, life, et cetera and keep emitting because it
helps that tree in your front yard grow?! No!”
a. Fossil Fuels are the largest source of

Pollution
Dr. Ken Rubin - burning of fossil fuels is the single largest

source of air pollutants
Dr. Ken Rubin, [Assistant Professor Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Hawaii,], “What
is the cause of most air pollution?”, [no original date], <accessed January 31, 2010>,
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/airpol.html, (ZV)
“Well, as you are probably aware, air pollution takes many different forms and arises from a variety of
sources. In terms of overall range and extents of impacts, however, it is my opinion that burning of
fossil fuels (coal, gasoline, etc..) is the single largest source of air
pollutants. These fuels cause smog, acid rain, soot and particulates
increases, greenhouse gas emissions, and dispersal of some heavy metal
contaminants. Fossil fuels are widely used for heating, transportaion, electricity generation,
manufacturing and other industries. Thus, they are used pervasively in our society and their use is difficult
(but not impossible) to curtail. Also, various measures can be taken to help make fossil fuel buring both
Until we find cleaner
cleaner and more efficiently but this comes at some monetary cost.
alternatives to the present fossil fuels burning methods, most air
pollutants plaguing the world today will continue to be a problem in the
future.”
PR Newswire 09 - coal contributes to four of the top five

causes of mortality in the U.S.
“Coal Pollution Damages Human Health at Every Stage of Coal Life Cycle, Reports Physicians for Social
Responsibility”, PR Newswire, November 18, 2009, <accessed January 31, 2010>,
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/coal-pollution-damages-human-health-at-every-stage-of-coal-
life-cycle-reports-physicians-for-social-responsibility-70367462.html, (ZV)
“WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Physicians for Social Responsibility today released a
groundbreaking medical report, "Coal's Assault on Human Health," which takes a new look at the
devastating impacts of coal on the human body. By examining the impact of coal
pollution on the major organ systems of the human body, the report
concludes that coal contributes to four of the top five causes of mortality in
the U.S. and is responsible for increasing the incidence of major
diseases already affecting large portions of the U.S. population. A copy of
the full report can be found at http://www.psr.org/coalreport. "The findings of this report are clear: while
the U.S. relies heavily on coal for its energy needs, the consequences
of that reliance for our health are grave," said Alan H. Lockwood, MD
FAAN, a principal author of the report and a professor of neurology at the University
at Buffalo.”
PR Newswire 09 - Coal combustion releases mercury,

particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens
of other substances known to be hazardous to human health
"These stark conclusions leave no room for doubt or delay," said Kristen Welker-Hood, SCD MSN RN, PSR's
director of environment and health programs. "The time has come for our nation to establish a health-
driven energy policy that replaces our dependence on coal with clean, safe alternatives. Business as usual
is extracting a deadly price on our health. Coal is no longer an option." Also participating in the report's
release were the American Lung Association and the American Nurses Association. Coal
combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous
to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those
pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system,
the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers
coal's contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.”
Widener Law Journal 09 - The US continues to rely on fossil

fuels for energy - this causes pollution
David M. Driesen [Professor, Syracuse University College of Law, J.D. Yale], “Symposium: Sustainable
Energy: The Intersection Of Innovation, Law, And Policy: Sustainable Development And Air Quality: The
Need To Replace Basic Technologies With Cleaner Alternatives,” Widener Law Journal, 2009, (18 Widener
L. J. 883)
“Little change has occurred in the power sector. The United States
continues to rely predominantly upon coal-fired power production, a
very dirty energy source contributing to acid rain, climate change, and
urban air pollution, just as it did prior to the Earth Summit. Renewable technologies, such as wind
power, fuel cells, and solar power, produce power with no direct air pollution at all but have not led to a
Similarly, we remain dependent upon the internal
decline in coal-fired generation.
combustion engine, which burns petroleum, thereby contributing
significantly to urban air pollution and climate change.”
University of Baltimore Journal of Environmental Law 05 -

Power plants that emit carbon are also a major source of air
pollutants
Ronald P. Jackson Jr., Esq. [J.D., University of Baltimore, over than 20 years experience managing projects
pertaining to the drafting of environmental regulations & policies, hazardous waste minimization, & NEPA],
“Extending The Success Of The Acid Rain Provisions Of The Clean Air Act: An Analysis Of The Clear Skies
Initiative And Other Proposed Legislative And Regulatory Schemes To Curb Multi-pollutant Emissions From
Fossil Fueled Electric Generating Plants,” University of Baltimore Journal of Environmental Law, Spring,
2005, (12 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 91)
“Power plants also account for forty percent of our nation's CO<2>
emissions and about ten percent of the worldwide CO2 emissions.
Although CO<2> does not have a direct impact on human health, it is a principal contributor to the
problem of global warming. It also contributes to the depletion of the atmosphere's ozone layer, which
filters out ultraviolet light from the sun. Mercury ("Hg") is a toxic heavy metal that is very persistent in the
Thirty-three percent of the Hg emitted annually in the United
environment.
States comes from power plants. Prevailing winds often carry Hg long
distances from its source before it precipitates to the earth's surface
where it can enter the food chain as methylmercury. Methylmercury is even more toxic
than its parent, Hg. Like SO<2> and NOx, Hg emissions cause air pollution, health, and environmental
problems throughout North America.”
b. Pollution does not affect the climate
David Lewis 09 – [GOOD CARD]**

Lewis 9 John David Lewis [a Visiting Professor of Political Science, Duke University. He has
been a Senior Research Scholar in History and Classics at the Social Philosophy and Policy
Center, and an Anthem Fellow. He is a contributing writer for Capitalism Magazine, and a
Consulting Editor for The Objective Standard], “HISTORY, POLITICS, AND CLAIMS OF MAN-
MADE GLOBAL WARMING,” Published in Social Philosophy and Policy, Volume 26, Issue 02, July
2009, pp 231-271, doi:10.1017/S0265052509090232,, Published Online by Cambridge
University Press 24 Jun 2009 (PV)
“The record shows that temperatures rose before CO2 concentrations
rose. Patterson recognized that the time lag between rising or falling
temperature and rising or falling CO2 is about 800 years. To illustrate
the causal implications of this relationship, he draws [through] an
analogy with human history. If you think that climate is being driven by
CO2, “then you probably would have no difficulty in accepting the idea
that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of King Herold by
Duke William of Orange at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.”
CATO 09 - No consensus that CO2 actually causes warming

Richard W. Rahn, “More Tax Oppression,” the CATO Institute, July 2, 2009,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10327
“Before you answer the question, consider the following facts. The proponents claim this tax bill will
reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, which are purported to cause global warming. First, despite
the claims of President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many
in the media, there is no consensus in the scientific community about
how much climate change, other than the normal cycles, is taking
place, nor how severe it will be, and how much man-made CO2 is
responsible. None of the climate models predicted the unexpected
global cooling of the last decade.”
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 - while

there appear to be solid reasons to believe that human activity
is contributing to global warming neither of those statements
is entirely free from doubt
“The carbon tax proposal is based in part on agnosticism and humility. First, while there appear
to be solid reasons to believe that human activity is contributing to
global warming and that global warming may present serious risks to
humans and other inhabitants of this planet, neither of those
statements is entirely free from doubt. Even accepting those
statements, it is not clear how serious the impact will be or how soon it
will arrive.”
Fred Singer 07 - There is no proof that the current warming is

caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity
S. Fred Singer [an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor
Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S.
Weather Satellite Service.], March 19, 2007, “'The Great Global Warming Swindle”, Our Civilization.com,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm
“There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of
greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years
show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of
years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2.
As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of
future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately
Plus,
understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control.
computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of
the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming
—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling
while models predict warming. And where the models call for the
middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations
show the exact opposite. The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature
fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar
activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been
traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the
Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which
brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general
misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is “unusual” using spurious analysis
of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate
swings and claim that the current warming is "unusual" by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other
proxy data, resulting in the famous “hockey–stick” temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph
has now been thoroughly discredited.”
Patricia Muir 08 - One important component of carbon cycling

is the biological carbon cycle
Patricia S. Muir, [Botany and Plant Pathology Professor], “GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE”, Oregon State
University, October 22, 2008, http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm, (ZV)
“Before we discuss ways by which human activities can affect concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere,
we need to understand a bit about the natural cycling of carbon on
earth and its atmosphere. One important component of carbon cycling
is the biological carbon cycle. I'm sure that you are familiar with this. It basically
involves: CO2 uptake by plants in the process of photosynthesis, with
conversion of a fraction of that CO2 into organic material (sugars,
initially) and release of CO2 by respiration of plants, animals, and
microbes. The biological carbon cycle involves a huge amount of
carbon; more than 20 times the quantity that is released each year by
fossil fuel combustion!”
Center for Science and Public Policy 09 - Ice core data show
that temperature increases precede CO2 increases, not the
other way around
Dr. David Evans, The Center for Science and Public Policy, “There is No Evidence,” July 6, 2009,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/no_evidence.pdf
“The first ice core data appeared in around 1985, and in the old ice
core data collected to about 2000 the time resolution of the data is low
—thousands of years between data points. The old ice core data did
not show which changed direction first, the temperature or the CO2.
Most alarmists expected that it was the CO2 that changed direction
first, or at least at about the same time as the temperature changed
direction, because they believed that CO2 changes caused or amplified
temperature changes. The new ice core data that was collected from
about 1998 had a better time resolution, only hundreds of years
between data points. By 2003 it had been firmly established that
changes in CO2, both up and down, lagged the corresponding
temperature changes by an average of 800 years.”
Center for Science and Public Policy 09 - Solar activity is a

much more likely explanation for Climate Change
Dr. David Evans, The Center for Science and Public Policy, “There is No Evidence,” July 6, 2009,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/no_evidence.pdf
“As it happens, the little ice age coincides with a dearth of sunspots,
and solar activity rose from 1720 to a maximum in the late 1900s (see
for example en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png). While the amount
of light from the sun (irradiance) has not changed enough to cause
much of the warming, perhaps some other feature associated with
sunspots (such as the sun’s magnetic field) affects the earth’s
temperature. After all, the correlation of sunspots with wheat prices
was noticed centuries ago (sunspots affect wheat growth and thus crop
yield).”
c. Impact: Human Health
Asian News International 08 - Much of the US population has

been directly affected by climate change and health effects
will continue to worsen in temps continue to rise
Asian News International, “Carbon dioxide emissions linked to increased human mortality”, Published by
The Hindustan Times, January 4, 2008, <accessed via Highbeam>, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-
1407634131.html, (ZV)
“"The study is the first specifically to isolate carbon dioxide's effect from that of other global-warming
agents and to find quantitatively that chemical and meteorological changes due to carbon dioxide itself
increase mortality due to increased ozone, particles and carcinogens in the air," said Jacobson. "The
simulations accounted for the changes in ozone and particles through chemistry, transport, clouds,
emissions and other processes that affect pollution. Carbon dioxide definitely caused these changes,
"Much of the population of the
because that was the only input that was varied," he added.
United States already has been directly affected by climate change
through the air they have inhaled over the last few decades and the
health effects would grow worse if temperatures continue to rise," said
Jacobson.”
Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 05 - Pollution from

fossil fuel burning power plants kills & sickens thousands
every year
Patrick Parenteau [Director of the Environmental & Natural Resources Law Clinic & Professor of Law,
Vermont Law School], “Anything Industry Wants: Environmental Policy Under Bush II,” Vermont Journal of
Environmental Law, 2004/2005, (6 Vt. J. Envtl. L. 1)
“Inaction regarding air quality is especially unacceptable, as it is the
most serious environmental health problem in the country, affecting
hundreds of millions of people. According to Abt Associates, EPA's principal
consultant on air quality, fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants cuts
short the lives of over 30,000 people each year. In more polluted
areas, fine particle pollution can shave several years off its victims'
lives. Hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer from asthma attacks,
cardiac problems and upper and lower respiratory problems associated
with fine particles from power plants. The elderly, children, and those
with respiratory disease are most severely impacted by fine particle
pollution from power plants. Metropolitan areas near coal-fired power
plants feel their impacts most acutely. Death rates for this
demographic, which are much higher than in areas with few or no coal-
fired power plants, is clearly attributable to their proximity to these
plants. Power plants outstrip all other polluters as the largest source of
sulfates--the major component of fine particle pollution.”
PR Newswire 09 - Coal pollutants affect all major body organ

systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of
mortality in the U.S.
“Viewed in this way, the totality of coal's impact on health becomes clear. Coal pollutants affect
all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading
causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and
chronic lower respiratory diseases.
Respiratory Effects: Air pollutants produced by coal combustion
act on the respiratory system, contributing to serious health effects
including asthma, lung disease and lung cancer, and adversely affect
normal lung development in children.
Cardiovascular Effects: Pollutants produced by coal combustion
lead to cardiovascular disease, such as arterial occlusion (artery
blockages, leading to heart attacks) and infarct formation (tissue death
due to oxygen deprivation, leading to permanent heart damage), as
well as cardiac arrhythmias and congestive heart failure. Exposure to
chronic air pollution over many years increases cardiovascular
mortality.
Nervous System Effects: Studies show a correlation between
coal-related air pollutants and stroke. Coal pollutants also act on the
nervous system to cause loss of intellectual capacity, primarily through
mercury. Researchers estimate that between 317,000 and 631,000
children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high
enough to reduce IQ scores and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.”
Asian News International 08 - Each increase of one degree

Celsius caused by carbon emissions, the air pollution leads to a
thousand additional deaths and multiplied respiratory
illness/asthma in the US not to mention world wide effects
1407634131.html, (ZV)
“According to Jacobson, while it has long been known that carbon dioxide
emissions contribute to climate change, the new study details how for each
increase of one degree Celsius caused by carbon dioxide, the resulting
air pollution would lead annually to about a thousand additional deaths
and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma in the United
States. Worldwide, upward of 20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per
year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas. For this study,
Jacobson used the computer model to determine the amounts of ozone and airborne particles that result
from temperature increases, caused by increases in carbon dioxide emissions.”
Asian News International 08 - A Highly sophisticated and

credible study from a Stanford Univ. Professor shows the lick
between carbon emissions and human mortality
1407634131.html, (ZV)
“Washington, Jan. 4 -- A new study by a Stanford scientist has outlined for the
first time the direct links between increased levels of carbon dioxide in
the environment and increases in human mortality. The study was
carried out using the help of a new computer model of the atmosphere
that incorporates scores of physical and chemical environmental
processes. Developed by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Stanford, the computer model is
considered by many to be the most complex and complete
atmospheric model worldwide. It incorporates principles of gas and
particle emissions and transport, gas chemistry, particle production
and evolution, ocean processes, soil processes, and the atmospheric
effects of rain, winds, sunlight, heat and clouds, among other factors.”
d. Carbon Tax Solves Emissions

Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 - a well implemented
carbon tax can easily cover 80 percent of U.S. emissions and
can likely cover almost 90 percent
“Most carbon pricing regimes are imposed on relatively narrow bases and are imposed midstream, on
industrial users of energy. Moreover, the trend seems to be in the direction of a cap and trade system. We
propose a different approach here. For reasons long established in the literature, a carbon tax is preferable
a well implemented carbon tax imposed
to a cap and trade system. We show that
upstream can easily cover 80 percent of U.S. emissions and can likely
cover almost 90 percent with a modest additional cost. The benefits of
the broad base and lower compliance costs are likely to be significant.”
NYT 09 - A Carbon Tax would steadily reduce emissions and

yield a much greater reduction over all
Charles Komanoff, [Co-director, Carbon Tax Center], “The Climate Change Bill”, The New York Times,
August 1, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/lweb02climate.html?_r=1, (ZV)
“An analysis by the Carbon Tax Center shows that a steadily rising tax on carbon
emissions over the next decade will yield far greater reductions in
carbon dioxide levels. Revenue from such a tax could be returned to
Americans through payroll or income tax cuts to balance higher energy
costs. The carbon tax-and-dividend is simpler and more effective than
cap-and-trade. As you so aptly concluded in your editorial, the “Senate Democrats should not settle for
half-measures.”
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – There is no silver

bullet for global warming, but addressing carbon emissions is
a major step
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“There is no silver bullet for addressing global warming, but
climatologists agree that the most important first step is to curtail the
growth of carbon dioxide emissions and, as expeditiously as possible,
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Even the Bush Administration, which steadfastly
opposed any mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, eventually recognized the need to lower
carbon dioxide emissions. The Administration's voluntary emissions reduction approach, most notably the
ENERGY STAR program, produced some successes, such as when Wal-Mart Corporation installed energy
efficient lighting systems in stores across the country.”
Natural Resources Defense Council 04 - ADVOCACY: [80%

Reduction]…industrialized nations need to reduce global
warming pollution by 80 percent
Natural Resources Defense Council, “The New Energy Economy: Putting America on the path to solving
global warming”, December 2007, www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/energy/contents.asp, (ZV)
"To avoid locking ourselves and future generations into a dangerously
disrupted climate, industrialized nations need to reduce global
warming pollution by 80 percent from current levels by mid-century.
Major developing economies need to adopt advanced energy
technologies that will enable them to grow without following our highly
polluting development path. The European Union and a few other countries have already
begun to act, but the world will not reach the necessary targets unless the United States quickly enacts
mandatory limits and moves aggressively to reduce its pollution by shifting investments to low-carbon,
high-efficiency fuels and technologies.”
i. AT: No Incentive
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 -

imposing a tax on carbon production would create an incentive
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
“This carbon tax would have two major purposes. First, imposing a tax on carbon
production would create an incentive to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions. This reduction is desirable because carbon dioxide
emissions appear to be contributing significantly to global warming
and climate change, developments that may cause serious
environmental damage.2 The carbon tax may be a better tool for carbon reduction than
alternatives such as subsidies, regulation, or cap-and-trade.”
Bjorn Lomborg 07 – While nobody likes taxes, they send a

powerful signal to lessen carbon consumption
Bjorn Lomborg, [associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of
Aarhus, Denmark], “Cool It: The skeptical environmentalist’s guide to global warming”, 2007,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qd9b8taIAqgC&source=gbs_navlinks_s, (ZV)
“Thus, if we want to cut emissions beyond what comes from natural
ingenuity, we need to motivate people to emit less. Here, economists
advocate using a tax on carbon. While nobody likes taxes (maybe
apart from the secretary of Treasury), they send a powerful signal to
avoid or at least lessen carbon emissions. If you have to pay more, you
will probably cut back on some of your energy consumption—maybe you
will switch off the air conditioner in your car, or possibly you will even bike.”
Bjorn Lomborg 07 – Carbon Tax motivates businesses toward

renewable energy investment
Bjorn Lomborg, [associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of
Aarhus, Denmark], “Cool It: The skeptical environmentalist’s guide to global warming”, 2007,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qd9b8taIAqgC&source=gbs_navlinks_s, (ZV)
“More important is what happens to industry, power plants, and heating facilities, which cause the
majority of emissions. Coal is cheap but emits lots of carbon, whereas gas is
more expensive but emits less, and renewables, such as biomass and
solar energy, are even more expensive but emit no CO2. With a carbon
tax, businesses will tent toward cleaner but more expensive energy
sources or toward processes that are more complicated but use less
fuel.”
Dr. Mijin Cha 08 - A carbon tax provides incentives to convert

away from pollution emitting power sources
Dr. Mijin Cha [Adjunct Professor, Fordham University School of Law, PhD, University of London], “Climate
Justice: Promoting Equity in Dealing with Climate Change,” Progressive States Network, 28 April, 2008,
http://www.progressivestates.org/node/21902/pdf
“Many economists, including conservative ones, argue that an across-
the-board tax on carbon to encourage emission cutbacks from all
sources would not only be fairer, but would be economically more
effective for overall both stopping climate change and economic
efficiency. Many analysts argue that carbon taxes are simpler, more
transparent, and less subject to manipulation by polluters. And
because it applies to every carbon source, it gives stronger incentives
to immediately convert to less toxic and renewable energy sources.
Combined with tightening regulatory limits, carbon taxes are less likely
to end up with disproportionate dumping of emissions and toxins in
poorer communities.”
Ian Bruce 08 - A carbon tax is one of the most powerful

incentives to reduce pollution
Ian Bruce [climate change specialist], “Carbon Tax Backgrounder - B.C. Budget 2008,” David Suzuki
Foundation [an environmental, non-partisan charity], 18 February, 2008,
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/climate/Briefing_Note_-_BC_Budget_2008.pdf
“Several industrialized countries and jurisdictions are putting a price on
emissions through the use of carbon taxes. A carbon tax is one of the
most powerful incentives and tools that governments have to
encourage companies and households to pollute less and invest in
cleaner technologies and practices. Several countries, including
Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, have introduced
a carbon tax and seen emissions decrease as a result.”
Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy

08 - A carbon tax is the most effective incentive to reduce
carbon emissions
Michael Waggoner [Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Colorado. A.B., European History,
Stanford University; LL.B. Harvard Law School], “Why and How to Tax Carbon,” Colorado Journal of
International Environmental Law & Policy, Fall, 2008, (20 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 1)
“First, imposing a tax on carbon production would create an incentive to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This reduction is desirable because
carbon dioxide emissions appear to be contributing significantly to
global warming and climate change, developments that may cause
serious environmental damage. The carbon tax may be a better tool
for carbon reduction than alternatives such as subsidies, regulation, or cap-
and-trade.”
Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies 02 - A

carbon tax would reduce PM (particulate matter) pollution
Jennifer Li, [research associate with the Foundation for Environmental Security & Sustainability, Ph.D. in
public policy analysis with a concentration on environment & natural resources from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill], “Including the Feedback of Local Health Improvement in Assessing Costs
and Benefits of GHG Reduction,” Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, November, 2002, (Vol.
14 Issue 3, pp. 282-304)
“An abatement policy targeted at CO2 has the unintended positive
effect of reducing a local pollutant, PM-10. We refer to this secondary reduction of
PM-l0 as an "ancillary effect" or "ancillary benefit" (Burtraw and Toman, 2000). The
association between negative health effects and PM-10 exposure is
well-established in the epidemiology literature. Industries that burn
fossil fuels emit CO2 as well as PM-10. PM-10 is also generated during what is called
"process emissions" (as opposed to combustion emissions) in the case where dust is generated during a
production process that does not involve combustion. Process-emissions are not related to the amount of
One other major source of PM-10 is
fuel used but to the total output produced.
vehicles, or final consumption-generated PM-10. When a carbon tax is
imposed to induce less fossil fuel burning, we do not expect the process-generated
PM-10 to drop significantly, but should expect the combustion-generated PM-l0
(through industrial production and vehicular combustion through
internal combustion engines) to drop more.”
Columbia University 09 - A carbon tax will guide the country

away from uncontrolled fossil fuel use
Charles F. Kutscher [National Renewable Energy Laboratory], Edward Mazria [2030 Inc. / Architecture
2030], Pushker A. Kharecha & James E. Hansen [both from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies &
Columbia University Earth Institute], “Options for Near-Term Phaseout of Coal Emissions in the United
States,” Columbia University EC Workshop, Draft Report, June, 2009,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/ECWorkshop_report.pdf
“We believe a price on carbon is necessary and that a carbon tax would
likely have a greater success at reducing emissions than the “cap-and-
trade” approach, as concluded by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO
2008) and others (e. g., Hansen 2009). A sufficiently high carbon tax, along with
other crucial policies such as elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, will ensure a level playing
field for alternative energies. Such incentives will also guide the
country away from other potentially disastrous choices such as large-
scale usage of unconventional fossil fuels (e. g., coal-to-liquids, underground coal
gasification, methane hydrates, and tar sands) without CCS.”
Duke University 05 - Taxing carbon will act as a disincentive to

fossil fuel pollution
William H. Schlesinger [member of the National Academy of Sciences & dean of the Nicholas School of the
Environment & Earth Sciences at Duke University], “Carbon Tax Provides Fairest Incentive For Curbing
Global Warming,” Duke University, Office of News & Communications, 16 May, 2005,
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/05/carbontax.html
“A carbon tax would be paid whenever a molecule of carbon dioxide is
emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Utilities would pay it
based on their smokestack emissions and pass the cost to consumers
in their monthly electric bill. Each of us would pay it when we fill up
with gasoline, based on the content of fossil carbon in the fuel. A
carbon tax would provide the maximum incentive for bright engineers
to improve the efficiency of fossil fuel use in all sectors of society. It
also would maximize the potential for important "cross-sector"
transfers of efficiency. For instance, if engineers find efficient ways to
reduce CO2 emissions from the power plants that provide our
electricity, the utilities’ carbon tax savings could be passed along to
consumers.”
Fareed Zakaria 07 - Carbon taxes make it more economically

feasible to use non-emitting energy sources
Fareed Zakaria [Ph.D. in political science from Harvard, serves on the board of Yale University, The Council
on Foreign Relations, & The Trilateral Commission, award-winning author of numerous books, editor of
Newsweek & former editor of Foreign Affairs], “Leadership and the Environment: The Case for a Global
Carbon Tax,” Newsweek, 16 April, 2007, (Vol. CXLIX, No. 16, pp. 94+)
“Once you tax carbon, you make it cheaper to produce clean energy. If
burning coal and petrol in current ways becomes more expensive
because of the damage they do to the environment, people will find
ways to get energy out of alternative fuels or methods. Along the way,
industrial societies will earn tax revenues that they can use, in part, to
subsidize clean energy for the developing world. It is the only way to
solve the problem at a global level, which is the only level at which the
solution is meaningful.”
Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal

07 - A carbon tax would provide an economic incentive to stop
burning coal
Roberta Mann [Professor of Law, Widener University, J.D. Arizona State University, LLM Georgetown
University Law Center], “Symposium - The Business of Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities for
Multinational Business Enterprises: Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt: How Tax Incentives Encourage
Burning Coal and the Consequences for Global Warming,” Pacific McGeorge Global Business &
Development Law Journal, 2007, (20 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 111)
“Tax policy should play a role in helping the United States reduce GHG
emissions from coal, as well as other sources. The tax system should stop
encouraging the use of coal in conventional power plants. The preferential
tax treatment of coal must end, unless the tax preference provides an incentive to use coal more cleanly
By promoting the use of coal without mandatory carbon
and responsibly.
sequestration, even the clean-coal credits promote global warming.
The federal tax system should provide economic incentives to reduce
coal use by means of a carbon tax.”
Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 09 - By

definition, limiting greenhouse gas emissions will create
disincentives for the use of carbon-intense fossil fuels
Lincoln L. Davies [Associate Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah. J.D., Stanford
Law School, 2000; B.S., The University of Michigan, 1997] "Energy Policy Today and Tomorrow - Toward
Sustainability?" Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law, 2009 (29 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L.
71)
“It has become accepted wisdom that the United States in the next years will, in all likelihood, address
climate change in some fashion. Indeed, climate change has become such a dominating question both
politically and culturally that some scholars have begun referring to the current period as a "new era" of
environmental policymaking. n7 Certainly, any move the United States makes to regulate climate change
By [*73] definition, limiting
will impact our nation's prevailing energy paradigm.
greenhouse gas emissions will create disincentives for the use of
carbon-intense fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and corresponding
incentives for the increased use of other less carbon-intense options,
such as natural gas as a "bridge" fuel, n8 and carbon-"free" sources,
such as solar, wind, and nuclear.”
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 – the

carbon tax would provide and incentive to not use fossil fuels
Michael J. Waggoner, [Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Colorado. A.B., European History,
include taxation and civil procedure], “The House Erred: A Carbon Tax Is Better Than Cap And Trade”,
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, September 21, 2009,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1489592, (ZV)
“That ideal should occur under a carbon tax because a carbon tax is inherently relatively simple. The
carbon tax would be imposed on sources of fossil fuels (coal mines and
oil and gas wells), on cement kilns, and on importers of fossil fuels and
cement. That tax would then be passed along through increased prices
and reduced production throughout our economy and society, giving
each person and incentive to reduce emissions. The carbon content of imports
would be fully taxed, soothing the fears of domestic producers of unfair competition on the domestic
market.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - A carbon tax creates the kind of broad-based

incentives that no other instrument does
“I argued above that a consistent carbon price across the entire economy is necessary to ensure a fair
contest among all of these potential solutions. This separate argument emphasizes the need to ensure a
contest among many alternatives, and reaching many activities. A fundamental market tenet is that the
larger the number of market participants, the more robust the market. Along the same lines, a thorough
search for the most effective and efficient ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will require the
A carbon tax, which gets at the fundamental
ferreting out of ideas from all quarters.
problem of fossil fuel combustion across all sectors and activities,
creates the kind of broad-based incentives that no other instrument
does.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - A price signal that touches all carbon dioxide-

emitting activities gives impetus to everybody engaging in
these activities to develop ways of reducing carbon dioxide
emissions
“As argued above, the ubiquitous nature of fossil fuel combustion demands that a price on carbon be
distributed broadly, so as to avoid distortionary substitutions. It is also critically important to impose a
broad carbon price because reducing carbon dioxide emissions will require responses in a very wide
variety of activities. Many, many ideas and solutions are needed to reduce greenhouse gases, not just a
handful of magic bullets such as coal gasification or nuclear power plants. A
price signal that
touches all carbon dioxide-emitting activities gives impetus to
everybody engaging in these activities to develop ways of reducing
carbon dioxide emissions. We drive, we turn up thermostats, we build inefficient homes and
buildings, fail to weatherize and insulate our existing homes and buildings, we buy imported toys and other
goods, we buy imported produce so that we can enjoy all kinds of foods in all seasons, we use too much
carbon intensive cement, we burn too much coal for electricity and consume too much electricity, we buy
houses with the idea that we will drive for every trip taken out of the house, and we build buildings and
communities in which all this wastefulness is part of our lifestyle and economy.”
Emory University 08 - higher prices also encourages the

development of alternative energy sources
Emory University’s ‘Knolwedge @ Emory’ Division, “Will High Gasoline Prices Spur Innovation?”, May 14,
2008, http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1141, (ZV)
“Hill: Yes and no. As far as the macro-economy is concerned, higher prices function like a tax from abroad,
which lowers our real income. This reduction in real income is something we have to accept; trying to
reverse it through economic stimulus will just take us back to the stagflation of the 1970s. On the positive
side, higher prices signal to Americans the need to cut back on consumption and to the oil industry
the need to search for and develop sites that were too expensive to extract a few years ago. Attention to
also encourages the development of alternative energy sources,
price
the object of considerable investment these days. The Saudis don’t like it when
the oil price crosses higher thresholds for exactly this reason. When oil hit $40 a barrel in 1980-81, the
Iranians were chiefly responsible, which irritated the Saudis. They warned Iran that the West would
develop sources of alternative energy that would put them all out of business a lot sooner than they
wanted. This is a notion economists call limit pricing. Indeed, the price of oil dropped after that. The Saudis
have always believed that oil prices should vary within a certain range. They recognize that high prices
encourage the development of fuel cell technology or something else, which once developed, won’t go
away, undercutting the value of oil. But in the face of current worldwide supply problems, coupled with a
burst of demand from China and India, the Saudis have lost control over pricing. If
prices don’t
drop, we’ll see an even bigger investment in alternative energy
sources. Once that investment is made, those alternatives will be
around forever.”
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 01 - The price of

conventional fuels, specifically oil and natural gas, is a driver
for wind energy development
“The price of conventional fuels, specifically oil and natural gas, is
another driver for wind energy development. In 1972, 16% of U.S.
electricity came from oil-fired generation. Utilities have since shifted
away from use of oil as a fuel because of large price fluctuations and
environmental concerns. Today less than 2% of U.S. electricity comes
from oil. The share of natural gas generation has increased
dramatically in recent years, averaging nearly 11% annual growth from
1996 to 2000 [6]. This increase was a result of historically low prices
and lower emissions compared to coal. In 1999, natural gas provided
about 16% of U.S. electricity. However, recent price fluctuations have
refocused attention on balancing natural gas use with alternative
energy options. The relationship between oil and gas prices and events in the wind energy
program are shown in Figure 4.”
Negative Arguments
4. Backstopping/OPEC
A. International Demand Solves
WSJ 08 - Even if OPEC floods the market, China will absorb/buy

all the oil
David Gaffen, “Oil Turns on China Decision”, Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2008,
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/06/19/oil-turns-on-china-decision/, <accessed March 19,
2010>, (ZV)
“For ages the assumption among the oil bulls has been that the rapid
industrial growth in China would more-than-fill the void of demand
declines in the U.S. and Europe, and that’s in part what’s kept oil prices
surging while gasoline consumption declines here [in the US]. But that leg
of the argument has been hobbled, and it’s having an impact on crude, which is down by more
than $4 in trading. China said it would raise domestic gasoline and diesel prices by 17% to
18% by reducing its usage of subsidies, following moves by other Asian nations, including
India, Malaysia, and Indonesia.”
MSNBC 05 - Any excess oil supply is already being consumed

by China and India, and this will continue
John W. Schoen, [Senior producer], “OPEC says it has lost control of oil prices”, MSNBC, March
16, 2005, <accessed March 22, 2010>, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7190109/, (ZV)
“And even as President Bush expressed concern Wednesday about rising oil prices, he cited
tight global supplies -- not OPEC policies -- for the price surge. “I think if you look at all the
statistics, demand is outracing supply and supplies are getting tight. And that’s why you’re
seeing the price reflected,” Bush said. OPEC's admission that has lost control of oil prices
hasn’t eased political pressure on the cartel. On Tuesday, several oil ministers said they had
received calls from U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman. Sen. Ron Wyden (D Ore.) said Tuesday
he’s not convinced that OPEC’s hands are tied by global demand reaching the limits of
production capacity. “This is their claim,” said Wyden. “But the fact of the matter is that
nobody knows what their capacity is.” Though data on OPEC’s oil production
capacity have always been hard to come by, there’s little
disagreement on the rapid growth of global consumption -- especially
in China and India. With worldwide demand this year rising by roughly
2 million barrels per day, whatever excess capacity is out there will be
gone soon, according to Marshal Adkins, an oil industry analyst at Raymond James.”
NYT 08 - Even if US consumption goes down, the rest of the

world will fill the gap
“At the same time, oil consumption keeps expanding at a faster clip
than production. Demand is forecast to increase this year by 1.2
million barrels a day, to 87.2 million barrels a day. In the United States,
the world’s most oil-thirsty nation, consumption has actually fallen a
bit because of the economic slowdown. But that drop is being offset by
growth in other countries. World consumption is projected to rise 35
percent, to around 115 million barrels a day, in the next two decades.
Most of the growth will come from China, India and oil-producing
countries in the Middle East, where retail fuel prices are subsidized, encouraging
wasteful consumption. “What is disturbing here is that things seem to get worse, not better,”
an analyst at Goldman Sachs, David Greely, said. “These high prices are not attracting
meaningful new supplies.” Oil rose 23 cents Monday to $118.75 on the New York Mercantile
Exchange. Longer-term oil futures, dated for 2013, now trade at $108 a barrel, a
strong indication that investors see little cause for prices to drop in the
next five years — partly because of low expectations about production
growth.”
Paavo Suni, Anthony de Carvalho - The Asian market’s demand

will continue to increase over 30% a year
Paavo Suni, [Professional Researcher], Anthony de Carvalho, [Professional Researcher], “Oil
Prices Have Risen Permanently, But Remain Unstable”, ETLA, <accessed March 23, 2010>, [no
original date], http://www.etla.fi/files/1490_FES_05_4_oil_prices_have_risen_permanently.pdf,
(ZV)
“Thanks to two decades of strong economic expansion, China has become a major player in
China’s share in world oil consumption was
the world economy.
nevertheless only 8.2 percent in 2004. That same year, however,
China’s share of world demand growth was as much as 29 percent.
Asia as a whole explained 40 percent of the increase in world demand.
For purposes of comparison, the U.S. share of growth was slightly smaller than China’s, even
though America’s share of consumption is around 25 percent. The strength of demand
for crude oil came as a surprise to the markets, which is visible in the
increase in crude oil futures price curves. Markets interpreted the
change as being permanent, since the quotations declined only slightly
over time. This reflects the IEA’s projections that, given current trends, significant oil-sector
investments particularly in the Middle East and northern Africa will have to be made in order to
raise crude oil supply. Earlier, futures prices tended to converge towards much lower levels.”
B. Lack of Infrastructure Solves
USA Today 08 - Oil refineries can't keep pace with demand, and
especially if the market was flooded with new/cheap oil—No
new refinery has been built in the United States in the past 32
years
Richard Wolf and Paul Davidson, “Which way out of rising gasoline costs?”, USA Today, June
13, 2008, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-06-12-
gasolineprices_N.htm, (ZV)
“Oil refineries can't keep pace with demand No new refinery has been
built in the United States in the past 32 years. Capacity at existing
refineries has increased about 1% a year, failing to keep pace with
demand, says Aaron Brady, a Cambridge Energy Research Associates analyst. Until
recently, the tight supplies and surging demand allowed refiners, such as major oil companies,
to charge a premium of about $9 a barrel of oil, or 21 cents per gallon of gasoline, Brady says.
This year, however, high crude oil prices and lower U.S. demand have
forced refiners to live with razor-thin margins. That means if crude
prices fall, some of the drop could be offset by higher profits for
refiners. The good news: Refiners worldwide are sharply expanding capacity. Oil consortium
Motiva plans to double capacity at its Port Arthur, Texas, facility by 2010, creating the largest
Most of the new equipment is designed to process heavy
U.S. refinery.
crude oil, which is more abundant and cheaper than light, sweet crude
but more expensive to refine. The bad news: Refining makes up just 10%
of the price of gas, so boosting capacity won't help much. "Adding
refining capacity is not going to have a significant impact on the price
of gasoline," says Kevin Lindemer of financial analysts Global Insight. And much of
that refining infrastructure will take three to five years to build, says
analyst Robert Linden of Pace Global Energy Services.”
NYT 08 - The biggest oil producing countries are having trouble

increasing output
“A key reason that supply is not rising to meet demand is that
producers outside of the OPEC cartel — countries like Russia, Mexico
and Norway — have been showing troubling signs of sluggishness.
Unlike the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, whose explicit goal is to regulate
supply to keep prices up, the other countries are the free traders of the international market,
with every incentive to produce flat-out at a time of high prices. But for a variety of
reasons, like sharply higher drilling costs and nationalistic policies that
restrict foreign investments, these countries are finding it difficult, if
not impossible, to increase output. They seem stuck at about 50
million barrels of oil a day, or 60 percent of the world’s oil supplies,
with few prospects for growth. Countries that are not members of
OPEC have been the main source of production growth in the last three
decades, as new fields were discovered in Alaska, the North Sea or
West Africa. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, new opportunities emerged in Russia
and the Caspian Sea. Analysts at Barclays Capital said last week that non-OPEC supplies were
“seemingly dead in the water.” Goldman Sachs raised similar concerns last month, saying that
growth in non-OPEC supplies “can no longer be taken for granted.”
Paavo Suni, Anthony de Carvalho - Increasing oil production is

costly because demand continually increases the need for
expansions.
Paavo Suni, [Professional Researcher], Anthony de Carvalho, [Professional Researcher], “Oil
Prices Have Risen Permanently, But Remain Unstable”, ETLA, <accessed March 23, 2010>, [no
original date], http://www.etla.fi/files/1490_FES_05_4_oil_prices_have_risen_permanently.pdf,
(ZV)
“Indeed, a major problem plaguing the energy sector is the rapid pace of
demand growth, which, if it is to be met, requires massive capacity
expansions, since crude oil production, among others, is already running
near full capacity. It is difficult to imagine how demand growth could
slow significantly, especially since transportation is so dependent on
fossil raw materials. It is also difficult and expensive to switch quickly to alternative
energy sources. The problem with fossil fuels is that raising oil production
is difficult and costly and that they emit substantial carbon dioxide
when burned. Global warming has triggered efforts to contain growth
in carbon dioxide emissions. Coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and biomass energy
have seen their shares in total energy consumption rise since the oil crises of the 1970s.”
IMF 05 - Because of a lack of abundant refineries, the only
thing that will happen with oil prices is they will increase
Sam Ouliaris et al, [Senior Economist at the Research Department of the IMF] International
Monetary Fund, “The Structure of the Oil Market and Causes of High Prices”, September 21,
2005, http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2005/092105o.htm, (ZV)
“Although many factors have contributed to higher crude oil prices, a combination of strong
(and somewhat unexpected) global demand for oil since 2003 and expectations of continuing
future tightness is the major cause. These demand/supply imbalances reflect robust global
activity, an apparent shift in the demand for oil by China2 and other emerging economies, and
limited investment in the oil sector in the past two decades. Naturally, given the tightness in
the oil market and uncertainties about demand and supply, factors such as geopolitical
developments, fears of potential supply disruptions, and speculation have also all played a part
in price movements, but largely through their impact on expectations regarding future
fundamentals. Refinery bottlenecks have put additional pressures on
petroleum product prices—as demonstrated by the significant rise in
gasoline prices following the 10 percent reduction in U.S. refinery
capacity caused by Hurricane Katrina.”
NYT 08 - Supply and demand curves and backstopping threats

no longer apply to oil
“As oil prices soared to record levels in recent years, basic economics suggested that
consumption would fall and supply would rise as producers opened the taps to pump more. But
as prices flirt with $120 a barrel, many energy specialists are becoming worried that neither
seems to be happening. Higher prices have done little to attract new production or
to suppress global demand, and the resulting mismatch has sent oil
prices spiraling upward. “According to normal economic theory, and
the history of oil, rising prices have two major effects,” said Fatih Birol,
the chief economist at the International Energy Agency, which advises
industrialized countries. “They reduce demand and they induce oil supplies.
Not this time.”
C. Oil Reserves Prevent
Bloomberg 08 - OPEC's spare oil capacity is shrinking

Grant Smith, “IEA Says Lower OPEC Capacity to Keep Market `Tight' (Update2)”, Bloomberg
News, July 1, 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601086&sid=a5LCOJnfgLI4&refer=latin_america, (ZV)
“The International Energy Agency said a drop in OPEC spare capacity
and delays to production projects will keep the oil market `tight.''
Lower-than-expected output growth and a ``negligible'' OPEC supply
cushion may counter the impact of record prices on consumption. The
Paris-based adviser to 27 oil consuming nations cut more than 3 million barrels a day from its
2012 global demand forecast in its Medium-Term Oil Market Report today. ``With oil
prices hitting $140 we are clearly in the third oil shock, with prices
affecting economic growth,'' IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said
at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid today. ``Truck drivers are going on strike.
Airlines are closing down.'' While the IEA expected its barrel-counting analysis would show
weaker demand, the ``surprise'' was that its supply forecast also needed to be cut, Tanaka
said. Growth in global supply capacity will peak at about 2.5 million barrels a day in 2010,
The oil
slowing to less than a million a day for the following three years, the report said.
market will be ``tighter'' than previously expected because many
major oil projects are experiencing ``slippage'' of 12 to 15 months in
their completion time, he said.”
Reuters 08 - Saudi oil cannot sustain long term oil flooding

“OPEC's Ability to Tame Oil Prices Is Limited”, Reuters, January 9, 2008, <accessed March 24,
2010>, http://www.cnbc.com/id/22570967/, (ZV)
“Right now, Saudi Arabia has around 2.3 million bpd of spare capacity,"
a Saudi source said. "We could go to 11.3 million bpd and sustain it. That would not be just a
surge and would not need any extra effort. Our spare capacity has been tested before on many
occasions." The kingdom was pumping as much as 9.6 million bpd in November 2005, and cut
back to around 8.6 million bpd in March last year. Current output stands at around 9 million
bpd. But some experts, including a former senior official at Saudi
Aramco, the state oil company, question how long a big boost in supply
from mothballed capacity could be maintained. "The spare capacity
they say they have is all there, so bringing it on line is not a problem,"
said Sadad al-Husseini, a former top official at state oil giant Saudi Aramco. "The question
is how long can you sustain it?”
NYT 04 - OPEC is realizing that it doesn’t have the ability to

flood the market with cheap oil
JAD MOUAWAD, “OPEC Finds Few Options to Put a Lid on Oil Prices”, New York Times,
September 13, 2004, <accessed March 24, 2010>,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/business/worldbusiness/13oil.html?_r=1, (ZV)
“With crude oil setting a price record almost daily in August, the cartel tried to persuade the
markets that it was working overtime to step up supply. But with most of its 11 members
already pumping at full capacity, the promise had a hollow ring; traders shrugged, and crude
prices climbed to within pennies of $50 a barrel in New York before slipping back into the mid-
$40's. Crude oil fell on Friday to $42.81 a barrel in New York, its lowest level since August.
Though it has a third of the world's oil production, half of oil exports and three-quarters of
known reserves, OPEC is finding that its ability to influence prices has
largely been exhausted, at least when it comes to holding them down.
"Prices are moving independently from whatever OPEC decides," said Nordine Ait-Laoussine, a
former Algerian oil minister and OPEC president. "OPEC can't do anything more today." The
cartel's members are producing 30 million barrels a day, well beyond its formal ceiling of 26
million barrels and its highest total in 25 years. But it has not been enough to keep its
benchmark price within its target range of $22 to $28 a barrel. (The group's benchmark is an
average of seven grades of oil that typically runs a few dollars below the most widely followed
market price for light sweet crude.) With most members producing all the oil
they can, the oil ministers have few options to consider when they
meet in Vienna.”
D. Political Instability
Reuters 08 - Political turmoil in some OPEC nations has

crimped the group's reserve production in recent years
“OPEC's Ability to Tame Oil Prices Is Limited”, Reuters, January 9, 2008, <accessed March 24,
2010>, http://www.cnbc.com/id/22570967/, (ZV)
“Political turmoil in some OPEC nations has crimped the group's
reserve production in recent years. Around 15 percent of Nigeria's
installed oil output capacity of around 3 million bpd is shut down
because of political violence in the country's volatile Delta region.
Insurgency and insecurity in Iraq, holder of the world's third-largest oil
reserves, have prevented the country from revamping its industry and
reaching ambitious production targets. And Venezuela, in the late 1990s an
OPEC member that pumped far beyond agreed levels, has lost over 500,000 bpd of
output that it never recovered after a strike that crippled the oil
industry in 2003. While some analysts still ascribe a small amount of spare capacity to
the country, others doubt that it would hold oil back with the price at $100.”
E. OPEC has no control over oil prices
MSNBC 05 - OPEC has no control over oil prices anymore

John W. Schoen, [Senior producer], “OPEC says it has lost control of oil prices”, MSNBC, March
16, 2005, <accessed March 22, 2010>, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7190109/, (ZV)
“Despite a pledge by OPEC ministers to increase oil production, don't expect much of a break
on oil prices. With crude oil prices hitting a record $56 a barrel Wednesday, OPEC ministers
meeting in Iran have been grappling with a problem they haven’t confronted in the cartel’s 45-
year history. In the past, OPEC tried to cool overheated prices by pumping
more when supplies got too tight. But most OPEC producers say
they’re already pumping as fast as they can. And despite the high cost
of a barrel of crude, world demand shows no signs of slowing. To help stop
the surge in prices, OPEC ministers agreed to pump an extra half million barrels of oil a day
beginning April 1. OPEC said it would consider pumping more later if the extra oil doesn't push
prices lower. But even before the decision was announced, some ministers had openly
expressed doubts that the move will do any good, saying they’ve run out of options
in trying to rein in the price of crude. Global oil demand has taken up
most of the slack in extra OPEC capacity. Consumption is now believed by many
analysts to be pressing up against the limits of what the world can produce. Saudi Arabia is the
only country believed to have any surplus production left, and even then the Saudis are
pumping close to 90 percent of capacity, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. "There is
not much we can do,” Algerian Oil Minister Chakib Khelil told reporters Tuesday in Isfahan,
Iran, the site of Wednesday’s meeting. "OPEC has done all it can do.” Qatar Oil
Minister Abdullah al-Attiyah said. “This is out of the control of OPEC." The oil
markets seem to agree. After word came that OPEC pledged to pump harder, oil prices surged
Wednesday on concerns about the latest weekly reports on inventories. Crude for April delivery rose $1.41 to settle at
$56.46 a barrel Wednesday, the highest price for the commodity on the New York Mercantile Exchange since it introduced
crude oil futures trading in March 1983. Crude prices soared after the EIA reported that domestic gasoline stocks in the
March 11 week fell 2.9 million barrels to 221.4 million barrels -- nearly three times the decline forecast by analysts. A year
ago, gasoline stocks stood at 202.4 million barrels. And even as President Bush expressed concern Wednesday about
rising oil prices, he cited tight global supplies -- not OPEC policies -- for the price surge. “I think if you look at all the
statistics, demand is outracing supply and supplies are getting tight. And that’s why you’re seeing the price reflected,”
Bush said. OPEC's admission that has lost control of oil prices hasn’t eased political pressure on the cartel. On Tuesday,
several oil ministers said they had received calls from U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman. Sen. Ron Wyden (D Ore.) said
Tuesday he’s not convinced that OPEC’s hands are tied by global demand reaching the limits of production capacity. “This
is their claim,” said Wyden. “But the fact of the matter is that nobody knows what their capacity is.” Though data on
OPEC’s oil production capacity have always been hard to come by, there’s little disagreement on the rapid growth of
global consumption -- especially in China and India. With worldwide demand this year rising by roughly 2 million barrels
per day, whatever excess capacity is out there will be gone soon, according to Marshal Adkins, an oil industry analyst at
Raymond James “Maybe this year, but certainly in ‘06 there won’t be any excess capacity,” he said. “We haven’t been in
that kind of market in our lifetime. You’ve always have more capacity than demand.” That’s little solace to energy
consumers, who are watching rising crude oil prices push pump prices to record levels. Though U.S. economy has yet to
show signs of slowing and inflation remains low, a continued rise in oil prices will eventually slow growth, analysts say.
“We will find the price level that will slow demand,” said Adkins. “It may be $60; it may be $100. I think it’s fair to say its
going to be in that price band.” Analysts say OPEC typically eases back on production at this time of year because
demand slows as the winter heating season winds down and drivers haven’t yet hit the road for summer vacations. But
with prices nearly double levels just 18 months ago, production cutbacks are unlikely, say analysts. “OPEC’s only real
option is to maintain the status quo for now," said Smith Barney Citigroup oil analyst Doug Leggate in a recent research
Oil prices have also risen for a variety of other factors over which
report.
OPEC has no control, according to Adkins. Tanker prices haven jumped from $3 a barrel
to $10 a barrel during the recent run-up in crude prices. To increase output, Saudi Arabia has
been selling lower grade crude, which has boosted the price of more desirable light, sweet
crude. And the falling dollar has effectively cut the value of oil payments to OPEC producers.
“When were looking on our screens seeing $45 oil, Saudis are cashing checks for $25 oil,” he
said. “So in their mind -– their $25 price (target) -– that’s what they’re getting.” As rising
demand has approached the world’s production limits, OPEC’s decisions have less
impact on prices. In the past, the cartel has "controlled" oil prices (or tried to) by adding
or withholding production. By holding back oil, the market remained "tight" and prices stayed
relatively high. The "oil shortages" of the 1970s were engineered by OPEC -- not the result of a
true lack of supply.”
F. Turn: OPEC Won’t Flood the Market
TIME 08 - OPEC wont flood – they want to save reserves to

continue making money for decades
Vivienne Walt, “OPEC: Gas Prices Will Stay High”, TIME Magazine, April 11, 2008,
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1730117,00.html, <accessed March 24,
2010>, (ZV)
“Analysts don't absolve OPEC of blame for keeping prices sky-high.
They have voted three times since last fall against raising production,
despite direct appeals for relief to Naimi from President George W. Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney. That's partly because they fear they could some day
run dry of oil, leaving future generations without the key source of
Arab wealth. "It's understandable," says Fatih Birol, chief economist of
the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based watchdog organization for big oil-
consuming countries. "Oil-producing countries have policies not to run down
their reserves."
5. AT: Nordhaus Policy
Petterson Vale 09 - William Nordhaus = CAP AND TRADE

Petterson Molina Vale, [State University of Campinas, Brazil], “Climate change mitigation and carbon
pricing instruments: a review of the hybrid approach”, IOP Publishing, 2009, (IOP Conf. Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 6 (2009) 232014), (ZV)
“Three important hybrid mechanisms are explored: William Nordhaus' cap-and-tax, Robert
Stavins' cap-and dividend and the McKibbin-Wilcoxen scheme. The first is a regular carbon tax
that caps emissions after a certain dangerous level. The cap does not
actually stop firms from emitting, it just charges them a higher tax of
say, 50% more after the threshold emission level is reached. So
companies would be able to emit normally and pay the regular tax
until emissions arrive to an extreme level and a safety-valve is
actioned. This would increase the environmental effectiveness of the carbon tax: the higher the
difference between the tax and the penalty price, the higher the environmental effectiveness of the cap-
and-tax scheme. Such a program could be useful for countries that tend to be favourable to price-type
schemes, as seems to be the case of Canada, where two states (British Columbia and Quebec) already
adopted carbon taxes.”
[Analysis: this is not Carbon Tax whatsoever…this is a Cap and Trade
proposal. Completely different than the affirmative; we agree…Cap
and Trade fails.]
6. AT: Waxman/Markey Policy
Heritage 09 – The main focus of the Waxman/Markey has been

its cap and trade program.
Ben Lieberman, “Waxman-Markey Global Warming Proposal's Other Problematic Provisions”,
The Heritage Foundation, May 12, 2009, <accessed March 22, 2010>,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/05/Waxman-Markey-Global-Warming-
Proposals-Other-Problematic-Provisions, (ZV)
“The main focus of debate over the proposed Waxman-Markey
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 has been its cap and
trade program. These global warming provisions have been targeted for good reason, as
they amount to a massive energy tax that would cost this nation trillions of dollars and millions
of manufacturing jobs in the years ahead.”
7. AT: IPCC Indictment
Reason #1:
John Houghton 05 – IPCC makes clear delimitation between
what is known with reasonable certainty and what is uncertain
“The IPCC was formed jointly by two United Nations bodies, the World Meteorological
Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) with a remit to prepare
thorough assessments of climate change, its causes and effects. The Panel established three working
groups, one to deal with the science of climate change, one with impacts and a third with policy responses.
The IPCC has produced three main comprehensive reports [117], in 1990, 1995 and 2001 together with a
number of special reports covering particular issues. This review has already referred widely to these
Three important factors have contributed to the authority and
reports.
success of the IPCC’s reports [118]. The first is the emphasis on
delineating between what is known with reasonable certainty and what
is uncertain—differentiating so far as possible between degrees of
uncertainty16.”
Reason #2:
John Houghton 05 – IPPC has the involvement in the writing
and reviewing of the reports of as many as possible of the
world’s climate scientists
“The second is the involvement in the writing and reviewing of the
reports of as many as possible of the world’s climate scientists,
especially those leading the field. For the third assessment report in
2001, those taking part had grown to 123 lead authors and 516
contributing authors, together with 21 review editors and 420 expert
reviewers involved in the review process. The thorough debate by
scientists during the assessment process ensures that the scientific
community is well informed on a broad front. No previous scientific
assessments on this or any other subject have involved so many
scientists so widely distributed both as regards their countries and
their scientific disciplines.”
Reason #3:
John Houghton 05 – the IPCC is an intergovernmental body and
governments are involved in its work
“A third factor arises because the IPCC is an intergovernmental body
and governments are involved in its work. Each report includes a
Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the wording of which is approved in
detail at a plenary meeting of the Working Group, the object being to
reach agreement on the science and on the best way of presenting it
to policymakers with accuracy and clarity. It is the presentation that is
particularly the responsibility of the government representatives. At
the plenary meeting in Shanghai where the 2001 Working Group I SPM was unanimously
agreed, 99 government representatives were present, along with 45
representatives from the scientific community. Having been part of the
process, governments as well as scientists feel ownership of the
Reports—an important factor when it comes to policy negotiations.”
Analysis:
1. The IPCC knows what it can count as determining factor to tell

whether GW is happening or not, and what they cannot.
2. This is not just an agency that has 10 people working on a
climate forecast. In fact, in 2001, they had a total of 1080 people
working on ONE report. You can bribe maybe 100, or if you
stretch and give it all your worth, maybe 500, but almost eleven-
hundred people, who are no novices as this stuff?! It won’t
happen.
3. [analysis of third reason]
4. Author who is stating this has ABSOLUTELY NO connection with
governmental agencies, thus if being connected with the
government is a problem, this guy is fine.
5. What is so bad about being connected with the government? Just
because or government may have problems sometimes, in no
way means that if an agency is somehow related to the
government, it is dismissed as corrupted without a second
thought.
8. Constitutionality
UNIFORM TAX
1. Fossil Fuel Tax vs. Energy Tax
If our mandate enacted an energy tax, then we would by necessity include both fossil
fuels and renewable fuels because both produce energy. But we’re not! Our tax is a fossil
fuel tax and as such we must include all forms of fossil fuels…which we happen to do. 
2. CTX = Uniform
Our tax is most certainly uniform because is a tax across all states: no tax rate is higher
in one state than in the other. Also, it taxes all forms of fossil fuels: we don’t simply tax
oil and natural gas, and exempt coal—all fossil fuels are taxed.
3. 16th Amendment
Summary: The 16th Amendment is basically a contradiction of the “Uniform Tax”

clause.
Text: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without
regard to any census or enumeration.”
GENERAL WELFARE
1. Does the “General Public” benefit from the use of energy? [YES!
DUH!]
2. Is the “General Public’s” health harmed from emissions/pollution/et

cetera? [YES! DUH!]
GENERIC
1. Where is the Precedent? [no court precedent to prove

unconstitutionality]
9. Email Scam Thingy
1. Scams on Both Sides: Oil, coal, natural gas, and pretty much all
fossil fuel companies have created ‘scams’ of their own, except
they are not limited to simply an email correspondence. They have
created a plethora of organizations dedicated to proving global
warming false. Why? Because if the majority of the public believes
that we are causing global warming then they will take action
toward renewable fuel, cleaner living, and more ways to preserve
the planet. The “Warming is happening” side of this debate is not
alone in some people creating scams to try and prove their point.
- Information Council on the Environment (ICE): Created by the National Coal

Association, the Western Fuels Association, and others. I.C.E was given a
$500,000 advertising budget to promote its views about climate change.1
- The Global Climate Change Coalition (GCC): Created by the American

Petroleum Institute, Aluminum Association, American Forest and Paper
Association, ARCO, Chevron, Cyprus AMAX Minerals, Edison Electric Institute,
Exxon, Mobil, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, The Southern Company, Texaco,
railroad companies along with some 40 other companies.1
2. Doesn’t affect this Debate: Why? Because these emails were a

private conversation between Phil Jones, director of the University
of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and Michael Mann,
director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System
Science Center. So far as we know up to know, these emails were
not spread throughout the country to thousands of news agencies,
it was a private correspondence between two professionals in the
field of climate change. If you hear any of us read evidence from
these people then you can discredit it.
3. Whats the Impact: Does this little email scam mean that suddenly
everything that says global warming is happing and carbon
emissions are causing it, are suddenly false and even distorting
facts? Absolutely not. There are many ethical professor, scientists,
researchers, et cetera who believe that we are causing global
warming and do their research very ethically and don’t fudge to try
to prove their point. There really is not impact to this argument.
1
Information from: John J. Berger, [independent energy and environmental consultant, holds a
bachelors degree in political science and a Masters degree in energy and natural resources as well as a
Ph.D. in ecology], “Beating the Heat: Why and How we must combat Global Warming”, Berkeley Hills
Books, 2000, ISBN: 1893163059, (ZV), |page 64|,
10. Implementation Solvency
1. AT: No/Limited Effect
i. Precedent
France, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Finland, Sweden, China, Germany
^^ all successful carbon taxes
ii. Advocacy
Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 - a well implemented

carbon tax can easily cover 80 percent of U.S. emissions and
can likely cover almost 90 percent
“Most carbon pricing regimes are imposed on relatively narrow bases and are imposed midstream, on
industrial users of energy. Moreover, the trend seems to be in the direction of a cap and trade system. We
propose a different approach here. For reasons long established in the literature, a carbon tax is preferable
a well implemented carbon tax imposed
to a cap and trade system. We show that
upstream can easily cover 80 percent of U.S. emissions and can likely
cover almost 90 percent with a modest additional cost. The benefits of
the broad base and lower compliance costs are likely to be significant.”
2. AT: Complexity
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – A carbon is inherently

VERY simple
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Why is cap and trade so much more complicated than the carbon tax? A carbon tax is
inherently simple: a tax is imposed at X dollars per ton of carbon
content on the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the
economy, namely coal, oil, and natural gas. (Other greenhouse gas sources, such as
methane, are not included because energy accounts for nearly eighty-five percent of the 7147 million
metric tons of greenhouse gases in the U.S. economy.) The tax is imposed "upstream," i.e., at the point of
extraction or importation, which means than it can be imposed on only about 2000 taxpayers (500 coal
miners and importers, 750 oil producers and importers, and 750 natural gas producers and importers).”
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 – Simply put a

carbon tax is much more feasible
“In addition, administering the carbon tax could utilize current tax
collection mechanisms and existing enforcement, compliance,
reporting, and administrative resources. In contrast, the cap-and-trade approach
embraced by the financial industry envisions creating a complex new system for compliance reporting,
audits, and verification with an uncertain value proposition in return. Without developing rigorous new
accounting and verification mechanisms, such a system is unworkable and will be highly volatile and
subject to gaming, thereby undermining confidence and certainty in planning the outcome. A carbon
tax is much more feasible than a cap-and-trade system, except for the threat of its dire
political consequences.”
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – a carbon tax would be

easy to implement and enforce
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“A carbon tax would be easier to implement and enforce, however, and
simpler to adjust if the resulting market-based changes were either too
weak or too strong.

be implemented and become effective almost immediately
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Because a carbon tax could be implemented and become effective
almost immediately, it would be a much quicker method of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions than a cap and trade system.”
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - Carbon tax is

undeniably simplistic, especially when compared to cap and
trade
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“A good example is the tax implications of both policies. A carbon tax,
as a federal tax, has no tax implications: it is simply collected and is
not deductible. Allowances under cap and trade, on the other hand,
raise a multitude of tax issues: What are the tax implications of
distributing allowances for free? What are the tax implications of
trading in allowances? Should allowance exchanges be permitted to
avoid the tax on selling allowances? What amount of the purchase
price of a business should be allocated to its allowances? If borrowing
and banking occur, what are the tax consequences? Can allowances be
amortized? None of these issues arise under a carbon tax.”
3. AT: Fraud/Corruption
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 - The Carbon tax

would require few additional reporting burdens, while enjoying
clarity and transparency
“The carbon content of every form of fossil fuel is precisely known, as
is the amount of CO[2] released when that fuel is burned. This
precision presents few technical problems for documentation or
measurement. The type of fuel and the amount purchased or used is already tracked by most
industrial and private consumers. Thus, instituting a carbon tax would require few,
if any, additional reporting or accounting burdens, while enjoying
clarity and transparency.”
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 - The Carbon Tax can

be implemented with far less manipulation opportunity
“A carbon tax can be implemented with far less opportunity for
manipulation. Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable
by the public. Once the market targets for carbon are set, they can be
readily adjusted according to market success or failure.”
Robert Hahn 09 - Taxes have the advantage of making the

costs of addressing climate change transparent
Taxes
that capped emissions quantities (think market-based allowance-trading programs) is better.
have the advantage of making the costs of addressing climate change
– as well as the rewards to reducing emissions – transparent. The tax
route may also be less prone to corruption. But for the foreseeable future, any policy
anchored on the T-word is anathema. So developing that approach could be a waste of time.”
4. AT: Carbon Content of Imports
Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 – If the tax is made of

the on the amount of carbon that would have been emitted in
the US by the same product, the content can be determined
that way
“One suggestion that has been made is that the border tax be imposed
based on the carbon that that would have been emitted had the
product been produced in the U.S.48 This proposal gets around the
“likeness” problem with a tax on imports (although there remains the problem of
whether a carbon tax is a tax on the product). It also reduces the information problem
both by using domestic information and by limiting the class of goods
it applies to.”
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 - The type of fuel

and the amount purchased or used is already tracked by most
industrial and private consumers so instituting a carbon tax
would require few, if any, additional reporting or accounting
burdens
“The carbon content of every form of fossil fuel is precisely known, as
is the amount of CO[2] released when that fuel is burned. This
precision presents few technical problems for documentation or
measurement. The type of fuel and the amount purchased or used is
already tracked by most industrial and private consumers. Thus,
instituting a carbon tax would require few, if any, additional reporting
or accounting burdens, while enjoying clarity and transparency. In
addition, administering the carbon tax could utilize current tax
collection mechanisms and existing enforcement, compliance,
reporting, and administrative resources.”
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – A carbon tax can be

easily collected on imports and rebated on exports
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Moreover, exchanging allowances with foreign cap and trade regimes exponentially increases the
enforcement difficulties inherent in cap and trade. Foreign allowances would have to be carefully
monitored and verified to prevent widespread cheating. This problem is exacerbated under the EU ETS
because allowances are distributed "downstream" to many different polluters. A
carbon tax, on the
can easily be collected on imports and rebated on exports, and
other hand,
as long as it is also imposed on domestic production, it does not pose
significant World Trade Organization compliance issues.”
11. Political Opposition

1. Revenue removes draw-backs
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - The revenue produced

by the carbon tax completely removes the two major draw
backs of a carbon tax*
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Segregating the revenue from a carbon tax and using the proceeds to
support further greenhouse gas reductions is justified because it
reduces Benefit Uncertainty, which is the most serious drawback of a
carbon tax compared to cap and trade. In addition, segregating the
revenue is likely to reduce some political opposition to raising taxes in
general, at least to the extent that such opposition is based on the
perception that government is wasteful.”
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – [stats on revenue

generation]
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“A carbon tax by definition generates revenue. A relatively modest tax
of $ 10 per ton of carbon content is estimated to generate $ 50 billion
per year; the America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act envisages a tax
of $ 16.50 per ton and generates correspondingly more revenue.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - an average price of $15 per ton over the 13-
year period would have a cumulative value of $378 billion
“Assuming an average price of $15 per ton over the 13-year period of
2012 to 2025, the cumulative value of allowances granted to the
electricity generation industry has been estimated to be $378 billion36.
And this is after a protracted set of negotiations that appeared, as of May 15 (the date of release of the
bill), nowhere near a resolution.”
2. Transparency
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 – because the

carbon tax is so transparent and flexible, it becomes politically
undesirable
“However, it is this transparency and flexibility that makes a carbon tax
politically undesirable because it is clear where and how society will
have to take responsibility, make direct changes and improvements, and
pay for the CO[2] by-products of society.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - Ironically, it is the utterly transparent nature

of the carbon tax that is its own worst political enemy
“A carbon tax is a tax that is levied on the emissions of a quantity of carbon dioxide. While not levied
literally at the point of emission, a carbon tax is levied at some transaction point as essentially a sales tax
based on carbon content. Carbon dioxide is the most abundant greenhouse gas,1 and while ideally a policy
instrument would cover all greenhouse gases, particularly the six formally recognized under the Kyoto
Protocol2 as contributing to global climate change, the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions is the most
A carbon tax is the easiest way
important aspect of controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Unfortunately, the politics of
carbon taxation are such that it is viewed inaccurately as being the
most painful option. Ironically, it is the utterly transparent nature of the
carbon tax that is its own worst political enemy.”
Robert Hahn 09 - Taxes have the advantage of making the

costs of addressing climate change transparent
Taxes
that capped emissions quantities (think market-based allowance-trading programs) is better.
have the advantage of making the costs of addressing climate change
– as well as the rewards to reducing emissions – transparent. The tax
route may also be less prone to corruption. But for the foreseeable future, any policy
anchored on the T-word is anathema. So developing that approach could be a waste of time.”
12. Benefit Uncertainty
1. Non-Unique
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – Response 1: Carbon

Tax is not the sole program that struggles with this issue
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“However, there are several reasons not to reject the carbon tax because
of Benefit Uncertainty. First, as pointed out above, cap and trade may
in fact be subject to similar Benefit Uncertainty, because if costs rise
too high one can expect pressure to adjust the cap, even if there is no
built-in safety valve.”
2. Adjustable Rate
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – Response 2: The Tax

can be adjusted, and thus benefit uncertainty does not wholly
have effect
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Second, the tax rate can in fact be adjusted. General experience with
other taxes has shown that once a tax is in place, it is usually not as
hard to raise its rate despite political opposition to tax hikes; this is
why people say that "an old tax is a good tax." The United States income tax began
in 1913 with a rate of one percent, and has been raised (and lowered) many times since then (although
Americans have become increasingly unwilling to accept tax increases). The Value Added Tax (VAT), which
is now the most important tax in the world, was typically introduced in over 100 countries at a much lower
If it becomes clear that the carbon tax rate needs to
rate than the current one.
be raised to achieve the necessary reduction in emissions, and if
voters remain convinced of the need to reduce emissions, historical
experience suggests that the rate could be raised, notwithstanding the
political challenges.”
3. Revenue removes Uncertainty
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – Extra Response: The

revenue produced by the carbon tax completely removes the
two major draw backs of a carbon tax
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Segregating the revenue from a carbon tax and using the proceeds to
support further greenhouse gas reductions is justified because it
reduces Benefit Uncertainty, which is the most serious drawback of a
carbon tax compared to cap and trade. In addition, segregating the
revenue is likely to reduce some political opposition to raising taxes in
general, at least to the extent that such opposition is based on the
perception that government is wasteful.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - an average price of $15 per ton over the 13-
year period would have a cumulative value of $378 billion
“Assuming an average price of $15 per ton over the 13-year period of
2012 to 2025, the cumulative value of allowances granted to the
electricity generation industry has been estimated to be $378 billion36.
And this is after a protracted set of negotiations that appeared, as of May 15 (the date of release of the
bill), nowhere near a resolution.”
13. Regressive Tax
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - the Taxing will not be

a problem at all, and no regressive effects will happen, plus
the revenues will be directed for other environmentally
beneficial programs
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Some carbon tax proposals promise "revenue neutrality" and focus on
eliminating regressive effects. We agree that regressive effects must
be addressed but otherwise would use revenues from the carbon tax to
provide tax credits for alternative energy development and more
energy-efficient motor vehicles, since the positive externalities that result from such
research and development means that funding is likely to be undersupplied by the private sector even
Revenues could also be used to support carbon
with a carbon tax in place.
sequestration projects and other projects that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, like mass transit and green building.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - Regressiveness is an important consideration

but the obstacles are easily overcome
“Regressiveness is an important consideration when weighing changes
to tax policy, but the obstacles to designing a progressive carbon tax
are easily overcome. The opposition to carbon taxes on regressiveness
grounds has been unfortunately emotional and facile. Canadian New
Democratic Party leader Jack Layton has opposed carbon taxes (despite his strong support for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions) on the grounds that a carbon tax would "hurt the poor."68 In British Columbia,
where there is a provincial carbon tax in place, the leader of the New Democratic Party campaigned to
"axe the tax," again on the grounds that it hurts "working British Columbians."69 This is particularly
misleading because of the tax breaks for the two lowest income brackets, and other revenue plans that
have been aimed at returning the revenues to less affluent British Columbians.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - under revenue recycling scenarios the

poorest households can be made to suffer less, and in some
scenarios can even be made better off under the carbon tax
scheme than without it
“In a careful study on the incidence of a gasoline tax, [Sarah] West and
[Roberton] Williams used consumer expenditure data to calculate price elasticities of households
broken down into five quintiles by income.63 The study confirmed that a straight gasoline
tax increase without any revenue recycling is regressive, but did find
that lower-income households tend to adjust their behavior more
readily in response to price increases.64 But under several revenue
recycling scenarios hypothesized by West and Williams, they found
that the poorest households can be made to suffer less, and in some
scenarios can even be made better off under the carbon tax scheme
than without it.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - The economic half-truth of regressiveness

has unfortunately combined with a populist rhetoric that has
made the carbon tax extremely unpopular
“The economic half-truth of regressiveness has unfortunately
combined with a populist rhetoric that has made the carbon tax and
any similar consumption taxes extremely unpopular.61 While the simplicity and
the merits of gasoline taxes have always presented themselves as sensible (if unpopular) options, but
The
considerably less so when gasoline prices are on the rise, as was the case in the summer 2006.62
power of this political dynamic is extremely unfortunate because the
regressiveness of a gasoline tax or a carbon tax more generally is not
a difficult problem to solve. A number of schemes have been proposed to return, or "recycle"
the tax revenues back to taxpayers in a way that blunts or even reverses the economic pain suffered by
poor households. Provided that the recycling or return of revenues to taxpayers is decoupled from
consumption decisions, the revenue "recycling" schemes can preserve the incentive for people to consume
less while serving as a wealth redistributive scheme.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - If the revenues from a carbon tax were

simply absorbed into the governmental treasury, then the
carbon tax would indeed be regressive
“Most consumption taxes are believed to be regressive, hurting poor
individuals and households more than affluent ones. If the revenues
from a carbon tax – which would be levied on energy consumption –
were simply absorbed into the governmental treasury, then the carbon
tax would indeed be regressive, as energy costs generally take up a
larger fraction of a poor household's budget than that of a rich one.58
This raises some questions about what "regressive" means; is a carbon tax regressive if the lowest quartile
of households is hurt more than the second-lowest quartile, but second-lowest quartile is hurt less than the
richest quartile?59 How many income classifications are needed for analysis? Should we think about
regressiveness in terms of a present snapshot in time, or do we think about the lifetime income or
consumption of individuals?”
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – It is not clear whether

the Carbon Tax will be necessarily weakened by tax
exemptions
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
However, it is not clear that a carbon tax would necessarily be
weakened by any exemptions. This Article supports a proposal that would apply the tax
upstream to only three industries: coal, oil, and natural gas producers and importers. None of these
three industries is in a particularly good position to argue for
exemptions vis-a-vis the other two, and the ultimate incidence of the
tax is too unclear for other industries to effectively argue for
exemptions.
14. Industry
1. Fossil Fuel Companies Damaged =

Expected
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 - Of

course, reducing carbon emissions will be disadvantageous to
those in the business of producing or using carbon
“Of course, reducing carbon emissions will be disadvantageous to
those in the business of producing or using carbon. Although
unfortunate for those affected, that disadvantage is inevitable if we are
to do something about carbon emissions. To say that carbon extraction and usage will
become less advantageous does not mean that the businesses so occupied, and their workers, must be
They may modify their activities by producing energy
rendered unemployable.
from renewable sources, distributing that energy and its products,
sequestering carbon, and so forth. One might fairly generalize that much of current
engineering has evolved in an era of relatively inexpensive energy, and so has focused more on labor,
materials, and manufacturing costs. As energy costs rise, engineers will weigh such factors of cost and
productivity differently. So long as the rise in energy cost is phased in, there should be minimal disruption
in the transition. Producing more efficient homes, equipment, and the like should keep the economy
humming.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - a carbon tax plays an important sorting role

in subjecting the most carbon-intensive industries and
businesses to a penalty proportional to their carbon emissions
“Although not proposed strictly in pursuit of economic efficiency per se,11 the carbon tax accomplishes a
number of extremely important goals in moving the economy toward greater economic efficiency. At
bottom, a carbon tax plays an important sorting role in ranking
industries by carbon efficiency, and subjecting the most carbon-
intensive industries and businesses to a penalty proportional to their
carbon emissions.”
2. Tax Pressure, Necessary
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - it is much easier to discourage its use by

increasing its price than lowering the price of everything else
“To return to a theme sounded above, if reducing carbon dioxide
emissions is the objective, it is much easier to discourage its use by
increasing its price than lowering the price of everything else. While the
current renewable energy production tax credit30 and the various tax benefits of renewable energies31
lowers the cost of certain renewables, one should be wondering if, by naming certain "winning" renewable
energy sources, it is disadvantaging other potential winning technologies, ones that might be even better.
And it is not as if, by rewarding "renewable energies," we are insulating this process from rent-seeking.
Indeed, one of the "renewable" energy sources that qualify for the renewable energy production tax credit
is "refined coal."32 Such an obvious revenue grab makes a mockery of the term "renewable energy."
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 – with

less fossil fuels, our nation will become more fuel efficient…
that’s the goal to - reduce emissions
“Industrial processes will be more energy efficient. By analogy, Israel, with limited
water, has become quite water-efficient,62 while the United States,
with abundant water, is very water-inefficient. One may expect U.S.
energy efficiency to follow a path similar to Israel’s water efficiency
path as energy becomes scarcer and more costly. Americans will have
fewer things—so less energy will be consumed in making and
transporting them—because we will have less space to fill with them.
However, the things we do have may be of superior quality. For instance, some suggest that Europeans
tend to have fewer clothes than do Americans, but European clothes are of a higher style and quality.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - Reducing carbon dioxide emissions

absolutely requires that there be a price established on carbon
dioxide emissions
“Reducing carbon dioxide emissions, however, absolutely requires that
there be a price established on carbon dioxide emissions, and that the
price apply broadly, covering all the myriad of ways that fossil fuel is
burned to generate energy. In essence, all of the alternative instruments seek to do this
indirectly. Cap-and-trade programs seek to impose a price in the form of the price of an emissions
allowance. Command-and-control programs seek to impose a price in the form of an administrative
penalty, hopefully large enough to make violation of some standard prohibitively expensive. And
government subsidies seek to lower the price of activities that are deemed to be less greenhouse gas-
emitting than current baseline practices. However, none of these activities accomplish as effectively the
underlying goal of pricing carbon directly by charging for its emission, on a per-unit basis. Given the
ubiquitous nature of burning fossil fuels for energy, cap-and-trade programs and command-and-control
programs will clearly not be as universal as a carbon tax. As for government subsidies, the effort to lower
the price of everything not-carbon-emitting or everything less carbon-emitting is clumsier than the direct
imposition of a carbon price.”
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 - with less

carbon available at higher costs, less carbon-intensive
methods will be necessary
“Agriculture now is very carbon intensive because fertilizers and pesticides are made from petroleum and
substantial amounts of diesel fuel are needed to move tractors repeatedly across the field to plow, plant,
with less carbon available at higher
apply fertilizer or pesticides, and harvest. But
costs, less carbon-intensive methods will be necessary.64 Increased
costs of transportation will result in more agricultural products being
consumed closer to where they are produced.”
3. Industry Support
Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal

07 - Businesses are very supportive of a carbon tax because of
it’s predictability
Roberta Mann [Professor of Law, Widener University, J.D. Arizona State University, LLM Georgetown
University Law Center], “Symposium - The Business of Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities for
Multinational Business Enterprises: Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt: How Tax Incentives Encourage
Burning Coal and the Consequences for Global Warming,” Pacific McGeorge Global Business &
Development Law Journal, 2007, (20 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. L.J. 111)
“Businesses are in favor of the carbon tax idea as well. Duke Energy has
been the most vocal business advocate for a carbon tax. Richard
Osborne, group vice president for public and regulatory policy, wrote:
“we don't need complex, prescriptive regulation, but rather an
economy-wide solution that provides price signals for companies and
individual consumers alike to reduce the carbon they emit from all
sources.” He notes that "by setting a carbon "price,' a carbon tax
would encourage firms and households to take least-cost steps to shift
or reduce consumption and thereby reduce emissions.”
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 – UK companies

welcome a carbon tax especially after having Cap and Trade
for a while
“Over fifty percent of U.K. companies today are struggling with long-
term strategic and business modeling decisions in the face of the
current unstable policy and tax environment. Interestingly, after global
cap-and-trade emissions trading experience, almost sixty-six percent
of U.K. companies welcome the use of the tax system to provide
incentives for them to become carbon neutral.”
ABC 09 - Company director Dick Warburton member who chairs

an advisory committee on aid to industries affected by carbon
trading, supports a carbon tax
Sue Lannin, “Business leader welcomes Coalition's emissions trading about-face”, ABC News, December 2,
2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2759460.htm, (ZV)
“Company director Dick Warburton is a former Reserve Bank board
member who chairs an advisory committee on aid to industries
affected by carbon trading. He thinks the Government's emissions
trading scheme is compromised and instead he wants to see a carbon
tax introduced. Mr Warburton says the Coalition's about face on the ETS will allow for more public
debate. "I believe there's been an appalling lack of debate on the two key issues in this whole area. One
issue is being the cause, what is the cause of the climate change - there's no doubt there is no climate
change. To say that there's not you'd be living in a fool's paradise," he said. "I believe there's been an
appalling lack of debate on the two key issues in this whole area. One issue is being the cause, what is the
cause of the climate change - there's no doubt there is no climate change. To say that there's not you'd be
living in a fool's paradise," he said. "On the cause there's huge debate about whether carbon dioxide is the
main cause. We've had no debate, virtually no debate on the ETS versus the carbon tax. There's been
individuals putting their point of view but no debate. "So I am pleased if this comes about that it would
lead to some good open debate on those two issues - the cause and the solution." Mr Warburton says the
years of parliamentary debate since former Prime Minister John Howard proposed an emissions trading
scheme are not relevant, because the Rudd Government's scheme is substantially different. "The debate
has been purely on the political level and has been mandated at the political level and it's been a case of,
say with the ETS for example, there's been a huge change from when Howard introduced it. In those days
it was stated that one of the best things is you have a pure ETS system," he argued. "We haven't got a
pure system now. It is a completely compromised system. Secondly on the debate side, the educational
aspects of the public has been so poor that the people just don't understand what it is." He says the level
of compensation to highly polluting industries is also difficult to understand in a scheme that is supposed
to induce businesses to cut carbon emissions. "Well it strikes me as very strange that they would do that. I
mean one of the things that you want to have with a scheme like this is that people do stuff for a bit of
pain, and that sounds a bit grim but that's how you get inducement to change and come up with better
solution," he said. "But if you then, if someone says, look, I've got some pain, OK we'll give you some more
Mr Warburton says a
money - then you're not achieving what you set out to do. Carbon tax calls
carbon tax would be more flexible and allow for changes in scientific
theories and predictions. "Because the science is not settled, then I
don't believe we should be going into a scheme which is virtually
irreversible once it starts, because once it starts it will be almost
impossible to unravel the financial derivatives, the rights particularly,
therefore you better go to a scheme that can be changed if the science
moves one way or another, and the carbon tax would do that," he
explained.”
ABC 09 – a business advisor supports a Carbon Tax and praises

its features
Sue Lannin, “Business leader welcomes Coalition's emissions trading about-face”, ABC News, December 2,
2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2759460.htm, (ZV)
“Mr Warburton [a former Reserve Bank board member who chairs an
advisory committee on aid to industries affected by carbon trading]
says a carbon tax would be more flexible and allow for changes in scientific theories and
predictions. "Because the science is not settled, then I don't believe we should be going into a scheme
which is virtually irreversible once it starts, because once it starts it will be almost impossible to unravel
the financial derivatives, the rights particularly, therefore you better go to a scheme that can be changed if
the science moves one way or another, and the carbon tax would do that," he explained. "Secondly, the
is a much more transparent, is much more direct, is much more
carbon tax
flexible type of system and, with the completely compromised ETS, I
believe it's now turned out to be a better solution." The Minerals Council of
Australia agrees that the likely failure of the ETS legislation provides an opportunity to come up with better
alternatives for the resources industry.”
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 – A carbon tax sets a

market clearing price that encourages predictable energy
prices
“A carbon tax sets a market clearing price that encourages predictable
energy prices. Predictability is important because when future energy
and power prices can be reliably calculated in advance, energy-critical
decisions can be made with the full awareness of carbon price signals.
Once these price signals are added to the costs that industry must
factor into the cost of doing business, they can affect plant and
building design considerations, new clean technology development,
electricity storage and deployment for industry, and appliance
selection and the purchase of the family car for the individual.”
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 – current policy fails

to clearly account for all that is involved in fossil fuel
containment and reduction and are thus non-predictable
“Only the public policy processes fail to recognize this current market-
based distinction in managing what has been characterized as one of
the greatest market failures in the world today--that failure to clearly
account for the externalities of fossil fuel use.”
4. Turn- No Market Disruption
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - a carbon tax offers the best chance to

regulate domestically without unilaterally disarming
“Having said that, there may be a way to not unilaterally disarm, and a
carbon tax offers the best chance to regulate domestically without
doing so. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article II:2(a) provides that GATT's
prohibitions on tariffs do not prevent a country "from imposing at any time on the importation of any
product… a charge equivalent to an internal tax … in respect of the like domestic product or in respect of
an article from which the imported product has been manufactured or produced in whole or in part." A
longstanding and unresolved debate is whether this provision permits a country that regulates greenhouse
gas emissions to impose a border tax on imports from countries that do not regulate greenhouse gas
emissions. This debate is unresolved, and it is unclear whether a country imposing a carbon tax could seek
to equalize competitiveness burdens by imposing the same carbon tax on products imported from
countries that do not impose a carbon tax, thereby protecting domestic industries from foreign
competition that does not suffer a tax.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - A carbon tax addresses the climate

externality associated with fossil fuel combustion without
disturbing the essential market processes
“A carbon tax addresses the climate externality associated with fossil
fuel combustion without disturbing the essential market processes. As
such, a carbon tax should appeal to libertarians, because it minimizes the role of government in making
allocation decisions. The record of government decision-making in energy policy has not been particularly
good; a foray into nuclear energy proved to be justifiably unpopular several decades ago, only to see a
resurgence lately in the face of the current climate crisis. In both periods, government policy appeared to
be decoupled from economic realities. President Bush's $1.2 billion commitment to research funding for
hydrogen fuel cell technology in 2003 seems a distant memory, with more attention being paid to vehicle
fuel efficiency, and with the former president slashing the 2009 research budget by 69%.28 Federal
energy policy seems always to be geared towards attempting to pick "winners" among technologies, and
usually failing. As the saying goes, "government is bad at picking winners, and losers are good at picking
governments."
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - a border tax would not fix the problem of

competing with say, Chinese products in export markets but
the availability of a border tax would embolden other
importing countries in considering the imposition of a carbon
tax
“A border tax would not fix the problem of competing with say,
Chinese products in export markets (as Canadian cement manufacturers fret about
competing with Chinese cement being exported to the US). But the availability of a border
tax would embolden other importing countries in considering the
imposition of a carbon tax, and the importance of alleviating this
international coordination problem is extremely important. Minimizing
opposition from domestic industries fearful of competition from imports
will at least make feasible unilateral action in pricing carbon.”
5. Taxed Imports
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 09 – Imports

would be fully taxed which would sooth fears of domestic
business of damage to their industry
Michael J. Waggoner, [Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Colorado. A.B., European History,
include taxation and civil procedure], “The House Erred: A Carbon Tax Is Better Than Cap And Trade”,
Colorado Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, September 21, 2009,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1489592, (ZV)
“That ideal should occur under a carbon tax because a carbon tax is inherently relatively simple.The
carbon tax would be imposed on sources of fossil fuels (coal mines and oil and gas wells), on cement kilns,
and on importers of fossil fuels and cement. That tax would then be passed along through increased prices
and reduced production throughout our economy and society, giving each person and incentive to reduce
The carbon content of imports would be fully taxed, soothing
emissions.
the fears of domestic producers of unfair competition on the domestic
market.”
6. Illogical
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 – if the logic that warming action may harm

industry is allowed to govern climate policy, action will never
be taken
“A crippling concern with greenhouse gas regulation is the negative
competitive effects on domestic industries. If no import or export adjustments were
made, domestic industries having to pay a carbon tax or subjected to other costly greenhouse gas
regulation would simply lose industry to international competition, notably from China, which is not
required to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, and signaled an unwillingness to do so. There are
if this logic is allowed to determine greenhouse
two answers to this concern. First,
gas policy, then there is no hope at all of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions unless a nearly universal international agreement is secured
that mandates the reduction of greenhouse gases.”
15. Competitiveness
1. Non-Unique
Kamal Kapadia, Daniel Kammen & Matthias Fripp 06 - The US is

falling behind in the renewable energy market
Daniel M. Kammen [Professor in the Energy & Resources Group at U.C. Berkely, director of the Renewable
& Appropriate Energy Laboratory], Kamal Kapadia [M.A., Energy & Resources Group, U.C. Berkeley], &
Matthias Fripp [Research Fellow in Renewable Energy at the Environmental Change Institute, a research
collaboration between Texas Christian University & Oxford], “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs
Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” RAEL Report, U.C. Berkeley, Published: 13 April, 2004, Revised:
31 January, 2006, http://rael.berkeley.edu/old-site/renewables.jobs.2006.pdf
“The United States has a lot of catching up to do. For instance, in 2003,
total US production of solar PV modules amounted to 121 MWp (21
percent of global solar PV production). This was less than half of
Japan’s 251 MWp (45 percent of global production) and also less than
Europe’s 135 MWp (24 percent of global production) that same year. Of
the top ten solar PV module producers in 2002, only one was an
American company (Astropower), although some of the others manufacture (and thus
generate jobs) in the United States (for example, BP Solar and Shell Solar both have manufacturing plants
in the US).”
Washington Post 09 - Current environmental legislation isn’t

sufficient to promote US competitiveness
Steven Mufson [staff writer], “Asian Nations Could Outpace U.S. in Developing Clean Energy,” The
Washington Post, 16 July, 2009, (Section: FINANCIAL; Pg. A14)
“President Obama has often described his push to fund "clean" energy
technology as key to America's drive for international competitiveness
as well as a way to combat climate change. "There's no longer a
question about whether the jobs and the industries of the 21st century
will be centered around clean, renewable energy," he said on June 25.
"The only question is: Which country will create these jobs and these
industries? And I want that answer to be the United States of America."
But the leaders of India, South Korea, China and Japan may have
different answers. Those Asian nations are pouring money into
renewable energy industries, funding research and development and
setting ambitious targets for renewable energy use. These plans could
outpace the programs in Obama's economic stimulus package or in the
House climate bill sponsored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward J.
Markey (D-Mass.).”
Dan Kammen, Jennifer L. Edwards, Antonia Herzog & Timothy

E. Lipman 01 - The US is falling behind in competitiveness in
the global economy because of a lack of commitment to
renewable energy technology
Dan Kammen [Director of the Renewable & Appropriate Energy Laboratory, & Professor of Public Policy
U.C. Berkeley], Jennifer L. Edwards [research assistant at RAEL], Antonia Herzog & Timothy E. Lipman
[both postdoctoral researchers at RAEL], “Renewable Energy: A Viable Choice,” December, 2001,
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80932983. html
“The United States has lagged in its commitment to maintain
leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of which are
related to the energy sector. (6) The United States has fallen behind
Japan and Germany in the production of photovoltaic systems, behind
Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and behind
Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of fuel-cell systems.
Developing these industries within the United States is vital to the
country's international competitiveness, commercial strength, and
ability to provide for its own energy needs.”
2. Experts: “CTX increases

Competitiveness”
Brookings 09 - A carbon tax would lead to investment in green

technology which is central to increasing America’s global
competitiveness
Jason Bordoff [Policy Director of the Hamilton Project, an economic policy initiative at Brookings], Lael
Brainard [VP & Director of Brookings Global Economy & Development], Carola McGiffert [Senior Fellow at
the Center for Strategic & International Studies], & Isaac Sorkin [Research Assistant in the Global Economy
& Development program at Brookings], “Strengthening American Competitiveness: Regaining Our
Competitive Edge - Four Priorities and 20 New Ideas,” Brookings Competitiveness Initiative, February,
2009,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/02_american_competitiveness_brainard/02_ameri
can_competitiveness_brainard.pdf
“Serious action to address climate change can not only improve the environment
and avoid more costly consequences in the future, but can also lead to investments in green
technology research that help build a stronger, more dynamic U. S.
economy. The United States can remain the world’s innovation leader;
taking the lead in developing ways to make reducing emissions
cheaper can inspire innovation clusters around energy technology.
Such clusters can be a source of job growth, while also addressing
climate change and increasing American predominance in innovation.
In short, addressing climate change need not come at the expense of American competitiveness. With
the appropriate policies, we can reduce emissions at low economic
cost and make America the center of green innovation. But if the
greening of the American economy is not a central part of the
competitiveness agenda, we will reduce future prosperity with one
hand even as we try to build it with the other. Here is how we can do it correctly:
Get prices right. Moving toward a green economy will require large long-
term investments by all sectors of the economy. To encourage these
investments, the government should provide payoff s for them by
placing a price on emitting greenhouse gases. The price signal can
efficiently shift the economy to a low-greenhouse gas future by
providing incentives for demand reductions and fuel substitution,
which the development of new technologies can help realize. Gilbert
Metcalf proposes placing a tax on greenhouse gas emissions.”
Kamal Kapadia, Daniel Kammen & Matthias Fripp 06 -

Transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy is key for the US
to regain its competitive position in the energy technology
market
Daniel M. Kammen [Professor in the Energy & Resources Group at U.C. Berkely, director of the Renewable
& Appropriate Energy Laboratory], Kamal Kapadia [M.A., Energy & Resources Group, U.C. Berkeley], &
Matthias Fripp [Research Fellow in Renewable Energy at the Environmental Change Institute, a research
collaboration between Texas Christian University & Oxford], “Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs
Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate?” RAEL Report, U.C. Berkeley, Published: 13 April, 2004, Revised:
31 January, 2006, http://rael.berkeley.edu/old-site/renewables.jobs.2006.pdf
“Transitioning from a fossil fuel–based economy to a renewably
powered one will spur economic growth and provide considerable
employment. A review of 13 studies and our own analysis concur with
this conclusion. The national and international security implications of
spurring employment through local, sustainable energy generation are
compelling. The United States needs to regain its international position
as a technology leader, and the technologies of the future are in clean
energy.”
NYT 08 - US global innovation competitiveness is key to

military & political power
Thomas Friedman [world-renowned author & journalist, three-time Pulitzer Prize winner, masters degree in
modern Middle East studies from Oxford], “Making America Stupid,” The New York Times, 14 September,
2008, (Section: Page WK11)
“Sorry, but there is no sustainable political/military power without
economic power, and talking about one without the other is nonsense.
Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete
and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will
continue to slowly erode.”
16. Soft Power
A. US Image
Foreign Affairs 05 - The US should not exit the International

arena, but rather rebuild its crumbling image
Stephen M. Walt, [Professor of International Relations at Harvard University], “Taming American Power”,
September 1, 2005, Foreign Affairs, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-136226840/taming-
american-power.html, (ZV)
“How do you deal with American power? This question is one for which every world leader must have an
answer. And the response of other states to U.S. power is something Americans must care about as well.
Basic security is at issue, as the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks demonstrated. So is the health of
with the market share of U.S. firms declining in key
the U.S. economy,
overseas markets due to anti-American sentiment. The time to worry is
now. To be sure, many governments still value U.S. power and seek to
use it to advance their own interests. Yet even Washington's close
allies are now looking for ways to tame the United States' might. Many
countries fear U.S. influence, and they have devised numerous
strategies to manage and limit it. The United States will not and should
not exit the world stage anytime soon. But it must make its dominant
position acceptable to others -- by using military force sparingly, by
fostering greater cooperation with key allies, and, most important of
all, by rebuilding its crumbling international image.”
John Ikenberry 08 - US Soft Power is crumbling, and the US

should not just give up but learn to exercise it’s soft power is
an internationally acceptable way
G. John Ikenberry, [Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department
of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs], and Charles A. Kupchan,
[Professor of International Affairs in the School of Foreign Service and Government Department at
Georgetown University and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations], “Liberal Realism: the
Foundations of a Democratic Foreign Policy”, The Asrudian Center, 2008,
http://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/liberal-realism-the-foundations-of-a-democratic-foreign-
policy/, (ZV)
“The Bush Administration's disregard for legitimacy has had devastating consequences for America's
standing in the world, particularly among Europeans. The country that for decades was seen to be at the
During the
forefront of progressive change is now regarded as a threat to the international system.
heyday of American legitimacy amid the Cold War, it would have been
unthinkable for a German chancellor to rescue his bid for re-election by
insisting that Berlin stand up to Washington. Not only did Gerhard
Schroder do so in 2002, but candidates in other countries--Spain, Brazil
and South Korea--have thrived by distancing themselves from the
United States. In a world of degraded American legitimacy, other
countries are more reluctant to cooperate with the United States. Over
the longer term--and in a thousand different ways--countries will take
steps to separate themselves from the United States, to resist its
leadership and to organize their regions of the world in opposition to
Washington. From the perspective of liberal realism, legitimacy is an
intrinsic aspect of power. To care about legitimacy is not to cede
American power to the UN or any other party. Instead, it is to exercise
American power in a manner that continues to attract the support of
others. Successive American presidents have found ways to do so because they realized that to
legitimate American power was to turn coercion and domination into authority and consent. In Jean-
Jacques Rousseau's famous formulation from The Social Contract: "The strongest is never strong enough to
be always master, unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty.”
B. Global Problems
Foreign Affairs 08 - The United States influence and their

cooperation with other democracies is vital to dealing with
international and domestic troubles
Condoleezza Rice, [Former Secretary of State under the Bush Administration], “Rethinking the national
interest: American realism for a new world.(The New American Realism)(Essay)”, Foreign Affairs, July 01,
2008, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34658241_ITM, (ZV)
“As important as relations are with Russia and China, it is our work with our allies, those with whom we
share values, that is transforming international politics -- for this work presents an opportunity to expand
the ranks of well-governed, law-abiding democratic states in our world and to defeat challenges to this
Cooperation with our democratic allies, therefore,
vision of international order.
should not be judged simply by how we relate to one another. It should
be judged by the work we do together to defeat terrorism and
extremism, meet global challenges, defend human rights and dignity,
and support new democracies. In the Americas, this has meant strengthening our ties with
strategic democracies such as Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Chile in order to further the
Together, we have supported struggling
democratic development of our hemisphere.
states, such as Haiti, in locking in their transitions to democracy and
security. Together, we are defending ourselves against drug traffickers,
criminal gangs, and the few autocratic outliers in our democratic
hemisphere. The region still faces challenges, including Cuba's coming
transition and the need to support, unequivocally, the Cuban people's
right to a democratic future. There is no doubt that centuries-old
suspicions of the United States persist in the region. But we have
begun to write a new narrative that speaks not only to macroeconomic
development and trade but also to the need for democratic leaders to
address problems of social justice and inequality.”
C. Terrorism
Joseph Nye 04 – US Soft Power needs to be used in an

appealing manner so that terrorism can be dealt with
Joseph S. Nye, [received his bachelor's degree summa cum laude from Princeton University, did
postgraduate work at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, and earned a PhD in political science
from Harvard. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of
the National Intelligence Council, and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science
and Technology], “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy”, June 22, 2004,
“Look again at Afghanistan. Precision bombing and Special Forces defeated the
Taliban government, but U.S. forces in Afghanistan wrapped up less
than a quarter of al Qaeda, a transnational network with cells in sixty
countries. The United States cannot bomb al Qaeda cells in Hamburg, Kuala Lumpur, or Detroit.
Success against them depends on close civilian cooperation, whether
sharing intelligence, coordinating police work across borders, or tracing
global financial flows. America's partners cooperate partly out of self-
interest, but the inherent attractiveness of U.S. policies can and does
influence the degree of cooperation. Equally important, the current struggle against
Islamist terrorism is not a clash of civilizations but a contest whose outcome is closely tied to a civil war
between moderates and extremists within Islamic civilization. The United States and other advanced
democracies will win only if moderate Muslims win, and the ability to attract the moderates is critical to
We need to adopt policies that appeal to moderates and to use
victory.
public diplomacy more effectively to explain our common interests. We
need a better strategy for wielding our soft power. We will have to
learn better how to combine hard and soft power if we wish to meet
the new challenges.”
Joseph Nye 04 - meeting the challenge posed by transnational

military organizations that could acquire weapons of mass
destruction requires the cooperation of other countries—and
cooperation is strengthened by soft power
“According to the National Security Strategy, the greatest threats
the American people face are transnational terrorism and weapons
of mass destruction, and particularly their combination. Yet, meeting
the challenge posed by transnational military organizations that
could acquire weapons of mass destruction requires the cooperation
of other countries—and cooperation is strengthened by soft power.
Similarly, efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and elsewhere will require the help of others.
Reconstruction in Iraq and peacekeeping in failed states are far more likely to succeed and to be less
costly if shared with others rather than appearing as American imperial occupation. The
fact that
the United States squandered its soft power in the way that it went
to war meant that the aftermath turned out to be much more costly
than it need have been.”
Joseph Nye 04 – Not all the important power comes out of the
barrel of a gun…Soft Power is an invaluable force
“Because of its leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in military power, the
United States will likely remain the world's single most powerful country well into the twenty-first century.
French dreams of a multipolar military world are unlikely to be realized anytime soon, and the German
not all the
Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, has explicitly eschewed such a goal. [26] But
important types of power come out of the barrel of a gun. Hard power
is relevant to getting the outcomes we want on all three chessboards,
but many of the transnational issues, such as climate change, the
spread of infectious diseases, international crime, and terrorism,
cannot be resolved by military force alone. Representing the dark side of
globalization, these issues are inherently multilateral and require
cooperation for their solution. Soft power is particularly important in
dealing with the issues that arise from the bottom chessboard of
transnational relations. To describe such a world as an American empire fails to capture the
real nature of the foreign policy tasks that we face.”
D. Foreign Relations
Joseph Nye 04 – In Pakistan, President Musharraf faces

multiple pressures at home that could be removed if the US
were more attractive to the nation
“Take Pakistan for example. President Pervez Musharraf faces a
complex game of cooperating with the United States on terrorism
while managing a large anti-American constituency at home. He winds
up balancing concessions and retractions. If the United States were more
attractive to the Pakistani populace, we would see more concessions
in the mix. It is not smart to discount soft power as just a question of
image, public relations, and ephemeral popularity. As I argued earlier, it is
a form of power—a means of obtaining desired outcomes. When we
discount the importance of our attractiveness to other countries, we
pay a price. Most important, if the United States is so unpopular in a
country that being pro-American is a kiss of death in their domestic
politics, political leaders are unlikely to make concessions to help us.
Turkey, Mexico, and Chile were prime examples in the run-up to the Iraq war in March 2003.”
Joseph Nye 04 - When American policies lose their legitimacy

and credibility in the eyes of others, attitudes of distrust
tend to fester and further reduce our leverage
“When American policies lose their legitimacy and credibility in the
eyes of others, attitudes of distrust tend to fester and further reduce
our leverage. For example, after September 11, there was an outpouring of sympathy from
Germans for the United States, and Germany joined a military campaign against the al Qaeda network.
But as the United States geared up for the unpopular Iraq war, Germans expressed widespread
disbelief about the reasons the United States gave for going to war, such as the alleged connection of
Iraq to al Qaeda and the imminence of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. German suspicions
were reinforced by what they saw as biased American media coverage during the war and by the
failure to find weapons or prove the connection to al Qaeda right after the war. The combination
fostered a climate in which conspiracy theories flourished. By July 2003, one-third of Germans under
the age of thirty said that they thought the American government might even have staged the original
September 11 attacks."
17. US Hegemony Bad
1. Environ Leadership =/= Hegemony

Increase
i. Hegemony High
Laura Carlsen & Tom Barry 06 - The United States still retains a
special sense of hegemony
Laura Carlsen [director of the Americas Program of the International Relations Center (IRC), She holds a BA
in Social Thought and Institutions (1980) from Stanford University and an MA in Latin American Studies
(1986) from Stanford] and Tom Barry [the policy director of the International Relations Center (IRC) and
the founder of Foreign Policy In Focus;], “U.S. Hegemony or Global Good Neighbor Policy?” Published by
the International Relations Center, February 2006, http://americas.irc-
online.org/pdf/reports/0602ggn.latam1.pdf (PV)
“The United States still retains a special sense of hegemony over its
“near abroad” or backyard. But in an age of the global war on terror,
global economic integration, and global communication, geographical
proximity has reduced relevance in prioritizing international relations.
As the only remaining superpower since the disintegration of the
Soviet bloc, Washington has come to regard the entire globe as its
natural domain.”
Laura Carlsen & Tom Barry 06 - US Hegemony remains – Latin

America Proves
Laura Carlsen [director of the Americas Program of the International Relations Center (IRC), She holds a BA
in Social Thought and Institutions (1980) from Stanford University and an MA in Latin American Studies
(1986) from Stanford] and Tom Barry [the policy director of the International Relations Center (IRC) and
the founder of Foreign Policy In Focus;], “U.S. Hegemony or Global Good Neighbor Policy?” Published by
the International Relations Center, February 2006, http://americas.irc-
online.org/pdf/reports/0602ggn.latam1.pdf (PV)
“But the United States continues to exercise strong hegemonic ties in
the region, whether through its expanding military presence, NAFTA-
style trade agreements, or the dictates of U.S.-dominated international
financial institutions. Latin America is still a crucial area for the United
States. Moreover, recent political trends have placed it squarely in the center of major debates on the
future of U.S. foreign policy and the course of globalization. Latin American nations have called into
question the U.S. government’s efforts to militarize international relations under a counter-terrorism
agenda that does not reflect the reality of the region and have increasingly protested the neoliberal
model.”
Stephen Walt 02 - The first thing to understand about U.S.

primacy is that it is not new
Stephen M. Walt [the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University. Professor Walt received his doctorate in political science from
the University of California, Berkeley. A research fellow at Harvard University, 1981–84, and assistant
professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University from 1984 to 1989, he has also been a
resident associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a guest scholar at the Brookings
Institution, and a professor of 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,” Published by the Naval War College Review, Spring 2002,
Vol. LV, No. 2, (PV)
“The first thing to understand about U.S. primacy is that it is not new.
Although the end of the Cold War highlighted America’s unprecedented
concentration of economic and military power, the United States has
had the world’s largest economy for over a hundred years and the
greatest military potential for most of that time as well. Despite
alarmist concerns about the Soviet military during the Cold War, U.S.
strength exceeded that of the Soviet Union for most (if not all) of that
period. Soviet military capabilities were a match for American forces only in Europe, and the capacity
of the USSR to project power globally was always distinctly inferior to the naval, air, and amphibious
capabilities of the United States.”
Christopher Lane 02 - Today, the United States apparently has

firmly consolidated its global hegemony
Dr. Christopher Layne [a Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent
Institute and Mary Julia and George R. Jordan Professorship of International Affairs at the George Bush
School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. He received his Ph.D. in political
science from the University of California, LL.M. in international law from University of Virginia Law School,
and J.D. from the University of Southern California Law Center. Dr. Layne has been Associate Professor of
International Studies at the University of Miami; a Fellow in the Center for Social Theory and Comparative
History at UCLA, Cato Institute, and Center for International Studies at the University of Southern
California; MacArthur Foundation Fellow in Global Security; Visiting Professor at the Naval Postgraduate
School; Research Fellow at the Center for Science and International Affairs in the Kennedy School, Harvard
University; Member of the Professional Staff at the Arroyo Center, California Institute of Technology;
Foreign Policy Analyst for NATO/Western Europe; Law Clerk to U.S. District Judge Richard A. Gadbois, Jr.;
Associate at Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler; Partner at Blecher and Collins; and Associate at
Danning, Gill Gould, Joseph and Diamond], “Offshore Balancing Revisited,” Published by The Washington
Quarterly, Spring 2002 (25:2 pp. 233–248.) (PV)
“Today, the United States apparently has firmly consolidated its global
hegemony. Surely, no great power in the history of the modern
international system (since approximately 1500) has ever been as
dominant as the United States in global politics. Still, history suggests
a note of caution is appropriate. The United States is merely the most
recent great power to seek hegemony. When examining the fates of
previous hegemonic contenders, a clear lesson emerges: aspiring to
hegemony or even attaining it for a short period of time is different
than maintaining it.”
ii. Environmental Leadership Low

Widener Law Journal 09 - The US has failed to meet it’s air
quality goals, leaving many vulnerable to pollution
David M. Driesen [Professor, Syracuse University College of Law, J.D. Yale], “Symposium: Sustainable
Energy: The Intersection Of Innovation, Law, And Policy: Sustainable Development And Air Quality: The
Need To Replace Basic Technologies With Cleaner Alternatives,” Widener Law Journal, 2009, (18 Widener
L. J. 883)
“With respect to urban air pollution, the United States has failed to
meet Clean Air Act requirements governing the scope and timing of
reductions. While the United States has probably met its obligations respecting ozone-depleting
chemicals, the country increased, rather than decreased, its greenhouse gas emissions. By the time of the
most recent major overhaul of the Clean Air Act in 1990, almost every area in the country had met
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. But the
failure to
achieve the standards for ozone, particulate, and carbon monoxide left
over 150 million people still prey to unhealthy air quality in 2007.”
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – Even when the US

actually has passed environmental legislation, is has often
fallen short of global efforts
LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Even when the United States has passed related legislation, it has
often fallen far short of European efforts. For instance, recent legislation in the United
States now requires major automakers to meet an increased standard of thirty-five miles per gallon on
average by 2020, whereas Europe already requires an average of forty miles per gallon.”
George Gonzalez 05 - US policymakers have not enacted

policies to directly abate the emission of human-made
greenhouse gases
George A. Gonzalez, [assistant professor of Political Science at the university of Miami], “The Politics of Air
Pollution; Urban Growth, Ecological Modernization and Symbolic Inclusion”, State University of New York,
2005, ISBN 0-7914-6336-2, |Page 1| (ZV)
“It has been over thirty years since the United States federal government enacted sweeping legislation—
the Clean Air Act of 1970—to address the acute air pollution that was facing numerous urban areas (Jones
1975). Air pollution emissions nevertheless continue to persist as high levels, with several U.S. urban
regions facing seemingly intractable poor air quality (Cherni 2002; David 2002; Lee 2004; Hebert 2004).
Moreover, global warming has solidified into and accepted scientific fact (Revkin 2001; 2002 June 3;
Trenberth 2001).The recent global warming trend is in large part the result
of human-made airborne emissions of such gasses as carbon dioxide
and nitrogen oxide (Christianson 1999; Firor and Jacobsen 2002; Jacobsen 2002). Despite
the scientific consensus, and the ominous signs pointing to a rapid
heating of the globe—e.g., the ongoing melting of the polar ice caps
(Revkin 2002 March 20)—US policymakers have not enacted policies to directly
abate the emission of human-made greenhouse gases (Brown 2002; Revkin
2002 Feb. 15).”
TIME 09 - America went all out and dreamed big when they
went to the moon and we need to do that again with the
environ because all of our R&D is waaaay lacking
Bryan Walsh, “Clean Energy: U.S. Lags in Research and Development”, TIME Magazine, August 1, 2009,
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1913781,00.html, (ZV)
“The need to remake our energy economy and replace fossil fuels with
renewables like wind and solar is often referred to as the new Apollo
project, a challenge to our scientists — and to the federal checkbook —
that will be even greater than the moon race. We're moving ahead on installing new
clean energy — the U.S. was the fastest growing wind-power market in the world in 2008 — and Congress,
But
with the support of President Barack Obama, is on the road to establishing caps on carbon dioxide.
according to many energy experts — including Steven Chu, Obama's Nobel Prize–winning
Energy Secretary — the science isn't there yet. Significant basic research and
development needs to happen before renewables can truly displace
fossil fuels. And unlike at the time of the first Apollo project, the U.S.
seems far from ready to spend the money needed to create long-term
solutions to global warming — which risks the country falling behind in this new scientific
race toward a clean-energy economy. "If we are serious about delivering the real
technological change needed to really reduce emissions, we need to
scale up research in a massive way," says Mark Muro, a fellow at the Brookings
Institution. "We need a paradigm shift, and we're falling behind.”
iii. Impact: Enviro Leadership =/= Heg.

Increase
18. International Pollution
A. China is reducing emissions
Green Technology News of the UK 09 -

“China renewable energy boost to reduce Chinese emissions”, Green Technology News of the UK,
December 28, 2009, http://greentech.co.uk/china-renewable-energy-boost-to-reduce-chinese-emissions-
322, (ZV)
“China’s national assembly Saturday signalled the country’s commitment
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting a law supporting its
renewable energy industry. China, which has been criticised for
obstructing the adoption of a key treaty on climate change in
Copenhagen, has passed a law committing the nation to reducing
emissions through the adoption of more renewable energy. The new
law is an amendment to one on renewable energy adopted by the
National People’s Congress standing committee. It obliges electricity grid
companies to buy all the power produced by renewable sources. It also empowers the State Council’s
energy department, the electricity regulatory agency and its finance departments to determine the
amount of renewable energy available in the country’s overall power generating capacity.”
Economist 09 - China is receiving billions in aid to fight

pollution
“A long game”, the Economist, December 3, 2009,
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?
story_id=14994880&subjectID=348924&fsrc=nwl, (ZV)
“A third reason is energy security. Although China has large coal reserves, it is also a big importer.
Concerns about excessive dependence on foreign fossil fuels sharpened when China’s oil imports rocketed
and, in 2005, the attempt by CNOOC, China’s largest offshore oil and gas company, to buy America’s
Unocal was rebuffed. China’s push into nuclear and renewable energy has been driven by its need to
The Kyoto protocol has given
diversify its energy sources. The fourth reason is economic.
China an incentive to clean up its act. China has received $2 billion
through the CDM for cleaning up its industrial processes and building clean-
energy capacity—half the money that has flowed through the CDM.
That is expected to rise to $8 billion by 2012.”
British Geological Society 09 – China is developing carbon

storage to reduce emissions form its coal plants
British Geological Society, “Capturing China’s CO2 to Lower Emissions”, February 4, 2009, <accessed
October 3, 2009>, http://www.bgs.ac.uk/news/DIARY/CCS_China_meeting_pr.pdf, (ZV)
“The conference will highlight how British science is supporting China in developing their capabilities to
bury CO2 from power stations in rock formations deep below the surface. It is thought that
China builds around one coal power station per week and CO2 storage
will allow it to maintain energy supplies at the same time as reducing
emissions. The scientific experts will discuss technical assessments of
storage potential from ongoing research on the COACH (Cooperation Action within
Carbon Capture and Storage China-EU) and NZEC (Near Zero Emissions from Coal) projects, as well
as other European projects.”
British Geological Society 09 - The lowering of CO2 emissions

in China is vital to the global goal of avoiding a catastrophic
temperature
British Geological Society, “Capturing China’s CO2 to Lower Emissions”, February 4, 2009, <accessed
October 3, 2009>, http://www.bgs.ac.uk/news/DIARY/CCS_China_meeting_pr.pdf, (ZV)
“Dr Mike Stephenson, Head of Science for Energy at BGS said “COACH and NZEC look at the potential for
geological storage of CO2 in parts of north-east China, where the coal power generation capacity is
increasing at an amazing rate. The potential for storing CO2 in formations that contain naturally occurring
brine, in old oil fields whose oil is depleted or used up, or, in unmineable coals is being studied. The
Chinese and EU experts have calculated the storage capacity of these formations and will discuss these
important new results.” The lowering of CO2 emissions in China is vital to the
global goal of avoiding a catastrophic temperature rise of 2°C before
2100, and it could be argued that CO2 emission reductions elsewhere
are irrelevant without China’s involvement. China is committed to
using its vast coal resources in electricity generation as it will be a long
time before other energy sources such as renewables are able to meet
their energy demands. Thus projects like COACH, and NZEC, which foster technology transfer,
as well as long term scientific links, are very important in achieving low global emissions.”
Science Daily {online scientific newspaper} 08 - Other

countries are already taking a stance against air pollution; US
not key.
Science Daily, “Olympic Games: Air Quality Forecasts For China”, July 24, 2008,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080723094845.htm, (ZV)
“ScienceDaily (July 24, 2008) — With less than a month remaining before the Beijing Olympics,
Chinese officials have introduced a series of measures to improve air
quality for the Games. A new tool has been installed in the capital city
to allow the Chinese to monitor the effectiveness of these efforts. Poor air
quality could pose problems for the Olympic athletes and hinder the performance of those competing
Since the main source of air
outdoors in endurance sports, such as cycling and marathons.
pollution in the Beijing urban area is vehicle emissions, restrictions on
car traffic began on 20 July in order to take 50 percent of Beijing’s 3,5
million vehicles off the road. From then until 20 September, private vehicles will only be
allowed to drive on alternating days and cars with high emissions will be banned. On
behalf of
ESA, CERC (Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants) installed
a High Resolution Air Quality Forecasting System at the Beijing
Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB) that allows Chinese authorities
to monitor the effect these cuts have on street level air quality.”
B. India is Reducing Emissions
WSJ 09 - India is ready to cut emissions intensity 20%-25% by

2020, but won't accept legally binding targets
Eric Yep, “India to Cut Emissions, but Fight Targets”, Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2009, <accessed
January 12, 2010>, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125984877391574527.html, (ZV)
“MUMBAI -- India is ready to cut emissions intensity 20%-25% by 2020, but
won't accept legally binding targets, raising chances next week's global summit on
climate change won't yield definitive results. India also won't accept an agreement
that stipulates the setting of a "peaking year" for emissions, Forests and
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said while outlining India's strategy ahead of the United Nations
climate-change conference in Copenhagen. A peaking year implies the setting of a date beyond which a
nation must begin reducing emissions. "There
is no question of compromising on
these two nonnegotiables," the minister told lawmakers, adding these issues
were "complete dark, red lines." Mr. Ramesh's statements come on the heels of pledges made by China
and the U.S. last month to reduce emissions. China and the U.S. are the world's largest emitters of
greenhouse gases; India is fourth.”
Zhiqun Zhu 05 - India realizes the importance of pollution and

has taken action against it…though not always effective
Zhiqun Zhu, [Professor of Political science and international relations], “POLITICAL ECONOMY OF CHINA
AND INDIA: DEALING WITH AIR POLLUTION N THE TWO BOOMING ECONOMIES”, Num.7, Pgs. 123-132,
Published by Historia Actual Online (HAOL) – [a free and open Online Journal], Spring 2005,
http://www.historia-actual.com/HAO/Volumes/Volume1/Issue7/eng/v1i7c11.pdf, (ZV)
“Although both India and China have [has] realized the importance of
environmental protection and sustainable development and have
taken measures to protect the environment, [but] their efforts to curb
air pollution have not always been satisfactory and effective.
[For Above Evidence: Aff may challenge that it said they were not
always effective, however, the statement implies that some were
effective, and the aff plan never claims that the actions taken by India
will be effective.]
C. USFG’s responsibility is to focus @ home 1ST!

its citizens
“Whereas,

D.US is largest emitter
Stanford Environmental Law Review 09 -

LexisNexis>, (ZV)
“Historically, the United States is the largest contributor to global
warming, responsible for approximately twenty-five percent of global
carbon dioxide emissions. China now emits as much greenhouse gas
as the United States, and India is not far behind, but the United States remains
well ahead of these countries in per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, in terms of
cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, the United States is by far the
world leader; no other nation comes close.”
WSJ 09 - China and the U.S. are the world's largest emitters of
greenhouse gases; India is fourth
Eric Yep, “India to Cut Emissions, but Fight Targets”, Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2009, <accessed
January 12, 2010>, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125984877391574527.html, (ZV)
“MUMBAI -- India is ready to cut emissions intensity 20%-25% by 2020, but won't accept legally binding
targets, raising chances next week's global summit on climate change won't yield definitive results. India
also won't accept an agreement that stipulates the setting of a "peaking year" for emissions, Forests and
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said while outlining India's strategy ahead of the United Nations
climate-change conference in Copenhagen. A peaking year implies the setting of a date beyond which a
nation must begin reducing emissions. "There is no question of compromising on these two
nonnegotiables," the minister told lawmakers, adding these issues were "complete dark, red lines." Mr.
Ramesh's statements come on the heels of pledges made by China and the U.S. last month to reduce
China and the U.S. are the world's largest emitters of
emissions.
greenhouse gases; India is fourth.”
19. Voter Disenfranchisement
A. US population = not concerned with GW

The Washington Post 07 - The environmental issue remains far
down the priority list for Americans
Juliet Eilperin, [Staff Writer for WP], “Despite Big Honor for Gore, Climate Not Top Issue in U.S.” The
Washington Post October 13, 2007, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8972029.html, (ZV)
“Former vice president Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize meant the same thing yesterday to both his supporters
and detractors: He ranks as the world's most effective advocate for curbing global warming. While an
array of activists, politicians and business leaders have all called in
recent years for more stringent limits on greenhouse gases linked to
climate change, no one more than Gore has reshaped public
perception of what was once a wonkish scientific debate. But for all
that, the issue remains far down the priority list for Americans. Through his
tireless travel and slide-show presentations, captured on screen in the 2006 film "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Gore has inserted himself into the policy debate at home and in other countries across the globe.”
The Washington Post 07 - Polls show that VERY few of the

population is really concerned about the environment
“It's difficult for Americans to comprehend how Gore is one of the most influential global leaders of our
time," said Icelandic President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, who met Gore more than two decades ago. "He is
influential not only for his views, but for how he is mobilizing action and awareness in all countries, on all
continents." Polls show that Gore's efforts have helped raise the profile of global warming among
an April Washington Post-ABC News survey found that the
Americans --
percentage of respondents identifying climate change as their top
environmental concern had doubled from a year earlier, to 33 percent
-- but in the public's mind, it still lags far behind such issues as the war
in Iraq and health care in importance. In a September Washington
Post-ABC News poll, less than 1 percent identified global warming as
their top issue for the 2008 presidential campaign, and a January poll
by the Pew Research Center ranked it fourth-lowest out of 23 policy
priorities that Americans want the president and Congress to address.”
The Washington Post 07 - We tend to put not-so-alarming

issues on the back burner and the environ happens to be one
of them
“Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who co-
chaired the international scientific study this year that called the evidence of global warming
"unequivocal," said she was not surprised that the U.S. public does not rank global warming as a higher
"The world has many problems, and just like every person, we
priority.
tend to put on the back burner the ones we don't think will erupt
tomorrow morning," Solomon said in an interview. "The key thing is that people understand the
problem, and I have a lot of faith in humanity's ability to solve the problem it understands." Rep. Jay Inslee
(D-Wash.), who had dinner with Gore and a few friends in Seattle two weeks ago, said he jokingly chided
Gore for not being "sufficiently alarmist" about the possible consequences of climate change in his movie
and public appearances.”
Pepperdine Law Review 08 - By all accounts the UN and

especially Europe are far more concerned about the environ
that the US
Seth W. Eaton, [J.D. Candidate 2008, Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, CA; Bachelor of Arts in
History from Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, Class of 2004], “Winter is Frigid, n1 so I Say Bring on the
Greenhouse Effect! A Legal and Policy Discussion of the Strategies the United States Must Employ to
Combat Global Warming”, Pepperdine Law Review, 2008, 35 Pepp. L. Rev. 787, <accessed via
LexisNexis>, [brackets added for clarification], (ZV)
“Being the most powerful country in the world, the United States is also burdened with a great
responsibility when it comes to international issues, and global warming is no exception. The rest of the
world, painfully aware of the risks posed by the upward trend in worldwide temperatures, will not bear the
weight of cutting greenhouse gas emissions alone. n128 Nevertheless, a plea by the Secretary-General of
the United Nations, Kofi Annan, to the United States to cut greenhouse gas emissions by signing on to the
By all accounts, the United Nations, and
Kyoto Protocol fell on deaf ears. n129
especially Europe, seems far more concerned about the
[environmental] issue[s] than do American political leaders.”
20. WTO/NAFTA Violated
A. Text of WTO Agreement
1. AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE, portion of

WTO Agreement -
World Trade Organization, “AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE”,
http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt.pdf, <accessed November 13, 2009>, (ZV)
“Recognizing that no country should be prevented from taking measures
necessary to ensure the quality of its exports, or for the protection of
human, animal or plant life or health, of the environment, or for the
prevention of deceptive practices, at the levels it considers
appropriate, subject to the requirement that they are not applied in a
manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail or
a disguised restriction on international trade, and are otherwise in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement;”
2. Opening Preamble portion of WTO agreement -

World Trade Law.net, “AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION”,
http://www.worldtradelaw.net/uragreements/wtoagreement.pdf, <accessed November 13, 2009>,
[brackets added for clarification], (ZV)
“The Parties to this Agreement, Recognizing [recognize] that their relations
in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with
a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a
large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective
demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods and
services, while allowing for the optimal use of the world's resources in
accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking
both to protect and preserve the environment and to enhance the
means for doing so in a manner consistent with their respective needs
and concerns at different levels of economic development, Recognizing
further that there is need for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and especially
the least developed among them, secure a share in the growth in international trade commensurate with
the needs of their economic development, Being desirous of contributing to these objectives by entering
into reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs
and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade
relations, Resolved, therefore, to develop an integrated, more viable and durable multilateral trading
system encompassing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the results of past trade liberalization
efforts, and all of the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Determined to
preserve the basic principles and to further the objectives underlying this multilateral trading system,
Agree as follows:”
B. Text of the GATT
U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy 08 - BTAs on

imports are expressly permitted by GATT in Article II.2
Andrew Green, [Faculty of Law, University of Toronto], and Tracey Epps, [Faculty of Law, University of
Otago], “Symposium Article: Is there a Role for Trade Measures in Addressing Climate Change?”, U.C.
Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall 2008, (15 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 1), (ZV)
“BTAs may be used by importing countries to impose a tax that is equal to the amount payable had the
products had been produced in that country ("BTAs on imports'). They may also be used by exporting
countries to provide an exemption or refund to exporters on the climate change related taxes they
BTAs on imports are
incurred during production ("BTAs on exports'). BTAs on imports:
expressly permitted by GATT [*10] Article II.2(a) that allows countries
to impose a "charge equivalent to an internal tax' on the importation of
any product in respect to: a) the "like' domestic product; or b) an
article from which the imported product has been manufactured or
produced in part. It should be noted, however, that only indirect taxes may be adjusted, not direct
taxes. n29 Indirect taxes are those that are levied on products, while direct taxes are those imposed on
producers (such as payroll, income taxes, and taxes on profits)”.
C. AT: US is Annex 1 Country
Norman Vig and Michael Faure 04 - The US is an Annex 1

nation, and as such, it agrees to reduce GHG emissions
Norman J. Vig, [Winifred and Atherton Bean Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Emeritus, at
Carleton College], and Michael G. Faure, [Professor of comparative and international environmental law at
Maastricht University and Academic Director of the Maastricht Institute for Transnational Legal Research],
“Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union; Chapter 8: The
Climate Change Divide: The European Union, the United States, and the Future of the Kyoto Protocol”, The
MIT Press, 2004, ISBN: 0-262-72044-2, |Page 212|, (ZV)
“The developed countries did agree “to adopt national policies and take corresponding measures” to limit
their green house gas emissions and to enhance their greenhouse gas sinks, but action was simply to be
The FCCC established two groups of nations, Annex 1 and
voluntary.7
Annex 3 countries. Annex 1 countries agreed to take measure to
mitigate national climate change and conduct regular inventories of
greenhouse gas sources and sinks. Annex 2 countries were a subset of
the Annex 1 countries who also agreed to provide financial and
technical assistance to developing countries. The EU, its member states, and the
US fell into both categories.”
D.Precedent
U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy 08 - In the late

1990s, the US introduced an excise tax on certain ozone-
depleting chemicals its legality under WTO rules is not certain,
the tax was never challenged
Andrew Green, [Faculty of Law, University of Toronto], and Tracey Epps, [Faculty of Law, University of
Otago], “Symposium Article: Is there a Role for Trade Measures in Addressing Climate Change?”, U.C.
Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Fall 2008, (15 U.C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 1), (ZV)
“There is a precedent in practice, however, for such an adjustment. In
the late 1990s, the US introduced an excise tax on certain ozone-
depleting chemicals (ODCs) in order to implement the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Imports of ODCs
were charged with a tax equal to the domestic tax. For exports, the tax
was rebated. The tax was adjusted on imports of either the substances
themselves or products containing or produced with them. n38 While
its legality under WTO rules is not certain, the tax was never
challenged.”
Responses to Negative CP’s:

1. Global Carbon Tax CP
1. Multilateral CTX have PHAILED in the

past
David Rich 04 - The European Union’s attempt to implement a

multilateral carbon tax failed because it was seen to violate
national sovereignty
“The ideal way to impose a carbon tax without the need to impose concurrent trade barriers is to
harmonize national carbon taxes across countries. An internationally harmonized tax would negate losses
in competitiveness by ensuring that all trading partners faced the same taxes on carbon. It would also
bolster the effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by ensuring that all countries were involved in the
Given prevailing political constraints, however, the likelihood of such a
effort.
[global carbon tax] plan emerging is minimal. The European Union’s
attempt to implement a multilateral carbon tax in 1992, for example,
failed partly because of concerns that an international tax violated
national sovereignty.27”
2. Fiat Abuse (mandating/fiat-ing the entire

globe)
The negative and affirmative fiat was originated as a tool to make the
debate focused on what should happen, not what would actually
happen. The negative team is abusing their fiat ability, but simply
creating a hypothetical world where the affirmative legislation can
simply be undone, or ‘un-created’. Taking fiat out of it original
framework and purpose, and turning it into a magic wand is an abuse
of the purpose of that power.
3. National legislation is vital
Maolin Liao 09 - Despite international climate negotiations,

governments must take action as well
Maolin Liao, [Researcher at Research Center for Urban Development and Environment, Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences, Beijing], “Policy options for reducing GHG emissions”, IOP Publishing, (IOP Conf. Series:
Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 212011), (ZV)
“Climate change is not only one of the global most significant long-term policy challenges but also one of
challenges for the state government. Despite of attending the international climate
negotiation, certain policies should be taken to reduce the GHG
emissions by the governments. Basically, there are two approaches for the government
reducing GHG emissions, one is carbon tax approaches, and the other one is cap-trade approaches which
could include different types such as inflexible annual cap, with safety valve. Compared with the two
programs, both of them have efficiency and implementation considerations. For carbon tax, it is advantage
at it fixing the price of GHG, raising revenues for the government directly, but it has the implementation
such as political resistance to new taxes or revenues from tax ending up being wasted, and it is not
possible to create emissions limits. As to cap-trade approaches, it could achieve the environmental protect
goal and easier to integrated with international cap and trade programs, but it require to set new
institutions and have them operated effectively.”
2. Cap and Trade CP
A. Perm—Not Mutually Exclusive
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 – Carbon taxes can be levied at various

governmental levels without interfering with each other and
can be implemented simultaneously with a cap-and-trade
program
“An advantage that appears to be increasing in importance is the
ability for carbon taxes to be levied at various governmental levels
without interfering with each other. Nor does it interfere with other
regulatory instruments, as a carbon tax can be implemented
simultaneously with a cap-and-trade program, command-and-control
regulation, and even government subsidies. As such, it is particularly
worth attempting, as it does not require the abandonment of attempts
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using other instruments.”
B. IMPACT: Federalist Policies
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - The reason that this feature of carbon

taxation is of increasing importance is because of recent
federalism issues
“The reason that this feature of carbon taxation is of increasing
importance is the variety of jurisdictions that are attempting to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and the implementation and federalism
issues raised by these attempts.17 The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative18 among ten
northeastern states is an important attempt to reduce greenhouse gas initiatives. In addition, the Western
Climate Initiative, which now includes seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces, will also undertake a
cap-and-trade program that aims to reduce emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by the year
2020.19 While both of these initiatives are incomplete (though WCI claims it will cover 90 percent of all
emissions sources20), both should remain free from substantial interference from parallel federal attempts
in Canada and the U.S. to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, a network of U.S. cities that
have agreed to attempt to at least meet Kyoto Protocol targets that apply to the U.S. of reducing emissions
by seven percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012.”
3. 50 States CP
A. Commerce Clause
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Problem 1: Commerce Clause

[states are trying to protect their own state and restrict those
states around them because ‘air’ has no respect to land
borders, the states do not have the power to do this and are
violating the regulatory power of Congress]
Steven Ferrey, [the author of six books and more than seventy-five articles on the energy-environmental
legal and policy interface], “Goblets of Fire: Potential Constitutional Impediments to the Regulation of
Global Warming”, Ecology Law Quarterly, 2008, <accessed August 12, 2009>, 35 Ecology L.Q. 835, (ZV)
“First, there are Commerce Clause issues: n21 because states do not want the carbon
costs that they impose on their in-state power generators to encourage
higher-carbon out-of-state power imports, they are moving to secure
their borders, or at least surcharge and dissuade intruding power flows.
n22 Wholesale [*840] electricity moves constantly in interstate commerce
at the speed of light. n23 States are trying to restrict "leakage" into
their borders of less-costly power whose carbon is not regulated or
affected, which leaps state boundaries from non-RGGI states into the
RGGI zone. n24 Because the states are attempting to not only regulate
carbon produced within their borders, but also use point-of-origin
regulation to create carbon-regulated islands into which externally-
produced wholesale power cannot enter without penalty, n25 they will
face significant dormant Commerce Clause problems.”
[RGGI = Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative]
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Ext. Ev: although states are allowed

to promoted in-state business, they are not allowed to protect
those same companies from out-of-state business
“Therefore, although states are permitted to promote in-state businesses,
they are not permitted to protect those businesses from out-of-state
competition by enacting laws that "benefit in-state economic interests
by burdening out-of-state competitors.”
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Ext. Ev: The Commerce clause is a

tool to of congress to prevent states from splitting into
separate economic entities
“The power of the Commerce Clause "has long been understood to
have a "negative' aspect that denies the States the power unjustifiably
to discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of
commerce." n215 This specific aspect of the "dormant" Commerce
Clause has been interpreted by courts as a tool used to prevent the
states from splitting into separate economic entities. n216 The issue of
the application of the dormant Commerce Clause has been
characterized as the "oldest question in constitutional law.”
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Ext. Ev: there are two basic

standards to determine whether a state is violating the
commerce clause; geographically based, and state regulatory
discrimination
“There are two standards of judicial review under a dormant
Commerce Clause challenge to state regulation. First, geographically-
based discrimination is evaluated under a strict scrutiny test applied
by the federal courts, and such a statute, with rare exceptions, is found
to be per se a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. n218 Second,
state regulation that is not geographically-based, but nonetheless has
incidental impacts on interstate commerce, is evaluated under a
balancing test where the state interest is balanced against the degree
of impairment of interstate commerce. n219 Moderately discriminatory state actions
can survive this challenge.”
B. Supremacy Clause
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Problem 2: Supremacy Clause

[states are taking the liberty to auction or do whatever to
emission rather than obeying the federally set approach and
are violating to supremacy of the USFG]
“Second, there are Supremacy Clause issues. n26 Most RGGI states will implement the
first auction of rights to emit pollutants in the history of environmental
regulation rather than allocate rights to currently emitting sources as
has traditionally always been done. All ten RRGI states appear to be auctioning emission
rights to a greater or lesser degree, and the debate between different stakeholders on this issue has
currently consumed California regulators. The six New England RGGI states and New York, the RGGI leader,
will auction between 75% and 100% of their allowances beginning immediately. n27 Maryland is
The decision of every state to date to maximize associated
equivocating.
revenues by auctioning all or almost all of their newly created
allocations for power plants to emit carbon, triggers Supremacy Clause
concerns. n28 States officially have expressed that the purpose of this auction to increase the price
for certain high-emitting carbon power plant operations (coal in particular), as a way to change the
dispatch of which plants are allowed to [*841] operate by the regional independent system operator (ISO)
When states
n29 which controls plant operating schedules in order of lowest cost of operation.
deliberately, but indirectly, change wholesale electric power dispatch
order by inflating the otherwise federally jurisdictional wholesale
(including carbon costs) price at which power plants are approved to
operate, that regulation can be questioned constitutionally as not
within state power under the Supremacy Clause. n30 The constitutional
bright line between federal and state jurisdiction over electric power
issues has been firmly carved in the judicial firmament over three-
quarters of a century, including a relatively recent Supreme Court
opinion. n31 For a state to cross it now is to invite examination of its
regulatory system.”
[RGGI = Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative]

[RRGI = typo : P ]
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Ext. Ev: Congressional approval of

state environ action is not only a violation of the compact
clause but also of federal supremacy
“However, "congressional approval of a compact is only required under
the Compact Clause if the compact enhances the power of the states
and encroaches upon federal supremacy." n429 In United States Steel v. Multi-State
Tax Compact, in which twenty-one states entered in a cooperative agreement aimed at creating a more
uniform system of taxation for multi-state taxpayers, n430 a tax-paying entity challenged the compact as
unconstitutional. n431 The Supreme Court upheld the agreement by focusing on the substance and not
the form of the agreement.”
C. Compact Clause
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Problem 3: Compact Clause [states

are making deals (i.e. RGGI) without the Federal
oversight/‘permission’]
“Third, there are issues under the Compact Clause of the U.S.
Constitution n32 when, without federal permission, states combine in
such an effort regarding carbon. n33 Two of the four basic carbon regulatory schemes of
the states - the West and the Midwest - also include Canadian provinces. This regulation also could be
Intelligent
examined as to whether it infringes exclusive federal power over international matters.
and legally sustainable carbon policy is imperative and urgent. Some of the
most knowledgeable climatologists argue that we have only until 2015 to radically reduce the emission
rate of CO<2>, or face a very different planet. n34 It
does little to meet these urgent
goals if state carbon restrictions, crafted without careful attention to
constitutional requirements, result in protracted litigation on
constitutional violations that truncates or halts their implementation.”
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Ext. Ev: Congressional approval of

state environ action is not only a violation of federal
supremacy but also of the compact clause
“However, "congressional approval of a compact is only required under
the Compact Clause if the compact enhances the power of the states
and encroaches upon federal supremacy." n429 In United States Steel v. Multi-State
Tax Compact, in which twenty-one states entered in a cooperative agreement aimed at creating a more
uniform system of taxation for multi-state taxpayers, n430 a tax-paying entity challenged the compact as
unconstitutional. n431 The Supreme Court upheld the agreement by focusing on the substance and not
the form of the agreement.”
D. Non-Constitutional Statutory Legal

Challenges
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Problem 4: Non-Constitutional

Statutory Legal Challenges [these include the argument that
the decision to auction carbon allowances, constitutes an
unauthorized tax under state statute and violates
environmental statutes, including requirements for
environmental impact assessments]
“Finally, there are non-constitutional statutory legal challenges that can
be lodged against some of the state carbon programs. These include
the argument that the decision to auction carbon allowances, rather
than provide them without charge to existing emission sources,
constitutes an unauthorized tax under state statute and violates
environmental statutes, including requirements for environmental
impact assessments. Such challenges have already been suggested against New York's RGGI
carbon program on the East Coast. n35 While these non-constitutional issues may be remedied by
legislation at the [*842] state level, this is not true of the federal constitutional challenges. Even
federal legislation will not supersede requirements of the U.S.
Constitution.”
E. IMPACT: Fundamental Constitutionality

Violated
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - IMPACT: Fundamentals of our

Constitution Violated
“Finally, but perhaps less clear, are constitutional issues with the Compact Clause and foreign commerce
powers. n467 While this may or may not affect RGGI, it is another issue that can be litigated and thus
undercut legal confidence in, and regulatory certainty of, state carbon regulation programs. California's
joining with other western states and some Canadian provinces raises foreign commerce issues. This is not
to mention a host of other legal issues, beyond the scope of this Article, that some of the state carbon
regulatory initiatives may run afoul of state statutes. These latter issues can be more readily cured by
the Commerce Clause and
remedial state legislation or other action. However,
Supremacy Clause issues are fundamental elements of the U.S.
Constitution. They are not cured by any legal state action which would
be inferior to the Constitution itself.”
F. Reasons to Prefer: Federal over State

Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - In the end, federal carbon action is
the thing that is needed to both be effective and remove the
issues of the constitutional violations
“In the end, it may be that federal carbon legislation is necessary not
only for uniformity and certainty, but to eliminate the issues of the
Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, and Compact Clause in state-
formulated carbon regulation. If RGGI really was an effort to get the federal government to
take more definitive action to regulate carbon emissions, n481 then it has been effective. And if RGGI
encounters constitutional challenges, this may be a more lasting achievement. All of these issues arise
only because carbon regulation is being implemented differentially by state action, which in some
instances may overreach the limits of state authority or set up geographically-based ring-fences. And here
may be the compelling reason for prompt enactment of carbon legislation at the federal level - it will result
in immediate action rather than years of litigation.”
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Federal carbon regulation avoids

the challenge that individual state actions produces in general
and constitutionally
“Federal carbon regulation avoids the challenge to individual state
actions and constitutional issues. Truly, time is of the essence, and good policy regarding
the goblets of fire should follow suit to address carbon emissions.”
4. Nuisance Law/ Judicial CTX
A. Perm
Jonathan Zasloff 07 -
Jonathan Zasloff, [Professor of Law, B.A. Yale, J.D. Yale, M.Phil. International Relations, Cambridge, M.A.
History, Harvard, Ph.D. Harvard], “THE JUDICIAL CARBON TAX: RECONSTRUCTING PUBLIC NUISANCE AND
CLIMATE CHANGE”, UCLA Law Review, 2007, (Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series Research
Paper No. 08-13), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1113143&rec=1&srcabs=967992,
(ZV)
“I hope to show in this Article that, while hardly perfect, nuisance litigation could
form a reasonable basis for climate change regulation, at least as
much as some of the other imperfect alternatives so far proposed. This
"nuisance system"10 has promise because, as outlined here, it essentially
becomes a carbon tax--precisely the policy instrument that many
economists say is the best form of regulation but is routinely dismissed
as politically unfeasible. The difference is that it is judicially, not
legislatively, imposed. I do not claim that the nuisance system is
superior to legislation, but rather that it is a reasonable substitute in
the absence of political action. More hopefully, I suggest it might provide a basis for getting
this political process to respond to the climate crisis. Put another way, we might look at public nuisance
litigation as a useful support for political progress. Common-law judicial activism, then, does not
undermine the democratic process but rather enhances it.”
**[Author is THEIR advocate.]
5. Café Standards
A. Carbon Tax: Reasons to Prefer
Gregory Mankiw 07 - The case for a carbon tax looks even

stronger after an examination of the other options on the table
N. GREGORY MANKIW, [professor of economics], “One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax”, New York
Times, September 16, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html?
_r=2&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190034206-%20%20IfyuBBCsva2ji8jr7yiItg&pagewanted=all, (ZV)
“The case for a carbon tax looks even stronger after an examination of
the other options on the table. Lawmakers in both political parties want
to require carmakers to increase the fuel efficiency of the cars they
sell. Passing the buck to auto companies has a lot of popular appeal.
Increased fuel efficiency, however, is not free. Like a tax, the cost of
complying with more stringent regulation will be passed on to
consumers in the form of higher car prices. But the government will
not raise any revenue that it can use to cut other taxes to compensate
for these higher prices. (And don’t expect savings on gas to
compensate consumers in a meaningful way: Any truly cost-effective
increase in fuel efficiency would already have been made.)”
Gregory Mankiw 07 – Carbon tax would pwn Café

“More important, enhancing fuel efficiency by itself is not the best way
to reduce energy consumption. Fuel use depends not only on the
efficiency of the car fleet but also on the daily decisions that people
make — how far from work they choose to live and how often they
carpool or use public transportation. A carbon tax would provide
incentives for people to use less fuel in a multitude of ways. By contrast,
merely having more efficient cars encourages more driving. Increased driving not only produces more
carbon, but also exacerbates other problems, like accidents and road congestion.”
B. Café = Problem Exacerbated
Gregory Mankiw 07 - having more efficient cars, under Café,

encourages more driving which will increase emissions
“More important, enhancing fuel efficiency by itself is not the best way to reduce energy consumption.
Fuel use depends not only on the efficiency of the car fleet but also on the daily decisions that people
make — how far from work they choose to live and how often they carpool or use public transportation. A
By contrast,
carbon tax would provide incentives for people to use less fuel in a multitude of ways.
merelyhaving more efficient cars encourages more driving. Increased
driving not only produces more carbon, but also exacerbates other
problems, like accidents and road congestion.”
Generic
1. Bad Econ =/= War/Conflict
Morris Miller 01 - Economic decline does not lead to conflict

Morris Miller, [Adjunct Professor @ Ottawa University], “Poverty: A Cause of War?”, 2001,
Peace Magazine, <accessed March 16, 2010>,
http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v17n1p08.htm, (ZV)
“Some scholars have argued that it is not poverty, as such, that
contributes to the support for armed conflict, but rather some catalyst,
such as an economic crisis. However, a study by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik shows
that this hypothesis lacks merit. After studying 93 episodes of economic crisis
in 22 countries in Latin American and Asia since World War II, they
concluded that much of the conventional thinking about the political
impact of economic crisis is wrong: "The severity of economic crisis -
as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no
relationship to the collapse of regimes ... or (in democratic states, rarely) to
an outbreak of violence... In the cases of dictatorships and semi-
democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing
repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another)."
2. Governments Responsibility

its citizens
“Whereas,

3. US Emissions are rising
Robert Hahn 09 - Without efforts to contain them, greenhouse

gas emissions would grow by as much as 90 percent between
2000 and 2030
“Human activity produces greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, but also methane,
nitrous oxide and other gases that are part and parcel of modern economic life. Their rate of accumulation
Without
is affected by the rate at which “sinks,” like forests and oceans, recapture the carbon.
efforts to contain them, greenhouse gas emissions would grow by as
much as 90 percent between 2000 and 2030. The damage from greater emissions
(or even the failure to cut emissions sharply) would likely be significant, but unevenly felt. For example,
while all low-lying countries would be seriously affected by rises in the sea level, poorer countries like
Bangladesh would have a far more difficult time coping than, say, Singapore or the Netherlands.”
4. Oil Companies
Dr. John Berger 00 - The oil and coal industries and some of
their largest customers are conducting a sophisticated
multimillion dollar campaign to convince the public that
climate change is not a serious threat
(ZV), |page 59|,
“The oil and coal industries and some of their largest customers are
conducting a sophisticated multimillion dollar campaign to convince
the public that climate change is not a serious threat. The campaign opposes
international cooperation to protect the world’s climate. The Industries involved have succeeded in
confusing tens of millions of people about climate change and in mobilizing opposition to the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol.”
Dr. John Berger 00 – since multibillion dollar industries profit

directly from the production and use of carbon-based fuels,
they do not want fuel sales reduced and will appose any
scientific consensus on warming
(ZV), |page 59|,
“Why are multibillion dollar industries with many other things to do
busying themselves opposing a consensus about climate change
forged by the world’s leading climate scientists? The executives of these
companies live on this planet, too. They have children and grandchildren. Don’t they care about the
Since they profit directly from
environment? Yes, but…they also have conflicting priorities.
the production and use of carbon-based fuels, they do not want fuel
sales reduced. They regard the possibility of new taxes that would
make fossil fuels more expensive as a threat to their prosperity. They
take and equally dim view of stronger clean air standards. Air pollution
regulations impose pollution control costs on fossil fuel polluters. Even if those costs are ultimately passed
onto consumers, higher costs restrain demand and siphon away revenue. And technologies that improve
fuel efficiency also depress fuel demand. So the fossil fuel industry has a powerful vested interest in
opposing these antidotes to climate change.”
Dr. John Berger 00 – The main tactics of the fossil fuel

industry’s climate campaign are to sow doubt about climate
science and fear of economic pain
(ZV), |page 60|,
“The main tactics of the fossil fuel industry’s climate campaign are to
sow doubt about climate science and fear of economic pain. To create
fear, the campaign charges that limiting carbon emissions would be
exorbitantly expensive and would therefore boost prices, hurt
consumers, and make American industry uncompetitive abroad. To
sow doubt, the fossil fuel industries take alleged “uncertainties” in
climate science out of context, blow them up out of proportion, and
use them to stir up skepticism.”
Dr. John Berger 00 – If fossil fuel companies discredit climate

science, they destroy the rationale on which any sound public
policy for combating climate change could be based
(ZV), |page 61|,
“If they [fossil fuel companies] discredit climate science, they destroy
the rationale on which any sound public policy for combating climate
change could be based. Once the industry has created enough doubt in
the public’s mind and has sown enough fears, industry then need not
prevail on the merits of the scientific debate. They have won. In this
chapter, we will slip the window off the coal and oil industries’ campaign against the climate protection
policy.”
Dr. John Berger 00 – To create doubt and fear, the fossil fuel
industry often works through proxy organizations, and through
individual “climate skeptics,” who generally have no credibility
on climate issues in the scientific community
(ZV), |page 61|,
“To create doubt and fear, the fossil fuel industry often works through
proxy organizations, and through individual “climate skeptics,” who
generally have no credibility on climate issues in the scientific
community. These voices obfuscate the issues, paralyze the policy making process, and shake public
confidence in the conclusions of climate science.”
Dr. John Berger 00 – Climate skeptics play a critical role in the

coal and oil industry’s efforts to foster doubts about climate
science and fears of economic meltdown
(ZV), |page 62|,
“Climate skeptics also play a critical role in the coal and oil industry’s
efforts to foster doubts about climate science and fears of economic
meltdown. Although they present themselves to the public as
independent scientists or respected climate experts, most of the best
known of these “objective thinkers” have taken significant amounts of
energy industry money for themselves or their organizations and
espouse scientifically dubious positions.”
Dr. John Berger 00 – Dr. S. Fred Singer: funded by Exxon, Shell,

Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil; Dr. Pat Michaels,
(ZV), |page 62|,
“Climate skeptics also play a critical role in the coal and oil industry’s efforts to foster doubts about
climate science and fears of economic meltdown. Although they present themselves to the public as
independent scientists or respected climate experts, most of the best known of these “objective thinkers”
have taken significant amounts of energy industry money for themselves or their organizations and
espouse scientifically dubious positions. Prominent example include
Dr. S. Fred Singer,
funded by Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil; Dr. Pat Michaels,
recipient of at least $165,000 from coal and other energy interests; Dr.
Richard Lindzen of MIT, who has received money from the Western
Fuel Association; and climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State
University, whose work has received over $300,000 from coal and oil
interests.1 Individuals like these, espousing views far outside
mainstream climate science, have paraded before the media, their
presence falsely suggesting a pervasive schism among climate
scientists and obscuring the wide consensus that exists. At times some
of them have merely recycled already discredited scientific opinion in
the belief that the public would be unable to sort out the truth.”
5. Generic CTX Advocacy
Michael Boskin 09 – Obama should scrap all other

environmental policies for a transparent carbon tax
Michael J. Boskin, [professor of economics at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H. W. Bush],
“Obama Needs a Move to the Middle”, The Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2009,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574302332578189864.html?
mod=googlenews_wsj, (ZV)
“The costly climate change bill (which Mr. Obama’s own EPA
administrator admitted would have virtually no impact on the climate)
should be scrapped in favor of a broad-based, transparent carbon tax,
energy-efficiency initiatives, and the much needed expansion of our domestic oil and gas production. The
Obama administration’s financial-reform policies contain laudable features, unanswered questions, and
lurking dangers. Laudable: a derivatives-netting clearinghouse, more trading on exchanges, closing
loopholes. Unanswered: an end game for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as a clear policy for
institutions deemed “too big to fail” (such a policy should be centered on capital ratios rising with size,
debt conversion to equity, and a higher government bailout bar, all to decrease the need for future
bailouts).”
Michael J. Zimmer 08 – Carbon Tax Would Be Beneficial

“A carbon tax would directly influence both industry and individual
behavior with transparency, fairness, speed, and balance. Industry
would have an economic incentive to reduce their carbon emissions to
avoid the tax, which would likely be a cost passed on to consumers,
and thus, the price signals created would modify consumer behavior.
Accurate price signals for carbon (with diminished volatility) will also direct the marketplace so that clean
renewable sources of power, energy efficiency, demand-side management, and combined heat and power
technologies enjoy a level playing field with the CO[2]-producing conventional fossil fuel generation
resources. A cap-and-trade system will reward traders, commodities merchants, and financial institutions.
An astute use of the federal tax system can build companies, development of equipment and technology,
and ensure that physical investments are made in sustainable business models.”
Ecology Law Quarterly 08 - Cutting GHG emissions advocacy

“We have chosen as a society to utilize fire to manipulate the universe. n1 For power, we predominantly
burn fossil fuels to produce electricity. n2 That electricity, at least as much as oil, is the seminal
technology that creates industrialized and post-industrial nations, and separates the world's "haves" from
the "have nots." n3 But it has become apparent recently that the carbon expelled into the atmosphere
from this "Goblet of Fire" is now torquing the planet's thermostat, perhaps beyond repair. n4 This is
It is extremely
primarily related to the way we produce and utilize power in modern society.
important to immediately and effectively mitigate greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions.”
Shi-Ling Hsu 09 - A carbon tax is an integration of

environmental considerations into what is a market process
“While there are co-benefits to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, if carbon dioxide is what we focus on, it
makes sense to simply focus on carbon dioxide emissions. To the extent that reliance on fossil fuels is
inevitable in the near term, the right mix of cheap, abundant, easily transported coal, and slightly more
expensive (per unit of usable energy content) and slightly less easily transported natural gas is best
A carbon tax is an integration of
determined by market forces, not government planning.
environmental considerations into what is and should remain a market
process.”
6.

Bozarth-Voell Carbon Tax Affirmative Extension

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bozarth-Voell Carbon Tax Affirmative Extension

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carbon Tax: Affirmative Backup Page 1 of 123

Bozarth|Voell Vector Debate Society

Carbon Tax: Affirmative Backup

Michael Leavitt 01 – Primary role of government is to protect

and welfare of citizens”

Thomas West 02 – Governments’ role is to secure the rights of

2. AT: Net Benefits

1. AT: Tax Policy Press

A. Definition of Environmental Policy

Broad scope on a topic increases educational benefit and is especially

Affirmative definition is more than reasonable in the real world and

iii. Affirmative right to define

iv. Field contextually

Example: Tariffs – lifting or imposing tariffs, which are technically a

C. Resolution Demands Effects-T

2. Definitions and Analysis

Federal Government - Federal means relating to the national

Federal Government - United States: Usually means the federal

i. Analysis 1: Agency and Enforcement says it all! The

Significance - a. the quality of being important : moment b. the quality

Significance - Full of meaning or import; highly expressive or

i. Analysis 1:The US is the world largest carbon

Reform - To put or change into an improved form or condition

Reform - verb to change something to make it better; the group is

i. Analysis 1: Really, any action taken on

Environmental Policy - The purposes of this Act [42 USCS §§ 4321 et

Environmental Policy - Official statements of principles, intentions,

i. Analysis 1: Carbon emissions and environmental

Longer Explanation: Since words have many meanings, negatives

II. Field Context

Quick Summary: Terms should be taken to mean what they are

Longer Explanation: Terms should be taken to mean what hey are

III. Affirmative Predictability

Quick Summary: The affirmative is not at all able to predict every

Longer Explanation: Affirmative teams cannot fairly predict every

IV. AT: Educational Value

Longer Explanation: The negatives interpretation of what

V. Affirmative’s Right to Define

Longer Explanation: As the affirmative team, we set what the round

- OBAMA ONLY INVESTING IN ENERGY GRID, not DEVELOPMENT.

- ANY SQ INVESTEMENT IS INADEQUATE

NYT 08 - current investments in renewable energy will be

2. Carbon Tax is Not Happening is SQ

Wyoming Law Review 07 - increased carbon taxes have, to

Robert Hahn 09 - for the foreseeable future, any policy

3. AT: Current Measures are Effective

A. Emissions are increasing

Stanford Environmental Law Review 09 – Global emissions are

John Houghton 09 - Carbon Emissions are drastically being

Pepperdine Law Review 08 - Economic expansion, more

Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 – The Kyoto Protocol

direction, commentators have noted that it was "but a baby step in

A. Agency and Enforcement

Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - Advocacy for Agency

Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - A Carbon Tax would

Sustainable Development Law & Policy 08 – within a decade,

Stanford Environmental Law Journal 09 - A Carbon Tax would

Congressional Budget Office 08 – advocacy for a tax of $15 per

Congressional Budget Office 08 – $15 carbon tax would yield

Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 – Taxing the amount of

Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 – Unless the imports are

Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 – Imports from a

Gilbert Metcalf and David Weisbach 09 – China is not the main