You are on page 1of 62

Elections ENDI

1NC....................................................................................................................... ..........................3

Obama Wins ...................................................................................................................... .............6

Link Uniqueness ......................................................................................................... ....................7

Link U- McCain not Green .................................................................................................... ...........8

Bush Tied to McCain ............................................................................................................ ...........9

AT: Voters Won’t Switch .................................................................................................... ............10

Oil key issue................................................................................................................. .................11

Energy Key to Election .................................................................................. ...............................12

AT: Economy Key to Election ........................................................................................................13

A2 ELECTION TOO FAR OFF................................................................................. ..........................14

Renewables Popular .............................................................................................. .......................16

Renewables Popular- Specific States ............................................................................................17

Action on Climate Popular- religious Right ................................................................................ ....19

DA Turns the Case .................................................................................................. ......................20

***AFF ANSWERS***.......................................................................................................... ............21

McCain Wins ...................................................................................................................... ...........21

AT: Public wants change ............................................................................................. ..................22

Energy Policies Now ......................................................................................... ............................23

Link Non Unique ......................................................................................................... ..................24

Energy not Key to Election ................................................................................. ..........................25

Climate not important in Election .............................................................................................. ...26

Climate Action Unpopular ........................................................................................................... ..27

Renewables not popular .................................................................................................... ...........28

Ethanol link Turn....................................................................................................................... .....29

Ethanol Link Turn- Farm Lobbies ........................................................................................ ...........30

AT: DA Turns Case ................................................................................................................. ........31

Elections ENDI
Ext- AT: Disad Turns the Case .................................................................................... ...................32

***Impact Section***.......................................................................................................... ...........33

Withdrawal Key to Middle East .................................................................................. ...................33

Withdrawal bad- General ......................................................................................................... .....34

Withdrawal Bad- Middle East.................................................................................................. .......35

AT: Withdrawal Impact ............................................................................................................. .....36

Obama Clinton Stop Trade .......................................................................................................... ..37

Trade Good ..................................................................................................................... ..............39

Trade Bad ................................................................................................................ .....................42

CHINA BASHING ........................................................................................... ................................46

Textiles ................................................................................................................... ......................47

A2: Appreciation Bad – Chinese Econ.............................................................................. ..............49

Reval Bad – Chinese Economy......................................................................................................50

Pressure Bad – US-China Relations................................................................................... .............52

Democrats bad- India Deal ................................................................................................... ........54

India Deal Relations................................................................................... ...................................55

Solves Prolif........................................................................................................................... ........56

A2: Deal Bad – Pakistan............................................................................................................. ....58

Deal Bad- Prolif........................................................................................................................... ...59

Deal bad Pakistan ....................................................................................................................... ..61

A2: Deal Good – US-India............................................................................. .................................62

Elections ENDI

Obama is leading McCain slightly but democrats don’t have a lock on the election
Times Colonist 6-3-08

Obama's campaign maintains the candidate's recent setbacks have not seriously damaged him as a general election
candidate. He continues to raise enormous amounts of money, and polls show him leading McCain in traditional Democratic states
like Pennsylvania. But the 2008 election campaign no longer looks an easy victory for Democrats, despite lingering
public anger at outgoing President George W. Bush, a faltering economy and an unpopular war in Iraq. The most
recent Gallup tracking poll showed Obama and McCain tied at 46 per cent in a general election matchup.

If Bush can change the political climate with a popular policy like the plan it will pull away
moderate voters from the Democrats and win the election for the Republicans
Jonah Goldberg editor for the National Review, September 4, 2007 [ USA Today, "Political exit
strategy for Bush; Targeted investments might be the best way to provide dividends for the USA
-- and the GOP." accessed lexis 4/29/08]

While the stakes are higher than normal, Bush's predicament isn't that unusual. Lame-duck presidents
often place all of their chips on foreign policy. According to many observers, Clinton worked feverishly at
the end of his administration to win an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal in order to burnish his legacy. The
problem for Bush is that at this point, there's not a whole lot he can do to improve things in Iraq, save to
hold off the Democratic pull-out chorus long enough for the surge to succeed, which is hardly an assured
At home, Bush's options are far more constrained. But again, Clinton might be the model. The Democratic
Congress is -- astonishingly -- even more unpopular than President Bush. If Bush can pick some well-
chosen fights with Congress, ideally over spending, he might at least bring back disheartened members of
his own political base. Bush might also borrow from Clinton's post-1994 playbook of proposing a lot of
small, very popular (and mostly insipid) programs and initiatives. Clinton had his school uniforms and V-
chips. Surely the authors of compassionate conservatism could conjure similar treacle. Ideally, such
proposals would unite a majority of Americans but divide moderate Democrats from the party's left-wing
base (spare me the rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth over the cruelty of "wedge issues"). A goal:
Just change the climate. For example, paying inner-city students to get good grades -- a proposal backed
by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich alike -- might be a
good idea with the added benefit of possibly annoying teacher's unions. Such ideas are hard to come up
with, never mind sell, particularly given Bush's liabilities and the media climate generally. But the president
needn't get such ideas passed, he need only get them discussed in order to recalibrate the political climate
more in his favor. It wouldn't be easy, but he still has the biggest megaphone in the country. He also holds
the veto pen. Bush seemed to have lost it in the Oval Office couch cushions for much of his presidency, but
the Democratic takeover inspired him to find it. Given the Democrats' need to placate their own base in
order to prove all that effort in '06 was worth it, Bush could have some fat opportunities to rally the
majority of Americans, or at least his own base, to the GOP side.

Renewable energy massively popular

Adam Browning is a co-founder of the Vote Solar Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing solar energy into the
mainstream. 3-28-07

There has been an absolute sea-change in the popularity of renewable energy in this country. We recently polled voter
attitudes towards solar in Tex. and Fla. -- and the results were nearly 20 points higher than a similar poll in Calif. in 2005.
Politicians need to better understand this. When they do, good things happen. To wit, Tampa Tribune's recent article "A Changing
Political Climate": State Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs, is pushing for more solar investment in Florida. He says a
recent Mason-Dixon poll found that 90 percent of Floridians think the Florida Legislature should encourage investment
in solar energy, and 78 percent say they would be willing to pay up to $1 a month on their utility bills to pay for it.

Elections ENDI
William Arkin, Homeland Security writer, Washington Post, February 11, 2008
Victory and withdrawal, the two ends of the Iraq spectrum, are now likely to be the choices presented to
the American public in November by Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain constantly speaks of
"victory" in Iraq and defeat of the terrorists, pledging -- key the applause -- that America will never
surrender. Obama favors a timely and complete withdrawal from Iraq, a position that has come to
symbolize the absolute over Hillary Clinton's middle ground position of transitioning and narrowing the

Elections ENDI

withdrawing is key to us-european relations
Odom 2k4 (William E., The National Interest, Summer, LN)

U.S. unilateral initiation of the war in Iraq has come close to breaking the
In the global context: The
Atlantic Alliance. Gaining an Iraq of any form is not worth losing Europe. If the United States is to
maintain some kind of regional stability in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, it cannot do it
alone. American power depends on collaborative efforts with the informal members of its empire. In total, it produces roughly 70
percent of the world's gross product, and its collective military budgets are 66 percent of the world's total. President Bush's
unilateralism has denied us the military support of almost half of the 66 percent, not to mention the political and moral support from
most of America's allies. Moreover, this and previous administrations have maintained an overly large maritime military force
structure and dangerously small land force structure. Aircraft carriers and submarines do not help in Iraq. At present, the U.S. Army is
so over-stretched that its tactical vulnerabilities are worrisome. In the course of the next six months, they will become strategic
vulnerabilities unless fresh units in twice the present number are deployed there. Since that is not possible in the time available, we
must address this reality openly, not hidden by sleight-of-hand rotation schemes for troops to Iraq or pretty much anywhere else.
regain international support and to have the resources of our allies available for a comprehensive
strategy toward the region, the United States will have to produce a highly positive outcome in Iraq
or withdraw. Since we are reasonably sure that a positive outcome is impossible, and certainly
decades away in the best event, withdrawal is the most sensible course today.


Kissinger 2k4 (Henry, former secretary of state, March 19, pg.

What if the United States believes that Europe has become irrelevant and is just another
player with which we have relations of convenience? Then we will be living in a world
very similar to the pre-World War I world in which regions and countries pursue their own
national interests in combinations of shifting relationships, adjusted from time to time. [This would
be] a relationship that, at the beginning, may seem very tempting, but is very difficult to maintain over an extended
period, and in the case of Europe, wound up in an armaments race and in a huge conflict.

Elections ENDI

Obama Wins
Obama beating McCain
USA Today Blog 5-28-08

The same process shows Obama leading McCain 49%-41% in the six swing states won by Obama during the
nomination battle and coming away with 54 Electoral College votes if the election were today. (It takes 270 Electoral
votes to become president.)

Democratic Candidate wins

The Press Enterprise 5-30-08

And if the election were held today, either Clinton or Obama would beat presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John
McCain, of Arizona, by 17 percentage points, according to the poll produced for The Press-Enterprise and other
California media subscribers. The growing support for Illinois Sen. Obama reflects national trends, Field Poll Director Mark
DiCamillo said Thursday.

Either democrat crushes McCain

San Jose Mercury News 5-30-08
Hillary Clinton might have won California's Democratic primary in February, but the state's Democrats now prefer rival Barack Obama
by a huge margin. And both Obama and Clinton would crush Republican John McCain if the November election were held
today. Those are the results of a Field Poll released today that boosts the hopes of Democratic operatives who want to
avoid spending tens of millions of dollars to make sure the Golden State's 55 electoral votes end up in the Democratic
column in November.

Obama beats McCain

Deseret Morning News 5-25-08

Meanwhile, a poll done for the Los Angeles Times newspaper and KTLA television shows that less than four months after
losing the California primary to Clinton, Obama appears to be the stronger of the two Democrats in facing McCain in
November. Obama would defeat McCain by seven points if the election were held today, the poll found, while Clinton
would eke out only a three-point victory. McCain has insisted that he will compete to win California in the fall, but most
analysts think the state is too reliably Democratic and too expensive for a Republican to mount a serious challenge
there. California has gone to the Democratic candidate in each of the last four presidential elections.

Elections ENDI

Link Uniqueness
So far energy issues have remained off the radar
E&E News PM 4-15-08

As the three remaining presidential candidates head into the home stretch of primary season, energy and environment
issues have yet to make a splash in stump speeches and debates, despite the fact that each candidate has vowed to make
climate and energy top priorities. During today's E&ETV Event Coverage, the candidates' energy and environment advisers give
their positions on the expansion of coal and nuclear, implementation and funding of alternative energy, and climate policy. Panelists
include Jason Grumet, environmental adviser for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Todd Stern, adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-
N.Y.), and James Woolsey, environmental adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Environment not being discussed in the election

The Salt Lake Tribune 2-1-08
Becoming a mother sharpened Shelley Marshall's thinking about clean air, water and land. Now, as she now helps her young daughter
Ava grow strong, Marshall is determined to make sure the toddler's future is healthy. To Marshall, the big issues of our time - the
economy, health care and the energy - all come back to smart environmental policies. She's made a point of following
the presidential primaries this year, but she's not hearing enough about environmental issues like energy and climate
change. "I don't think it's being discussed as much as it should be," said the Salt Lake City mother. "And the answers I have heard
have been pretty vague." No, the environment has not been a hot topic in the presidential races up to this point. That
might appear puzzling after a year in which the issue of global warming exploded into the public consciousness and gas-pump prices
have made sensible energy policies a pocketbook issue for Americans of all political stripes.

The link is unique- no energy policies coming in the pipe now

Global Power Report 1-10-08

With a new energy law on the books and a national election around the corner, Congress appears unlikely to pass
major energy and environmental laws in 2008, even with oil prices flirting at or near $100/barrel, Washington analysts say.
Still, actions that lawmakers take this year could help set the tone for breakthroughs once voters choose a new president and
Congress in November, the analysts add. "The first week of 2008 brought a taste of $100[/barrel] oil and the Iowa caucuses, leaving
little doubt that would-be presidents and returning legislators will keep petroleum prices and the need for 'energy security' at the
fore-front of debate," Kevin Book, an analyst with the investment firm Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, said in a report. "Does this mean
another energy bill is on its way? Not so fast," Book added. Recent history shows how difficult it is for Congress to pass
energy laws, even when there are supply interruptions and a single party controls Capitol Hill and the White House,
Book said. "This year, the odds are even worse," he said. "Democrats command a narrow margin in Congress; a wide-
open presidential race could ignite a partisan brawl as soon as mid-February, if clear front-runners emerge from early
state primary elections and Democrats appear determined to continue 'pay-as-you-go' fiscal strictures, pitting Big Oil
against clean and green power in a battle for subsidy dollars." Moreover, Book said, the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007, which Congress passed and President Bush signed in December, "encapsulated virtually all areas of energy policy
consensus among Washington's warring factions."

Elections ENDI

Link U- McCain not Green

McCain not getting mileage out of climate action now
E&E News PM 5-12-08

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton swung back at Republican rival John McCain's
global warming plans today, saying the presumptive GOP nominee hasn't lived up to his own claims as an
environmental champion and wouldn't do enough to curb heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. "It is truly
breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort
to actually invest in clean energy," Obama, an Illinois senator, said in a press release. Obama criticized McCain for giving a
major climate change speech in Portland, Ore., today at a Danish wind company when McCain has on several
occasions opposed legislation -- or skipped votes -- that would promote domestic expansion of the wind industry.

Elections ENDI

Bush Tied to McCain

Bush’s endorsement of McCain ties his policies to McCains support
Washington Post, March 5,
So for McCain, today's embrace with Bush is the classic double-edged sword. On the one hand, there is
something undeniably compelling about the symbolism of one Republican standard-bearer handing the
torch to another, surrounded by the pomp and power of the White House. It will also help McCain with
Bush's core supporters. But on the other hand, Bush is damaged goods, deeply unpopular not just with
Democrats but also independents, and the walking embodiment of what Americans evidently are eager to
put behind them.

Michael D. Shear and Peter Slevin write in The Washington Post that today's endorsement is "intended to
cement the senator as the political heir of his former rival."

But Mark Silva blogs for Tribune that "the public embrace of a president whose public approval has hovered
at an average of 33 percent for the past year in the Gallup Poll will readily be taken by his Democratic
opponent as a symbol that a vote for McCain is a vote for a continuation of the Bush White House."


ABC News, March 5

McCain's decision to visit the White House the day after securing the GOP nomination is a dicey one. He
needs Bush's help with the party's conservative base, but any ties to Bush could alienate moderate
Republicans and independent voters who are key to a possible McCain victory in November. Today, McCain
invited the president to join him on the campaign trail "both from raising money and the much-needed
finances for the campaign and addressing the challenging issues that face this country."


Reuters, March 5,

But the endorsement will also give Democrats ammunition to use against McCain, since Bush is unpopular
among many Americans because of the Iraq war and the ailing U.S. economy. McCain, an Arizona senator
who is 71 and would be the oldest person ever elected to a first U.S. presidential term, said he has "great
admiration, respect and affection" for Bush and wants him to campaign for him as much as possible. "I'll
be pleased to have him with me, both from raising money and the much-needed finances for the campaign
and addressing the challenging issues that face this country," McCain said.

Elections ENDI

AT: Voters Won’t Switch

Large number of undecideds means the election is still up for grabs
Charleston Gazette (West Virginia) 5-10-08

There are three candidates still in the running, but not one of them seems to be a clear winner. This is leading to an election
that has proven to be very unpredictable so far.

In opinion polls taken by CBS and Fox News, pitting Republican John McCain first against Democrat Hillary Clinton and then against
Democrat Barack Obama, the percentage of the vote stayed almost evenly divided with all three coming out on top in at
least one poll. However, more than 10 percent of those polled voted for neither candidate, declaring themselves
undecided. The American people are not sure who to believe or vote for in this election.

Elections ENDI

Oil key issue

Democrats are politicizing oil in election
The Australian 5-7-08

HILLARY Clinton has continued to raise the populist rhetoric in a pitch to blue-collar votes, vowing on the eve of crucial
Democrat primaries in two states to smash the OPEC ``cartel''. Senator Clinton and rival Barack Obama hop-scotched
around North Carolina and Indiana yesterday as one of the US's most epic presidential nomination fights inches closer
to conclusion.

Voters love even symbolic attempts to fight gas prices

NBC News Transcripts 5-5-08

And now to where this intersects with the presidential campaign, which today was just about all about the price of gas, on
the eve of the two big Democratic primaries, North Carolina and Indiana. NBC's Andrea Mitchell with us tonight from Indianapolis.
Andrea, good evening. ANDREA MITCHELL reporting: Good evening, Brian. As the voters go to the polls tomorrow, the candidates are
hopscotching between Indiana and North Carolina. And you're right, they're making their closing arguments all about the price
of gas. Barack Obama fueling up for a final day of campaigning: Senator BARACK OBAMA: I'm going to have some of these hash
browns. I might have a biscuit. MITCHELL: While Hillary Clinton focuses on a different kind of fuel. Senator HILLARY CLINTON: I want
the oil companies to pay the gas tax this summer out of their record profits instead of you paying it. Unidentified Man: Time for a
change. Sen. OBAMA: Good... MITCHELL: A proposed gas tax holiday Obama calls a stunt. Sen. OBAMA: There is not a single person
who--out there who's studied the oil markets who believes that this is actually going to solve the problem. MITCHELL: The battle
over her proposed gas tax break, believed dead on arrival on Capitol Hill, but still the overriding pocketbook issue on the
stump and in dueling ads unleased today. (Clip from Clinton campaign advertisement) (Clip from Obama campaign advertisement)
MITCHELL: As French toast came off the griddle in Indianapolis today, voters were divided. Barack Obama says it's pandering to the
voters. What's your thought on it? Ms. NANCY TOMS: I kind of vacillate on that. I think it is kind of silly, but on the other hand,
it's symbolic, and that would be a place to start.

Elections ENDI

Energy Key to Election

Energy is a key election issue
PR Newswire 2-28-08

With crude oil, gasoline, and home heating oil prices near all-time highs, energy security in the US is one of the most
common themes among the presidential candidates. While Democratic and Republican candidates alike agree that
energy security should be high on the next president's agenda, their plans for achieving that goal vary widely. "For the
new president, perhaps the most important first step in developing a policy for energy security will be to establish the right process
for progress -- one that is fully inclusive and transparent," said Marcela Donadio, Ernst & Young's oil and gas leader for the Americas.
"Oil and gas companies should have a seat at the table alongside environmental leaders, renewable energy developers and energy
efficiency experts." "There are some thought-provoking ideas being raised through this presidential election cycle," said
Charles Swanson, energy advisor and leader of Ernst & Young's Houston office. "That's the beauty of this process; it really gets people
thinking big. But ultimately, the vision must be grounded in pragmatism, with short-term programs that can be implemented right
away along with well-thought-out strategic goals and plans for a new energy future."

Energy will be the major election issue

The Australian 5-8-08

WITH Wall Street suddenly abuzz with talk of crude oil prices reaching $US200 a barrel and the three remaining
presidential candidates apparently vying with one another to present the most politically opportunistic (and economically
absurd) energy ``plan'', it is becoming increasingly clear that America's addiction to cheap oil is likely to be a major
issue this November.

Energy issues dominating the presidential election

Pittsburgh Post Gazette, November 25, 2007

Oil prices flirting with $100 a barrel, warnings of climate change and holiday road trips fueled by gas topping $3 a
gallon are combining to give energy issues unprecedented prominence in the presidential campaign.

Energy issues will drive the election

David G. Victor is a professor at Stanford Law School and directs the Freeman Spogli Institute's Program on Energy & Sustainable
Development; he is also adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, March 3, 2008, The Energy Trap, Why the United
States is doomed to be an energy outlaw,

Democrats voting in Ohio and Texas may well decide the shape of the U.S. presidential election. Regardless of who they
choose to run against Sen. John McCain, the all but certain Republican candidate, it is likely that energy issues will figure more
prominently in the election than at any time in the last generation. High prices are sapping economic growth, the No. 1
concern across most of the country. Gasoline is now approaching $4 a gallon; natural gas and electricity are also more costly
than a few years ago. Global warming has become a bipartisan worry, and solving that problem will require radical new
energy technologies as well. All this is good news in the rest of the world, which is hoping that a new regime in Washington will
put the United States on a more sustainable energy path.

Elections ENDI

AT: Economy Key to Election

Oil is closely connected to economics- makes it an election issue 5-13-08

US President George W. Bush will likely receive little more than a smile and handshake when he asks Saudi Arabia to help
lower oil prices during a visit to Riyadh this week to commemorate 75 years of a relationship that has developed fissures in the last
decade. Oil prices keep climbing to record highs, threatening to push the US economy into recession, and economic
issues are a top concern for American voters during this presidential election year when they will choose a successor to

People see oil connected to the economy

Daily News (South Africa) 1-17-08
Oil prices extended losses yesterday, falling sharply as US President George W Bush pressured Opec to inc-rease crude output to help
cut the cost of energy. Responding to Bush's remarks, Opec Secretary General Abdullah al-Badri said high oil prices were not caused
by a shortage of oil supplies. Stressing that the body saw no shortage, he said Opec was prepared to hike production if it saw
evidence supply and demand was unbalanced. Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency kept its 2008 forecast for oil
demand unchanged despite growing expectations of a recession in the United States, which would be expected to curb
demand. New York's main contract, light sweet crude for delivery in February, fell $1.14 to $90.76 a barrel ahead of the latest week-
ly snapshot of US energy inventories. "It is looking more likely that the US is sliding into recession," Sucden oil analyst Nimit Khamar
said. The US is facing recession fears at home as the collapse of the housing market combines with high oil prices to
make the economy a key issue in the campaign for the November presidential election. Oil prices hit record highs
above $100 at the start of the year and despite a reverse since then, the cost of energy remains a major concern, as it
helps drive up inflation.

Oil connected intimately to the economy

The New York Times 1-16-08

President Bush on Tuesday urged Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC to consider the strain the high cost of oil was
having on the American economy, addressing an issue that has begun to color the last year of his presidency and dominate the
presidential election campaign. (continued) ''Presidents and kings have every right, every privilege, to comment or ask or say
whatever they want,'' Mr. Naimi said in a news conference after Mr. Bush's remarks. ''The concern for the U.S. economy is valid,
but what affects the U.S. economy is more than the price of oil.'' Mr. Bush's remarks on oil, made as voters went to the
polls in Michigan, underscored a growing worry inside the White House that the economy could sour in his final year in

Elections ENDI


1. Fundraising –
A) Early lead in the polls is key to it
Adkins and Dowdle ’02, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 32, Issue 2, p. 256-375 June

Second, changes in viability as measured by differences in national polling results from the third quarter of
the year prior to the election to the beginning of the primary and caucus season also impact pre-primary
fundraising. Although measured differently, the results are generally consistent with previous research
assessing the influence of the candidate viability on presidential nomination outcomes (Gurian and Haynes
1993; Guerrant and Gurian 1996; Damore 1997; Haynes, Gurian, and Nichols 1997). More specifically, the
results of the combined model demonstrate that overall changes in viability significantly affect the
outcome of the money primary. As expected, increases in candidate poll standings positively affect
fundraising receipts. However, the results of the partisan models demonstrate that changes in viability
significantly affect the fundraising of leading Democrats, but not that of Republicans, who coalesce behind
their front-runner much sooner. Again, these findings confirm Newport's (1999) analysis of pre-primary
polling data and are generally consistent with Mayer's (1996b) discovery that Democrats in general are
much more divided than Republicans. Thus, for Democrats, the strategic choices made by campaign
contributors in early months of the presidential campaign are linked to polling volatility created by
changing assessments of viability in public opinion, the media, and party elites.

B) Fundraising is vital to maintaining the Dems edge in the general election

Rubin ’07

As all the presidential candidates proved this week, money matters. Even better than polls --which provoke
endless arguments about methodology and bias -- campaign fundraising totals and debt, number of donors
and spending figures can be objectively tallied. Cold hard cash provides a story line in an endless
campaign and confirmation of pundits’ subjective hunches about how candidates are faring and where the
race is headed.
For Obama the sheer size of the haul and the number of donors is staggering. 258,000 donors for Obama
confirm that the Democrats have an interesting dilemma. One candidate “wins” debates, leads polls,
commands an impressive campaign machine but another has captured the excitement and hearts of the
base (and perhaps expanded the base) and has not yet turned off half the voters. Just when pundits were
ready to pronounce Hillary Clinton unbeatable, Obama and his legions of supporters beg to differ. Perhaps
the accountants found something the pundits didn’t: proof that the Democratic Party is not ready for a
coronation just yet and the “change the page” message of Obama is penetrating. If he uses his millions
wisely, defines himself and develops credibly policy prescriptions the pundits will need a new storyline. It
also should serve as a warning sign to the GOP as a whole. No candidate on the Republican side
approaches either Obama or Clinton’s money total or remotely approaches the number of Obama donors.
The Democrats are well funded, enthusiastic and internet savvy. Republicans should be concerned and
focus relentless on the issues like the economy, immigration and national security which offer the
opportunity to unify and expand their base of support.

2. Vital internal link won’t change --- Bush’s popularity ratings are likely to stay low – hurting
the GOP in the general election
Oxford Analytica, The Hill, 5-22-07

The president’s approval ratings have been unusually poor for almost two years. Since mid-2005, they
have moved within a comparatively narrow 29-36 percent band in mainstream surveys. There are few
parallels for such an abysmal rating during a second presidential term, when (with the obvious exception
of former President Richard Nixon) the occupant of the White House tends to become more personally
popular at the same time that he becomes less politically effective. Furthermore, even Bush’s personal
Elections ENDI
pollsters seem to expect that his ratings will remain at this low ebb for the rest of the year and into 2008. If
he cannot achieve at least a 45 percent approval rating by next year, then the president will remain a
liability for his party’s electoral prospects.

Elections ENDI

Renewables Popular
Renewable energy massively popular
Adam Browning is a co-founder of the Vote Solar Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing solar energy into the
mainstream. 3-28-07

There has been an absolute sea-change in the popularity of renewable energy in this country. We recently polled voter
attitudes towards solar in Tex. and Fla. -- and the results were nearly 20 points higher than a similar poll in Calif. in 2005.
Politicians need to better understand this. When they do, good things happen. To wit, Tampa Tribune's recent article "A Changing
Political Climate": State Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs, is pushing for more solar investment in Florida. He says a
recent Mason-Dixon poll found that 90 percent of Floridians think the Florida Legislature should encourage investment
in solar energy, and 78 percent say they would be willing to pay up to $1 a month on their utility bills to pay for it.

Elections ENDI

Renewables Popular- Specific States

Popular in Arizona
VSI no date (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)

Arizona--87% of the voters think the state should choose renewable energy sources like solar and wind over more coal,
and 78% would pay at least $5 a month to make that happen. Details here (pdf).

Behavior Reseach Center says environment near top of issues worrying Arizonans (pdf).

Popular in Florida
VSI no date (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)

Florida--90% of Floridians think the Legislature should encourage investement in solar energy in the state, and 78%
would pay up to a dollar a month on their utility bill to make it happen. See the details here (pdf).

Popular in Texas
VSI no date (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)

Texas--84% of Texans think that the Texas Legislature should encourage investment in solar power in Texas. And 81%
would pay up to a dollar a month to make it happen. Details here (pdf).

RPS popular in Ohio

VSI no date (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)

Ohio--New poll from Public Opinion Strategies (pdf), September 2007, says 80% of the state’s voters say they support
“setting a standard for renewable energy in Ohio, which would require utilities to obtain twenty percent of our
electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar by the year 2025.” Also, Powepoint from the Ohio Department of
Development, Office of Energy Efficiency here.

Action on global warming popular

VSI no date (vote solar initiative, compiles poll results from other sources)

Global Warming--the Yale Center for Environmental Law an Policy did a survey (March 2007) on Americans' attitudes
towards global warming. 83% say it is a serious problem, up from 70% in 2004. Website with poll results here.

People support wind-polls prove

Pollingreport .com May 2008

"Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes on gasoline and other fuels if the money was used for research
into renewable sources like solar and wind energy?"

Willing Not Willing Unsure

% % %

4/20-24/07 64 33 3

People overwhelmingly support renewables

Pollingreport .com May 2008
"Some people say using renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, to generate electricity is a good idea because they are
readily available and better for the environment. Other people say using renewable energy sources are a bad idea because they are
Elections ENDI
too expensive and can be unreliable. What do you think -- is using renewable energy sources to generate electricity mostly a
good idea or mostly a bad idea?"

Good Bad Unsure

% % %

4/20-24/07 87 9 4

People overwhelmingly support corn ethanol

Pollingreport .com May 2008

"Some people say that using ethanol, which is manufactured from corn, is a good idea because it is an American-made substitute
for foreign oil that causes less air pollution. Other people say ethanol is a bad idea because it drives up food prices and has
less energy. What do you think -- is using ethanol mostly a good idea or mostly a bad idea?"

Good Bad Unsure

% % %

4/20-24/07 70 23 7

Elections ENDI

Action on Climate Popular- religious

Religious right supports action to stop climate change
Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University, May 2008, Global Climate Change National Security Implications

Within the religious right, a large number of evangelical leaders have recently broken with their peers to argue that
global warming is indeed happening, that humans are at least partly responsible, and that this is a moral issue that
Christians are called to confront. These leaders justify this new position by arguing that in the book of Genesis, God
commanded human beings to till and tend his garden, and that the environment is part of our stewardship responsibilities on
the earth, to care for God’s creation. Thus global warming is a moral imperative. Secondly, many argue that action on global warming
flows directly from their longstanding missions to help the poor and needy, such as famine and poverty relief around the world. To
paraphrase, “How can Christians devoted to these acts of mercy in good conscience ignore a problem that is going to push millions of
people into the same kind of circumstances that we are there to help them with?” Importantly, these are arguments that resonate
within the religious right’s own strongly-held value system. Yet these specifically Christian arguments may not resonate with other
audiences. There are, however, many roads to Damascus. Different people, starting from very different moral and ethical standpoints,
can at times reach the same conclusions and work together in common action, albeit sometimes for different reasons.

Elections ENDI

DA Turns the Case

Obama turns the case
China Dialogue 5-23-08

How will a change of president shape the politics that affect the global environment? Barack Obama, the leading
candidate for the Democratic Party nomination, set out his plan in a speech in late 2007. chinadialogue republishes his address in
full. Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois, edged closer this week to the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the United
States in the November 2008 election. If Obama wins the primary round and secures his party's nomination at its convention in
August, he will face the Republicans' presumptive nominee, John McCain, whose recent speech on climate change chinadialogue has
published in full. So, what would an Obama presidency mean for the global environment? And how do his ideas differ from those of
McCain? In a policy address delivered in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in October 2007 -- shortly after president George W Bush
hosted a Washington conference on energy security and climate change -- Obama set out his plan. It included a strong focus
on energy efficiency and the use of a "cap-and-trade" system. Obama also emphasised his commitment to investing in
clean technology, saying that new technology from the United States can help countries like China to fight climate

Paul Loeb, Social Movement author and Environmental Activist, Huffington Post, March 3 2008

If I look at both Obama's record and his campaign, I see someone who understands the critical role of
citizen movements and works to build them as a force capable of creating major change. That's what
we've needed to address the major challenges of the past. It's what we'll need to address this ultimate
crisis we've created through the combination of technological inventiveness and short-focus blindness. The
Clintons may have spoken out against the Vietnam War when they were young, but they've been hedging
their bets and distancing themselves from citizen movements ever since. We need a movement-building
approach for global climate change -- and for all the other crises America's next president will inherit from
Bush's disastrous reign.


Paul Loeb, Social Movement author and Environmental Activist, Huffington Post, March 3 2008

This will take independent efforts like the 1Sky Coalition, the nation-wide StepItUp rallies that preceded it,
and the campus organizing that produced the 6,000-student PowerShift conference last November.
Whoever wins, we'll need to mobilize more, not less, to see the changes we need. But on an issue this
overwhelming and potentially terrifying, we'll need leaders who can help inspire people to take the leap of
faith of acting whether or not they know their actions will succeed. Because as Jim Wallis of the religious
social justice magazine Sojourners has said, "Hope is believing in spite of the evidence, and then watching
the evidence change."

Elections ***AFF ANSWERS***

McCain Wins
Obama would lose to McCain
Berkshire 6-3-08

Looking at the more than 20 states with a margin of less than 10 percent between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Talty
said current polling shows McCain defeating Obama by six electoral college votes, compared with a 17-point win for
Clinton. Clinton would win close contests in Missouri and Nevada that Obama would lose if the election were held
today, according to recent polling.

Clinton contest damaged obama- will lose

The Frontrunner 6-2-08
The Christian Science Monitor (6/2, Feldmann, 56K) reports under "compromise solutions adopted by the Democratic Party's Rules
and Bylaws Committee on Saturday, both states will send delegates to the August convention in Denver after all, albeit with half
votes each instead of full. But supporters of presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton are particularly angry that the
Michigan deal gave her rival, Barack Obama, delegates they believe he did not earn." If "significant numbers of Clinton
supporters remain angry and unwilling to vote for Senator Obama, the likely nominee, Obama's prospects for election in
November could be damaged." If all goes according to plan for Obama, he will declare the nomination his after winning the final
two primaries, Montana and South Dakota, on Tuesday. The remaining superdelegates, party leaders and elected officials who can
back whomever they want, are under pressure to state their preferences as soon as the primaries are over, and Obama has been
busy lining up their support in time for a victory announcement Tuesday."

McCain wins in only meaningful study

Conspiracy Squirrels 5-29-08
John McCain, however, still does not appear organized to take advantage of Democratic disarray. His biggest problem may be failure
to realize that the Republican coalition is not fully united behind him. The most recent defectors are lobbyists expelled from his
campaign who are not happy about their treatment. We continue to hear complaints from evangelicals, economic conservatives, and
other critics of McCain. The refrain continues from conservatives that maybe the country and the GOP need four years of
Obama....While national polls garner attention, they have no direct bearing on choosing our next President. A state-by-
state count of electoral votes is the key to analyzing the presidential race.For the first time this year, we run through all
50 states plus the District of Columbia in order to handicap the presidential race. Outlook: If the election were held
today, we see a McCain victory by the narrowest of margins.The electoral map looks nearly identical to 2004, with Iowa and
Colorado swinging into the Democratic camp. Beneath the surface, however, we see Michigan and Pennsylvania becoming more
competitive for Republicans.The election will hinge on two regions: Lake Erie and the Mountain West. An Obama win in New Mexico or
Nevada would be enough to tip the scales, but a McCain win in Pennsylvania could put the race out of reach. In the end, as always, it
comes down to Ohio, where Obama's weakness among rural whites could send McCain to the White House. McCain 270, Obama
268.It's a long time until election day, and the Democrats haven't even settled on a candidate yet. I'd note that the Electoral College
calculations are a best-case scenario for the Democrats, anticipating no mass defections of their base. I'm not sure that's going to be
the case. If Hillary pulls a fast one, she'll lose most of the black vote. If Obama wins, he'll lose a good part of the traditional white
(especially female) Democratic vote. In either case, the possibility of a big win for McCain looms large - unless the Democratic Party
does a lot of healing between now and election day. On the other side, McCain's still having problems with conservatives, for good
reason. But I think Novak's dreaming if he thinks that most conservatives will sit out this election, even though that does have some
appeal. Novak's been against the war since the beginning and hates Bush, and there's nothing that he'd like better than to see Bush
saddled with a huge loss in the Middle East that would hurt the US and Israel. But that's not the view of most conservatives, at least
other than the "paleo" variety. The war, and McCain's vow to continue winning it, might be the thing that causes most other brands of
conservative to hold their noses and vote Republican for President, even if he's not an ideal choice. Unlike Novak, they'd put love of
country over love of winning an argument. Newstex ID: SQUI-0001-25627714

Elections ENDI

AT: Public wants change

GOP co-opting ‘change’ message
The Washington Times 5-12-08

House Republican leaders, facing a potentially disastrous election this fall, will introduce a campaign message today in
which they promise voters "the change you deserve" while arguing that Democrats in Congress have dropped the ball,
according to a leadership strategy memo to rank-and-file members. "It starts with this: Washington is broken, the American people
want it fixed, and Democrats in Washington have proven unable or unwilling to get the job done. Republicans will," says the
memorandum, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

Elections ENDI

Energy Policies Now

Non Unique- CSA
Gannett News Service 5-20-08

Landmark legislation to reduce global warming is set to spark an intense Senate debate in early June. While it is unlikely
to become law this year, the Climate Security Act is seen by both supporters and opponents as evidence of how far Congress has
moved on the issue and how quickly a bill is likely to pass after a new president moves into the White House in January and a new
Congress takes office.

Non unique- congress will expand incentives now

Global Power Report 1-10-08

Still, some analysts say Congress likely will at least enact bills extending production tax credits for renewable energy
production, which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2008, and the Senate and the House may give more attention to
climate change legislation, although probably will not pass such bills.

Elections ENDI

Link Non Unique

McCain trying to appear more green now
Carbon Control News 5-19-08

In an attempt to polish his environmentalist credentials with an eye toward the November election, presumptive
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (AZ) detailed his new plan to mitigate the effects of global warming at a
campaign stop May 12, announcing a proposal to establish a carbon cap-and-trade program with a goal of cutting emissions
to 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. But while he called for Congress "to send the special interests on their way -- without their
favors and subsides," his proposal itself includes funding for the coal and nuclear industries in the form of research funding for carbon
capture and sequestration technology and the transportation and storage of radioactive waste.

McCain already broken ranks on climate change

The Australian 5-14-08

Republican White House candidate John McCain yesterday veered sharply away from President George W. Bush on climate
change, saying he would not ``shirk'' from the need for US global leadership. The Arizona senator proposed a
mandatory cap-and-trade system to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and rebuked Mr Bush for his scepticism on anti-climate
change efforts. The initiative signalled that Senator McCain planned to challenge Democrat Barack Obama for
independent voters, should he face him in November's presidential election, on an issue of rising importance in US
politics. ``I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears,'' Senator McCain said in a speech at a wind-power
plant in the western state of Oregon. ``I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges,'' he
said, in a clear rebuke to the Bush administration. His comments coincided yesterday with a new report from the US Department of
Energy, which found wind energy could provide 20 per cent of the country's electricity by 2030, the same share of electricity now
generated by nuclear power plants. Senator McCain pledged to play a lead role in negotiations for a new agreement on
greenhouse gas reductions to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012 and which the US refused to ratify. ``I
will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto,'' he said. ``The US will lead ... with a
different approach -- an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation.'' Mr Bush objected to
Kyoto because it did not apply binding greenhouse gas targets on fast-growing China and India.

McCain will be tough on climate change

Los Angeles Times 5-13-08

Distancing himself from President Bush, John McCain pledged a new era of environmental stewardship Monday as he outlined
his plan to address global warming, a cause he has embraced since activists hounded him during his 2000 run for president. At a
wind turbine manufacturer here, McCain called for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by mid-century and pledged
to take the lead in pressing rising economic powers India and China to cut emissions. "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the
United States bears," McCain said, alluding to Bush, who withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to curtail
emissions. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges."

McCain is already using climate to woo voters

Orlando Sentinel (Florida) 5-13-08

Wooing independent voters, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain called Monday for reductions in carbon emissions and
criticized the Bush administration for failing to lead the fight against climate change. "We have many advantages in the fight
against global warming, but time is not one of them. . . . We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that
time is short and the dangers are great," McCain said in a speech delivered at a wind-energy facility in Portland, Ore. "The most
relevant question is whether our own government is equal to the challenge." McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential
nominee, proposed a "cap-and-trade" system to reduce greenhouse gases and allow the sale of rights to excess
emissions by firms that reduce their own emissions. He also said he'd support auctioning off permits for excessive emissions,
using the revenue to "help build the infrastructure of the post-carbon economy." Such a system would "change the dynamic of our
energy economy" by giving companies incentives to invest in alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, clean-coal,
biomass and biofuels, McCain said, providing the United States with an energy supply "that is safe, secure, diverse and domestic."
McCain set a goal of returning to 2005 levels of carbon emissions by 2012, and to 1990 levels by 2020, until the United States
achieves at least a 60 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. McCain's proposal falls short of that of his Democratic rivals
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They both called for reducing emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, in line with
what's recommended by most scientists, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Elections ENDI

Energy not Key to Election

Energy not an issue

Chicago Sun Times 11-16-07

Since oil prices have flirted with the $100-per-barrel price milestone, you'd think that energy policy would be an urgent
political issue in the presidential campaigns. Yet, it is easily eclipsed by the Iraq war, health care, Social Security and
whether Hillary Clinton plants questions at her campaign stops. Candidates mention gas prices in their stump speeches,
and several have offered detailed energy proposals, but other concerns appear more pressing to voters.

Election not about energy

Greenwire 5-20-08

At the same conference yesterday, the nation's top electricity regulator and a prominent utility official both predicted that
U.S. climate change legislation will not be a reality anytime soon.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Joseph Kelliher said the presidential election is not shaping up as a
referendum on climate change. If that remains the case, he said, the new president may steer clear of pushing domestic
legislation right out of the gate, especially if his or her mandate is about the economy and other issues. A quick focus on domestic
climate change legislation could be seen as a distraction, he said. Kelliher predicted a new president may focus climate change
efforts on negotiating a new post-Kyoto agreement and then turn later toward a U.S. climate bill. "It is possible a new president might
decide, 'My first focus in this area will be to re-engage the international community in pursuit of a new treaty, and I just will not
propose domestic legislation, I will pursue an international approach,'" he said. The Senate plans to debate the Lieberman-Warner
climate bill, which seeks a 70 percent emissions cut by the middle of the century, in early June. But Jeff Sterba, chief executive of PNM
Resources, called final domestic legislation this year unlikely. He said this view is shared by many other CEOs participating in the U.S.
Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of businesses and environmental groups that is calling for a mandatory cap on U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions. "I would say that most of us feel that the likelihood of anything happening this year is pretty remote, and I would have
to say that is unfortunate," said Sterba. "We need to have this happen sooner rather than later." He predicted that a domestic plan is
more likely to be completed about a year into the new administration, in perhaps late 2009 or early 2010. Sterba is also chairman of
the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for investor-owned utilities.

Elections ENDI

Climate not important in Election

Climate won’t be an election issue
Financial Times, December 24, 2007

The US administration's position on climate change was in the spotlight last weekend as its delegation was booed in the closing
hours of the marathon United Nations meeting in Bali. Nevertheless, the issue is unlikely to be high on the presidential
election agenda. Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, said in Bali: "It won't have much effect and I'm probably
overstating it. It won't be (on the agenda) at the next election but it will be on the political agenda as we go forward. Every
other place I've been in the last two years is talking about it in a more advanced way. It's not really discussed by the presidential

Climate an irrelevant election issue

AFP, March 1, 2008

Former US vice president and renowned climate change fighter Al Gore said Saturday that the global warming crisis is getting
short shrift in this year's presidential race. Gore used the stage at a prestigious Technology, Entertainment and Design
conference in Monterey, California, to call for activism to push climate change to the top of the candidates' political agendas.

Elections ENDI

Climate Action Unpopular

The public does not support government action on climate change
Financial Times, December 24, 2007

However, four in 10 Americans think that tackling greenhouse gas emissions will damage the economy. Most also tend to
see it as an issue that can be tackled by businesses, rather than consumers: 77 per cent were in favour of limiting the
amount of greenhouse gas produced by companies but fewer than half wanted to raise taxes to cut consumption of fossil fuels, while
three-quarters of people surveyed said less wealthy countries should limit their greenhouse gas output.

Passing a climate bill will alienate voters

Dow Jones International News, 1-22-08

"It might send mixed messages," says API's Hayden. "On the one hand you're trying to stimulate the economy, but on the
other, you're introducing a bill that would add cost to the new economy." The EIA's report on the Lieberman-Warner bill,
which should include a price tag for the bill, may weigh on voters' minds as they examine presidential candidates and
senators undecided on their support of Boxer's climate change bill.

Public doesn’t care about climate change

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Transcripts, March 10,2008

CATHY ZOI, CEO, ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION,We have a very high level of awareness in the United States now,
largely because of people like Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger. That awareness, though, hasn't translated into it being a
voting priority issue for Americans. Recent polling over the last month out of 22 public policy issues that Americans
were asked about, global warming, climate change came in 21st, nearly at the bottom.

Public doesn’t think action on climate should be a priority

Carolyn Pumphrey, Triangle Institute for Security Studies, May 2008, Global Climate Change National Security Implications

If the polls can be trusted, the American public is gradually beginning to believe that climate change is not simply the
figment of imagination of overexcited environmentalists. A 2006 Pew study found that about 41 percent of Americans think
that global warming is a very serious threat. However, they rank it well below other issues as a national priority, and
they are not willing to dip into their pockets to find a remedy.

Relative to other issues, global warming action is a low priority for Americans
Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University, May 2008, Global Climate Change National Security Implications

In 2004, in another nationally representative survey, I asked Americans which issues they thought should be the top priority
for Congress and the President. I found—and this is consistent with many other surveys—that global warming was a relatively low
priority, just as the environment as a broader issue is almost always at the bottom of these kinds of priority rankings.
Global warming was well below terrorism, the economy, healthcare, education, the budget deficit, etc. Today we would see
the Iraq War, of course, as a leading national priority as well.

Americans do not think global warming is a pressing issue

Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University, May 2008, Global Climate Change National Security Implications

They believe that global warming is a greater threat to nonhuman nature than to human beings. They believe that water
shortages, increased disease rates, and lower living standards, are only moderately likely. Importantly, they believe that
each of these impacts is more likely to occur globally than at the local level. Americans tend to think of climate change as a
distant problem, something that is going to affect other people far away—small island countries, poor people in the tropics, etc.—
not Americans—and distant in time—not for another 50 to 100 years, if ever. Thus it is not a particularly salient issue to most

Elections ENDI

Renewables not popular

Polls are BS- results show people are unwilling to pay more for renewables
Taylor, director of natural resource studies, and Van Doren, editor of Regulation magazine, 2002
(Jerry and Peter, Evaluating the Case for Renewable Energy, Policy Analysis No. 422, 1/10)

While renewable energy is more expensive than conventionally generated energy, public opinion polls continue to suggest that
consumers are willing to pay higher energy costs if doing so will improve environmental quality.25 Accordingly, a number
of independent power marketers in seven states have pack-aged "green power" electricity plans (made up almost entirely of wind-
fired electricity) and marketed those plans to ratepayers in states that give consumers the right to choose their power suppliers.26
Eighty utilities in 28 states also offer special packages of renewable energy to ratepayers at a premium.27 "Green
power” costs from 0.4 cents to 20 cents per kWh more than conventional power in these plans, with a median premium of 25 cents
per kWh.28 Because of higher costs, no more than 5 percent of the retail customers in any state have signed up for
such independently marketed programs, and participation in utility-sponsored programs is generally around 1 percent
or less29 clearly, there is a difference between what people tell pollsters about their "willingness to pay" for
environmental quality and their actual willingness to pay in the marketplace. While consumer preferences may change,
even advocates of renewable energy concede that, until renewable-fired electricity costs become comparable to those of
conventional energy, green marketing programs are unlikely to attract many customers.30

Elections ENDI

Ethanol link Turn

Ethanol key to pander to Midwestern voters

Technology Review (Cambridge, Mass.) 1-1-08

When the New York Mercantile Exchange closed the day before Thanksgiving, a barrel of crude oil cost over $97, roughly matching
the inflation-adjusted record high set in 1980.

As the baleful effects of soaring oil prices ripple through the economy, the quest for an oil substitute becomes po-
litical, especially when presidential candidates stumping in Iowa before the caucuses have to pledge to preserve or ex-
pand subsidies to the corn-based U.S. ethanol industry. It is a time-honored campaign strategy: if energy prices are scaring the
electorate, promise to develop alternative fuels. In the summer of 1979, President Jimmy Carter promised that with his energy
plan,the United States would "never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977." A year later, he signed the Biomass Energy and
Alcohol Fuels Act into law, allocating $600 million to the production of fuels from agricultural crops, agricultural wastes and residues,
wood and wood wastes and residues, animal wastes, municipal wastes, and aquatic plants. Much of the money was devoted to
research on cellulosic ethanol, currently the most promising biofuel in development (see "The Price ofBiofu-els," p. 4.2).

Agricultural lobbies protect corn ethanol subsidies

Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund, 2008, Earth: The Sequel The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming, p. 11

Though America's representatives have been aware of global warming since 1988, when Senator Al Gore held the first congressional
hearings on the data then beginning to emerge, only in recent months has the U.S. Congress displayed real interest in
addressing climate change. Some of the legislative proposals are hollow grandstanding; others would ensure meaningful
action. There are many bad ways of moving forward from here, including continuing to give taxpayers' money to the
businesses with the best lobbyists. The huge federal subsidies for corn ethanol, for instance, are chiefly testament to
the power of the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland and other agricultural interests.

Political interests protect corn ethanol

Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund, 2008, Earth: The Sequel The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming, p. 77

Perversely, the current state of affairs not only- fails to reward landowners for sequestering carbon but also subsidizes
"solutioi4s" that create more problems than they solve. Corn-based ethanol has proved particularly problematic on this
count. For political reasons, it has captured the lion's share of federal subsidies in the United States and comprises
more than 90 percent of the nation's biofuels production. But it has distinct drawbacks. It puts two vital human needs
—energy and food—in competition with each other. And it is a relatively poor energy producer. To fill one 25-gallon
tank with corn ethanol requires enough grain to feed one person for an entire year.

Elections ENDI

Ethanol Link Turn- Farm Lobbies

Farm lobbies block ethanol subsidy reductions
Irwin M. Stelzer is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute,
Weekly Standard, May 26, 2008,

And the farm and ethanol lobbies are prepared to crush the groups calling for an end to the food-for-fuel mandate that
requires motorists to use nine billion gallons of ethanol (auto fuel made from corn) this year.

Farm lobbies more powerful than those attempting to cut ethanol subsidies
Irwin M. Stelzer is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute,
Weekly Standard, May 26, 2008,

So what are the right questions? First, have any of the programs now in place proved counterproductive? Yes, several have
costs that exceed their benefits. Best example: the attempt to grow our way out of the energy problem. Admit that we
have erred, and wind down the subsidies that are denuding forests and contributing to food shortages without
significantly adding to fuel supplies. That's what a coalition of environmentalists, livestock producers, and consumer
groups last week called on Congress to do. They are unlikely to overcome the powerful farmer-ethanol lobby.

Elections ENDI

AT: DA Turns Case

Doesn’t turn the case- prez irrelevant to climate policy
Xinhua General News Service 1-31-08

This year's U.S. presidential election is unlikey to have a great impact on the consistency of the country's climate
policy, Andy Karsner, U.S. assistant secretary of energy, told Xinhua Wednesday. Speaking at a press briefing on the sidelines of
the ongoing major economies meeting on energy security and climate change held here Jan. 30-31, he said that the groundwork of
U.S. climate policy is actually laid down by mid-level officials who are bipartisan. "We are building a continuity in
the civil service," he said, referring to the fact that although there will be a new administration next year, those
career civil service officials will be still making policies by then. Karsner also argued that whoever becomes the new
president, whether Republican or Democrat, he or she must make climate policy decisions based on broad bipartisan support. He
noted that the energy bill President George W. Bush signed last year has already demonstrated that kind of bipartisan consensus.
On the prospect that a new president will probably not resist the mandatory pollution reduction targets like Bush,
Karsner argued that may not be the case. He said the United States has its own understanding of the issue. If it is
mandatory, Karsner said, it shall be a law which will need bipartisan support before the president's signing. Also, the U.S.
government has some mandatory regulation in place in other areas, including the energy effi-ciency standard. However, in fact,
most major presidential candidates are actually embracing for the idea of mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emission. Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama, the two frontrunners in the race for the Democratic presidential nomi-nation, have all pledged to cut U.S.
emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2050, and both of them accept that this can only be achieved by legal caps on
emissions. The leading Republican candidate, John McCain, makes the same promises, except that he is only aiming for a 65-
percent cut by 2050.

Case o/w disads-energy related to every impact-president key

Oil & Gas Journal December 24, 2007

The winner of the 2008 presidential election will need to take bold steps to address energy and climate change problems
despite the absence of substantive discussions from the current campaigns, said US Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) on Dec.
18. "I would state unequivocally that energy security and the economic and environmental issues closely associated
with it should be the most important topics of the 2008 presidential election," said Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee's
ranking minority member, in a speech at the Brookings Institution. He said that three factors led him to this conclusion: Energy is the
issue with the widest gulf between what is re-quired to make the nation secure and what is likely to be achieved under existing
programs and congressional proposals. Transformational energy policies probably will be needed to achieve US social and economic
aspirations. And energy exacerbates almost every foreign policy issue. "Only the president has the visibility to elevate a cause
to national status, and only the president can leverage the buying power, regulatory authority, and legislative
leadership of an administration behind solving a problem that is highly conducive to political procrastination and
partisanship," Lugar said.

Elections ENDI

Ext- AT: Disad Turns the Case

Any new prez will boost alternatives- da doesn’t turn the case
Citywire 5-20-08

The coming US presidential election will ensure that the new energy sector is a good bet this year, according to
investment management firm BlackRock.

Robin Batchelor and Sandy Christie, managers of BlackRock's New Energy Investment trust, said new energy investments were
set to win whatever the outcome of November's elections. 'This week, John McCain set out ambitious carbon reduction
targets for the US were he to be elected, and with the two Democratic candidates also proposing to move renewable
energy up a gear in the US, the presidential election makes the new energy sector a very exciting investment
proposition in 2008,' said Batchelor. He added that $120 barrels of oil had shifted the economics of the energy industry. 'Surging
traditional energy prices such as oil, gas and coal have focused governments' attention on energy security and have also improved
the economics of renewable alternatives,' he said. Furthermore, governments were responding to the findings of the Stern Review,
which concluded that the cost of acting on climate change was less than the cost of not acting on it. 'More expensive technologies
such as solar power are also proving successful as governments enact solar subsidy schemes to pave the way towards cost-
competitiveness in the future,' he said. He added that wind power was the favoured technology in the BlackRock New Energy
Investment trust, making up about 40% of the portfolio. Wind farms accounted for the largest share of new power plants built in both
the US and EU last year, while the EU's renewable energy targets are based on wind power, said Batchelor. According to
theAssociation of Investment Companies, theenvironmental investment company sector is currently trading at an average premium
of +3%, compared to an overall industry average discount of 9.2%. The asssociation said the figures were a testament to how far the
sector had come and how appetite towards alternative energy investment had increased. Ian Simm, chief executive of Impax Asset
Management, said it was a rapidly developing area of the global economy with 'spectacular growth prospects'. 'Environmental
investment is the most compelling secular growth story of the 21st century and has moved firmly into the mainstream over the past
few years.'

Climate change policies will change with any prez- no case turn
International Oil Daily 4-24-08
As Hillary Clinton kept her White House hopes alive Tuesday with a convincing win in Pennsylvania over her Democratic rival, Barack
Obama , the race for the US presidency is still wide open. But one thing is already clear: Whoever wins the elections on Nov. 4 --
Obama , Clinton or presumptive Republican nominee John McCain -- will steer the energy policy of the world's largest oil
consumer in a very different direction from George W. Bush. The next US president will support a cap-and-trade program
to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reject the oil industry's push for greater access to drilling offshore and in Alaska . He or
she will also attempt to use efficiency measures and promote alternative fuel technology to move the economy decisively
away from its dependence on oil. Environmentalists say all three candidates are committed to fighting climate change,
noting their willingness to join global pacts with mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions -- something the Bush
administration adamantly opposes. Most observers expect some form of climate legislation to become law in the US in the next
two years. Finding major differences between the three candidates' energy policies is more difficult than identifying
common ground. This can be largely attributed to McCain's maverick positions and willingness to break with his party and president
on energy policy.

Elections ***Impact Section***

Withdrawal Key to Middle East

() withdrawing is key to peacekeeping forces that stabilize iraq

The Nation 9/6/07 (pg.

More important,a commitment to a complete US withdrawal would open the way for
international mediation and peacekeeping efforts, under the auspices of the United Nations,
the Arab League or the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Indeed, it may be the only way to develop a

regional concert of powers that can work with Iraqis to stabilize the country and control
the conflict. Only by removing US forces and ending all claims to permanent bases can
Washington increase the possibility that other countries will assist Iraq. The best way to prevent
regional destabilization is to refocus our regional efforts and help Iraq and its neighbors cope with the humanitarian crisis we helped
create. We can begin by helping to organize assistance for Syria, Jordan and Lebanon to resettle their Iraqi refugees. We can press
Gulf countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia not to buy US weapons and host US troops but to open their doors to their Iraqi neighbors.
And we can talk with Syria and Iran about our common interest in an Al Qaeda-free region instead of threatening to overthrow their

() a new round of iraqi instability leads to world war 3

Corsi 2k7 (Jerome, January 8, pg.

If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military
into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before
Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The Iraq war could quickly spin into a
regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch an air and missile strike on
Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons. With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1
surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long to
attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly
should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq,
China may have their moment to go after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war
could easily lead into a third world war, much as World Wars I and II began.

Elections ENDI

Withdrawal bad- General

() withdrawing from iraq leads to extinction

Yaphe 2K6 (Judith S., distinguished research fellow @ the Institute for National Strategic Studies @ the National Defense U, was
also a political analyst @ the CIA in Mid East Affairs for more than 20 years, August 6, “Iraq War is Now About Survival- for all”, pg.

American pundits and politicians have sketched out simple exit strategies: partition Iraq into a Sunni-Shiite-Kurd confederation and
withdraw our troops; let the Iraqis experience their civil war without us; send in more troops to ferret out terrorists and win the battle
for Baghdad. The problem with these strategies is the same: They focus on our needs, our politics, our standards of democracy, our
casualties, our potential loss of regional influence and our dependence on oil. But the struggle is no longer just about
achieving U.S. goals; it’s all about Iraq, and it is all about survival. Latest estimates indicate that 50 Iraqi civilians
are killed for every U.S. casualty. Still, I believe that it is in the U.S. interest to see Iraq survive as a united country or we will face
chronic instability and Iraq-based terrorists coming to our shores. The truth is, we have few options: — Withdrawal: Pundits and
politicians see chaos and want out. I respect those questioning American unilateralist pre-emption strategies. But I worry about the
consequences for U.S. interests if we abandon an Iraq we helped create and friends who would be set up for failure in a neighborhood
we gas guzzlers love. A bad option. — Send in more troops to “win the war”: We need to define what winning means and assess the
probable costs. Army Gen. John Abizaid, the senior U.S. commander in the Middle East, warned last week that more troops are needed
if the battle for Baghdad — and thereby Iraq — is to be won. President Bush promised Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in their
meeting Tuesday that U.S. troops would be redeployed from other parts of Iraq, but it is not clear that additional forces won’t be
needed as well. How long will we be needed in Iraq? No one can say. But it seems to me we still have responsibility for
helping Iraq survive what we set in motion three years ago. Surely, we can maintain our security presence, prepare
military and police forces to take over security duties, provide training and protection, and help fragile political institutions take root.
Sending more troops would be a politically unpopular move, but if U.S. commanders need them to maintain the
pressure on terrorists and provide more security, they should have them. — Partition Iraq: This would almost
certainly spawn civil war. Iraq’s Kurdish, Sunni Arab and Shiite communities are not monoliths; each has its secularists and Islamists,
rich and poor, oligarchs and peasants. None will be satisfied with a “Sunnistan-Kurdistan-Shiastan” divide. Some say Iraq is already a
failed state or was never meant to be a state at all. Others see Lebanon as a warning about what could happen in Iraq. Consider
Lebanon — unable to control extremist forces, plagued by a long history of civil unrest and an easy target for intervention by stronger
neighbors who play on inbred political weaknesses. Is this a vision of Iraq? The ingredients are there, including stronger neighbors
meddling, a deepening social chasm and divided communal loyalties encouraged by foreign occupiers and warlords. Partition is
playing with fire. Washing our hands of Iraq may sound appealing, but the truth is, we will care very much if
extremists enriched by Iraq’s wealth have a place to prepare for their next terrorist campaign. Will it be New
York or Washington or Los Angeles? In the 1980s, Iraqi Shiites cooperated with Lebanese Hezbollah’s No. 1 terrorist, Imad Mughniyah,
in a series of bombings, hijackings and assassination attempts in the Persian Gulf. Do we want a return to these good old days? I think
not. Staying the course in Iraq will not solve all of Iraq’s problems, and it will, sadly, mean more casualties in the short term. But
withdrawal will not end the violence, ensure that Iraqis live happily ever after in their enclaves or end anti-American terrorism. We will
still be targets, as will pro-American friends and U.S. interests in the region. The war and occupation have wedded American and Iraqi
national interests. Iraq’s fate will affect our own. Leaving the Iraqis to civil war will only condemn them, the
region and probably the United States to more wars to come.

Elections ENDI

Withdrawal Bad- Middle East

() pullout causes iraqi army dissolution- leads to instability

Carafano and Phillips 2k7 (James Jay, and James, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, and James Phillips is Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the
Allison Center, at The Heritage Foundation. July 17, pg.

A sudden U.S. withdrawal would increase the likelihood of a full-fledged civil war and the
disintegration of the Iraqi army into factions. The defection of soldiers (along with their heavy
equipment) to various militias would bolster the militias' firepower and capacity to seize and

hold terrain. The result would be a bloody and protracted civil war, similar to the conflict in Bosnia
following the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

() a new round of iraqi instability leads to world war 3

Corsi 2k7 (Jerome, January 8, pg.

If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military
into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before
Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The Iraq war could quickly spin into a
regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch an air and missile strike on
Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons. With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1
surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long to
attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly
should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq,
China may have their moment to go after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war
could easily lead into a third world war, much as World Wars I and II began.

Elections ENDI

AT: Withdrawal Impact

Democrats won’t actually insta- withdrawal
David Ignatius Daily Star 3-13-08
Democrats have been yelping that this agreement is dangerous because it could bind the next administration to a continuation of
Bush's policies. But that view is shortsighted. Even by Obama's and Clinton's most optimistic calculations, it will take at
least a year to withdraw most US combat troops - and both Democrats have wisely talked about the likely need for a
"residual force" in Iraq to hunt down Al-Qaeda terrorists. But without an agreement like what Bush is trying to negotiate, US
forces could have no legal authority to operate - or even protect themselves effectively during a withdrawal.

Election will have no affect on Iraq policy

Australian 3-18-08

Even as approval ratings for Bush continue to languish at historic lows, it is not at all clear that future US policy is
going to deviate radically from the goals he has laid down. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton is likely, despite
the rhetoric, to effect an early departure of US troops and the relapse of Iraqi politics into tyrannical stability. And John
McCain, the near-certain Republican nominee, is a fervent supporter of neoconservative objectives in foreign policy. He
was a prime mover behind the Iraq surge.

Elections ENDI

Obama Clinton Stop Trade

Clinton/Obama will collapse trade with “time out”
Peter Baker, Washington Post, 3-12-08

President Bush waded further into the presidential race today, slamming Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama
for "empty, hollow political rhetoric" on trade and warning that they would make "a reckless mistake" by retreating from
agreements to lower barriers with other countries. Although he did not name Clinton or Obama, he left little doubt whom he
was talking about, at one point even mocking Clinton's promise to take a "timeout" from free trade agreements if she
becomes president. "You know, some have called for a 'timeout' from trade," he told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
shortly after Clinton addressed the group. "I guess that's probably popular with the focus group. You know, they toss out the word
'timeout' from trade -- it's got this kind of catchy little title to it. In the 21st century, a timeout from trade would be a
timeout from growth, a timeout from jobs and a timeout from good results." Bush, who used his speech to push Congress to
pass a pending free trade agreement with Colombia, noted pointedly that Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, was a strong supporter of
opening markets when he was president and quoted from his predecessor's remarks when signing legislation to implement the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 14 years ago. Hillary Clinton, seconded by Obama, has abandoned NAFTA, saying
she would threaten to opt out of the pact if Mexico and Canada did not agree to renegotiate it. "Listen, NAFTA has
worked," Bush said. "People shouldn't back away from NAFTA. It's been a positive development for a lot of people."

Democrats will jack trade- rhetoric can’t be reversed

Latin Business Chronicle 3-10-08

Jim Kolbe, Senior Advisor for Global Strategies at McLarty Associates and a former Republican member of Congress from
Arizona: On trade, as on Iraq, clear differences have emerged between the likely Republican presidential candidate and
the two leading Democrats. Senator John McCain has consistently said through the preceding 12 months that trade is a
cornerstone of our economic and national security policy, and that he would aggressively pursue a wide range of trade
agreements that would liberalize the trading regime and open access in both US and foreign markets. The trade debate
remained relatively benign on the Democrat side until the primaries reached the final crescendo in Ohio. There,
because of real and significant job loss, the two remaining Democrat candidates have adopted harsh anti-trade
rhetoric, each trying to outdo the other in denouncing trade agreements, particularly NAFTA. Senator Obama has accused
Senator Clinton of being an architect of the NAFTA agreement, the final touches having been added by President Clinton who then
worked hard for its adoption. Meanwhile, the senator from New York has promised to stop trade agreements that result in job losses.
NAFTA has become the convenient whipping boy for an inevitable process of globalization. Still, it is hard to see how in either an
Obama or Clinton administration such rhetoric could be ignored or turned off easily and their administration return to a
policy of actively pursuing trade agreements—a policy that heretofore has crossed party lines and been a consistent
theme of presidents from both parties.

Anti trade rhetoric will make new deals impossible if democrat is elected
Latin Business Chronicle 3-10-08

Peter Hakim, President of the Inter-American Dialogue: The campaign rhetoric on trade from the Democratic candidates
is disappointing—although not surprising. Nearly every serious study of NAFTA concludes that it has benefited the
economies of both the US and Mexico, and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know that. Their attacks on NAFTA are
understandable given the constituencies they are trying to appeal to in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where free trade,
globalization, and NAFTA are all anathema to most Democratic voters. Obama and Clinton say they are not opposed to free
trade, but only to the specific deals that have been negotiated; but they provide no sense of what kind of deals they
would support—and both absented themselves from the vote on the Peru FTA. I fear that their discourse now will make
it more difficult for them to shape and support sensible trade policies if either of them makes it to the White House.
NAFTA is probably not in any particular danger; there may be a review and some fiddling at the edges, but the US-Mexico-Canada
agreement is far too entrenched—and too much has been invested in it—to introduce drastic changes. And I am still optimistic,
regardless of who wins the presidency, that a way will be found to approve the Colombia agreement, given that it is a signed deal
with an important US ally, but its prospects are not helped by the NAFTA bashing of the candidates. What worries me most is that
a Democratic president will abandon US leadership of free trade efforts—in the Hemisphere and worldwide—which will
make new agreements virtually impossible. Instead of railing against free trade and globalization, Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton would far better serve the workers of this country (and of Latin America) by focusing on how to expand and improve
assistance for those who are left jobless or underemployed because of trade or technological change. In light of a spreading anti-
globalization sentiment in the US (even among Republicans), John McCain may also find it difficult, particularly with a Democratic
Congress, to lead on trade issues, just the way his leadership of immigration failed to produce decent legislation.

McCain best for trade

Latin Business Chronicle 3-10-08

Elections ENDI
Cresencio Arcos, Counselor for Government Affairs at K&L Gates in Washington, DC, and a former US Ambassador to
Honduras: US trade policy in the next administration will face close scrutiny regardless of who is the president. Obama
will tend to be most critical and seek more guarantees for US workers and small businesses, as well as environmental
conditioning. The blue-green issues will be avidly considered. Obama will not roll back existing trade agreements, but new
trade agreements will not prosper under him. Clinton will be less dismissive of trade, but be attentive to existing US
arrangements. However, she would be most amenable to including labor and environmental considerations. McCain would be
more inclined to consider completing or getting the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea agreements approved. He will
also be circumspect in initiating new trade agreements. Trade in the next administration will not be a high priority. The
national and global conditions are not conducive to trade expansion.

Elections ENDI

Trade Good
A new wave of protectionism would erupt into nuclear conflict
Spicer, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, 1996, p. 121
The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on
the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out markets that are
growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply
that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to
provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be
fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which
suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true,
that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to
become interdependent, and that is a good step in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a
penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead.

Trade is the number one factor that contributes to peace

Gerald P O’ driscoll jr is senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Sara Fitzgerald is a trade policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
Orange County Register, Feb. 11, 2003
A report by the World Bank says that 2 billion people -- most of them in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and the former Soviet
Union -- "live in countries that are being left behind." These countries have failed to integrate with the world
economy, failed to knock down barriers to trade and investment flows, failed to establish property rights and, as a result, failed to
grow into modern economies.And, according to research by Edward Mansfield of the University of Pennsylvania and Jon
Pevehouse of the University of Wisconsin, that's a recipe for trouble. Mansfield and Pevehouse have demonstrated that
trade between nations makes them less likely to wage war on each other -- and keeps internecine spats
from spiraling out of control. They also found these trends are more pronounced among democratic countries with a strong
tradition of respect for the rule of law.Countries that trade with each other are far less likely to confront each other
on the battlefield than are countries with no trade relationship. And the size of the economies involved doesn't affect
this relationship, which means small, weak countries can enhance their defense capabilities simply by increasing
trade with the world's economic giants.Experts, including Mansfield and Pevehouse, say intensive trade integration,
perhaps more than any other factor, has led to an unprecedented five decades of peace in Western Europe.

Lack of economic interdependence eliminates monetary diplomacy from a countries arsenal

forcing them to rely on force- the Suez canal emp proves our argument
AScribe Newswire 12-7-01
A country on the verge of hostilities with another country already knows the monetary value of its trade
with that other country. Therefore, the researchers
say, the risk factor in terms of trade is not an unknown. However, what each country doesn't know is how strongly the
other country is willing to fight over some other issue beside trade: a slice of territory coveted by both countries, a
military build-up perceived as a threat, the exposure of a spy network or the mistreatment of an ethnic or religious minority, they
note. "Interdependent countries are in a better position to test the resolve of economic partners because
they can more effectively exert non-violent [i.e.economic] pressure, and then observe the consequences,"
Li notes. "By taking commercial measures that represent both a clear and credible threat, a state can signal to economic partners
that it is prepared to make considerable sacrifices. If, however, these sacrifices are too critical, the country could lose bargaining
power in future conflicts. " "In the event of a serious dispute, countries that are autarkic or economically isolated are
most at risk of war, because they have no financial bargaining chips. All they can do is fall back on bluff and 'cheap
talk.' Should that fail, their only option is to fight," says Li. The Suez crisis of 1956 is an example of how economic
interdependence allows countries to compete financially rather than through force. On July 26 of that year,
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, prompting protests from Great Britain and France. When
negotiations failed to resolve the crisis, British and French forces invaded Egypt on Oct. 31. Despite a U.N. General Assembly
resolution ordering a cease-fire and vocal opposition from the United States, Britain and France persisted in their attempts to occupy
the canal and overthrow Nasser.

Best studies prove liberalization best promotes 3rd world growth

Jonathan Carlson, Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law, Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems Spring, 2002
Furthermore, as an empirical matter, the greatest advances in social welfare during the post-WWII period occurred
predominantly in those countries that followed the free-trade economic prescription. In their study of development in
the 1970s and 1980s, Harvard economists Sachs and Werner found that developing nations with open
economies grew at a 4.5% annual rate, while those with closed economies barely grew at all: a 0.7% rate.
<=39> n38 The annual Economic Freedom of the World Report ranks countries on several measures,
including openness to international trade. One consistent result is that the more open an economy ranks,
the higher its GDP. <=40> n39

Elections ENDI

Trade Good
Reversing Globalization Causes State Failure
David A. Atwood U.S.A.I.D. Faculty Research Advisor , Cutting Hunger and Poverty in Half: Interest Groups and a Renewed U.S.
Commitment in the Post-Cold War World, 7-28-00
Poverty and hunger are one central element of state failure in some developing countries. In poor countries in
Africa and elsewhere, it is possible that the social disruption caused by high mortality from HIV/AIDS can also contribute to this effect.
An additional factor for the future is likely to be the extent to which poor countries and poorer members of society in those countries
are seen to benefit from global trade, information technology, and biotechnology. According to the broad literature, and most recently
confirmed by the State Failure Task Force, state stability is associated with higher incomes, better health, and less
hunger;51 state stability also is likely to be associated in the future with the ability to ensure that the new
global economy, information, and biological revolutions are meeting some of the needs of poor people and
countries. Failure on either of these fronts increases the likelihood and incidence of state failure
substantially. As the recent United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report states,52 “The voices and
concerns of people already living in human poverty – lacking incomes, education, and access to public institutions – are being
increasingly marginalized. Determined efforts are needed to bring developing countries – and poor people everywhere
– into the global conversation.”

State Failure Kills Global Stability, causes Proliferation and collapses leadership
David A. Atwood U.S.A.I.D. Faculty Research Advisor , Cutting Hunger and Poverty in Half: Interest Groups and a Renewed U.S.
Commitment in the Post-Cold War World, 7-28-00
In this new, more measured and analytical literature, three major reasons are advanced as to why state failure in the
developing world poses a threat to U.S. security39. First, state failure has often had spillover or contagion effects,
creating instability in neighboring states where we may have vital interests40. Probably the starkest examples
would be possible effects of continued crisis in the Balkans affecting stability in Greece and Turkey; the impact of the Rwandan
crisis of the early 1990s on stability in all neighboring countries, several of which are of significant concern
to the U.S., and the potential of instability in Zimbabwe to destabilize much of Southern Africa. Second, state failure can
provide a breeding ground for the acquisition and use of weapons of mass destruction and other terrorist
activities by marginal and angry insurgent groups. This is a concern brought out by both the bipartisan Hart-Rudman
commission studying U.S. national security needs in the 21st century, as well as former Chief of Staff of the Army, General Gordon
Sullivan. This concern received attention in an Army War College symposium on the topic of ethnic conflict.41 Finally, state failure
could have significant impact on the readiness of U.S. forces to defend U.S. allies or interests in the face of
an attack. This is probably the security threat with the greatest potential to disrupt Western interests. Both humanitarian interests
and the "CNN effect" are likely to influence continued U.S. involvement in humanitarian crises arising out of state failure. Even if
Tucker, Snow, and the Tofflers are right that state failure is not in and of itself a U.S. national security concern, it nevertheless
becomes a matter of national security to try to prevent such situations if we know that for other reasons U.S. forces are likely to get
drawn into them. This is because continued U.S. military deployments for such purposes weakens the ability of
U.S. forces to defend U.S. national security interests in a more traditional attack and war scenario.

Trade Key to Hegemony

February 27, 2001 TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. HORMATS Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs (international) Mr. Chairman and members of the Finance Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you again to discuss American trade policy and to share some thoughts on the key issues before this Congress and this country in the period ahead.
The most urgent next step in American trade policy is to develop the critical mass of support necessary for the US to advance its international economic interests in the decade
ahead. Expanded global trade and investment over the last 50 years have provided enormous benefits for American workers, consumers and, businesses. We tend to take it for
granted today, but this experience is in sharp contrast to the horrible economic mess the US and world got themselves into after World War I - when American leadership faltered.
Protectionist measures and international financial instability were among the major factors that led to the depression. We should not forget the lessons of this period - or let our
leadership of the global economy be derailed by internal divisions or complacency that the world economy will work just fine whether the US is an effective leader or not! Access
to growing foreign markets was a vital factor in America's economic growth in the 1990s, especially for its most productive sectors such as high technology, agriculture,
competitive imports have reinforced the dynamism of our economy and
entertainment and financial services. And
broadened consumer choice, holding down the prices of many products to the benefit of millions of
households. America's leadership in promoting trade liberalization and a robust global economic system have
been essential to secure these benefits for the American people and to this country's ability to remain a strong and
effective leader on global political and security matters for the last 50 plus years.


Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND Defense Analyst WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 1995, p.84

U.S leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear

Elections ENDI
exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.

Elections ENDI

Trade Bad
Trade interdependence causes war
George Friedman, founder and chairman of Stratfor, and Meredith Friedman, The Future of War, 1996, p. 7-9

The argument that interdependence gives rise to peace is flawed in theory as well as in practice. Conflicts
arise from friction, particularly friction involving the fundamental interests of different nations. The less
interdependence there is, the fewer the areas of serious friction. The more interdependence there is, the
greater the areas of friction, and, therefore, the greater the potential for conflict. Two widely separated nations
that trade little with each other are unlikely to go to war—Brazil is unlikely to fight Madagascar precisely
because they have so little to do with each other. France and Germany, on the other hand, which have
engaged in extensive trade and transnational finance, have fought three wars with each other over about
seventy years. Interdependence was the root of the conflicts, not the deterrent. There are, of course, cases of
interdependence in which one country effectively absorbs the other or in which their interests match so precisely that
the two countries simply merge. In other cases, interdependence remains peaceful because the economic, military,
and political power of one country is overwhelming and inevitable. In relations between advanced industrialized
countries and third-world countries, for example, this sort of asymmetrical relationship can frequently be seen. All such
relationships have a quality of unease built into them, particularly when the level of interdependence is great. When
one or both nations attempt, intentionally or unintentionally, to shift the balance of power, the result is often
tremendous anxiety and, sometimes, real pain. Each side sees the other’s actions as an attempt to gain advantage
and becomes frightened. In the end, precisely because the level of interdependence is so great, the relationship can,
and frequently does, spiral out of control. Consider the seemingly miraculous ability of the United States and
Soviet Union to be rivals and yet avoid open warfare. These two powers could forgo extreme measures
because they were not interdependent. Neither relied on the other for its economic well-being, and
therefore, its social stability. This provided considerable room for maneuvering. Because there were few
economic linkages, neither nation felt irresistible pressure to bring the relationship under control; neither
felt any time constraint. Had one country been dependent on the other for something as important as oil or
long-term investment, there would have been enormous fear of being held hostage economically. Each
would have sought to dominate the relationship, and the result would have been catastrophic. In the years before
World War I, as a result of European interdependence, control of key national issues fell into the hands of
foreign governments. Thus, decisions made in Paris had tremendous impact on Austria, and decisions made
in London determined growth rates in the Ruhr. Each government sought to take charge of its own destiny by
shifting the pattern of interdependence in its favor. Where economic means proved insufficient, political
and military strategies were tried.

Free trade causes water marketing increasing destabilizing water conflicts

Maude Barlow chairs the Council of Canadians and was the founding co-chair of Action Canada Network Blue Gold,
Proponents say that such a system is the only way to distribute water to the world's thirsty. But, in fact, experience
shows that selling water on the open market does not address the needs of poor, thirsty people. On the contrary,
privatized water is delivered to those who can pay for it, such as wealthy cities and individuals and water-intensive
industries, like agriculture and high-tech. As one resident of the high desert in New Mexico observed after his
community's water had been diverted for use by the high-tech industry: "Water flows uphill to money." The push to
commodify water comes at a time when the social, political and economic impacts of water scarcity are rapidly
becoming a destabilizing force, with water-related conflicts springing up around the globe. For example, Malaysia,
which supplies about half of Singapore's water, threatened to cut off that supply in 1997 after Singapore criticized its
government policies. In Africa, relations between Botswana and Namibia have been severely strained by Namibian
plans to construct a pipeline to divert water from the shared Okavango River to eastern Namibia. The Mayor of Mexico
city has predicted a war in the Mexican Valley in the foreseeable future if a solution to his city's water crisis is not
found soon. Much has been written about the potential for water wars in the Middle East, where water resources are
severely limited. The late King Hussein of Jordan once said the only thing he would go to war with Israel over was
water because Israel controls Jordan's water supply. Meanwhile, the future of one of the earth's most vital resources is
being determined by those who profit from its overuse and abuse. A handful of transnational corporations, backed by
the World Bank, are aggressively taking over the management of public water services in developing countries,
dramatically raising the price of water to the local residents and profiting from the Third World's desperate search for
solutions to the water crisis. The agenda is clear: water should be treated like any other tradable good, with its use
determined by market principles. At the same time, governments are signing away their control over domestic water
supplies by participating in trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); its
successor, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA); and the World Trade Organization (WTO). These global trade
institutions effectively give transnational corporations unprecedented access to the water of signatory countries.
Elections ENDI
Already, corporations have started to sue governments in order to gain access to domestic water sources. For
example, Sun Belt, a California company, is suing the government of Canada under NAFTA because British Columbia
(B.C.) banned water exports several years ago. The company claims that B.C.'s law violates several NAFTA-based
investor rights and therefore is claiming US$10 billion in compensation for lost profits. With the protection of these
international trade agreements, companies are setting their sights on the mass transport of bulk water by diversion
and by supertanker. Several companies are developing technology whereby large quantities of fresh water would be
loaded into huge sealed bags and towed across the ocean for sale. Selling water to the highest bidder will only
exacerbate the worst impacts of the world water crisis.

Water Wars unleash 60,000 Nukes

Weiner, Prof. At Princeton, The Next 100 Years p. 270 1990
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the
Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East,
from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water supplies and
rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred
nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has
stockpiled since Trinity.

Elections ENDI

Trade Bad
Free trade creates export driven economies which makes growth unsustainable and makes the
global economy more susceptible to shocks
Tom Palley, AFL CIO, Director of the Open Society Institutes Globalization Reform Project May 23 2002
CIO%20domestic%20demand%20-%20amend.pdf Accessed 7-13-02

A fourth pathology concerns issues of autonomy, the quality of development, and dependency. Here, the

argument is that export-led growth, especially when associated with export-processing zones, leads to

shallow development with weak linkages into the rest of the economy. In effect, export-led growth
replicates patterns of development associated with the earlier “plantation” model of development. This
includes exploitation of workers and failure to generate widely shared rising incomes, which makes it
difficult to develop domestic markets and autonomously sustainable growth. Instead, growth becomes
dependent on growth of export demand, making developing countries vulnerable to slow-downs originating
in their export markets. Moreover, this may also make the global economy more volatile as a whole. The
logic is that of portfolio theory. When there are many autonomous centers of growth, the likelihood of a
global growth slowdown is reduced as such an outcome depends on a slow-down hitting all centers of
growth simultaneously. However, if growth of a large segment of the global economy (the developing
country bloc) is dependent on growth in another segment (the developed country bloc), all that is needed
for a global slow-down is for the leader bloc to slow. Looking to the future, the systemic contradictions of
export-led growth stand to become sharper. Such growth can work for first-comers, but it falls apart once
all try to clamber on board the export-led bandwagon. Particularly ominous is China’s advent on to the
world trading scene. Export-led growth operates via a hierarchical process, with less developed newcomers replacing maturing
export economies in which surplus labor supplies have been exhausted and wages are rising. With China’s advent, this system may
be unworkable. China has huge supplies of labor at rock bottom wages, and population growth ensures that this will hold into the
future. It is not clear that any developing country can now enter the system with production costs below those of China, making it
impossible for new-comers to enter the

hierarchy of export-led growth. If true, the export-led growth paradigm will find itself checkmated. There will be
insufficient demand, while new supplier countries will be unable to compete with China.

Trade allows MNC’s to consolodate power spurring global holocaust

Ken Reiner Founding Member of the Alliance for Democracy, 2002
I view the continuing growth of corporate power and its despotic control of governments throughout
the world, including our own, as a socio-economic disease. While Mussolini and others named it "Fascism," I call it "Corporism"
because that name better reveals its underlying institutional structure. I would define Corporism as the domination of
government and society by the emergence and power of the giant publicly-traded multinational corporations and
financial institutions, organized in totalitarian hierarchies, which singly and in combinations buy or destroy their
competitors, corrupt the politics of nations, and seize, hoard, and wield for themselves most of the wealth of
the human race.We must recognize that we do have this cancerous disease, what it is doing to us and the world we live in, how it
came about historically, and how and why it continues to be generated and sustained now in our society. Just as computer viruses
find their ways into the software of our computers and destroy their operation, Corporism, promulgating itself by financial, legal,
and technological means, has infected society in ways that lead to the hoarding of human resources, increasing
insecurity and misery for the bulk of the world's population, perhaps even to worldwide holocaust. We
must conquer this disease if we are to survive.

Elections ENDI
AT: Trade Impact

No matter who gets elected we will pursue trade deals

Latin Business Chronicle 3-10-08

Abraham Lowenthal, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California: The competitive scramble
for votes in the Ohio primary has created the impression that, if elected, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would
scuttle NAFTA and abandon longstanding US efforts to expand international trade, particularly with the countries of Latin
America and the Caribbean. What is most important about this attack on 'free trade' is that it responds to intensifying
concerns among US workers, both blue and white collar, about the increasingly evident combination of recession and
inflation. People are very worried about the subprime mortgage crisis, the accelerating decline in real estate values, the shrinking
consumption rate, increasing healthcare costs, uncertain pension rights, and the weakening dollar. The gathering anxiety leads
easily to the search for scapegoats, whether trade agreements, unauthorized immigrants, or greedy corporations. The next US
president and Congress will have to tackle the challenge of rebalancing and restimulating the US economy as an
urgent priority. As they focus on this crucial task, my guess is that the pros and cons of free trade agreements will be
nowhere near the center of debate. Decisions about fiscal and monetary policy, taxes, budgets, entitlements, investment, safety
nets, retraining, infrastructure, energy, and the environment will be the heart of the matter. If and when a new national strategy
for economic recovery and growth can be fashioned, renewed emphasis on expanding trade is more likely than not, no
matter who is elected in November. In that context, the 2007 agreement between the Bush administration and the Democratic
leaders in Congress, and then with the government of Peru, is a likely model, and substantial programs for worker retraining and
adjustment in the United States are probable.

Anti Trade rhetoric is a sham

N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard, NYT 3-16-08

With the two political parties apparently divided on trade policy, you might expect those free-trade-loving economists
to be predominantly Republicans. But that’s not the case. One reason is that economists are not single-issue voters.
Like everyone else, they are divided over contentious issues like health policy, the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq.
BUT another reason is that many economists don’t really believe the populist rhetoric coming from the Clinton and
Obama campaigns. They expect that once in office, either candidate would pursue a policy more like that of Mr.
Clinton, who relied heavily on the advice of economic moderates like Mr. Summers and Robert E. Rubin, another former
Treasury secretary. When reports surfaced recently of an Obama economic adviser telling the Canadian government to
ignore his candidate’s anti-Nafta rhetoric, some people were appalled, but many Democratic economists I know were
secretly relieved.

Elections ENDI

Clinton and Obama support China bashing legislation

With their fingers raised to detect the shifting political winds, those vying to control Washington
seem to have little interest in reversing this trend. While the Republican field for 2008 stays
mostly silent on China’s economic rise, the two leading Democratic candidates for president,
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have joined the ranks of China-bashers. Both
support the Senate’s latest efforts to punish China for unfairly manipulating the yuan -- which
they directly tie to stagnant wages and lost jobs in America.

Elections ENDI

pressure spurs Chinese appreciation
Wermuth ’05 (Dieter, Chief European Economist – United Financial of Japan Bank, The Case for
It is therefore not the Chinese who want to untie the dollar bond, it is rather the Americans who are pushing for a
realignment—more precisely, for an appreciation of the renminbi. The Chinese would prefer to argue that something
that ain’t broke needs no fixing. They are dragging their feet and will only allow some upward adjustment of their
exchange rate if the likely political repercussions of sitting tight outweigh the benefits. There is no theoretical limit
to the amount of dollars they are able to buy. If the renminbi were weak, the situation would be quite different because
China might run out of foreign exchange reserves at some point, but this is obviously not an issue today. The country
will never run out of renminbi. [Continues…] If the PPP calculations are worth anything—and my gut feeling suggests
that they are—a revaluation of the renminbi by 5 percent or even 10 percent will not make a big difference. After
further prodding and arm-twisting, the Chinese may agree to such a step, well aware that the little
improvement in their terms of trade is nice to have while international competitiveness is not seriously damaged. If the
renminbi would be valued according to PPP terms, it would take 1.52 of them to buy one dollar, rather than 8.28 today.
Think of the upheavals this would cause for the world economy.

Revaluation stops Chinese domination of global textiles

Terazawa ’03 (Tatsuya, Director, Japan External Trade Organization, The International Economy, 3-22,
The Chinese RMB in my view is clearly undervalued. China runs the highest trade surplus with the United States and
continues to record a high level of current account surplus. China's foreign reserve is piling up at an astonishing speed.
Since 1994, its foreign reserve has increased by more than five times. The current dollar peg was introduced in January
1994. In spite of the dramatic enhancement of the competitiveness of the Chinese economy and industry during the
period since then, the currency level has been remained basically unchanged for nine years. The change in the
currency regime or the level is long overdue. The arbitrarily low level of the RMB is a serious problem for the global
economy. In addition to being the cause of exporting deflation to the world and a drag on the dollar, it can well wipe
out or seriously affect the hope for economic development of many developing countries. Already new foreign direct
investment (FDI) to Southeast Asia, which has been the engine for growth of the region, is dropping substantially.
Although currency level is only one of the causes, the arbitrarily low RMB is certainly accelerating the shift of FDI from
Southeast Asia to China. The damage can be more devastating for less developed economies. In January 2005,
import quotas on textile trade will be abolished. With quotas gone, Chinese textile exports are expected to dominate
the global textile market. The losers will be the developing countries depending upon textile exports for their
growth. Pakistan depends upon textiles for 73 percent of their total exports. For India, Indonesia, and the Philippines,
the figure are 23 percent, 15 percent, and 8 percent respectively. For these countries, competition with Chinese textile
exports coupled with an arbitrarily low RMB will most likely lead to the devastation of their textile industries
which is so important for them. From the development policy perspective, such an outcome should definitely be
avoided. The most market-consistent way to deal with this problem is to appreciate the RMB or to shift the RMB to a
float system before the damage is done. Otherwise, a huge amount of economic aid may be necessary to offset the
negative impact. We also need to be fully reminded that the most vulnerable countries are the countries with much
more importance after September 11 for security and anti-terrorism reasons.

Specifically, causes collapse in Egypt, Indonesia and Turkey

Business Line, 9/30/04
They cited the letter from 13 Senate Republicans and 16 Democrats, including the US Presidential candidate, Senator
John Kerry, of Massachusetts, where they alleged that China's undisputed sway over the global textile and clothing
trade would shake the economic and political stability of dozens of struggling allies such as Turkey, Egypt,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Haiti, Mexico, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South America.

Egyptian instability causes nuclear war

St. Louis Post Dispatch ’92 (11-19, Lexis)
The government cannot provide the kind of services - health care, food, transportation and even education - that the
fundamentalists have provided to Egypt's poor. The renegade actions of the fundamentalists matter because Egypt is
the largest Arab nation, with a great following in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Were its government to fall in a coup and
the National Democratic Party deposed after 40 years of one-party rule, the Middle East would tremble in a way not
felt since the fall of the shah of Iran. Egypt's treaty with Israel would be swept aside, and a brutal, possibly nuclear war
Elections ENDI
could be the outcome. The Middle East would be thrown into great upheaval, as states, rulers and people absorb the
shocks and react accordingly. Fundamentalists in moderate Arab countries such as Jordan would be inspired to revolt
too. The impact would be devastating for stability in the short and long run. World leaders can help to prevent these
events by focusing on Egypt and helping it with its grave problems of overpopulation, underemployment and poverty.
It is too glib to say that relative prosperity will keep Egypt out of the coup makers' reach.

Elections ENDI

A2: Appreciation Bad – Chinese Econ

Turn –-- overheat:
A) Rapid growth will cause a hard landing – slowdown key

Putzger ‘05
(Ian, Staff, Air Cargo World 6-5, Lexis)

Investment and operators keep pouring into China but there is growing unease among those already in the country
that the high-flying economy may presage a hard landing. Cargo operators are nervously trying to sort out whether
there really are danger signals even as they keep their feet on the accelerator for fear of being left behind. The pull of
China's economic growth is seemingly irresistible. For the first quarter, the central government reported 9.5 percent
growth, but many observers believe the actual pace was closer to 11 percent. And China is attracting ever more
overseas investors. According to some reports, foreign firms' investment averages about $1 billion a week. In their
wake, logistics firms are relentlessly expanding their footprint in China. U.S. carriers have snapped up traffic rights to
China as soon as they've become available, and operators such as Qantas and Singapore Airlines are taking advantage
of fifth freedom rights to move freighters through China to North America and Europe. "In the first quarter, China
exceeded all our expectations," said Ed Hernandez, senior vice president of sales and marketing for Polar Air Cargo,
which entered the market late last year. The integrators have set a particularly aggressive expansion pace. DHL
recently signed deals with Northwest Airlines and Cathay Pacific for flights from Shanghai to the U.S. and between
Beijing and Hong Kong, respectively. DHL, which claims to control about 40 percent of the country's express market
through its joint venture with Sinotrans, has embarked on a $273 million expansion program in China over the next
five years. UPS, which had 20 logistics centers in China at the end of last year, is adding 10 in 2005 and 10 more in
2006. Having recently launched direct service to Guangzhou, it plans to boost its Shanghai flights from currently 12 to
14 a week next year. UPS has designated Shanghai to become a hub in 2007, when that option becomes available
under the China-U.S. bilateral. David Abney, UPS president international, says the focus will be on building up
international links but he didn't rule out a push into the domestic express market from the Shanghai base. "The size of
that market is interesting, but we haven't made a decision yet," he said. However, some concern is creeping into the
picture. "If there was a hiccup, it probably wouldn't surprise anybody. There is concern about a hard landing," said
Steve Dearnley, president for the Asia-Pacific region at BAX Global. For one thing, Beijing's attempts to slow down the
rampant growth to avoid an overheating of the economy has fallen short of its goals. The central government had
aimed for 8 percent growth in the first quarter, well below the 9.5 percent clip it reported. Moreover, the rapid
expansion is taking its toll on energy and human resources. Factories in the Pearl River Delta suffer frequent power
shortages, contributing to China's soaring oil bills, as manufacturers run their production lines on generators when the
power grid fails them. More worrying for many is an acute shortage of workers, an odd predicament in light of China's
seemingly inexhaustible supply of labor. According to Mark Ting, deputy managing director of DHL China, southern
China is experiencing a labor shortage of at least five million people. This is pushing up wages from Guangdong to
Shanghai, said Abney. Inevitably, costs in the industrialized areas have risen sharply and are expected to continue
their upward trajectory. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Shanghai, which ranks eighth among the world's
airports in terms of landing fees for 747-400 aircraft, according to the Air Transport Research Society. "Shanghai is not
cheap. Pudong is more expensive than Tokyo," said Northwest Airlines Cargo President Jim Friedel.

B) Revaluation slows Chinese growth – but won’t cause collapse

Goldstein ’04
(Morris, Senior Fellow – Institute for International Economics, ADJUSTING CHINA’S EXCHANGE RATE POLICIES, 5-

Second, the experience of the 1990s does not suggest that real appreciation of the RMB will cause China’s growth
performance to fall unduly. Between 1994 and early 2002, the real trade-weighted exchange rate of the RMB rose by
29 percent; see figure 16. Yet the average growth rate of the Chinese economy from 1985 through 2001 was 8½
percent, and in no single year did the growth rate fall below 7½ percent. At present, the overheated Chinese economy
is probably growing at 10 percent, with bottlenecks increasingly appearing in a number of industries. The sustainable
growth rate is clearly less than that. It is hard to imagine that a 15 to 25 real appreciation of the RMB would propel
China’s growth much below the desired rate. It should also be kept in mind that the exchange rate is hardly the only
policy variable affecting aggregate demand in China. Even if Chinese growth did slow down somewhat more than
desired in the aftermath of an RMB revaluation, fiscal policy and monetary policy would be available to help support
growth, much as they have done when necessary during the past decade.

Elections ENDI

Reval Bad – Chinese Economy

Revaluation collapses Chinese growth though internal financial destabilization and deflation
Times, Online, February 16, 2004,,,8210-1003187,00.html

A substantial revaluation could also be hugely damaging for the Chinese economy — especially if it were accompanied
by the complete abandonment of exchange rate controls. A freely floating exchange rate may be the right long-term
goal for China, but the country’s financial and legal infrastructure is not yet sufficiently mature to cope with the
volatility of world markets. But even if China maintained a dollar peg, a sizeable revaluation would hurt export growth
and could trigger deflation — with important knock-on consequences elsewhere. China is an increasingly important
engine of growth in the global economy. It is the world’s biggest importer of copper, tin, zinc and many other
commodities. It is a key market for the rest of Asia, with exports from Korea, Singapore and Malaysia all rising by more
than 50 per cent in 2003, according to Standard Chartered. If it is true that, when the US sneezes, Britain catches a
cold, then ex-Japan Asia might find itself with a nasty case of economic flu were the Chinese boom to slow. It is not
only growth that would be at risk from a substantial yuan revaluation. By exporting cheap goods across the West,
China is helping to keep down inflation in the industrialised world. Estimates from Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
suggest that cheap goods from China have knocked 0.25 to 0.4 per cent from eurozone inflation. Were Chinese import
prices to surge, then this would inevitably put upward pressure on short-term interest rates in the eurozone, the US
and the UK. For America, a jump in the Chinese currency would bring with it another set of problems. China, along with
Japan, has boosted demand for dollars and pushed down its own currency with heavy purchases of US Treasury bonds.
Were Beijing to let the currency rise, then its appetite for US bonds would inevitably diminish, and bond prices would
fall as a result. Falling US bond prices mean higher long-term interest rates. This, in turn, could knock the American
economic recovery off course. Blaming the undervalued Chinese currency is an easy get-out for the world’s
industrialised nations. But those who think that a yuan revaluation would be a cure-all should think again. A surge in
the Chinese currency would bring with it a whole new set of economic ills. By comparison, the world’s current financial
problems would look like nothing more than a minor sniffle.

Chinese economic collapse causes nuclear wars in all Asian hotspots

Chen ’01
(Shuxen, RAND Corp, China the United States and The Global Economy)

Indeed, U.S.-Chinese relations have been consistently driven by strong common interests in preventing mutually
damaging wars in

Asia that could involve nuclear weapons; in ensuring that Taiwan’s relations with the mainland remain peaceful; in
sustaining the

growth of the U.S., China, and other Asian-Pacific economies; and, in preserving natural environments that sustain
healthy and productive lives. What happens in China matters to Americans. It affects America’s prosperity. China’s
growing economy is a valuable market to many workers, farmers, and businesses across America, not just to large
multinational firms like Boeing, Microsoft, and Motorola, and it could become much more valuable by opening its
markets further. China also affects America’s security. It could either help to stabilize or destabilize currently peaceful
but sometimes tense and dangerous situations in Korea, where U.S. troops are on the front line; in the Taiwan Straits,
where U.S. democratic values and strategic credibility may be at stake; and in nuclear-armed South Asia, where
renewed warfare could lead to terrible consequences. It also affects America’s environment. Indeed, how China meets
its rising energy needs and protects its dwindling habitats will affect the global atmosphere and currently endangered
species. Yet, China’s leadership, preoccupied with preserving its own power, lacks a convincing vision of China’s future.
While we do not know whether China will rise to the challenge and prosper, or stagnate and falter, Americans have a
great stake in China’s successful reform. That is why they have an interest in China’s acceding to the WTO, opening it
to the global economy, and strengthening its compliance with international rules and norms. Cont....

Great common interests and risks of serious conflicts between the United States and China will keep raising difficult
new challenges.

They will require new initiatives for mutually beneficial cooperation and continuous efforts to avoid potentially critical
misunderstandings over unforeseeable events in Taiwan, Korea, Japan, the Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia, or elsewhere.
Without doubt, sustaining China’s economic growth and reinforcing its institutional reforms though greater
openness is a winning prescription for both the United States and China. To pursue this course amid unexpected
Elections ENDI
difficulties, both countries will need to pay close attention to many issues, conduct frank dialogues, and participate in
constructive statesmanship. Ups and downs in U.S.-Chinese relations will likely recur, but they need not be as volatile
as they have been in recent years. Assuming that the future will mirror the past, substantial changes in our situations
and needs vis-à-vis each other will be unpredictable, inevitable, and hard to fathom. This puts a large premium on
ensuring that there are clear communications between Chinese and Americans who are willing and able to keep the
relationship on an even keel.

Elections ENDI

Pressure Bad – US-China Relations

Pressure collapses U.S.-China relations
Hathaway ‘02
(Robert M., Dir – Asia Program, Wilson International Center for Scholars, Promoting Human Rights in China,
National Bureau of Asia Research, Vol 13, No 1)

The U.S.-China relationship is likely to be Washington’s most difficult bilateral relationship for the foreseeable future. It
will not be a close or cordial relationship, for both countries have too many differences on issues of fundamental
importance, including human rights. But neither are the two countries destined or preordained to be adversaries, let
alone enemies. To the contrary, both countries share an interest in finding ways to surmount their very substantial
disagreements. The task for the leadership of the two nations is to devise methods of working together when interests
and values permit, while containing the very real and serious differences that will inevitably arise so that they do not
sour the entire relationship. As the U.S. Congress, the Bush administration, and the American people seek to manage
what will surely be a trying relationship for many years to come, it may be useful to keep a few general propositions in
mind. First, Americans should employ a strategic vision as they look at U.S.-China relations. This relationship is a
complex, multifaceted, and in many ways contradictory relationship. Too few Americans make an effort to view it in a
comprehensive manner and to consider the totality of U.S. relations with Beijing. Many Americans tend to think about
this relationship in terms of a single issue. For some it is human rights, for others trade or Taiwan, for still others
abortion or Tibet or religious freedom. These are all important issues. They deserve to be part of the overall equation.
But not any one of them is so important that it should be permitted to dominate or drive the entire bilateral
relationship. Should the United States succumb to this temptation, not only will it jeopardize the U.S. ability to achieve
other crucial American objectives, but it will also decrease the likelihood of succeeding even in the areas of most
concern to Americans. Rather than allow single-issue politics to determine the future of this relationship, U.S. leaders
must instead ask what is the range of American interests at stake, and how can they best advance the totality of those
interests. Second, exercising strategic vision also means establishing priorities. At the moment the Bush administration
sees China through the lens of the war against terrorism, and other important issues, including human rights, have
been relegated to the back burner. At other times, nonproliferation or trade or Taiwan-related concerns have governed
U.S. management of Sino-American relations. In truth, the United States has numerous items on its China agenda, and
efforts to achieve these objectives in one area may impede Washington’s ability to realize other goals. So
policymakers need to ask, to give one example, how a decision to sell arms to Taiwan could affect U.S. efforts to block
North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, or its ability to promote better human rights conditions in China. Strategic
vision, in other words, requires the United States to balance competing policy objectives in such a manner as to
maximize the prospects of promoting our most vital interests. [Continues… ]

The United States is also likely to encounter a prickly, nationalistic China that will take offense at perceived slights
or signs of foreign, especially American, dictation or bullying. Nationalism is on the rise in China today—in part
because the regime, having lost its ideological moorings, has deliberately beat the nationalism drum in order to
sustain popular support. Feelings of fierce nationalism will place constraints on even an autocratic government.
Officials well-disposed toward the United States will find reason to be firm in the face of perceived U.S. pressure.

Nuclear war
Conable and Lampton ‘93
(Barber B., President Emeritus – World Bank and David, President – National Committee, China: The Coming
Power, Foreign Affairs, Dec/Jan, Lexis)

Regionally American interests are both numerous and important. The two most protracted, economically distracting
and politically explosive American military commitments in the post-World War II era were Korea and Vietnam. In both
cases China figured prominently. The lesson is that regional stability requires workable U.S.-China relations.
Competition between Beijing and Washington takes the form of exploiting indigenous regional conflicts by both
powers, resulting in local problems that expand to suck both countries into a self-defeating vortex. The most serious
threats to American security and economic interests in Asia include armed conflict with nuclear potential between
the two Koreas and between India and Pakistan; a deterioration of relations between Beijing and Taipei that could lead
to economic or military conflict; a re-ignition of the Cambodian conflict; and a botched transition to Beijing's
sovereignty in Hong Kong in 1997. None of these problems can be handled effectively without substantial Sino-
American cooperation. Constructive relations with Beijing will not assure P.R.C. cooperation in all cases; needlessly bad
relations will nearly ensure conflict. The Republic of Korea's formal diplomatic recognition of Beijing last August, at

Elections ENDI
the expense of Taipei, is just one indication of the increasing importance the region attaches to building positive ties to
the P.R.C.

Elections ENDI

Democrats bad- India Deal

Democrats would wreck the India Deal
Pranay Sharma is a senior journalist and a commentator on foreign policy issues in both print and audio-visual media. 3-12-08

The government and supporters of the deal firmly believe that it is the best agreement that India could get. They argue that it would
not only break the "nuclear apartheid" India had been facing for decades, but also elevate its status as a nuclear weapons state and
allow it access to sophisticated and dual-use technologies. The growing urgency in the government to push through the deal has
much to do with developments in the US as well as within India. The possibility of a Democrat President coming into office in
the US in January next year, has raised concerns about the future of the nuke deal. Irrespective of the love that Barack
Obama or Hilary Clinton has among people in India, few would deny that the non-proliferation lobbies in America and
elsewhere would come back as major players if either of them becomes President. This creates the possibility of new
areas and conditions being attached to a re-worked 123 Agreement between India and the new US government. It
could even give the opportunity to many other members in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group to come up with their set of
conditions to support India on the nuclear deal. What exactly has changed for the government in New Delhi to become
confident to think it could now push the deal through? For most part of its tenure, the Manmohan Singh government had been
grappling for a plank that could fire the imagination of the people and convey the message that it cared for the millions of deprived
Indians. The lack of confidence in the ruling Congress showed when under pressure from the Left, it made it clear that it was not
willing to go through with the deal by sacrificing the government.

Elections ENDI

India Deal Relations

Impact --- Deal key to U.S.-Indian relations
Schaffer ‘07
(Teresita, Dir South Asia Program – CSIS, “Nuclear Friends in Need”, Yale Global, 7-12,

Since the early 1990s, the center of gravity in US foreign and security policy shifted from Europe to Asia, especially with the rise of Chinese power. The values-based partnership
between India and the US is derived from the increasing importance of Asia and a convergence of interests that took shape in the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
India’s world-view after it became independent in 1947 was shaped by its anti-colonial history, nonalignment between the world’s two major blocs, determination to remain
preeminent in its immediate neighborhood, and poverty, which in practice limited India’s international impact. India today sees itself as a major regional power on its way to
becoming a major world power and the US as the key external friend who can help it realize its global ambitions. Economics – expanding India’s trade and investment and
securing its energy supplies – has become a major driver of its foreign policy. Over the past 15 years, the change in both tone and substance of US-India relations has been
revolutionary. Once India and the US internalized the significance of the end of the Cold War, both sides set about building a bilateral infrastructure for a working partnership in a
changed world, largely built on the economic foundations of trade and foreign direct investment: Two-way trade rose from $11.6 billion in 2001 to $27 billion in 2005. Foreign
direct investment rose from $1.7 billion in 2000 to $6.6 billion in 2005. With such common interests, it is a priority for both the US and India that Asia develop in peace and that no
single power dominate the continent. Though this argument is seldom articulated by either government, India and the US have quietly worked to integrate Asia politically and
economically. Both obviously think of China in this context, but neither is interested in creating an anti-Chinese alliance: For both, the objective is to encourage peaceful relations
between China and the rest of the region. Historically, the US and India had radically different perspectives on security. The US opposed India’s nuclear policy, especially after the
1998 test of an explicitly military nuclear device. India saw the Indian Ocean as its own “security space,” and looked with a jaundiced eye on other powers, including the US,
maintaining a regular military presence there. Ironically, the nuclear test provided the occasion for India and the US to have their first serious discussion about respective
strategic perspectives and what would make the world a safer place. This dialogue ultimately did not change either country’s fundamental approach to nuclear proliferation. But it
did lead the US to accept that it must deal with India as a nuclear power. It also led both countries to recognize a common interest in preventing the spread of nuclear-weapons
technology. The test set the stage for changes during the 21st century: the simplification of US procedures for exports of non-nuclear high technology that India wanted to buy

-US civil-nuclear cooperation, which had been off limits for nearly 30 years. The
and the agreement making possible India

US Congress passed legislation authorizing the agreement, and the understanding now makes its way
through a multi-layered implementation process. This agreement has caused heartburn both in the US and
India and, if implemented, will lead to major adjustments in the nonproliferation institutions that the US
painstakingly built over the last 40 years. Still, the agreement should be supported for two reasons: First,
removing India from the list of “nuclear outlaws” is an essential step in securing India’s energetic
participation in preventing the spread of nuclear-weapons technology. Second, the US could not have
developed a real partnership with India – one that could stabilize Asia and strengthen the region’s
democratic orientation – without breaking the nuclear taboo.

That causes nuclear war in South Asia

NYT ‘02(6-10, Lexis)
Military cooperation between India and the United States has remarkably quickened since Sept.
11, with a burst of navy, air force and army joint exercises, the revival of American military sales
to India and a blur of high-level visits by generals and admirals. The fledgling relationship between
American and Indian military leaders will be important to Mr. Rumsfeld in talks intended to put to
rest fears of war between India and Pakistan. "We can hope this translates into some influence and trust,
though I don't want to overstate it," a senior American defense official said in an interview on Thursday. "I don't want to predict
this guarantees success." The American diplomatic efforts yielded their first real gains on Saturday when India welcomed a pledge
by Pakistan's military ruler to stop permanently the infiltration of militants into Kashmir. India indicated that it would soon take
steps to reduce tensions, but a million troops are still fully mobilized along the border -- a situation likely to persist for months --
and the process of resolving the crisis has just begun. India has linked the killing of civilians in Kashmir to a Pakistan-backed
insurgency there and has presented its confrontation with Pakistan as part of the global campaign against terrorism. India itself
made an unstinting offer of support to the United States after Sept. 11, and Washington responded by ending the
sanctions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. With that, the estrangement that prevailed between the world's two largest
democracies during the cold war, when India drew close to the Soviet Union and the United States allied with Pakistan, has eased.
India, for decades a champion of nonalignment, seeks warmer ties with the United States in hopes of gaining access to
sophisticated military technology and help in dealing with Pakistan. From the start of President Bush's term, some influential
officials in his administration saw India as a potential counterweight to that other Asian behemoth, China, whose growing power
was seen as a potential strategic threat. But since Sept. 11, the priority has been terrorism. The United States is hoping
its deeper military and political ties with India will give it some measure of leverage to prevent
a war between India and Pakistan that could lead to a nuclear holocaust and would play havoc with
the hunt for Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
Fai ‘01(Ghulam Nabi, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, Washington Times, 7-8)
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India
crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the
planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched
between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948
and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United
States would enjoy no sanctuary.
Elections ENDI

Solves Prolif

Turns prolif --- India deal key to global non-proliferation

Tellis ‘05
(Ashley, The Statesman, 11-16, Lexis)

Contrary to these gloomy prognostications, the President's new agreement with India is a bold step that will have the
effect of strengthening the nonproliferation order for many decades to come. Far from being a freebie for New
Delhi, it represents a considered American strategy for integrating India into the nonproliferation regime, which India
has not been part of since the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in 1968. The NPT was intended to
prevent global proliferation by compelling all non-nuclear weapon states to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions as
the price for enjoying access to civilian nuclear technology. This trade-off worked for most countries and represents a
profound diplomatic accomplishment for which succeeding Republican and Democratic administrations should be
credited. For a variety of political and philosophical reasons, however, India chose not to sign the NPT and went on to
build both a large civilian nuclear infrastructure and a nuclear weapons stockpile based mainly on indigenous
expertise. Thus, the restrictions on nuclear commerce that the USA orchestrated since 1974 progressively lost their
relevance as far as India was concerned. In effect, India became an exceptional case regarding nuclear weapons and
nonproliferation. Nevertheless, New Delhi established through this entire period an exemplary record of controlling
onward proliferation. India's commendable nonproliferation history, however, owes entirely to sovereign decisions
made by its government, not to its adherence to international agreements. As a result, any unilateral change in the
Indian government's policy of strict nonproliferation could pose serious problems for American security. This concern
has acquired particular urgency in the post-9/11 era because of the incredibly sophisticated capabilities present in
India today and because India remains at the cutting edge of research and development activities in new fuel cycle
technologies. Bringing New Delhi into the global nonproliferation regime through a lasting bilateral agreement that
defines clearly enforceable benefits and obligations, not only strengthens American efforts to stem further proliferation
but also enhances US national security. The President's accord with India advances these objectives in a fair and direct
way. It recognises that it is unreasonable to continue to ask India to bear the burdens of enforcing the global
nonproliferation regime in perpetuity, while it suffers stiff and encompassing sanctions from that same regime. So the
President proposes to give India access to nuclear fuel, technology, and knowledge in exchange for New Delhi
institutionalising rigorous export controls, placing its civilian reactors under international safeguards, and actively
assisting the USA in reducing proliferation worldwide. In other words, he offers India the benefits of peaceful nuclear
cooperation in exchange for transforming what is currently a unilateral Indian commitment to nonproliferation into a
formally verifiable and permanent international responsibility. This deal, obviously, does not imply a lessened US
commitment to maintain through intense diplomacy in the months and years ahead the vitality of the NPT regime,
which remains critical to American national interests. But, it does indicate that extraordinary problems justify
extraordinary solutions. The international community has long recognised India's anomalous position in the NPT
framework. Consequently, three of the five legitimate, nuclear-weapon states have welcomed the Bush-Singh
agreement and even the exception thus far - China - has been silent rather than opposed. Despite this fact, many fear
that the agreement could undercut the basic bargain of the NPT and lead several current, non-nuclear weapon states
to seek those same benefits now offered to India. This concern must be taken seriously, but it is on balance
exaggerated. For starters, there is no international pressure to re-negotiate the NPT from either its nuclear or its non-
nuclear signatories. Further, those non-nuclear weapon states that joined the regime and continue to remain members
in good standing did so because the treaty emphatically serves their national interests. If anything, these countries
should join IAEA Director-General Mohammed El Baradei in applauding the Bush-Singh initiative, because an India that
undertakes binding international nonproliferation obligations promotes the security of non-nuclear weapons states as
much as it does that of the USA. Not surprisingly, then, many non-nuclear weapon states such as Canada and Australia
have endorsed the agreement. Finally, with regard to worries about other NPT non-signatories demanding similar deals
to the one that Bush and Singh have just brokered, it is worth noting that India currently remains the only outlier
worthy of such unique treatment. Although India, Pakistan, and Israel have not violated any NPT obligations by
developing their nuclear deterrents, New Delhi alone meets the following criteria that justify international cooperation:
It has proven mastery over various nuclear fuel cycles, which must now be safeguarded in the global interest. It has an
exceptional nonproliferation record, despite having been a target of the international nonproliferation regime. Most
Elections ENDI
importantly, it has enormous energy needs that cannot be satisfied without access to nuclear fuel (and to nuclear
power more generally), if it is simultaneously expected to help mitigate the problems of climate change and
environmental degradation.

Elections ENDI

A2: Deal Bad – Pakistan

Musharraf is indifferent on the deal

The Nation ‘05
(7-26, Lexis)

If you label everyone enemy who will be your friend? Who will trust you, your credibility
and reliability. President Musharraf has not even protested or reacted to the US- India
Nuclear deal, Condoleezza Rice is reported to have spoken to Musharraf on the issue.
According to her, his reaction was "constructive" and "not overly problematic". I can't make
out what it really means! But what is more frustrating is the news that the US is not willing to provide nuclear power
plants to Pakistan despite intense diplomatic efforts by Islamabad. Pakistan required these plants to meet its growing
energy requirements. What alternatives are available to the government and what is the feasibility is the question.

Pakistan doesn’t view the deal as a threat

Sifi News ‘05

(7-26, Lexis)

Playing down the significance of the India-US nuclear pact, President Pervez Musharraf said the United States had
assured him that the co-operation with New Delhi was confined to atomic energy and not related to weapons
programme. "The US has assured me that the agreement it has signed with India is energy-related. It is not weapon-
related," he said, at an Editors' conference in Lahore on Monday.

The deal boosts India’s leverage with Pakistan

Bose ‘05
(8-1, The Pioneer)

Paradoxically, the real gain of Mr Singh's Washington visit may turn out to be better relations with other countries. With
the world's only superpower going out of its way to pat India's back, the country does get undoubted leverage with
Europe, Latin America and Africa as well as key players in the neighbourhood like China and Pakistan.

Favoring Pakistan Fosters Terrorists

Deccan Herald ‘05
(7-18, Lexis)

During his trip to Pakistan, Dr Debat found that there was a great deal of integration among many strata of political
and jehadi Islam in Pakistan. He saw three types of militant groups. “The Kashmir-related groups are very sectarian,
very anti-Shiite, and they have deep links to the Taliban.” These and other category of extremist groups
threatened to create a new Taliban in Pakistan, Dr Debat said. The US also faces a few
dilemmas. The first dilemma is, if the US supports Pakistan it runs the risk of being
perceived of a benefactor to supporters of terrorism which, in turn, will be seen by
leaders in other lawless areas such as Yemen, Somalia and Niger.

Elections ENDI

Deal Bad- Prolif

Nuclear deal destroys the NPT causing fast global proliferation and inevitable nuclear
Johann Hari, award-winning journalist, columnist for The Independent, July 30, 2005, Hamilton Spectator (Ontario,
Canada), “From Hot Spots to Cold Wars,” p. F04

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (may it rest in peace) is pretty basic. It was written in the aftermath of the Cuban
Missile Crisis, when pale and shaken world leaders were slowly realizing how close they had come to committing
"rational suicide" by launching a nuclear war. A consensus emerged that the number of nuclear weapons in the world
needed to be drastically reduced, and that no new nuclear powers should be allowed to emerge to increase the risk
even further. Almost every country in the world signed. The non-nuclear countries agreed not to tool up, in exchange
for the already-nuclear countries agreeing to slowly dismantle their arsenals and to never, under any circumstances,
share their nuclear technologies. The treaty has been in intensive care for years. Since it was signed in 1968, at least
six other countries have acquired nukes, and only one country (South Africa) has disarmed. During Bush junior's
presidency, the United States has ramped up its arsenal of WMD, working on "mini-nukes" and "more useable" bunker-
busting nuclear weapons. The North Korean tyranny has spent billions on nuclear weapons while its people starve and
the Iranian mullahs are inching close behind. The recent UN meeting to discuss the future of the treaty was a
shambles, since it was plain that nobody intended to abide by its terms. And then this week, President Bush unplugged
the life support and held a pillow over the patient's face. After feting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (above) at
the White House, Bush unilaterally ended the sanctions imposed against India since it went nuclear in 1998, and
privately welcomed her role as a nuclear bulwark against China. He announced a deal to begin sharing U.S. nuclear
technology with India, making a mockery of one of the key ideas of the treaty. It would be more honest to give the
treaty a public burial and admit that, for now, we are living in a world where nukes are proliferating across the globe
with no international restraints. This might just jolt us awake. But should it? Is there really any danger of a nuclear
weapon actually being used this century? Sadly, you can only dismiss nuclear weapons as 1980s nightmares if you are
very short-sighted or if you have a very bad memory. Let's look at the subcontinent Bush has just begun to share his
nuclear technologies with. Twice in the past six years, India and Pakistan have stood at the brink of nuclear war. In the
1999 Kargil crisis, the countries exchanged nuclear threats 13 times -- with no hotline between the two leaders to calm
them down. Just three summers ago, Britain advised her citizens to evacuate cities like Delhi and Karachi because
there was a "real and imminent" risk of them being evaporated in a mushroom cloud. The judgment call was right:
Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes was bragging: "India can take a nuclear hit and hit back," while Pakistan's
General Mirza Aslam Beg announced: "We can make a first strike, a second strike and even a third. Look -- you can die
crossing the street, or you can die in a nuclear war. You've got to die some day anyway." We are entering a world of
rapidly multiplying nuclear standoffs like this. India vs. Pakistan. Iran vs. Israel. America vs. China. Within
decades, North Korea vs. Japan and South Korea. Not one Cold War, but many -- and the risk is doubled each time.
True, since the election of the Congress Party last year, India's relations with Pakistan have (very slightly) relaxed. But
the construction of a nuclear bunker underneath the prime minister's office has continued, and nobody has forgotten
that the two countries have been at war four times in the past 60 years. The bombs have now fused with the fierce
nationalism of the countries, with some Indian leaders still talking proudly of the "Hindu bomb" -- presumably followed
by Hindu fallout and Hindu radioactive poisoning. (There is a horrible irony in this, since Robert Oppenheimer -- the
father of the bomb -- responded to seeing the first ever nuclear explosion by quoting the god Vishnu from Hindu
scripture: "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.") It is wildly naive to think that all these standoffs between
highly volatile countries can continue until -- when? forever? -- without, sooner or later, a bomb being used. Even the
minimal protections of the Cold War -- like hotlines between leaders -- are not yet in place in most of these countries.
How many reruns of the Cuban Missile Crisis should we risk over the next century? It is not only the Usual Suspects
who are warning about this. Even Margaret Thatcher -- one of the most militant defenders of nuclear weapons in the
world -- has predicted that a "battlefield nuclear weapon will be used in the next 20 years". So where are all the old
ban-the-bomb luvies, now the issue has become more complex, more "foreign" and less sexy? At the height of the last
India-Pakistan standoff, I asked novelist Martin Amis what he thought about nuclear weapons now, and he mumbled
something about a "regional nuclear war" being "less frightening." This is based on a dumb and flawed premise. All
nuclear bombs in existence today are 20 times more powerful than the weapons dropped on Japan, and there are
currently over 9,000 of them ready to fire within 45 minutes. But if just a handful of these weapons is exploded
anywhere, there will be disastrous ecological and economic consequences everywhere. They will not be
confined to the region where they are detonated. It is not clear how many weapons have to be exploded to trigger a
nuclear winter and On The Beach-style universal death, but some scientists believe the use of India and Pakistan's
Elections ENDI
joint arsenals would be sufficient. These are ludicrous risks when there is a solution out there -- even if it is pretty
retro. One day we will have to disinter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, wipe off the soil Bush just tossed on its
coffin, and try to start a process of gradual, multilateral disarmament, removing a major threat to human life one
radioactive step at a time. But do we have to wait for Hiroshima Redux to actually happen before we start on this long,
slow work?

Elections ENDI

Deal bad Pakistan

Deal destroys US-Pakistan relations – they’re key to the war on terror
Financial Times (London, England), March 20, 2006, “Pakistan seeks same nuclear deal as India,” p. Lexis

Pakistan's failure to secure US nuclear technology for civilian use has triggered the most difficult challenge for the
two countries since the terrorist attacks on the US in 2001, Pakistani officials warned yesterday. Amid growing
criticism in Pakistan of the US agreement to supply civil nuclear technology to India, Pakistan's ambassador to
Washington called for the two south Asian countries to be treated equally. "Instead of a country-specific deal on a
subject as critical as nuclear technology, there should be a package for both India and Pakistan," said Jehangir
Karamat, Pakistan's former army chief, in Dawn, the country's English-language newspaper. Islamabad officials said
Pakistan, which is the closest US ally in the war on terror, was pressing Washington for concessions similar to those
offered to Delhi during this month's visit to south Asia by President George W. Bush. "India and Pakistan are both de
facto nuclear powers, we have both carriedout nuclear tests and weare both non-signatories to the NPT (non-
proliferation treaty)" said one. "The US should not discriminate between us."

Terrorism causes global nuclear conflict – the ultimate impact is extinction

Louis Rene Beres, professor of political science and international law at Purdue University, 1987, Terrorism
and Global Security, Second Edition, p. 42-3

Nuclear terrorism could even spark full-scale war between states. Such war could involve the entire spectrum of
nuclear-conflict possibilities, ranging from a nuclear attack upon a non-nuclear state to systemwide nuclear war.
How might such far-reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would
involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists hosted in another state. For example, consider the
following scenario: Early in the 1990s, Israel and its Arab-state neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a
comprehensive, multilateral peace settlement. With a bilateral treaty between Israel and Egypt already many years
old, only the interests of the Palestinians—as defined by the PLO—seem to have been left out. On the eve of the
proposed signing of the peace agreement, half a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one-kiloton range detonate
in as many Israeli cities. Public grief in Israel over the many thousands dead and maimed is matched only by the
outcry for revenge. In response to the public mood, the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against
terrorist strongholds in Lebanon, whereupon Lebanese Shiite forces and Syria retaliate against Israel. Before long,
the entire region is ablaze, conflict has escalated to nuclear forms, and all countries in the area have suffered
unprecedented destruction. Of course, such a scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. How
would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the Soviet response? It is certainly
conceivable that a chain reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensue, one that would ultimately involve the
superpowers or even every nuclear-weapons state on the planet. What, exactly, would this mean? Whether the
terms of assessment be statistical or human, the consequences of nuclear war require an entirely new paradigm of
death. Only such a paradigm would allow us a proper framework for absorbing the vision of near-total obliteration
and the outer limits of human destructiveness. Any nuclear war would have effectively permanent and irreversible
consequences. Whatever the actual extent of injuries and fatalities, such a war would entomb the spirit of the
entire species in a planetary casket strewn with shorn bodies and imbecile imaginations.

Elections ENDI

A2: Deal Good – US-India

US-Indian relations will be strong regardless of the nuclear deal

Markey ‘06
(Rep. Ed, D-MA, Giving Away The Farm: Bush Caves To India On Nuke Deal, 3-3,;_ylt=A86.I1NwP)

The President argued that the India nuclear deal will strengthen the security and the economies of both nations. He is
wrong. We do not need to grant India special exemptions from nuclear nonproliferation rules in order to have a strong
security relationship with India and assist India in further developing and expanding its economy. India already has a
strong geopolitical basis for developing close bilateral ties with the United States. Both countries are democracies,
both already are major markets for one another's goods and services, and both share common security interests.

US-Indian relations high—the deal is pointless.

Michael Krepon, President Emeritus of the Henry L. Stimson Center and Director of its South Asia Project, August 31,
2005, Stimson Center,
One question worth asking is whether the Bush administration believes that relaxing the
rules of nuclear commerce is essential to improve Indo-U.S. relations. There is bipartisan
support to improve ties, which began in a serious way at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and has picked up considerable speed during the Bush
administration. President Bush has greatly increased military cooperation with New Delhi, including

the offer of advanced combat aircraft and their co-production in India. The United States
has long been ready to increase trade and investment in India. The Bush administration has
also relaxed restrictions on space cooperation, and is working more closely than ever with New Delhi on regional security problems.
In other words, significantly improved ties are being forged without having to relax
existing rules to prevent proliferation. So why has the administration proposed to weaken these rules? Does it honestly believe that foreign
nuclear suppliers will agree only to make an exception for India, and not for other nations? At a time when Washington is pushing hard to toughen requirements for nuclear
commerce to states that have pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons or appear to be seeking them, does it make sense to relax requirements on states that have nuclear