You are on page 1of 36

RSS- SDI 2008

2AC Blocks

Cap and Trade Aff- Wave 3.0


**Topicality**..................................................................................................................................................................................2
AT: Incentive = Positive...................................................................................................................................................................2
**DAs**..........................................................................................................................................................................................3
AT: Clean Coal DA (KMT Lab).......................................................................................................................................................3
AT: Clean Coal DA (KMT Lab).......................................................................................................................................................4
Ext. Coal Industry Down..................................................................................................................................................................5
AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab)...............................................................................................................................................6
AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab)...............................................................................................................................................7
AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab)...............................................................................................................................................8
AT: Clean Coal.................................................................................................................................................................................9
Ext. Coal = Warming......................................................................................................................................................................10
AT: Econ DA .................................................................................................................................................................................11
AT: Econ DA..................................................................................................................................................................................12
Ext. US Econ Down.......................................................................................................................................................................13
Ext. Environmental Regulations Key.............................................................................................................................................14
Ext. Warming Not Hurt Economy..................................................................................................................................................15
AT: Spending DA...........................................................................................................................................................................16
Ext. Plan Costs Nothing.................................................................................................................................................................17
Ext. Plan Saves Money..................................................................................................................................................................18
**Oil DAs**..................................................................................................................................................................................19
AT: Renewables Oil DA.................................................................................................................................................................19
Ext. Prices Down............................................................................................................................................................................20
Ext. Cap and Trade = Renewables.................................................................................................................................................21
Ext. High Prices Not Key...............................................................................................................................................................22
AT: Russian Oil DA (Defense).......................................................................................................................................................23
AT: Russian Oil DA (Defense).......................................................................................................................................................24
AT: Russian Oil DA (Offense).......................................................................................................................................................25
AT: Russian Oil DA (Offense).......................................................................................................................................................26
Ext. Russia Diverse........................................................................................................................................................................27
Ext. High Prices Bad- Russian Econ..............................................................................................................................................28
AT: Saudi Oil DA (Defense)..........................................................................................................................................................29
AT: Saudi Oil DA (Offense)...........................................................................................................................................................30
AT: Saudi Oil DA (Offense)...........................................................................................................................................................31
Ext. Saudi Diversification Now.....................................................................................................................................................32
Ext. Terrorism Turn........................................................................................................................................................................33
AT: Backstopping DA....................................................................................................................................................................34
Ext. No Threat of Oil weapon........................................................................................................................................................35
AT: Hege Fund DA.........................................................................................................................................................................36

1
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks
**Topicality**

AT: Incentive = Positive

1. We Meet: We provide an incentive to reduce emissions and develop alternative energy because businesses can
then sell extra permits obtained by cutting emissions for profit.

2. Counter Interpretation- Neg case list plus our aff are the only topical affirmatives on the resolution, solves all of
your offensive reasons why your interp is good.

3. And here is contextual evidence to support that a tradeable permit system is an incentive mechanism.

Fischer and Newell 2004 (Carolyn, Fellow, Resources for the Future, and Richard, Gendell Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics
Environmental Sciences & Policy, “Environment and Technology Policies for Climate change and renewable energy,” Resources for the Future, April )
With a direct price for emissions—via either an emissions tax or
a tradable emissions permit system—the fossil fuel sector has an
incentive to lower its emissions rate until the marginal cost of reduction equals the emissions price '()tMC μτ−=(tPMC=t . The
market price of electricity reflects the total marginal cost of fossil generation, inclusive of the embodied emissions cost as well as higher marginal production costs:)t μτμ+ t t (see
equation (3)). Without other subsidies, the renewables sector receives the market price for electricity (RttPP=), and the price increase promotes greater renewable energy generation in
both stages. The prospect of more output in the second stage increases knowledge investment incentives in the renewables
sector, for both R&D and learning. The higher market price also means consumers have added incentive to conserve. Thus, the
emissions price provides efficient incentives for achieving a given emissions reduction goal as it provides equalized
incentives for emissions reduction along all three margins—emissions intensity, output reduction (via price
increase), and renewable energy production.

3. Neg interpretation is bad

a) limits out core of the topic aff’s like tradeable permits- this is the central focus of the literature- robs
us of the ability to get topic specific education

b) Forces us to debate bad economy disads every round- the neg has no right to a particular DA or Strat,
especially if its terrible.

c) Bi-directionality on this particular issue is not abusive- Gives more links to the off case, provides two sides
to generics and increases neg ground in a predictable manner.

4. Counter Standards

a) Limits- we limit the topic to a fair number of core topic cases that have a strong literature base, fair
for both Aff Flex and Neg ground.

b) Education- Tradeable Permits is at the core of the topic- key to topic specific education, Tradeable
permits is one of the leading debated mechanisms for solving climate change and promoting
Alternative Energy.

5. Not A Voter

a) Competing interpretations are bad- force a race to the bottom, its infinitely regressive- the neg could come up
with any number of Interpretations that they could always read against the affirmative.

b) Err aff on reasonability- we are at the core of the topic and reasonably topically.

c) There’s no abuse- literature base is on our side, there is plenty of links to the core generics. Don’t vote on
potential abuse.

2
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks
**DAs**

AT: Clean Coal DA (KMT Lab)

(__) Coal industry collapsing – environmental standards, public opinion and lack of financing

Salon.com 5/15/08 “Celebrate clean coal, come on!” http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/


These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related
industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as
prospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told
the Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more
environmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even
red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants were
either canceled or halted across the nation.
When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate
strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral
right now."

(__) 1AC is a link turn to this argument- Even if they win a risk of their link, we have several internal
links into the economy which will offset any economic decline- prefer our evidence on this question its
specific to our type of cap and trade system, theirs is not.

a) Banking- US entrance into the tradeable permits market is key to investment and profits for banks- key
to the global economy- the impact is extinction, that’s our Bailey evidence.

b) Competitiveness- US is being boxed out of the market for carbon and for renewable, both of these are
critical to not only the global economy, but also to US hege. That’s our Derwet Evidence.
(__) Non Unique- US economy trashed now

CSM 7-16 (“Woes Deepen for US Economy,” 2008 http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0716/p01s05-usec.html)

Expectations that the current US economic downturn will be shallow are diminishing.
A severe recession in the United States still isn't the mainstream forecast, but economists say it's a real possibility, especially as problems at
American banks deepen amid a continuing shakeout of the housing crisis.
What makes forecasts challenging these days is that the economy's problems involve the linkage of many moving parts. Crucially, a healthy banking system is vital
to the economy, and now an economic slowdown and a plunge in bank stocks have raised the prospect of more
bank failures and the need for federal intervention.

3
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Clean Coal DA (KMT Lab)

(__) Coal Industry Not Transitioning To Clean Coal- Not Key to Industry Strength

WALD, staff writer, 2008 [“Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal”, The New York Times, 5/30/08,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=425f6009b9e65c19&ex=1212292800, Sui

But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.
In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant
at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold
the carbon dioxide for eons.
Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and
Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or
thrown into regulatory limbo.
Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and
perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make
coal compatible with limiting global warming.
“It’s a total mess,” said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.
“Coal’s had a tough year,” said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon
Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs.
can be captured.
But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster.
Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is
unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power
plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere.
Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable.
Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to
the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who
would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant.
Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with Schlumberger, the oil field services
company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration.
only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has
But
come to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it,
“we’re not going to have much of a chance for stabilizing the climate,” said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an
environmental group.
The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven
methods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal
plants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be
pumped into the atmosphere for decades.

4
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Coal Industry Down

Coal industry is dying – lack of government funding and regulatory confusion

New York Times 5/30/08 “Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html
President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of “clean coal.” All three candidates to succeed him
favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically
begging for the technology.
But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.
In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a
carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.
Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would
have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.

Coal industry is struggling – construction costs

New York Times 5/30/08 “Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html
“Coal’s had a tough year,” said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment for
processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by
the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned
around, will be a long-term disaster.

5
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab)

The US coal industry is on the decline – It will continue to be cut back in the status quo

Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, “U.S. coal power boom suddenly wanes”, March 4, 20 08 edition, jlk,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.html

Concerns about global warming and rising building costs are blocking construction of new coal-fired power plants in
the United States and pushing utilities to turn to natural gas and renewable power instead. Utilities canceled or put on
hold at least 45 coal plants in development last year, according to a new analysis by the US Department of Energy's
National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh. These moves – a sharp reversal from a year ago, when the
industry had more than 150 such plants in development – signal the waning of a major US expansion into coal.
Natural-gas and renewable power projects have leapt ahead of coal in the development pipeline, according to Global
Energy Decisions, a Boulder, Colo., energy information supplier. Gas and renewables each show more than 70,000
megawatts under development compared with about 66,000 megawatts in the coal-power pipeline. This year could
diminish coal's future prospects even more. Wall Street investment banks last month said they will now evaluate the cost
of carbon emissions before approving power plants, raising the bar much higher for new coal projects, analysts say.
"What you're seeing is a de facto moratorium on coal power right now," says Robert Linden, a senior oil and gas analyst
at Pace Global in New York. "You turn off the money spigot, you've turned off those plants." Aside from the 28 or so
coal-fired power plants already under construction, prospects remain tenuous for the half-dozen plants "near
construction" and another 80 plants not nearly as far along, says Steve Piper, managing director of power forecasting at
Platts, the energy information division of McGraw-Hill. "Expansions [of existing plants] still have a good chance. But
others will come under increased pressure for deferral or outright cancellation."

No Internal Link- Coal industry is resilient


Richard R. Hall, J.D. University of Chicago Law School, and John S. Kirkham, J.D., University of
Utah College of Law, 6/4/07 http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484
Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable energy sources
were going to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives. However, despite these predictions,
the use of coal for generating electricity has nearly tripled in the last 30 years, and the demand for and consumption of
coal is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Coal has enabled America’s electric utilities to keep up with ever
increasing demand, and coal is now being used in record amounts. Last year, coal-fired plants contributed 50% of the
electricity produced in the United States, and it is anticipated that coal will maintain this percentage through 2025. But
while coal-fired plants contribute half of the electricity produced in the United States, they also contribute four-fifths of
the carbon emissions associated with electrical generation.

New innovation in energy will spur innovation in the market not kill the economy- empirically
proven.
William B. Bonvillian, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center in D.C. Issues in Science and
Technology, 2004. “Meeting the new challenge to U.S economic competitiveness,” Lexis MH
A school of economic theory that has developed during the past two decades argues that technological and related
innovation accounts for more than half of historical U.S. economic growth, which makes this a far more significant
factor than capital and labor supply, which are the dominant factors in traditional economic analysis. These economic
growth theorists see a pattern shared by important breakthrough technologies such as railroads, steamships, electricity,
telecommunications, aerospace, and computing. The new technology ignites a chain reaction of related innovation that
leads to a surge in productivity improvements throughout the economy and thus to overall economic growth. The most
recent example is the productivity boom that occurred in the mid-1990s following the IT revolution that spread through
the manufacturing and service sectors.

6
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab)

Every aspect of the coal industry will destsroy the environment – causes warming, land and water
ecosystem destruction, and makes habitats inhabitable

Martha Keating, CATF, Clean Air Task Force, June, 2001, Cradle to Grave: TheEnvironmental Impactsfrom Coal, JaretLK,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qhMvUAlb3NQJ:www.catf.us/publications/reports/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf+Coal+industry+environmental+impact&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
The electric power industry is the largest toxic polluter in the country, and coal, which is used to generate over half of the electricity
produced in the U.S., is the dirtiest of all fuels.1From mining to coal cleaning, from transportation to electricity
generation to disposal, coal releases numerous toxic pollut-ants into our air, our waters and onto our lands.2Nation-ally,
the cumulative impact of all of these effects is magnified by the enormous quantities of coal burned each year – nearly 900
million tons. Promoting more coal use without also providing additional environmental safe-guards will only increase this toxic abuse of our health
and ecosystems. The trace elements contained in coal (and others formed during combustion) are a large group of diverse pollutants with
a number of health and environmentaleffects.3They are a public health concern because at sufficient exposure levels they adversely affect human
health. Some are known to cause cancer, others impair reproduc-tion and the normal development of children, and still others damage the nervous and
immunesystems. Many are also respira-tory irritants that can worsen respiratory conditions such asasthma. They are an environmen-tal
concern because they damage ecosystems. Power plants also emit large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), the
“greenhouse gas” largely responsible for climate change. The health and environmental effects caused by power plant emissions may
vary over time and space, from short-term episodes of coal dust blown from a passing train to the long-term global dispersion of mercury, to climate
change. Because of different factors like geology, demographics and climate, impacts will also vary from place to place. For example, effects from
coalmining may be the biggest concern in the coal-field regions of the country, while inhalation exposure may be the foremost risk in an urban setting
and, in less populated rural America, visibility impair-ment and haze may be of special concern. Coal mining harms land, surface waters,
ground water and even our air.4Impacts to the land from mining cause drastic changes in the local area. Damage to
plants, animals and humans occurs from the destruction and removal of habitat and environ-mental contamination.
Surface mining completely removes land from its normal uses. Property and scenic values are degraded as agricultural crops, forests,
rangeland and deserts are replaced by pits, quarries and tailing piles. Restoring or reclaiming a surface mine by replacing vegetation and restoring the
landscape to its original contours helps minimize any permanent disruption. However, hundreds of thousands of acres of surface mines have not been
reclaimed, and reclamation of steep terrain, such as found in Appalachia, is difficult.5Finally, despite reclama-tion efforts, ecosystems may be
destroyed and replaced by a totally different habitat. Mining impacts both surface waters and ground water. In under-
ground mining, waste materials are piled at the surface creating runoff that both pollutes and alters the flow of local
streams. As rain percolates through these piles, soluble components are dissolved in the runoff and cause the elevation
of total dissolved solids (TDS) in local water bodies. The presence of TDS in a stream usually indicates that sulfates, calcium, carbonates and
bicarbon-ates are present. While not a direct threat to human health, these pollutants make water undrinkable by altering its taste and can also degrade water to the point
where it can’t be used for industry or agriculture.6Acid mine drainage is a particularly severe by product of mining especially where coal seams have abundant quantities of
The acidity of the run off is problematic by itself, but it also
pyrite. When pyrite is exposed to water and air, it forms sulfuric acid and iron.
dissolves metals like manganese, zinc and nickel, which then become part of the runoff. The resulting acidity and
presence of metals in the runoff are directly toxic to aquatic life and render the water unfit for use.8 Some metals
bioaccumulate in the aquatic food chain. Addition-ally, bottom-dwelling organ-isms can be smothered byiron that settles
out of the water.Also of concern is the impact mining has on ground-water, including contaminationand physical dislocation of aquifers.These are
typically localized effects. Acid mine drainage that seeps intogroundwater is a common cause of contamination.9Physical disruption of
aquifers can occur from blastingwhich can cause the groundwater to seep to a lower level or even connect two aquifers
(leading to contamination of both). When a mine is located below the water table,water seeps into the mine and has to be pumped out. Thiscan lower the
water table and even dry up nearby wells.The process of mining, followed by reclamation, changes the permeability of overlying soil, alters the rate ofgroundwater
discharge and increases flooding potential.10Underground mines not only impact groundwaterhydrology, they are prone to subsidence.11Subsidence occurs when the
ground above the mine sinks becausethe roof of the mine either shifts or collapses. Subsidence can alter ground slopes to such an extent that roads, water and gas lines and
buildings are damaged. Naturaldrainage patterns, river flows and aquifers can also be altered. The extent and severity of the subsidence depends on numerous factors
including how thick the overlying soil and rock layers are and the mining method. These problems can be addressed by preventive methods such as leaving enough coal in
Deliberately collapsing the mine after the coal is extracted causes subsidence to
place to provide structuralsupport to the mine roof.
occur sooner, but more evenly. For existing mines, one “correc-tive” measure that has been used is backfilling the minewith either mine
wastes or combustion wastes. While this approach may seem to solve both subsidence and waste disposal problems, it is actually expensive and
dangerous and releases contaminants to the groundwater.12 Inaddition, these wastes often lack the structural strength to
support the mine roof. Mine wastes are generated in huge quantities – on the order of tens of millions of tons per
year.13Thesewastes include the solid waste from the mine, called “gob,”refuse from coal washing and coal preparation, and thesludge from treating
acid mine drainage. There are anumber of environmental impacts from this waste generation. First, the land where these wastes are dumped
is no longer useable for other purposes. Second,the piles are flammable and susceptible to spontaneous combustion.
Third, they are prone to erosion which is amajor concern because the runoff and seepage from these piles is highly
acidic.

7
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab)

(__) Coal causes pollution and warming- The Impact is our 1AC

Hansen 06 (Brian Hansen, Inside Energy, New York, January 16, 2006, JD, proquest)
[Kiyo Akasaka] lauded progress on a host of fronts, including EPA's efforts to reduce power-plant pollution, noting that
U.S. emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and other key pollutants declined during the review period despite
growth in population and the economy. He attributed the accomplishments to several factors, including EPA's use of
emissions-trading programs, cost-benefit analyses and other initiatives that inject more "flexibility" into environmental
regulations. The study also questions whether U.S. plans to reduce mercury and fine-particle pollution from old coal
power plants are adequate, saying emissions from those sources "pose human health risks and contribute to persistent
regional pollution problems." The report noted EPA has begun to regulate power-sector mercury emissions, but OECD
does not offer a ringing endorsement of its rule, which environmental and public health groups say is too weak to
adequately protect people from mercury, a potent neurotoxin. The report expounds on those allegations.

(__) Coal Causes Deforestation

Jeff Biggers, Lowell Thomas Award for Travel Journalism, a Field Foundation Fellowship and an Illinois Arts Council Creative Non-Fiction Award. He serves as a
contributing editor to The Bloomsbury Review, and is a member of the PEN American Center 3/2/08 “Clean Coal? Don’t try to shovel that” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html

More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died from black lung
disease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The injuries and deaths caused by
overburdened coal trucks are innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a recent report revealing that in the last six years the
Mine Safety and Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush administration
officials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by 6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who were
entombed underground in Utah last summer? Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited,
torn and churned into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United
States today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the "United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child for
strip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An estimated 750,000 to 1 million
acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding
communities -- an area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last two
decades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in
Appalachian communities every year.

(__) The Impact is Extinction

Butler 2007 (Rhett, Not from gone with the Wind, “Extinction,” Mongabay.com http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0908.htm)

The greatest loss with the longest-lasting effects from the ongoing destruction of wilderness will be the mass
extinction of species that provide Earth with biodiversity. Although great extinctions have occurred in the past, none has occurred as
rapidly or has been so much the result of the actions of a single species. The extinction rate of today may be 1,000 to 10,000 times the
biological normal, or background, extinction rate of 1-10 species extinctions per year.
So far there is no evidence for the massive species extinctions predicted by the species-area curve in the chart below. However, it
is possible that species
extinction, like global warming, has a time lag, and the loss of forest species due to forest clearing in the past may
not be apparent yet today. Ward (1997) uses the term "extinction debt" to describe such extinction of species and populations long after habitat alteration:
Decades or centuries after a habitat perturbation, extinction related to the perturbation may still be taking place. This
is perhaps the least understood and most insidious aspect of habitat destruction. We can clear-cut a forest and then point out that the attendant
extinctions are low, when in reality a larger number of extinctions will take place in the future. We will have
produced an extinction debt that has to be paid. . . We might curtail our hunting practices when some given population falls to very low numbers and think
that we have succeeded in "saving" the species in question, when in reality we have produced an extinction debt that ultimately must be paid in full. . . Extinction debts are
bad debts, and when they are eventually paid, the world is a poorer place.

8
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks
AT: Clean Coal

Clean Coal is a myth and will still cause pollution – Real “clean” technology is still decades away.
GPACE (Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy), 7/10/08 “Our Energy Economy,”
http://www.gpace.org/?q=our-energy-economy MH
Coal is not a clean energy source, whether considering pollutants such as mercury, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, or
ozone (which cause illness and premature death, especially among children) or the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
Advances have been made in the industry to develop and implement scrubbers that remove some of the mercury and
other pollutants from coal-fired emissions, but these processes simply remove those pollutants from airborne emissions
and capture them in sludges or slurries that are then stored at the plants and/or dumped into rivers or groundwater. As
for the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, there is currently no existing technology that can remove carbon dioxide from
coal-fired emissions and effectively “sequester” it. Most credible experts agree that so-called “clean coal” technologies
are at least ten to twenty years off, if in fact ever feasible at all. Additionally, carbon capture and sequestration
technology for pulverized coal plants uses three times as much water as the coal plant alone – which already uses vast
amounts of water.

Clean coal is a long way off. Alternative energy is more viable.


Roger Vanderlely, senior Chemistry teacher, 7-8-2008, “Clean Coal and Business As Usual”, NM,
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/clean-coal-and-business-as-usual.html
The problem with clean coal is that the technology is not yet a commercially proven solution. In a move likely to be
mirrored around the world, the Australian government recently ditched its support for solar energy in favor of pursuing
the development of clean coal technology. For any other form of energy supply still in development such backing from
government would be seen as ludicrous. This approach is dangerous. Solar and wind are proven energy generating
technologies that are ready to be implemented NOW. Commercial production of these technologies could easily be
ramped up to meet new energy demands and replace existing power stations. Ignoring these in favor of a method that
does not yet exist and that may not even work is foolhardy. If climate change is not addressed the economic losses
alone are beyond imagination. They will make the amount of money saved by continuing with coal instead of solar
power look like a drop in the ocean. Once the environmental damage is done, the cost of fixing the problem will be
vastly more than preventing it in the first place. Add to this the fact that coal is still a finite resource and the foolishness
of proceeding with clean coal becomes even clearer.

Clean coal development is 20 years away anyway


David Sassoon, Masters at Columbia University and worker for UN, 2-7-2008, solve climate,
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080207/best-case-clean-coal-still-two-decades-away
And a week in advance of its big annual energy conference in Houston, CERA has released a new report on the future of
clean energy. Here's what it has to say about Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the more technical term for so-called
"clean" coal. Even in the best case, CCS is at least two decades away from large scale deployment.....Current
expectations seem to underestimate the lead time needed for widespread application. Two decades. Twenty years. 2028.
Which makes you wonder what all those "clean" coal commercials are doing on TV now -- the ones which show the
orange extension cord plugged into a lump of -- um -- dirty coal.

9
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Coal = Warming

The current global coal boom will lead to global warming – advancing the industry is suicide
Jeff Goodell, January 25, 2007, “Big Coal’s Dirty Move”, JaretLK,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13159559/national_affairs_big_coals_dirty_move
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a suicidal act is one that is "dangerous to oneself or to one's interests;
self-destructive or ruinous." By this standard, the coal boom that is currently sweeping America is the atmospheric
equivalent of a swan dive off a very tall building. At precisely the moment that scientists have reached a consensus that
we need to drastically cut climate-warming pollution, the electric-power industry is racing to build more than 150 new
coal plants across the United States. Coal is by far the dirtiest fossil fuel: If the new plants are built, they will dump
hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year for decades to come — virtually
guaranteeing that the U.S. will join China in leading civilization's plunge into a superheated future.

10
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Econ DA
(__) Non Unique- US economy trashed now

CSM 7-16 (“Woes Deepen for US Economy,” 2008 http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0716/p01s05-usec.html)

Expectations that the current US economic downturn will be shallow are diminishing.
A severe recession in the United States still isn't the mainstream forecast, but economists say it's a real possibility, especially as problems at
American banks deepen amid a continuing shakeout of the housing crisis.
What makes forecasts challenging these days is that the economy's problems involve the linkage of many moving parts. Crucially, a healthy banking system is vital
to the economy, and now an economic slowdown and a plunge in bank stocks have raised the prospect of more
bank failures and the need for federal intervention.

(__) Global warming and oil dependence ensure a future crash- cap and trade avoids both and ensures
short-term business certainty

National Wildlife Federation 1/20/08 (Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act: Energizing America’s Economy, SustainableDelco,
http://sustainabledelco.org/2008/01/20/lieberman-warner-climate-security-act-energizing-america%E2%80%99s-economy/)
Doing nothing on climate change is a recipe for economic failure. Consider the
Economic Cost of Delay:
major economic risks from our current dependency on fossil fuels, including the potential
disruptions to foreign supplies of oil. Also, the economic damage from global warming itself will
climb year after year if we fail to act. A recent commission chaired by Sir Nicholas Stern, former
chief economist of the World Bank, found that global warming could reduce world economic output
by as much as 20 percent if we fail to take action Beyond the impacts of global warming, there is also a very real price industry will pay the
longer we wait. Businesses are making billions of dollars in investments in the coming years for power plants and other energy capital, and they need
certainty of the rules – and a flexible framework such as that in the Lieberman-Warner bill – to
make the most efficient decisions. Also, a slow start on federal action means a crash finish. If we
start cutting pollution by the year 2012, we can cut pollution gradually by about 2% every year. If
we delay even two years, we will need to cut pollution at twice the rate (around 4% a year) just to achieve the same
cumulative pollution levels through the year 2020.

(__) Case Out Weighs- Even if they win a risk of their link, we have several internal links into the
economy which will offset any economic decline- prefer our evidence on this question its specific to our
type of cap and trade system, theirs is not.

(__) Climate regulations decrease spending on energy, freeing up capital for spending and economic
growth- key to the economy.

Claussen and Peace 2007 (Eileen and Janet, Pew Center for climate Change, “ Energy Myth Twelve: Climate Policy will Bankrupt the US Economy,” Energy
and American Society- 13 Myths, http://www.springerlink.com/content/l38431j743106357/fulltext.pdf )

The most recent effort to address this debate looked again at the implications of climate policy in California.1 Arnold
Schwarzenegger, California’s Governor, has committed to taking significant action on climate change and a Berkeley group evaluated eight
of the potential policies being considered (Hanemann et al., 2006). Using the Berkeley Energy and Resources (BEAR) model, they found in aggregate, these
eight policies had benefits that exceeded the costs. The authors found that many GHG policies reduce energy use,
which in turn lowers spending on energy and allows saving to be spent on goods that increase economic
growth and employment. “Climate action in California,” they concluded “can yield net gains for the state
economy, increasing growth and creating jobs.” The authors go on to suggest that near-term effort will give California a
competitive advantage with respect to technology and industries that will be needed to address climate
change.

11
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks
AT: Econ DA

(__) Global Warming Policies Do NOT hinder economic growth.

Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2008 (In Brief, Insights from Modeling Analyses of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security
Act (S. 2191), May, http://www.pewclimate.org/docUpdloads/L-W-Modeling.pdf)
Climate policies such as S. 2191 will still allow the economy to grow robustly. It is important to note that
projections of changes in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) across all of the models reflect a reduction in
future expected growth—never an absolute reduction (see Table 1). For 2030, reductions from BAU forecasts of
GDP vary across models from 0.3% to 2.7% but the ACCF/NAM analysis (which is not fully representative of the key policy
elements of S. 2191) is a clear outlier. In all of these cases, including the most pessimistic, the economy is
projected to grow significantly. Similarly, in 2050, estimates of reductions in future expected growth from BAU
generally vary from 0.75% to 2.7%. The BAU or reference cases in the various models show that overall U.S. GDP doubles by
2030 and more than triples by 2050. Thus, decreases from future GDP are quite small compared to the
overall economic growth over the time period considered. For example, in EIA’s analysis, GDP grows
183% from 2005 to 2030 in the S. 2191 core (policy) scenario compared to 184% in the reference case.
For context, this means that the economy would be less than 2 months behind BAU levels in 2030 with GHG caps.

12
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. US Econ Down

(__) US Economy Down- California, Banks, and US Dollar.

The Times 7-16 (“Its worse than we feared and there’s more pain to come, but it will pass,” 2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4340443.ece?openComment=true)

The spectacle of customers queueing outside a small California bank on Monday to withdraw their deposits was
unsettling enough for an American public already traumatised by a year-long financial crisis.
But there were two things about the collapse of IndyMac, a lender based in Pasadena, just outside Los Angeles, that were especially troubling.
The first was that, as the federal authorities moved in to rescue the failed lender, they revealed that they had for some time been compiling a lengthy list of banks around the country
that, because of their mounting difficulties, had been placed on a kind of death watch.
The scarier thing was that IndyMac was not even on the list.
The bank’s failure – which mirrored the crisis in Britain over Northern Rock – was only one of a series of dizzying events in the past week
that suggest that the turmoil that has battered the US economy and threatened the stability of the global financial
system has entered an ominous new phase.
In Washington and New York last weekend the financial authorities clocked up yet more overtime as they cobbled
together a plan to rescue two of the nation’s largest financial institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose core
business is the very lifeblood of the vast US housing market.
On Monday rumours of imminent failure swirled around a number of small and medium-sized banks across the nation.
One of the country’s largest investment banks, Lehman Brothers, was once again battered by speculation that it could not meet its liabilities. The whole US banking
sector posted their largest one-day decline in share prices since 1989.
Yesterday investors around the world joined in the panic, pummelling the US dollar, which dropped to yet another
record low against the euro. The dollar’s latest losses also pushed the pound back above the $2 mark.
The mood among policymakers in Washington is one of growing dismay; some might call it alarm. Despite their
best efforts to keep the world’s largest economy afloat, despite a succession of unprecedented measures to restore
calm to financial markets, the situation continues to deteriorate.

(__) The Economy is toast- it wont get better any time soon.

USA Today 7-15 (“Economic Pain: Payback for debt fueled growth?” 2008 http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-07-15-how-bad_N.htm)

Already down 23% from its October high, the Dow Jones industrial average touches a two-year low. The Labor Department
says wholesale prices are rising at their fastest pace since Ronald Reagan's first year in the White House. Embattled
automaker and American icon General Motors suspends its dividend to stockholders. The last time that happened? 1922.
In Washington, somber statements came from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. President Bush, meeting reporters at the White House,
acknowledged, "It's been a difficult time for many American families." On Capitol Hill, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke warned lawmakers, "The economy continues
to face numerous difficulties."
If it wasn't clear before Tuesday, it is now: This is no ordinary economic crisis, and it won't be over anytime soon.
In fact, problems are multiplying. A year ago, the financial virus seemed confined to subprime mortgages, loans given to those with less-than-perfect credit. Now,
much of the banking system appears rickety, and the U.S. economy has slowed to a crawl. But thanks to robust
demand from still-growing countries such as China, the prices of commodities from oil to food have soared — hitting
Americans from the gas pump to the grocery checkout.
"There's no hope of an early recovery at this point," says economist Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University. "The best-case scenario is
we have a long but mild recession — and that's the best-case scenario."

13
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Environmental Regulations Key

(__) Environmental regulations increases competitiveness- other countries are already developing
alternative energy, the US is behind. Key to spurring innovation.

Claussen and Peace 2007 (Eileen and Janet, Pew Center for climate Change, “ Energy Myth Twelve: Climate Policy will Bankrupt the US Economy,” Energy
and American Society- 13 Myths, http://www.springerlink.com/content/l38431j743106357/fulltext.pdf )

A few notable studies have suggested that environmental regulation improves competitiveness. Michael Porter’s research on this
topic is often cited in support of this theory. According to Porter, environmental regulations force firms to fundamentally rethink their
production processes which can stimulate innovation and lead to lower production costs and improved
international competitiveness (Porter and van der Linde 1995a, b). Repetto et al. (1997) in looking at climate policy specifically, argue that GHG
commitments will not harm U.S. competitiveness and could actually stimulate sector investments. Berman and Bui (2001)
look at a related issue – air quality, from the perspective of a key sector, evaluating the impacts of specific air quality regulations on refineries in California. They found that oil
refineries meeting more stringent environmental standards in the Los Angeles Air basin increased productivity and efficiency because of the redesigned production processes
required for compliance.

14
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Warming Not Hurt Economy

Their arguments are based on economic models that don’t assume technological innovation and
resultant decreases in energy costs
National Wildlife Federation 1/20/08 (Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act: Energizing America’s Economy, SustainableDelco,
http://sustainabledelco.org/2008/01/20/lieberman-warner-climate-security-act-energizing-america%E2%80%99s-economy/)
Economic Modeling of the Legislation: Because the Lieberman-Warner bill designed to drive technology innovation, economic
models are incapable of guessing at what that innovation may bring, and the economic opportunity it entails. However,
many economists analyze bills based on the technology we have now to determine what the likely market-based price
will be for emission allowances, and how that will affect energy prices and GDP. According to a detailed technology analysis by
McKinsey & Company on behalf of Shell, Honeywell, DTE Energy and other sponsors, U.S. emissions can be reduced by 20-30% below
current levels by the year 2030 (reductions comparable to those in the Lieberman-Warner bill) through measures that are cost effective.
The cost savings from many of these measures (such as improving efficiency in buildings) would roughly offset the added
cost of the more expensive options (such as reducing pollution at coal-fired power plants). Analysis of an earlier version of
the Lieberman-Warner bill by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and RTI
International suggests the following: (1) America’s economy will grow strongly under the Lieberman-Warner bill. Total
U.S. GDP will roughly triple in size between 2010 and 2050 with or without enactment of the bill. However, there may be some
slight loss in GDP through 2050 – roughly equivalent to delaying economic growth by about 6 months over a 40 year timeframe. This analysis does not
attempt to assess, however, the positive boost to the U.S. economy that would accompany a renaissance in manufacturing clean energy technologies to sell
around the world. (2) The Lieberman-Warner bill returns significant revenues to consumers. The bill is the first to provide detailed provisions to aid a just
transition to a clean energy future for low- and middle-income families. Based on the Nicholas Institute’s forecast for emission allowance prices, NWF
calculates that the consumer-oriented provisions in the bill’s allocation formula will return $425 billion to low- and middle-income consumers thru the year
2030. (3) Energy prices may increase for businesses and residential consumers, although energy bills could go up or down. Compared to a “business as usual”
pathway, the Nicholas Institute estimates that, by the year 2015: the price of gasoline may increase by 7%; the price of natural gas may increase by about 17%;
and the price of electricity may increase by about 20%. However, increasing energy prices does not automatically translate into higher
energy bills, as consumers will have greater access to energy saving technologies that reduce the amount of gasoline,
natural gas and electricity purchased. A recent analysis by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of a similar climate
bill (S. 280) determined that overall cost of generating electricity across the United States would decrease by 2025, as the
savings from energy conservation more than offset the costs of pollution controls to industry. (4) The United States
energy mix will diversify and rely less on fossil fuels. The legislation will drive energy conservation and renewable energy sources, with the
overall use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) declining 12% by 2015 relative to business-as-usual. United States dependency on oil will be reduced by 15%
compared to business-as-usual by 2050. (5) The Cost of emitting greenhouse gas emissions will increase over time as emissions limits tighten. Emission
allowance prices are estimated to start at about $20 per ton (carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2015 and increase as emission caps tighten.

Economic models are inherently uncertain

Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2008 (In Brief, Insights from Modeling Analyses of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security
Act (S. 2191), May, http://www.pewclimate.org/docUpdloads/L-W-Modeling.pdf)
Consideration of the range of uncertainty in the model is important for putting the potential cost impacts of a policy in perspective. Uncertainty about the types
of technology that will be available in 20, 30, or even 50 years is significant. Who would have predicted back in the 1950s the computing or communications
capabilities we have today? Further, predicting how our economy will grow is also rife with uncertainty. In the six modeling
exercises that we examined, the difference between reference case GDP (that is, future GDP in the absence of climate
policy) in 2030 was almost 3 trillion dollars, representing a difference of more than 10 percent. Predicted impacts (for
example, the 0.44% reduction in 2030 GDP from BAU suggested by the MIT model) in light of this large uncertainty seems
insignificant.

15
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Spending DA

(__) Case Out Weighs- Even if they win a risk of their link, we have several internal links into the
economy which will offset any economic decline- prefer our evidence on this question its specific to our
type of cap and trade system, theirs is not.

(__) Non Unique- US economy trashed now

CSM 7-16 (“Woes Deepen for US Economy,” 2008 http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0716/p01s05-usec.html)

Expectations that the current US economic downturn will be shallow are diminishing.
A severe recession in the United States still isn't the mainstream forecast, but economists say it's a real possibility, especially as problems at
American banks deepen amid a continuing shakeout of the housing crisis.
What makes forecasts challenging these days is that the economy's problems involve the linkage of many moving parts. Crucially, a healthy banking system is vital
to the economy, and now an economic slowdown and a plunge in bank stocks have raised the prospect of more
bank failures and the need for federal intervention.

(__) No Link- Plan doesn’t spend any money to set up the cap and trade system- all incentives come in
the form of perms which are given or auctioned by the government. Any residual spending will come
from already allocated funds.

(__) Auctioning off Permits increases government Revenue.

Thompson 6/21/08 (Clive, contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, International Herald Tribune, “The mission of Mister Clean,”
lexis-nexis)

But the Lieberman-Warner bill, like virtually every other cap-and-trade bill in the works, gives away only 75
percent of the allowances; the government auctions off the rest. Year by year, the percentage of allowances
that will be auctioned off steadily rises, until nearly all of them are. This is a huge new source of money for the
government: Carbon allowances are projected to be worth $100 billion in the first year alone, rising
to nearly $500 billion by 2050.

(__) And case Out Weights- Global warming ensures a global depression

Environment News Service, October 30, 2006 (Accessed May 17, 2008, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-30-
06.asp)

LONDON, UK, October 30, 2006 (ENS) - The most comprehensive review ever carried out on the
economics of climate change warns that global warming could inflict worldwide disruption as great
as that caused by the two World Wars and the Great Depression. Published today and launched at the offices
of the Royal Society in London, the Stern Review estimates that US$9 trillion dollars would be the global
economic cost of doing nothing. The review, sent to Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown, was
commissioned by the chancellor in July last year. It was carried out by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the Government Economic
Service and a former World Bank chief economist. Sir Nicholas said today, "The conclusion of the review is essentially
optimistic. There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act now and act
internationally. Governments, businesses and individuals all need to work together to respond to the challenge. Strong,
deliberate policy choices by governments are essential to motivate change."

16
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Plan Costs Nothing

(__) The Cost to the government would be zero from a cap and trade system

Salmon 2008 (Felix, Staff writer for Economic Magazines, “Why Bush Doesn’t Like Cap and Trade,” Apr 16 http://seekingalpha.com/article/72524-why-bush-doesn-t-
like-cap-and-trade)

You want an argument for why a cap-and-trade system makes more sense than a carbon tax if you want to reduce carbon emissions? Take a look at all the noise surrounding the Bush
speech on the subject today. Bush's
goal, of stopping growth in US carbon emissions by 2025, is incredibly weak. If that goal
were legislated by means of a cap-and-trade system, the open-market cost of emitting carbon would be very close
to zero. And yet such a system won't be proposed:
One person briefed on White House deliberations said a cap-and-trade program for electric utilities was dropped from the package yesterday, after the White House was flooded with
complaints from industry officials and lobbyists.

17
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Plan Saves Money

(__) The Auctioning portion of the plan increases government revenue

Goldstein 2007 (Benjamin, Research Associate for the Center for American Progress, “Learning from Europe, Designing a Cap and Trade Programs that work,” Center
for American Progress June 1st http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/g8_cap_and_trade.html)

Most economists agree that auctioning


is the most efficient allocation mechanism. Auctioning prevents windfall profits,
avoids rewarding polluters and penalizing early adopters of clean or efficient technologies, is transparent and
immune to political lobbies, and creates a new source of government revenue that can be used to compensate
consumers for higher energy costs or to invest in clean energy research and development.

18
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

**Oil DAs**

AT: Renewables Oil DA

(__) Oil Prices Down

Reuters 7-17 (“Oil prices down but not out,” http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717 2008)

The old saying what goes up must come down seemed true of oil markets this week as falling demand helped to wipe more than $10 off the
price, but long-term supply constraints could keep investors keen.
Bullish forecasters say the
record rally that took prices to more than $147 a barrel last week has a long way to run and that it
will take years to make up for a chronic lack of investment in bringing on new supplies.
Others say prices, which were below $134 a barrel early on Thursday, have hit the kind of levels that have a significant impact on demand.
"We believe the 100 percent rise in the oil price over the last year is not sustainable going forwards," said Richard Batty of
Standard Life Investments.

(__) Our Competitivness advantage is a link turn-

a) Our Hawkins evidence indicates that the ONLY way for companies to be forced to switch is if there is a
national cap and trade program.

b) Our Haverkamp evidence indicates that US participation in the global carbon market gives renewable
manufactures an outlet for their products- increasing the incentive to produce.

c) here’s more evidence on this question- Cap and trade causes a shift to Renewables

Byron Swift and Jan Mazurek 2008 (Director of the Center for Energy, Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law Institute and the Director of the Center for
Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute, Progressive Policy Institute Policy Report, October 2001, Accessed May 16, 2008,
http://www.ndol.org/documents/clean_energy_part2.pdf)

The adoption by other countries of greenhouse gas caps virtually guarantees that the country (or company) first to
market with carbon-abatement technologies will reap unprecedented dividends. Although we can’t foresee exactly what carbon
mitigation technologies will form the ultimate response to global warming, we should be creating incentives to develop them now. We know
from experience that new technology, an entrepreneurial spirit, and sound public policies can simultaneously produce
environmental improvements, growth, and affordable energy. U.S. companies should have incentives to develop carbon
mitigation technologies that will have world markets. It is also up to countries like the United States that have the capital and expertise to
develop these technologies in order for lesser-developed countries to be able to commit to reductions by applying those technologies.

(__) Renewable Development not Dependent on High Prices.

Environment News Service, 6-21-07, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-21-04.asp

While the report finds that high oil prices have driven investors into the renewable energy market, UNEP Executive
Director Achim Steiner says many investors are choosing renewables regardless of oil prices. "One of the new and
fundamental messages of this report is that renewable energies are no longer subject to the vagaries of rising and falling
oil prices - they are becoming generating systems of choice for increasing numbers of power companies, communities
and countries irrespective of the costs of fossil fuels, said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner, introducing the
report Wednesday.

19
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Prices Down


(__) Prices Down- Economic worries

Schreck 7-16 (Adam, AP news wire, “Economic Worries Pull Prices Down,” http://www.courant.com/business/hc-oilprices0716.artjul16,0,4844089.story 2008)

Oil prices fell harder than they have in 17 years Tuesday, as fears that record fuel prices are spreading broad economic
pain exacerbated the third big sell-off in just over a week.
Light, sweet crude plunged $6.44, or 4.4 percent, to settle at $138.74 a barrel. Prices at one point plummeted more than $10
from the day's high.
Mounting concerns about the risks inflation poses to the United States, the world's biggest oil consumer, helped
spark the declines. Analysts also attributed the sell-off to Thursday's expiration of options contracts, which tend to increase volatility, and to computers programmed to
automatically sell once prices reach certain thresholds.
"There was this big ... selling pressure when prices dipped below $140 a barrel. It got a lot of bulls very nervous," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information
Service. "If it was a fire, you'd call it an accelerant."

(__) Prices are down- by at least 10 dollars and erratic sell off.

AP 7-17 (“Oil prices fall again, down $10 in 2-day erratic sell-off,” Baltimore Sun, 2008 http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.oil17jul17,0,102280.story)

Oil prices settled sharply lower for the second day in a row yesterday, leaving crude more than $10 cheaper in just two days of frenzied trading
and prompting speculation that the hard-charging market may be running out of steam.
Light sweet crude for August delivery fell $4.14 to settle at $134.60 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier sinking as low as $132.
The drop follows a $6.44 sell-off Tuesday, crude's biggest since the Gulf War.
The two-day slide of $10.58 a barrel marks a dramatic turnaround in crude prices, which as recently as Friday traded at record highs above $147 a barrel. But even with this week's
sell-off, prices remain about 80 percent above where they were a year ago and up about 40 percent from the start of the year.
Analysts are unsure whether the drop represents a long-term shift in sentiment or simply a brief correction to
crude's monthslong bull run. But the dizzying decline is prompting market veterans to ask how much support
remains for such high prices.

20
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Cap and Trade = Renewables

(__) Cap and Trade programs provides incentives for businesses and other organizations to development
and invest in alternative energy.

Bird, Holt and Carroll 2008 (Lori, Edward and Ghita, “Implications of Cap and Trade for US voluntary Renewable energy Markets,” Energy Policy 36, 2063-
2073 Online)

Voluntary markets for renewable energy have been growing rapidly in recent years, fueled partly by interest among
businesses and consumers in reducing GHG emissions. Currently, these markets provide a convenient way in which consumers can support the
development of renewable energy technologies and address the emissions associated with their own electricity consumption. In an era of carbon regulation,
voluntary renewable energy markets can continue to play an important role because many consumers may be
interested in supporting investment in renewable energy beyond what is required through mandates or other types
of policy support. Some consumers may not be satisfied that emissions caps or other regulatory actions are sufficient to address the threats of global warming. In addition,
many businesses and organizations may not be subject to carbon regulation, but may be interested in taking action to
reduce the impacts of their own emissions footprints. Businesses and consumers may want to help support
renewable energy today in order to help transform the technology to meet long-term emissionreduction goals.
Voluntary markets for renewable energy may also be important because renewables provide advantages beyond no (or low) emissions, such as energy security and economic
development benefits.

21
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. High Prices Not Key

(__) Security concerns drive renewable development-prices not key

Gal Luft, executive director of Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, 7-5-07, http://www.iags.org/n050707.htm
To insulate the U.S. further, President Bush seeks to double the size of the American oil reserve in the coming years. The President also seeks to reduce
America's oil dependence through increased efficiency and to shift to alternative fuels. Applied in unison, these tactics advance the
strategic goals of reducing global energy prices, protecting the West against supply disruptions, and limiting the flow of petrodollars to
Tehran. This increased pressure on the Iranian regime could, over time, generate a much desired regime change. If Washington executes this strategy with expediency and
determination, this outcome could be achieved before Iran becomes a nuclear power

(__) Even without high oil prices, the renewable energy industry will still grow.

Science Letter July 8, 2008 HEADLINE: INTEGRITY INTERNATIONAL; Integrity International Launches Renewable Energy Staffing
Division

"While business ideas in the renewable energy field will work and fail, we project that the job opportunities will grow
dramatically in the near term," Ahumada said. "Even without the recent spike in oil prices, the pressure to increase
renewable energy is strong and will continue to grow."

(__) Prices will not fuel the transition.

Ian Bremmer. "Prices Transform Oil Into A Weapon." International Herald Tribune. 27 Aug. 2005.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/26/news/edbremmer.php
Second, petro-states are rethinking their assumptions about the elasticity of global demand for oil. When oil sold for $30 a
barrel, they accepted the conventional view that substantial price hikes might lower demand - and hurt their bottom lines - as
importing states actively looked for new sources of oil, energy alternatives and other ways to cut fossile-fuel consumption.
Now that oil sells for well above $60 a barrel, without (so far) a sharp drop in demand, energy-exporting states are changing
their minds. Some now believe they can push the price still further and increase profits without a drop in demand.

22
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Russian Oil DA (Defense)

(__) Case Out Weighs- Global Warming causes extinction, Russian Collapse is localized. And we solve a
quicker link into the global economy- Russia has been on the brink for years, no reason why prices would
effect it now.

(__) Oil Prices Down

Reuters 7-17 (“Oil prices down but not out,” http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717 2008)

The old saying what goes up must come down seemed true of oil markets this week as falling demand helped to wipe more than $10 off the
price, but long-term supply constraints could keep investors keen.
Bullish forecasters say the
record rally that took prices to more than $147 a barrel last week has a long way to run and that it
will take years to make up for a chronic lack of investment in bringing on new supplies.
Others say prices, which were below $134 a barrel early on Thursday, have hit the kind of levels that have a significant impact on demand.
"We believe the 100 percent rise in the oil price over the last year is not sustainable going forwards," said Richard Batty of
Standard Life Investments.

(__) Russia’s oil production has peaked– can’t sell significantly more to contribute to economy

Alexander Kolyandr, Dow Jones Newswires, July 1 2008


OIL CONGRESS: Russia's Oil Output Has Reached Plateau -Dep Min
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080701%5cACQDJON200807010803DOWJONESDJONLINE000223.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=OIL%2
0CONGRESS:%20Russia's%20Oil%20Output%20Has%20Reached%20Plateau%20-Dep%20Min

MADRID -(Dow Jones)- Russia's oil production will grow only marginally this year and in the near term, Russia's
deputy minister for energy said Tuesday, and has in effect hit a plateau for now.
"No one should expect that Russia's oil production growth will match the one we've witnessed in the past
eight years," Anatoly Yanovsky said on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress.
Over that period, Russia's annual oil production grew from 360 million metric tons to just above 490 million tons.
"Nothing like that will happen", the official said, adding, that Russia's oil production has hit a plateau which will
remain unchanged until new large fields in Eastern Siberia and offshore come upstream.
After several years of stable growth, production of oil and gas condensate in Russia dropped 0.3% in the first four months
of this year compared with the same period a year previously, to 161 million tons, or 1.18 billion barrels, according to the government.

(__) Oil price drop would have no effect on the Russian economy. Prices could get as low as $55 a barrel
and the effect would still be insignificant

Russia & CIS Banking & Finance Weekly June 20, 2008 headline: russia does not fear drop in oil prices - kudrin
Russia should be prepared for both further growth as well as a rapid drop in oil prices, he said. It is better for Russia when oil prices are high, he said,
but these prices must be utilized soundly and oil windfalls should not be wasted. "If oil prices are higher and is spent immediately, the ruble's exchange rate
will strengthen," he said, stressing that the appreciation of the ruble would have a negative effect on Russian industry. A decline in the price of oil
will not have a significant impact on the Russian budget, Kudrin said.
"Russia is not afraid of a price drop," Kudrin said in an interview with Vesti 24 TV while in Osaka following the meeting of the G8 finance chiefs.
"Our budget would not have a deficit at a price of $55 per barrel. The tax system for our oil companies is set up so that as the price of oil
declines, taxation declines. So no substantial changes will take place. It will have some effect on our GDP growth, but an
insignificant one compared with the earlier period. I repeat, the effect will be insignificant," he said.

23
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Russian Oil DA (Defense)

Russian economy is resilient.


Bruce Stokes. "Don't Ignore the Russian Bear." Council on Foreign Relations. 2008.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/3225/dont_ignore_the_russian_bear.html

A little less than a year ago, August 17 to be precise, the post-Cold War Russian economic experiment imploded. The ruble collapsed and debt
payments to foreigners were frozen. Wall Street lost billions of dollars. Long Term Capital Management, one of the world's biggest hedge funds, had to be
taken over by its bankers. Once burned, international investors yanked their capital out of all emerging markets— from Latin America to East Asia—
causing world interest rates to spike. The global economy teetered on the edge of depression. But, much to the surprise of most
economic pundits, international markets quickly righted themselves. The Russian economy proved far more resilient than
anticipated. And, in retrospect, the events of August, 1998 were little more than a very large bump in the road. The lessons of this
"crisis that wasn't" are now clear: Russia is not too big to fail (the volume of its debts do not dictate special treatment by its creditors); the financial
world can cope with such failure; and the Russian economy can bounce back without much overt help from the West. But the
impending $4.5 billion loan to Russia by the International Monetary Fund— reflecting Washington's gratitude for Moscow's help in Kosovo, continued fear
of Russian nuclear proliferation and concern about Russia's internal political stability— demonstrates that Russia still remains too important for
the world to ignore. This contradiction— not too big to fail, but still too big to flounder— highlights the friction inherent when economic policy is
used to further geo-political goals. Up until a year ago, the Clinton Administration argued that aid to Russia was needed, in part, to avoid global economic
collapse. August, 1998 exposed that rationale as a charade. Now American support for assistance to Russia can only be justified for two reasons: to reinforce
Russia's transition to a market economy or as ransom in Moscow's continued strategic blackmail of the West. Evidence to justify the former is dubious. Its
time to own up to the latter. Last summer's fleeting economic fright reflected Russia's staggering economic collapse. The ruble fell by more than 70
per cent in a couple of weeks. The economy shrank by 4.3 per cent. Real wages fell 41 per cent. But the crisis was cathartic. "The shock
accomplished what reform was intended to achieve," said Anders Aslund, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
in Washington. The banking system now functions better. Barter is declining. Most important, there has been no reversion to central
planning, government-directed lending, industrial subsidies or government reliance on simply printing money.

24
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Russian Oil DA (Offense)

(__) High oil-revenue deters economic liberalization.

Christian Science Monitor, Fred Weir, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, "Has Russian oil output peaked?" May 28, 2008 lexis
Oil profits, on the other hand, are taxed at nearly 90 percent, which has filled the state's coffers as prices for crude oil have
risen from $10 per barrel a decade ago to more than $130 last week. Petrowealth was a key factor enabling Mr. Putin
to concentrate political power in the Kremlin, which he used to take over huge slices of the formerly private oil and gas industry. The looming
production crunch, therefore, suggests a need for sweeping political reforms as well as economic adjustments, some experts
say. "As long as energy prices keep going up and the easy money keeps rolling in, there is no incentive to liberalize,"
says Yevgeny Gavrilenkov, chief economist at Troika Dialog, a Moscow investment bank. "If the golden goose stops laying eggs, then they'll start to
recognize the need for change."

(__) Forcing Russian liberalization now key to Russia's economy.

Christian Science Monitor, Fred Weir, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, "Has Russian oil output peaked?" May 28, 2008 lexis
A sharp debate is breaking out among economists, some of whom argue that the crisis is an opportunity for Russia to
develop a long-term strategy to husband its remaining energy resources and diversify its economy. They point to figures showing
that gas and oil exports have risen since 2000 from under half to over 60 percent of Russia's gross domestic product and say that to continue
trading nonrenewable resources for rapidly devaluing dollars is a big mistake. "Russia should not be a colonial
country that provides raw materials to more developed countries," says Nodari Simonia, director of the Center for World Energy Studies, an
independent Moscow think tank. "We don't need to export more crude, we have to invest resources in our manufacturing base."
Russian oil profits, taxed by the state, have been accumulating in a special 'stabilization fund' that now totals about $130
billion. Earlier this year the government put another $32 billion into a sovereign wealth fund that is expected to begin investing in Russian infrastructure and social welfare
schemes. "Russia's economy so far can't absorb the oil cash that's coming in. That, not increasing oil output, is our
biggest worry," says Sergei Glaziev, head of the National Institute for Development, a Moscow think tank. "We urgently need to diversify our
economy away from this dependence on natural resources."

(__) Extend the Davis Evidence from the 1NC

25
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Russian Oil DA (Offense)

(__) High oil prices are collapsing democracy and creating increased authoritarianism in Russia

States News Service June 24, 2008 HEADLINE: AS OIL WEALTH RISES IN EURASIA, DEMOCRACY DECLINES SIGNIFICANTLY

To coincide with today's release of the Freedom House Nations in Transit 2008 report, three of the study's authors gathered at RFE/RL's Washington, DC
as oil and natural gas revenues surge in Russia and Central Asia,
headquarters to discuss one of its key findings - that,
democratic institutions in these countries are eroding significantly. [Read more about the Nations in Transit 2008 Report]
"The resource curse is taking root," Freedom House Director of Studies Christopher Walker told the group. "The growing
authoritarianism in oil and natural gas-rich countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan is severely restricting the
ability of democratic institutions to operate." According to the report, the regression in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia has
occurred systematically and across sectors, including in the areas of electoral process, civil society, independent media and judicial independence.
"Russia's decline in all of the report's categories over the past eight years is dramatic," said Robert Orttung, the author of the
section on Russia and a Senior Fellow at the Jefferson Institute. "For years, Vladimir Putin has been
using oil and natural gas revenues to build up his police forces and consolidate power in such a way that there is no space for democracy
to grow."

Failure of democracy in Russia will cause global nuclear war

Muravchik 2001 (Joshua- Resident Scholar at the AEI, “Democracy and Nuclear Peace” July 14, http://www.npec-web.org/Syllabus/Muravchik.pdf, Date Accessed
7/29/2006)

That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as one of the most revolutionary years in all history, was
inevitable. So many peoples were swept up in the democratic tide that there was certain to be some backsliding. Most countries' democratic evolution has
included some fits and starts rather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole. Nonetheless,
the overall trend remains
powerful and clear. Despite the backsliding, the number and proportion of democracies stands higher today than ever
before. This progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was
radically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For
other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of
nuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East
where nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote.

26
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Russia Diverse

Low oil prices will not affect Russia - they have shielded themselves from price decline and diversified
their economy.

Belfast Telegraph, Mary Dejevsky, "Russia will not cut oil and gas production, Putin says" September
17, 2007 lexis
Mr Putin was answering questions from foreign Russia-watchers at his summer residence near the southern resort city of Sochi. What had prompted a
response that should reassure Russia's Western customers, at least in the short term, was a comment by a senior official two days before to the effect that
Russia's oil and gas bonanza was almost as much trouble as it was worth. He had said that, while Russia had benefited hugely from the high energy prices of
recent years, these had also created problems. Because the Russian economy simply could not absorb so much money productively in
such a short time, the government had to spend much specialist time and energy on how best to use it. A proportion goes to
the "stabilisation fund", now standing at $130bn, seen as an insurance against energy prices falling. Another share goes into
an "investment fund" for infrastructure projects, higher pensions and public service salaries. What is left over is invested
abroad, much of it in foreign bonds, to be as safe as possible. Russia's foreign investment policy was, the official said,
deliberately"conservative". The official also said that Russia was looking to invest more in foreign companies, and would already have done so but
for what it saw as unwarranted suspicion of Russia's intentions and closet protectionism on the part of foreign governments. It was in this context that a
participant in the discussion with Mr Putin asked this question: Why, if Russia found administering its new oil and gas wealth so burdensome, did it not
consider cutting production? Keeping the stuff in the ground, he suggested, would have several beneficial effects for Russia. It would raise the world price,
so yielding more money for less effort. It would, assuming no dramatic fall in prices in the near future, guarantee Russia a good income for many more
years. And it would save ministers the time and effort involved in figuring out how to invest its windfall. The question clearly appealed to Mr Putin. He
smiled and described the proposition as interesting, as he seemed to turn it over in his mind. But his response was categorical. "We will extend and
increase production of both oil and gas, and we will do that because global demand is growing." He said that Russia had no
intention of banking on further rises in energy prices. "We remember that there was a time when coal was the main source of
energy, and then all at once the price fell sharply. What good would come of speculating?" Russia, he said, "wants to behave
responsibly" not for its own sake, but because "harmonious relations" with the rest of the world was as much in the national
interest as high energy prices. Apparently alluding to Western charges that Russia used its position as an energy supplier as a weapon, Mr Putin said
that Russia had never " blackmailed" the world market. He went on: "We are not a member of Opec though we keep a close eye on what it does and one
reason is that we don't have the level of state monopoly over energy production that most Opec countries have."

Russia’s economy has diversified: no impact


Journal of Commerce 4/26/2004
Russian
Although Russia's remoteness from the U.S. - and its proximity to the huge European market - limits its potential as an economic partner,
companies in such sectors as information technology, telecommunications and aerospace are becoming competitive, Marshall
said. Even Russia's agriculture sector is becoming viable. Last year, Russia became a net exporter of grain, which is "mind-boggling" to
Marshall, who remembers the ineptitude of the Soviet era. "Yes, they are still heavily dependent on energy, but not completely. Sure, the
foreign reserves of $85 billion - because of high energy prices - has helped. But it's not just that."

27
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. High Prices Bad- Russian Econ

Sustained high oil prices would turn Russia into a petro-state, rife with poverty, corruption, and an
inevitably collapsing economy

Moises Naim (Editor) Jan/Feb 2004 Foreign Policy

Russia's future will be defined as much by the geology of its subsoil as by the ideology of its leaders. Unfortunately, whereas
policymakers can choose their ideology, they don't have much leeway when it comes to geology. Russia has a lot of oil, and this inescapable
geological fact will determine many of the policy choices available to its leaders. Oil and gas now account for roughly 20
percent of Russia's economy, 55 percent of its export earnings, and 40 percent of its total tax revenues. Russia is the world's second
largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia, and its subsoil contains 33 percent of the world's gas reserves. It already supplies 30 percent of Europe's gas needs. In
the future, Russia's oil and gas industry will become even more important, as no other sector can be as internationally competitive, grow as
rapidly, or be as profitable. Thus, Russia risks becoming, and in many respects may already be, a "petro-state." The arrest of oil magnate Mikhail
Khodorkovsky sparked a debate over what kind of country Russia will be. In this discussion, Russia's characteristics as a petro-state deserve as much attention
as its factional struggles. Petro-states are oil-rich countries plagued by weak institutions, a poorly functioning public sector, and a
high concentration of power and wealth. Their population is chronically frustrated by the lack of proportion between their nation's oil wealth and
their widespread poverty. Nigeria and Venezucla are good examples. That Russia has lots of oil is old news. What's new is the dramatically
enhanced role that changes in Russian politics, oil technology, and energy markets have given to its petrolcum sector. Throughout
the 1990s, privatization in Russia and innovations in exploration and drilling technologies brought into production oil fields that had hitherto been
underperforming or completely off-limits. To energy companies worried about growing domestic instability among the major oil exporters of the Middle East,
Russia became an even more attractive hedge. Regardless of its political turmoil, Russia will continue to appeal to oil companies, which
know how to operate profitably in countries with weak property rights and unstable politics. Thus, while the Khodorkovsky affair may temporarily scare away
some investors, Russia's beguiling geology will eventually attract energy companies that cannot afford to be left out of some of the world's richest oil
reservoirs. But when oil revenues flood a nation with a fragile system of democratic checks and balances, dysfunctional politics
and economics ensue, and a petro-state emerges. A strong democracy and an effective public sector explain why oil has not distorted the United
States or Norway as it has Nigeria and Venezuela. A lot of oil combined with weak public institutions produces poverty, inequality, and
corruption. It also undermines democracy. No petro-state has succeeded in converting oil into prosperity for the majority of the
population. An economy that relies mostly on oil exports inevitably ends up with an exchange rate that makes imported goods
less expensive and exports more costly. This overvalued exchange rate makes other sectors--agriculture, manufacturing,
tourism--less internationally competitive and hinders their growth. Petro-states also have jobless, volatile economic growth. Oil generates
export revenues and taxes for the state, but it creates few jobs. Despite its economic heft, Russia's oil and gas industry employs only around 2 million workers
out of a total workforce of 67 million. Also, because the international price of oil is volatile, petro-states suffer constant and debilitating economic
boombust cycles. The busts lead to banking crises and public budget cuts that hurt the poor who critically depend on government
programs. Russia already experienced this effect in 1998 when the drop in oil prices sparked a financial crash. If oil prices fall below $20 a barrel, Russia will
surely face another bout of painful economic instability. Petro-states also suffer from a narrow tax base, with the bulk of government revenues coming from
just a few large taxpayers. In Russia, the 10 largest companies account for more than half of total tax revenues. Weak governmental accountability is a typical
side effect of this dependency, as the link between the electorate and government spending is indirect and tenuous. The political consequences are
also corrosive. Thanks to the inevitable concentration of the oil industry into a few large firms, owners and managers acquire enormous political clout. In
turn, corruption often thrives, as a handful of politicians and government regulators make decisions that are worth millions to these companies.
Nationalizing the oil industry fails to solve these problems: State-owned oil companies quickly become relatively independent political actors that are rife with
corruption, inefficiency, and politicization, and can dominate other weak public institutions. Privatizing the industry without strong and
independent regulatory and tax agencies is also not a solution, as unbridled private monopolists can be as predatory as public ones. In petro-
states, bitter fights over the control and distribution of the nation's oil rents become the gravitational center of political life. It is no accident that the current
crisis in Russia hinges on control of the country's largest oil company and the political uses of its profits. But Russia is not Nigeria and has yet to become a
full-fledged petro-state. It is a large, complex country with a highly educated population, a relatively strong technological base, and a still somewhat diversified
economy. A strong democracy could help Russia compensate for the economic and political weaknesses that plague all countries
dominated by oil. Russia is still struggling to overcome the crippling effects of its ideological past. Let's hope it will also be able to avoid the
crippling effects of its geological present.

28
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Saudi Oil DA (Defense)

(__) Oil Prices Down

Reuters 7-17 (“Oil prices down but not out,” http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717 2008)

The old saying what goes up must come down seemed true of oil markets this week as falling demand helped to wipe more than $10 off the
price, but long-term supply constraints could keep investors keen.
Bullish forecasters say the
record rally that took prices to more than $147 a barrel last week has a long way to run and that it
will take years to make up for a chronic lack of investment in bringing on new supplies.
Others say prices, which were below $134 a barrel early on Thursday, have hit the kind of levels that have a significant impact on demand.
"We believe the 100 percent rise in the oil price over the last year is not sustainable going forwards," said Richard Batty of
Standard Life Investments.

(__) Case Outweighs- We have many international links to the economy which happen on a quicker time
frame than your Saudi Collapse arguments. And a strong US hegemon is key to prevent any escalation of
instability in Saudi Arabia

(__) Saudi Arabia has diversified their economy and can stay on a growth path even if oil prices decline.

Arsene Aka Global Insight August 2, 2007 HEADLINE: Fitch Raises Outlook for Saudi Arabia's Sovereign Foreign Currency
Saudi
Significance: A sharp decrease in international oil prices remains the main risk facing the kingdom. However, during the current oil boom,
Arabia has used part of its oil-revenue windfall to build up assets overseas, which could be drawn upon
if global energy prices falter in the future. With global oil demand expected to remain strong over the next two years, the sovereign's
creditworthiness seems relatively secure. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has made good progress in promoting the non-oil
sector. Despite a fall in oil production in 2006, the economy expanded robustly, on the back of strong
growth in the non-oil sector.

29
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Saudi Oil DA (Offense)

(__) Dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia puts US at risk of terrorism

David Sandalow January 22, 2007 ENDING OIL DEPENDENCE http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/fellows/sandalow20070122.pdf

Compounding this problem, the huge money flows into the region from oil purchases help finance terrorist networks. Saudi
money provides critical support for madrassas with virulent anti-American views. Still worse, diplomatic efforts to enlist Saudi government
help in choking off such funding, or even to investigate terrorist attacks, are hampered by the priority we attach to preserving
Saudi cooperation in managing world oil markets.

(__) Unchecked terrorism will result in extinction

Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies in Israel and the United States. “Terrorism myths and realities,” The
Washington Times, August 28, 2003

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated
dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude
and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel
have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not
surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center
of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism
triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the
moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by
the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors
that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment
Unlike their historical counterparts,
of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare.
contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and
unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and
future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical,
radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Two
myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international
cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic
- are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced
by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence
often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the
noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa
Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state.
Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to
"unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders,
recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts
and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there
is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy.
The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of
Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip
who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S.
military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a
cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long
and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival."

30
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Saudi Oil DA (Offense)

(__) US dependence on Saudi Oil Causes War in the Middle East

Beres 8/24/07 (Louis Rene, Professor, is Strategic and Military Affairs Analyst for The Jewish Press, “The United States and Saudi Arabia: A Foolish Alliance,”
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/23433/The_United_States_And_Saudi_Arabia:_A_Foolish_Alliance.html)

Contrary to widespread public perceptions, Saudi Arabia is not a “moderate” Arab state or a reliable American ally. Although it is
certainly true that we need Saudi oil and Saudi purchases of American weapons, it is a need that has already begun to backfire. Over time, the misconceived
relationship between Washington and Riyadh will encourage not only additional anti-American terrorism,
but also far-reaching instability in the Middle East - instability leading to intermittent war.

(__) Middle East proliferation causes global nuclear war.

John Steinbach, Nagasaki peace committee, 3 March 2002, "Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat to Peace," http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mat0036.htm
the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious
Meanwhile,
implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, &quotShould war
break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once
unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said
&quotThe nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the
Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish
satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S.
spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear
weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, &quot... if the
familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a
world conflagration." (44)

31
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Saudi Diversification Now

(__) Saudi Arabia is reforming their economy now


Erlend Paasche Saudi Arabia's economic liberalization Wednesday, December 12, 2007 http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=12974

Still, Saudi economic reforms do merit attention. The UNCTAD report came roughly two weeks after a World Bank report,
Doing Business 2008, described Saudi Arabia as the world's seventh fastest reforming economy. It also stated that the country
had joined the ranks of the top 25 countries worldwide in terms of the ease of doing business.

(__) High oil prices have allowed Saudi Arabia to reform its economy

Erlend Paasche Saudi Arabia's economic liberalization Wednesday, December 12, 2007 http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=12974

According to conventional wisdom, high oil prices would render economic reform in oil-rich countries a poor chance of
success with increases in state income lessening the pressure for such change. In a time of sky-high oil prices, Saudi Arabia
proves that conventional wisdom sometimes misses the mark.
Saudi oil export revenues constituted a meager US$34.3 billion in 1998, but rose to US$46.8 billion in 1999 and US$65.5
billion in 2002. SABB, one of the kingdom's largest banks, projects oil revenues of US$165 billion this year. Even though the
Saudi state has thus gradually gained access to a greatly increased volume of external rent, it has somewhat paradoxically
loosened its tight grip on the economy, opened up its markets for privatization and foreign investment and actively
strengthened its private sector.

(__) Saudi Arabia has reformed its economy and diversified away from oil
Rehab Al Mahfudh Global Insight July 3, 2008 HEADLINE: Saudi Arabia Moves Up in Forbes' List of Best Countries for Business in
2008

Saudi Arabia made a substantial improvement this year moving up 37 places. Saudi
authorities have implemented a wide range of
economic reforms over the past few years to diversify the economy away from oil and create
employment opportunities for Saudi nationals. Saudi Arabia's recent economic reforms have received
wide acknowledgement from international organisations. Saudi Arabia ranked the twenty third out of 178 countries and the first
among Arab countries on the ease of doing business report for 2008 published by International Finance Corporation, a member of the World Bank Group

32
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. Terrorism Turn

(__) US Dependence on Saudi Oil the blinds the US from terrorist action – hurts War on Terror

Pipes 03 (Daniel, an American historian and counter-terrorism analyst who specializes in the Middle East, Winter, “The Scandal of US Saudi Relations,”
http://www.public-humanities.org/m_online/feb03/pipes2.htm)

"Saudi money-official or not-is behind much of the Islamic-extremist rhetoric and


*The spread of militant Islam:
action in the world today", notes Rep. Ben Gilman (R-NY), then chairman of the House International Relations Committee.[26] The assault on
September 11, 2001 was basically Saudi in ideology, personnel, organization and funding-but the U.S.
government did not signal a reassessment of policy toward Riyadh, much less raise the idea of suing the
Saudis for punitive damages. *Militant Islamic institutions in the United States. U.S. authorities have been lax about the funding of these organizations.
Only in March 2002, for example, did Federal agents finally get around to raiding 16 innocuous-looking Saudi-funded institutions such as the Graduate School of Islamic
and Social Sciences of Leesburg, Virginia. This problem is widespread and unredressed, as a newspaper editorial from Canada suggests: [M]any terrorists and terror
recruits get their first taste of death-to-the-West Islamic extremism from a Wahhabi imam or centre director in Virginia or London or, presumably, Hamilton or Markham
. It may not be necessary to add Saudi Arabia to the Axis of
[towns in Canada], whose paycheque is drawn in the Saudi Kingdom
Evil, or to invade it. But it will be necessary to engage the Saudi spread of extremism if the war on
terrorism is to be won.[27] *Arab-Israeli conflict: The Bush Administration has pretended that the Abdallah Plan for solving this conflict is a serious
proposition, when it is not just patently ridiculous (demanding that Israel retreat to its 1967 borders) but also offensive (clearly envisioning the demographic
overwhelming of Israel). Instead of playing unconvincing diplomatic games with Riyadh, the administration should emphasize that the hateful rhetoric and subsidies for
suicide bombers must come to an immediate end. *Human rights and democracy. The usual U.S. commitment to these goals seems to wither when Saudi Arabia is
involved. The Kingdom's signed commitments to protect the rights of its subjects are virtually ignored, as are such questions as the rule of law, freedom of speech and
assembly, the right to travel, women's rights and religious liberties. *Absorbing insults and threats. A famous case, dating from the 1970s, when Henry Kissinger attended
a state dinner in his honor hosted by King Faisal, set the tone. Kissinger recounts how the king informed him that Jews and Communists were working now in parallel,
now together, to undermine the civilized world as we knew it. Oblivious to my [Jewish] ancestry-or delicately putting me into a special category-Faisal insisted that an
end be put once and for all to the dual conspiracy of Jews and Communists. The Middle East outpost of that plot was the State of Israel, put there by Bolshevism for the
principal purpose of dividing America from the Arabs. Kissinger did not confront Faisal but did his best to avoid the whole issue by responding with a question to the
king about the palace artwork.[28] More recently, Crown Prince Abdallah wrote to President Bush in August 2001 stating that A time comes when peoples and nations
part. We are at a crossroads. It is time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests. Those governments that don't feel the pulse of the people
and respond to it will suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran.[29] This aggressive statement was met not with reproach but with appeasement. And in April 2002, a leading
Saudi figure warned that to survive, the Kingdom would contemplate joining with America's worst enemies: if reason of state requires that "we move to the right of bin
Laden, so be it; to the left of [Libya's ruler Muammar] Qaddafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it."[30] The statement appeared
prominently in the U.S. press but had no apparent repercussions on policy. More striking yet are the reports from the summit meeting that followed indicating that
Abdallah warned Bush that if he won nothing substantive regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, "our two countries will go their separate ways."[31] A Matter of Give and
Take What lies behind this pattern of obsequiousness? Where is the normally robust pursuit of U.S. interests? It is one thing when private companies bend over
backwards to please the Saudis (Starbucks in Saudi Arabia does not show the female figure that normally graces its logo), but why does the U.S. government
defer to the Kingdom in so many and unique ways? "Oil" is likely to be the most common explanation proferred, but it does not hold.
First, the U.S. government has never cringed before any other major oil supplier as it does to Saudi Arabia. Second, U.S.-Saudi ties have been premised since 1945, when
a dying Franklin D. Roosevelt met an aging King Ibn Saud, on an enduring bargain in which Riyadh provides oil and gas to the United States and the world and
Washington provides security to Saudi Arabia. Because this deal has even more importance for Saudis than Americans-survival versus energy supplies-oil cannot explain
why the U.S. side has consistently acted as a supplicant.

(__) Dependence on Saudi Arabia for oil causes terrorism

Dr. John Scire Adjunct Professor of Political Science at UNR “Oil dependency, national security” February 10, 20 08
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244

Oil dependency forces the U.S. to support oil regimes that oppress their citizens. As a result, other states
and the citizens of oppressive oil regimes see the U.S. as their real enemy. It isn't surprising that Osama
bin Laden's first Fatwah was against the U.S. for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the
oppressive Saudi Royal Family. U.S. oil dependency also strengthens worldwide Islamist terror
campaigns as funding for these groups comes primarily from Middle Eastern Islamic charities, located
primarily in Saudi Arabia. Because of oil dependency, we both motivate the terrorists and provide the
money to fund their attacks on us. American oil dependency also strengthens other states opposed to American foreign policy
interests, such as Venezuela and Russia. Foreign policy options are further reduced when other oil importing countries, such as China, block
our UN Security Council resolutions targeted at their sources of oil. This has already occurred in regard to Sudan and Myanmar.

33
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Backstopping DA
(__) Oil Prices Down

Reuters 7-17 (“Oil prices down but not out,” http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717 2008)

The old saying what goes up must come down seemed true of oil markets this week as falling demand helped to wipe more than $10 off the
price, but long-term supply constraints could keep investors keen.
Bullish forecasters say the
record rally that took prices to more than $147 a barrel last week has a long way to run and that it
will take years to make up for a chronic lack of investment in bringing on new supplies.
Others say prices, which were below $134 a barrel early on Thursday, have hit the kind of levels that have a significant impact on demand.
"We believe the 100 percent rise in the oil price over the last year is not sustainable going forwards," said Richard Batty of
Standard Life Investments.

( ) Not unique and turn

High prices don’t push the market to renewables, it pushes them towards dirtier fossil fuels.

Bennett ‘7 (Drake Bennett, staff writer. “The new dirty energy It’s big, it’s growing — and it’s bad for the environment.
Inside the other alternative-energy movement,” Boston Globe, 8/19/07.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu:2047/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do)

The only problem: The thick, tarry petroleum that the Alberta project pulls from beneath that forest is far dirtier than oil.
Alternative energy wasn’t supposed to look like this. For years, leading environmental thinkers have argued that high fossil
fuel prices are good for the planet, driving investors and customers toward biofuels, solar power, and a host of new
energy sources that will quickly become cost-effective. But as oil prices stay high, the real beneficiary often turns out to
be a very different alternative-energy industry, one focused on dirty fuel sources such as oil sands, oil shale, and coal.
Environmentally speaking, the oil-sand plants of Alberta are no better than petroleum drilling, and in some ways
decidedly worse. In North America, in terms of energy output, this so-called “unconventional oil” sector already dwarfs clean
and renewable-energy technologies, and is poised to grow even faster in the next decade. “To assume that high energy
prices mean we’ll switch to wind or solar or other renewables is simply unrealistic,” says Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy
expert at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. “It only means that if we make that a
concerted policy.”

( ) OPEC used to backstop – they won’t do it anymore because of negative experiences.

Roberts ‘4 (expert on the interplay of economics, technology, and the environment -- [Paul, Graudate of Univ Washington, Written many
articles: NYT, New Republic, Harper’s on environmental issues, finalist for national magazine award 99, The End of Oil: on
the edge of a perilous new world, pg 97-8 pgf last 1)

Of course, oil states have tried to use price as a weapon, by withhold- ing supplies in order to drive prices up - or, alternatively,
flooding the market to bring prices down - although these tactics almost always back- fire. Pushing prices too high or too low
invariably sets off a destructive chain of events that has, on several occasions, started wars and come dis- turbingly close to wiping
out the world economy. This is why, after fifty years of painful experimentation and catastrophe, price stability has be- come the
overriding goal for countries as politically divergent as Saudi Ara- bia, Russia, and the United States. As a Middle Eastern oil
executive once told me, "after price, everything else is secondary."

34
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

Ext. No Threat of Oil weapon

OPEC no longer has the capacity to flood the market

Hatch 8 Senator Orrin G. Hatch, HATCH ASKS ENERGY COMMITTEE TO LIFT MORATORIUM ON OIL SHALE DEVELOPMENT, Trade
Observatory, http://www.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=102799

Second, OPEC no longer has anywhere near the spare capacity necessary to flood the world market. In fact,
due to the meteoric rise in global demand for oil, I doubt OPEC has the capacity to cause even a
significant drop in the price of oil. Thirdly, technology and regulatory protections in every aspect of oil, gas, and mining have matured impressively since the
early 1980's. Those advances not only make oil shale development much more viable, but they also ensure much better protections for the environment.

OPEC can no longer influence prices

Sodhi 2008 (The Myth of OPEC, The center for independent studies http://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights/EH2008/eh63608.html)

The massive reserves of Saudi Arabia have also historically been a tool to encourage quota compliance.
The Saudis, with their massive oil reserves and high levels of spare production capacity, have in the past threatened
to flood the market with oil to engineer a collapse in price. With the world’s cheapest production costs and lots of
spare capacity, it was a threat the Saudis could theoretically carry out. Not anymore.
Saudi Arabia no longer has the buffer of excess production, and there is a lack of confidence in the sustainability of its largest fields. The long
standing threat to flood the market with cheap oil has now become a bluff, and the other members of OPEC know
it. OPEC goes to great trouble to pretend that it can influence prices. It holds regular meetings where it ordains a new production target with
much ceremony. But honestly, you would have to be a mug to believe that OPEC countries are purposefully limiting production. When oil prices rise, so does the opportunity cost of
sticking to the allocated quota. So while its possible to maintain a cartel when prices are low, you can bet your life that each member is pumping out as much crude as it possibly can
at $140 a barrel.

(__) OPEC can’t control pricing through flooding the market

Gary Nicks Daily Star June 23, 2008 HEADLINE: PLEASE SIR. . .COULD WE HAVE MORE OIL;
Brown makes fuel plea to rich Saudis

It's the kind of thing he could do here at home." And Tory Alan Duncan blasted: "The
idea that Opec can just go like that and
flood the market with oil and bring the price down shows Gordon Brown does not understand global
markets." The summit was arranged after oil doubled in a year to hit a record $140 per barrel two weeks ago, sending prices rocketing so high at UK
forecourts that gangs of thieves are draining lorry fuel tanks across the country.

(__) OPEC has lost control over prices- they’re on a downward spiral

Brown 2008 (May, OPEC's Days Are Numbered, http://www.rightsideadvisors.com/public/commentary.go/rsa/commentary/comm-


energy/20080513_032411_msg.html/OPECs-Days-Are-Numbered.html)

There was an excellent article by Jim Kingsdale this weekend on the coming end of OPEC. You are
probably thinking why would OPEC disappear when their control over oil prices is so strong.
Unfortunately that is no longer true. OPEC has lost control over prices and that was the main reason the
organization was formed in 1960.

35
RSS- SDI 2008
2AC Blocks

AT: Hege Fund DA

(__) Oil Prices Down- Its record setting.

Reuters 7-17 (“Oil prices down but not out,” http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717 2008)

The old saying what goes up must come down seemed true of oil markets this week as falling demand helped to wipe more than $10 off the
price, but long-term supply constraints could keep investors keen.
Bullish forecasters say the
record rally that took prices to more than $147 a barrel last week has a long way to run and that it
will take years to make up for a chronic lack of investment in bringing on new supplies.
Others say prices, which were below $134 a barrel early on Thursday, have hit the kind of levels that have a significant impact on demand.
"We believe the 100 percent rise in the oil price over the last year is not sustainable going forwards," said Richard Batty of
Standard Life Investments.

(__) No extinction- Prices Constantly Fluctuate

a) Prices changed based on the Dollar’s value

MacDonald '08 [Elizabeth, Fox Business Network stocks editor, "Part Two: Oil Speculators vs Supply and Demand," July 1,
http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/07/01/part-three-oil-speculators-vs-supply-and-demand/ download date: 7-7-08]

And a key driver is the strength of the US dollar. Since oil is traded in dollars, the plunging value of the US dollar
likely has traders scrambling, as the amount earned from future oil sales may get slammed as the dollar loses real
value.

b) Any little single comment by politician or investment banker

Industry Standard [June 9, 2008, http://www.thestandard.com/predictions/oil-prices-spike-150-barrel-july download date: 7-6-08]

Oil prices have been on a roller-coaster ride this year, sensitive to all kinds of events, ranging from a weak
US dollar to a single comment made by a politician to a prediction by investment bank Morgan Stanley.

(__) Our Banking Advantage is a Link Turn

a) Our Kanter evidence indicates that Banks gain tons of business and investment under a Cap and Trade
permits scheme- its key to their over all health and stability.

b) The Impact is our Bailey Evidence- Global Extinction- Out Weighs your Impact- happens on a quicker
time frame, banks are on the brink now.

(__) Non Unique- US economy trashed now

CSM 7-16 (“Woes Deepen for US Economy,” 2008 http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0716/p01s05-usec.html)

Expectations that the current US economic downturn will be shallow are diminishing.
A severe recession in the United States still isn't the mainstream forecast, but economists say it's a real possibility, especially as problems at
American banks deepen amid a continuing shakeout of the housing crisis.
What makes forecasts challenging these days is that the economy's problems involve the linkage of many moving parts. Crucially, a healthy banking system is vital
to the economy, and now an economic slowdown and a plunge in bank stocks have raised the prospect of more
bank failures and the need for federal intervention.

36