Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
SDI 2008 p. 2 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
*****AFFIRMATIVE UPDATES*****
SDI 2008 p. 3 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Passing LOST would put our transit powers at the whim of an International tribunal
PHILLIP E. BAYSTON, June 27, 2007, Chattanooga Times Free Press, “First Things First event a big success,”
lexis, nna
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4242913996
&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4242913999&cisb=22_T4242913998
&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=155832&docNo=5
Law of the Sea Treaty is bad for America In 1982 the United Nations spawned the Law of the Sea Treaty to
create a global bureaucracy allegedly to manage the ocean and its resources. It would give management of
two-thirds of the Earth's surface to another unaccountable international body, all allegedly to ascertain the
third world got a "fair" share, regardless of any contribution. President Reagan refused to sign. Past
experience with U.N. participation has not generally been in the best interest of the United States because of
anti-American agendas. The 202-page treaty signed by 153 countries does not improve the U.S. position.
Our country would have the same vote as Cuba. We surrender our sovereignty, independence of action and
wealth. The law grants power to levy international taxes transferring our wealth to socialist, anti-American
nations. All ocean research, exploration, minerals and transit requires authorization. The International
Tribunal would have sole authority to decide disputes and enforce judgments without appeal or
restrictions. Our sovereignty, national security and economic interests would be controlled by other
nations. Alarmingly, President Bush is soliciting support. Our House and Senate representatives should be
influenced
SDI 2008 p. 5 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Lost will surrender freedom of movement for our ships and submarines.
Chattanooga Times Free Press, November 8, 2007, Surrender us to whom?, lexis, nna
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4242913996
&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4242913999&cisb=22_T4242913998
&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=155832&docNo=2
To what international body would you like to surrender some of your freedom and the sovereignty of the
United States of America? Would you like for the United Nations to take over more control? Would you like
to be under the International Court at the Hague, Netherlands? How about subjecting much of our control to
an International Seabed Authority in Hamburg, Germany? Or maybe you wonder why anyone in America
would even consider surrendering any American freedom or American independence to any entanglements
under an international treaty that would make our country just one party to a body of about 155 or more
foreign nations. Most of those countries are backward, far from being democratic, certainly do not share our
personal or national values, and some are openly antagonistic toward the United States. And most would love
to dictate to us and force us to pay them taxes! If those prospects do not appeal to you, you should tell our
United States senators to vote against a very bad and dangerous "Law of the Sea Treaty" that is being
proposed for ratification. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., summed the situation up succinctly when he said: "If you
want a U.N. on steroids, you want the Law of the Sea Treaty." What's this all about? The treaty seeks to
have us surrender control of more than two-thirds of the earth's surface -- about 70 percent -- to the control of
irresponsible international authorities. The Law of the Sea Treaty was first proposed in 1982 in an effort to
establish an international legal regime for international control of waters outside our 200-mile coastal area.
President Ronald Reagan opposed Senate ratification and it has never been taken up -- till now. So far, 154
nations have ratified it and a push is on for the U.S. Senate to make the grave mistake of giving approval. As
bad as the U.N. is, the United States does have veto power in the U.N. Security Council. The United States
would have no such power under the Law of the Sea Treaty. Why should we limit ourselves to any
international control of such things as mining and the movement of our submarines and other ships in
the oceans -- and have us pay taxes to numerous backward foreign nations if American companies
engage in productive enterprises under sea waters? The treaty, if ratified, would subject us to all sorts
of unpredictable international dictation and controls by nations that certainly do not have any interest
in our freedom or the welfare of the United States. The proposed treaty has 320 articles and nine annexes.
If you asked for a show of hands among the 100 senators, how many of them do you think would claim they
have even read the thing -- much less understood its complex terms and possible ramifications? Do you
understand such things as "Anadromous stocks" and "Catadromous Species"? We do not think most senators
understand, either. But the treaty covers them. Do you want to be under the "Jurisdiction of the Seabed
Disputes Chamber"? Shockingly, alarming, the horrifying Law of the Sea Treaty has been mistakenly
approved by a 17-4 vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and seems to be headed for a vote by
the full Senate. Distressingly, it is likely to receive approval by a majority of the senators -- but fortunately,
ratification requires a two-thirds majority. So the votes of 34 senators can prevent a mistake of proportions
that neither proponents nor opponents can accurately predict. Let us pray that 34 or more senators will vote
"No" and kill ratification! A great deal of U.S. freedom and sovereignty is at risk. And we do not believe
many senators and most Americans understand the far-reaching ramifications of this treaty proposal.
SDI 2008 p. 6 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
AT CP Regulatory Negotiations
Perm – do the plan and all non mutually exclusive parts of the counterplan
Too late – the regulatory negotiation was already done. The nuclear industry agreed to
certain conditions and regulations including contributing to a fund for nuclear waste
disposal in exchange for the federal government creating a permanent repository. The
industry met their commitments but the federal government hasn’t met theirs. No future
reg neg can work since the industry doesn’t trust the government to meet their obligations.
Watkiss ‘8, staff writer, Electric Light and Publishing, May/June 2008 Edition, Lexis. tk
Temporary or interim storage in dry casks, pending completion of Yucca Mountain or some other permanent
deep geologic storage, remains an economically viable and secure option, but violates the 1982 Act pursuant
to which nuclear utilities agreed to pay the federal government a fee of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour and
the government agreed to begin taking control of their nuclear wastes for transport to permanent storage
beginning in 1998. The government's 20-year-plus breach of this agreement has resulted in 60 lawsuits
against the Department of Energy, damage awards of $342 million as of February 2007, and ultimate liability
projected at $7 billion if Yucca Mountain opens for business as currently projected in 2017, or $11 billion if
that date slips to 2021 as is widely expected. Recently, Congress mandated the DOE to study potential
temporary storage for high-level nuclear waste in order to demonstrate that the nation is capable of moving
forward "in the near term with at least some element of nuclear waste policy." But the DOE balked,
contending that interim storage "is clearly not the solution" and argued that the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy
Act bars the DOE from taking title to spent fuel until after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a
license for the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. A self-imposed June 2008 deadline for submitting
the application to license Yucca Mountain was recently postponed.
SDI 2008 p. 7 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
No solvency – agency decisions about membership, details not covered in reg-neg sessions,
and heightened sensitivity.
Cary Coglianese, April 1997, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School
of Government, and Affiliated Scholar at Harvard Law School, “TWENTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL ADMINISTATIVE
LAW ISSUE: ARTICLE: ASSESSING CONSENSUS: THE PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE OF
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING”, RKS, Lexis Nexis Academic.
In seeking consensus over the substance of regulations, negotiated rulemaking has long been considered a means of reducing conflict in the regulatory process. Yet formal
negotiation can actually foster conflict. It adds three new sources of conflict stemming from decisions
about membership on negotiated rulemaking committees; the consistency of final rules with negotiated
agreements; and the potential for an overall heightened sensitivity to adverse aspects of rules. The first
of these new sources of conflict stems from agency decisions about membership on negotiated
rulemaking committees. As discussed above, the criteria for negotiated rulemaking have [*1323] led agencies to
prefer rules that affect a limited range of parties. n297 Even with this tendency, agencies have sometimes still not been able to include all the
organizations who feel they will be affected by a rule. Although the Negotiated Rulemaking Act insulates the agency from judicial review of its decisions about membership on
the exclusion of groups from membership on the committees adds a source of
negotiated rulemaking committees, n298
discontentment not otherwise present in notice-and-comment rulemaking. The decision to use a select
committee whose representatives will develop a draft rule apparently attracts even closer scrutiny by
organizations not represented at the negotiating table. Not surprisingly, the EPA has been criticized by parties who were not invited to
participate on the agency's negotiation committees. In the asbestos rule, for example, the negotiations were temporarily disrupted while additional parties sought to participate in the
negotiations. n299 In the disinfectant byproducts negotiation, the chlorine industry complained that it had been "unfairly excluded" from full participation in the negotiated
rulemaking. n300 As I have already shown, the reformulated gasoline rule elicited a legal challenge from a tank truck trade association which was not represented on the negotiated
rulemaking committee, n301 as well as trade challenges from two countries not included on the committee. n302 The negotiations over the Grand Canyon visibility rule and the wood
One organization alone is capable
furniture coatings rule also prompted litigation by groups not participating on the negotiation committee. n303
of upsetting a consensus built on unanimity or filing a petition for judicial review. Consequently, even a
small number of excluded parties can pose a threat to the effectiveness of negotiated rulemaking. In Kerwin
and Langbein's study, twelve percent of the respondents reported that they had to "press" the EPA to let them participate. n304 [*1324] Thirty-five percent of those same respondents
reported that at least one affected interest was not represented at the negotiating table, a noteworthy finding considering that it is based on responses by those who were represented.
The likelihood that an agency excludes even one organization from a negotiated rulemaking
n305
committee poses an inherent threat to the effectiveness of a procedure that depends on consensus to
foreclose litigation. In addition to conflict over committee membership, negotiated rulemaking adds conflict over the
meaning of any consensus and the extent to which an agency's decision reflects that meaning.
Sometimes conflicts arise simply between participants over what each thinks a negotiated agreement
means. In the disinfectant byproducts rule, for example, a representative from the Natural Resources Defense Council reportedly criticized the American Water Works
Association for subsequently urging EPA to set action levels rather than the more stringent maximum contaminant levels NRDC supported in the negotiation. n306 AWWA thought its
position was consistent with the negotiations because it only agreed to support maximum contaminant levels once the agency could provide adequate microbial data. n307
Conflicts can also arise over what was not agreed to in the negotiated agreement - what might be
termed expressio unius disputes. These disputes center on whether a negotiated agreement's silence on
an issue reflects an agreement that the agency take no action. n308 In the reformulated gasoline case, the American Petroleum Institute
charged that EPA's decision to impose second phase nitrogen oxide standards contravened the agreement because the agreement did not address second phase standards. n309 The
EPA rejected API's administrative petition, concluding that the agreement's silence allowed the agency to proceed without retreating from the consensus. n310 [*1325] More
conflicts arise over the extent to which the agency has adhered to the stated terms of the
notably,
negotiated agreement. For example, in the reformulated gasoline case, the petroleum industry felt betrayed by the EPA's subsequent decision to issue a separate rule
favorable to the ethanol industry. n311 Similarly, in the Department of Education's student loan rulemaking, loan servicers charged that the Department breached commitments it
made during the negotiated rulemaking. n312 More recently, the petroleum industry criticized the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service when it decided to reopen
Without an attempt at negotiated rulemaking, these conflicts
the comment period over its natural gas royalties rulemaking. n313
over the commitment of the agency to a negotiated agreement could not arise. The third way
negotiated rulemaking can add conflict is by heightening the sensitivity of the parties to adverse
portions of a rule. Negotiated agreements raise expectations. When the agency does not follow the
negotiated agreement, the existence of the agreement itself stirs up dissatisfaction. For example, consider a
conventional rulemaking in which an agency fails to follow the input provided by an affected organization. In that case, the organization has mainly to complain about how adversely
the rule affects its interests and how its comments were not accepted. If the agency were to enact the very same rule in contravention of a negotiated agreement, the organization
would suffer both the adverse effects of the rule as well as the impression that it had been "sandbagged." n314 Such a reaction in this latter case would seem even more likely if the
organization had compromised on other portions of the rule in order to secure gains on the portion subsequently undercut by the agency. Even if the underlying rule were the same in
both cases, we would expect the organization to perceive its interests to be more severely aggrieved in the latter case. n315 Similarly, we might expect representatives of organiza-
[*1326] tions excluded from a negotiation committee to react more acutely to an adverse portion of a rule if they knew the rule was developed in explicit consultation with other
organizations having potentially divergent interests. In a more general sense, we can expect negotiated rulemaking to heighten conflict simply because of the intensity with which
groups scrutinize the rules that are the subject of negotiations. One side benefit often attributed to negotiated rulemaking is that it facilitates learning, both by agency staff and interest
The additional time and resources groups devote to discussing rules developed through
group representatives. n316
negotiation provides greater awareness of the issues underlying the rule. n317 When groups invest
these additional resources in negotiation, their representatives presumably also learn more about how
aspects of the rule may adversely affect their group interests. Groups may also find that the more time
they invest in a rulemaking proceeding, the less willing [*1327] they are to overlook imperfections in
the rule. In these ways, the quest for consensus unintentionally contributes new sources of conflict to
the regulatory process that can limit negotiated rulemaking's ability to reduce rulemaking time and
litigation.
SDI 2008 p. 8 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
No Solvency – Regulatory Negotiations can’t work without involving all the relevant
parties and that’s virtually impossible.
John S. Applegate, Fall 1997, Writer for the Northern Kentucky Law Review, “SPECIAL ESSAY:
COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES PROJECTS: A FORUM, NOT A
FORMULA”, RKS, Lexis Nexis Academic.
Collaborative decision making has been discussed most extensively in connection with proposals for
regulatory negotiation. n108 Regulatory negotiation proponents identify many of the same defects of
adversarial decision making that deliberative democratic theorists do, but the collaborative decision
making advocates see the problem in instrumental terms. That is, the problem with adversarial regulation
is not a democratic deficit, but regulations that are unduly rigid or unnecessarily costly or ineffective because
each side was unwilling to listen to the information provided and points of view of the others. Win-win
solutions are lost to the struggle for victory by one side or the other. While the goal of dialogue is the same,
one of the real weaknesses of regulatory negotiation is its failure to involve a broad cross-section of
affected persons. n109 Such negotiations remain largely the preserve of the environmental cognoscenti
-persons with technical expertise who regularly deal with each other on these issues. This excludes
ordinary citizens who are affected by the decisions or who are simply interested in them. Therefore,
while this version of collaborative decisionmaking fails as a device for democratic decisionmaking, it
reinforces, on technocratic grounds, the case for deliberative processes.
SDI 2008 p. 9 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
No solvency – administrative agencies can’t account for the diversity of public interests.
American Bar Association, No Date Cited, American Bar Association, “NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING
AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST”, RKS, http://www.abanet.org/dispute/essay/goldfiend.doc.
Most criticism of reg-neg, however, hinges on the second argument: that administrative agencies are
uniquely able to discern the public interest. Professor Funk, for example, embraces the notion of the
agency as rational expert, seeking the one true answer that best reflects the needs of the nation. He
states that: “Underlying the APA and all other statutes directing or authorizing agencies to adopt regulations
is the notion that the agency will be acting in the public interest.” While this is undoubtedly true, he frankly
admits that “[w]hat is meant by the public interest is not always clear.” Funk then demonstrates
(perhaps unintentionally) the truth of his own observation, in offering his own definition of the public
interest: “I mean it to be the best interests of the nation, the people, the body politic.” Funk’s
definition does little more than substitute one word (best) for another (public). This “troublesome”
word—best—begs the question, however, and Funk’s circular argument seems to comes down the
assertion that the agency must avoid collaboration and make the decision alone, because…well, because
that’s what the theory says. Similarly, Michael McCloskey echoes this concern about moving
towards explicit collaboration in the production of administrative regulations. McCloskey focuses his
concern on the use of consensus as a rule of decision in such negotiations, calling this a “prescription for
frustrating the national will of the majority.” McCloskey argues that: [T]he consensus rule serves to
overthrow the basic suppositions of representative democracy. Instead of the direction of public policy
being set by those garnering the greatest support among the electorate, those directions would be set
by collaborations in which those with little support can thwart the will of the majority. This turns
democracy on its head. Ironically, the consensus rule allows minorities to veto progress along certain
lines. This seems an odd claim coming from the (then) Chairman of the Sierra Club, a group that has
devoted itself—admirably in my opinion —to challenging the correctness of decisions made by these very
administrative agencies.
No Solvency – Reg neg takes time, hundreds of hours of labor and effort, do not do what
they are intended to do, and produce indefensible and ineffective policies
David H. Rosenbloom, 1996, Marcel Dekker – New York, “Public Administration and Law”, RKS,
http://books.google.com/books?id=qjtNMdIFtVAC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=reg+neg&source=web&ots=WeBzT
e_wkL&sig=TvSRy48SQMcyjJzY746ocWD5g3I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA81,M1
.
Despite the positives of this relatively new approach, regulatory negotiation has been used only sparingly.
The EPA, for example, routinely finalizes an estimated 100 regulations a year, but uses reg-neg an
average of only two to three times a year. The reasons for this are several. Reg-neg is time consuming.
The average reg-neg process at the EPA takes nearly two years (Polkinghorn, 1994). Tied in with this,
reg-negs require a tremendous infusion of labor; parties must be willing to dedicate hundreds of hours
to such an effort. Several authors have expressed not only practical, but theoretical concerns with reg-
neg. The first concern is that reg-neg participants may not be truly representative of the interests of
society at large (Fiorino, 1988:769; Bingham, 1986:77-83; Rushefsky, 1984:142-147; Wald, 1985: 18-22).
The second concern is that the final outcome may be more reflective of the needs of the parties as they
seek consensus, and less reflective of defensible, fact-based standards and principles (Fiorino, 1988;
Reich, 1985; Eisenberg, 1976).
SDI 2008 p. 10 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
No Solvency – Reg Neg’s are very time consuming, their benefits are speculative, and won’t
help enforcement.
Susan Rose-Ackerman, April 1994, Duke University School of Law, “Consensus versus Incentives: A Skeptical
Look at Regulatory Negotiation”, RKS, JSTOR.
According to Improving Regulatory Systems, the aims of regu- latory negotiation are to reduce the time it
takes to put a rule into effect and to obtain high levels of compliance.18 Because affected parties have signed
on to the negotiated regulation, they may be both less likely to challenge the rule in court and more likely to
comply with it. However, as the authors of the report recognize, regulatory negotiation under current law
introduces an extra step that is time-consuming and difficult. One observer ad- vised participants to
expect a "roller coaster experience."19 Even though regulatory negotiation may shorten the regulatory
process in terms of calendar time,20 the actual hours of participant time may be greater than under
other regulatory procedures.21 Al- though a number of regulatory negotiations have been success- ful,22
the claims of widespread benefits are mostly speculative. And when it comes to enforcing the
regulation, reg neg may not help significantly; even for rules promulgated by standard methods,
compliance seems high.23
Reg Neg’s are time consuming – Prefer the plan over the CP
Ellen Siegler, April 1997, Duke Law Journal, “REGULATORY NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER RULEMAKING
PROCESSES: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES FROM AN INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT”, RKS,
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?46+Duke+L.+J.+1429.
Finally, of course, the reg neg involves intense negotiations at the formal reg neg table, at which
representatives of state and [*pg 1432] federal agencies, public interest environmental groups, and
perhaps others, join industry representatives. Building enough trust among these groups to reach an
agreement is a long and difficult undertaking. The complex and cumbersome nature of the reg neg process
is one reason why API does not greet with enthusiasm invitations to participate in a reg neg.
AT DA Hedge funds
Non unique -shortage and China/India
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, Globalization and oil market expert, 7/10/2008, Global research, “Is there an Oil
Shortage”, AB, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9557
The popular perception of the recently skyrocketing oil price is that there is an oil shortage in global
energy markets. The perceived shortage is generally blamed on the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting countries (OPEC) for “insufficient” production, or on countries like China and India for
their increased demand for energy, or on both. This perception is reinforced—indeed, largely
shaped—by the Bush administration and its neoconservative handlers who are eager to deflect
attention away from war and geopolitical turbulence as driving forces behind the skyrocketing energy
prices.
Oil investment is volatile now-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.
Turn – our plan is massively unpopular. There nuclear power links aren’t specific to our
plan which is waste disposal.
SDI 2008 p. 13 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Turn – cellulosic ethanol increases nitrous oxide which is 300 times worse for greenhouse
effect.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities), 10/1/2007, “COMMUNICATION FROM THE
COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT”, AB,
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/07_biofuels_progress_report_en.pdf
For example, during the 1990s, there was a tendency to evaluate the greenhouse gas impact of
biofuel production purely in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. Nitrous oxide emissions
caused by fertilizer use and by the cultivation of land were not taken into account. The global
warming potential of nitrous oxide, weight for weight, is about 300 times that of carbon
dioxide. The omission of these emissions tended, therefore, to lead to an exaggeration of the
greenhouse gas benefits of biofuels.
SDI 2008 p. 15 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
AT ADV Economy
Cellulosic ethanol increases transportation costs which means it isn’t economically
competitive.
Diane Greer, reporter, January 2007, BioCycle, “REALITIES, OPPORTUNITIES FOR CELLULOSIC
ETHANOL”, AB, http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001220.html
Cellulosic ethanol is produced from a great diversity of biomass including waste from urban, agricultural,
and forestry sources. In terms of agricultural residues - which this article focuses on - this includes the
nonfood portion of plants, i.e., the leaves and stem. While chemically identical to ethanol made from food
crops, such as corn and soybeans, the production process is more complicated. Preprocessing steps are
required to liberate the sugars locked in the complex carbohydrates, called cellulose and hemicellulose,
which form the cell walls of plants. During preprocessing, biomass materials are broken into smaller
pieces and then treated with enzymes to accelerate biochemical reactions that break down the complex
carbohydrates into fermentable sugars. As with grain-based ethanol, the remainder of the process
involves the fermentation and distillation of the sugars into alcohol. To date, efforts to improve the
economic viability of cellulosic ethanol have focused on decreasing enzyme costs and improving
efficiency of preprocessing. But economics also depend on the ability of farmers to supply feedstocks
profitably and at prices that enable these operations to produce a competitive product. “You have to
work on conversion and distribution in parallel,” says Kevin Shinners, Professor of Agricultural Engineering
at the University of Wisconsin. “This stuff will not magically appear at the biorefineries.” Logistical
challenges in collecting and transporting agricultural residuals add costs to otherwise inexpensive
feedstocks. “The goal is to develop the machines and processes to harvest, store and transport these materials
in the most economic way for the [farm] producers,” adds Shinners. “If it can't be done economically for
producers, the whole value chain is going to fall apart.”
SDI 2008 p. 17 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
AT Solvency
Without removing the subsidies for corn based ethanol the aff solves ZERO of the case.
Farmers won’t give up thos subsidies and even if a few did the best case scenario is a very
small increase in cellulostic ethanol by 2020. Even the sources you think would be biased
recognize that cellulosic ethanol is a fantasy.
Gristmill, Online Environmental Newspaper, March 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746
Now we get a new study (PDF) from a trio of ag economists at Iowa State University. For the record, the
authors are conventional ag scholars firmly entrenched within the corporate-dominated research
world described so well by Nancy Scola in her recent "Monsanto U." post. Indeed, one of the authors holds
the Pioneer Hi-Bred International Chair in Agribusiness. (Pioneer is the genetically modified seed arm of the
chemical giant Dupont.) The researchers' patrons -- i.e., the agribiz giants -- benefit from the corn-as-
bridge-to-cellulosic myth; it keeps those highly profitable government goodies coming. So it's
surprising to see these mainstream economists deliver such a dismal forecast for cellulosic ethanol. To
come up with their forecasts, the authors do their economists' trick of creating a model and plugging in
various assumptions. They start by calculating that without the latest round of goodies -- i.e., the fat
"Renewable Fuel Standard" of the 2007 Energy Act -- cellulosic ethanol (and biodiesel, too) would have
withered away. In that scenario, corn ethanol would keep ramping up from the current level of about 7 billion
gallons, pushed by high oil prices and the $0.51/gallon tax credit that's existed for years. Here's what they
say would have happened by 2022, if the 2007 Act had never happened (economists lay out their conditional,
speculative scenarios in the simple present tense): The corn ethanol sector expands until total production
exceeds 18 billion gallons per year. Biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass are not viable in this
scenario. Cellulosic ethanol never expands, and the biodiesel sector contracts so that there are no biodiesel
plants operating in the long run. They add a bit that I found particularly devastating: "These results suggest
that [without the 2007 Energy Act], once the opportunity cost of land is taken into account, rational farmers
will not grow switchgrass or soybeans for biofuel production, and rational investors will not build these
plants." Believe me, that thing about "rational" farmers and investors is strong stuff, coming from
conventional economists. Now, what happens when we account for the 2007 Act's hefty mandate?
Current production, almost all from corn, stands at about 7 billion gallons. The act demands 36 billion
gallons of biofuel by 2022, of which 15 billion comes from corn, and the other 21 billion gallons comes
from cellulosic (and to a much less extent biodiesel). The authors seriously doubt the cellulosic target
can even come close to being met. They reckon that the mandate can inspire "rational" farmers and
investors to churn out 4.5 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022 -- but there's a catch. In order to
reach even that level, the government will have to significantly jack up the tax credit awarded to
mixers -- from the current 51 cents to $1.55. The message is this: Even with the fat 2007 Act mandate,
cellulosic ethanol can only offset a tiny amount of petroleum use -- and then only if it's borne aloft by
titanic amounts of public cash.
2nd Generation Ethanol isn’t ready yet – the plan’s push for widescale use before it’s ready
undermines the solvency of all their advantages.
IEE (Institute for Energy and the Environment), 2007, “The Rush to Ethanol”, AB,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-rep.pdf
Investing time, land, energy, and money in short-sighted solutions will not only result in unnecessary
environmental damages, but also impede a meaningful transition to the best possible production
scenario for biofuels. Modern agriculture has demonstrated that we can grow any crop to the
detriment of the land and the people farming it. We must remember that while some plants may hold
certain benefits over others, it is the manner in which they are planted, grown, and harvested that are
the measure of environmental impact. After all, it is not plants themselves that are sustainable, but rather
the practices by which they are managed. While there are environmental benefits inherent in cellulosic
over corn for ethanol production, if these feedstocks are planted and harvested in unsustainable ways
those, benefits could easily become moot.
SDI 2008 p. 18 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
No solvency—Cellulosic ethanol would require 60 times more land than is available for
ethanol which turns all their environment advantages.
NRDC (National Resource Defense Council), 2007, Growing Energy, “How Bio-fuels can help end America’s
Oil Dependence”, AB, http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/biofuels/biofuels.pdf
How much land would we need to meet that level of light-duty vehicle energy demand with cellulosic
ethanol? With status quo switchgrass yields at 5 dry tons/ acre/year and currently achievable cellulose-to-
ethanol conversion efficiency of about 50 gallons per ton (the equivalent of 33 gallons of gasoline), about
1,750 million acres would be required to meet projected 2050 light-duty gasoline demand. In
comparison, the area of the contiguous 48 states is about 1.9 billion acres, U.S. cropland and rangeland
is about 700 million acres, and U.S. cropland is about 400 million acres, and the only land on which
switchgrass is growing now is part of about 30 million acres of Conservation Resource Program land.
The conclusion based on the status quo can only be that cellulosic biofuels would be bit players.
Cellulosic Ethanol is not ready for use and unsustainable-this evidence subsumes their
solvency cards because it assumes future R&D
IEE (Institute for Energy and the Environment), 2007, “The Rush to Ethanol”, AB,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-rep.pdf
Cellulosic ethanol offers a better alternative than corn based ethanol, but technological breakthroughs
are needed for it to play a significant role. Moreover, cellulosic ethanol production is not inherently
sustainable and there are potential environmental risks in its mass production. Given ethanol’s
shortcomings and limitations, we should be looking into other alternatives for the transportation sector.
Conservation and efficiency measures are waiting to be implemented; an aggressive plan should be
rapidly put in place to curb transportation greenhouse gas emissions and limit the country’s dependency on
foreign oil.
SDI 2008 p. 20 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Prefer our evidence- their evidence never says Obama will promote Corn ethanol and our
evidence is from Barack himself
BarackObama.com No date cited
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and
government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two
billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
SDI 2008 p. 22 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
*****CHINA NEG*****
SDI 2008 p. 23 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
2. There is no impact to this argument. Why does it matter if we violate this part of the
constitution?
3. Empirical proof - State cooperation with international actors is key to solve climate
and has constitutional precedent
Engel, Arizona University Law Professor, 2005
[Kristen, "Colloquium Article: MITIGATING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES: A
REGIONAL APPROACH," 14 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 54]
Because greenhouse gases are global pollutants whose emissions are the subject of mitigation
efforts around the world, it is not surprising that policymakers crafting regional solutions to climate
change in the United States have many opportunities to link their proposals to those being pursued
by other nations. Normally such linkage would be pursued by the federal government or under the auspices
of an agreement or treaty. But in the absence of strong federal leadership on climate change, the states
are being left to work out the contours of international cooperation largely by themselves. This state-
foreign nation linkage raises several questions: are states exceeding their authority by entering into
cooperative agreements with foreign nations, and are the states subject to limitations upon linking a U.S.
regional emissions trading program with a foreign government's trading program?
One commentator claims that the joint regional climate change action plan developed by the New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers exceeds the power of states under the [*79] Constitution. n82
According to this commentator, Jon Reisman, the agreement is a "transparent attempt to implement the
Kyoto Protocol, without reference to the complex terms of the Protocol itself." n83 Consequently, according
to Reisman, the plan violates Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, which bars states from entering into a
treaty, alliance, confederation, agreement or compact with another state or nation. n84 The agreement of the
Governors and Premiers does commit both the New England states and several Canadian provinces to
greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, though the goals are actually less stringent than the targets
contained in the Kyoto Protocol for the U.S. and Canada. The Governors and Premiers are, however, doing
little more than expressing their mutual intent to reduce greenhouse gases; nothing they are doing
commits either nation as a whole to reduction targets or to any other requirement of the Kyoto Protocol. No
aspect of the Governors' nonbinding agreement with Canadian states would seem to enhance the
powers of the states vis-a-vis the national government, and it would appear to stay outside of the
Supreme Court's modern definition of an "agreement" or "compact" subject to the Compact Clause.
n85 Nevertheless, in executing the agreement, the states do appear to be standing in the shoes of the
federal government.
SDI 2008 p. 24 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015
Individually, the size of many of these state economies rivals those of most countries. State climate
policy initiatives — though not yet implemented on a national scale — are collectively among the most
advanced anywhere in the world. They provide a profound but largely unrecognized platform for
national action, and for a potential reassertion of global environmental leadership by the United States.
Indeed, state climate initiatives have provided hope to those in the global community who have waited
patiently for the United States to engage meaningfully in international climate efforts
3. And, the plan will result in federal action – we access 100% solvency
Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015
The federal government in the Bush era has done little to tackle our most pressing environmental problem —
climate change. Yet there is one bright side amid Washington’s inaction: Many states have been stepping
into the void and adopting comprehensive climate change policies that can be a model for the coming
federal legislation to slow global warming. The leadership of states such as California, Arizona,
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Florida is crucial not only because it provides a template for federal climate
legislation that will no doubt be adopted under the next presidential administration. State action is also
vital because among the top 75 emitters of greenhouse gases worldwide, half are U.S. states.
SDI 2008 p. 25 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
SDI 2008 p. 26 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
The California Clean Energy Fund (CalCEF), a $30 million public benefit investment fund created as
part of the Pacific Gas and Electric bankruptcy settlement, today announced that it intends to award a
one million dollar grant to establish and maintain the world’s leading university center on energy
efficiency. The grant will be awarded to a Northern California university which aspires to international
leadership in the development of energy efficiency technologies and the removal of barriers to their rapid
commercialization. “Increasing energy efficiency is the single most important step California can take to
minimize the long-term cost of reliable energy services,” said Michael R. Peevey, chairman of CalCEF and
president of the California Public Utilities Commission. “Establishing a university center on energy
efficiency is a natural way to meet the state’s goals by tapping into a wealth of academic expertise in
developing and bringing innovative technologies to market.” By creating a university-based center for
energy efficiency, CalCEF will bring together its diverse Board of Directors, partnerships with leading
venture capital firms, and academic leaders from multiple disciplines to advance innovation and
accelerate the commercialization of energy efficient products, services and practices. The center will
also reinforce California’s standing as a national and international leader in energy efficiency, while seeding
the state’s marketplace with promising new products and services that provide its citizens with a clean
environment and economic benefits.
3. All of their evidence assumes local state movements, not a uniform state
action. Their solvency deficits would be solved by our counterplan because a
uniform state action has all the benefits of a country acting.
SDI 2008 p. 27 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
They have no evidence saying that their plan is uniquely and explicitly under federal
jurisdiction.
Federal government does not have the jurisdiction to pre-empt this action – states have the
authority to regulate businesses
John F. Pritchard, a member of the firm of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts in New York City, 1988
“THE CASE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE BUSINESS COMBINATION STATUTES”, NM,
Lexis
The ordinary presumption of constitutionality given to state laws is strongest in the preemption context. To
preserve the states' law-making authority, "[c]onsideration under the Supremacy Clause starts with
the basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law." A state law will not be found
to be preempted "in the absence of persuasive reasons -- either that the nature of the regulated subject
matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained." n50
This is particularly true when a court reviews legislation in an area traditionally governed by state law.
"Where . . . the field which Congress is said to have pre-empted has been traditionally occupied by the States,
. . . 'we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by
the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.'" n51
Few fields have been so consistently and completely occupied by the states as the regulation of the internal
affairs of their domestic corporations. As the Supreme Court stated in CTS after reviewing numerous state
laws affecting corporate governance matters: "It is thus an accepted part of the business landscape in this
country for states to create corporations, to prescribe their powers, and to define the rights that are
acquired by purchasing their shares."Thus, only an "unambiguous congressional mandate" would
justify a finding of federal preemption of a state statute regulating business combinations between its
domestic corporations and their dominant shareholders.
SDI 2008 p. 28 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Competition between states would not happen because they aren’t competing with one
another over policies, they are merely giving INCENTIVES to businesses that operate out
of the country.
Uniform state action inherently solves their claims because all the aff’s arguments have
to do with inconsistencies with state action.
SDI 2008 p. 29 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
China’s growth is contributing to poverty, economic decline, and civil unrest in Africa
Schoeman ‘7, Maxi, 11/1, writer, Strategic Review for South Africa, “China in Africa: the rise of hegemony?”,
Lexis. Tk
The spectacular rise of China as (what is often claimed to be) a superpower in the contemporary international
system is regularly the subject of much debate and attention, especially in the press and popular journals. The
International Relations community, though, seems tofind it rather difficult to characterise the role of China in
international affairs. International Relations theories about the international power structure have traditionally
dealt with Western powers, including Japan as a kind of 'honorary' Western economic power, but with
apparently little provision for the emergence of a superpower from the Global South. (2)) Scholarly
contributions on China's rise as an 'incipient superpower' (3)) tend to focus on its economic 'giantism',its
modernising security establishment, its energy policies and needs and, to some extent, its impact on the
global natural environment in an age of climate change and environmental degradation. (4)) When it comes
to China's relations with Africa, international views, especially in the United States (US), whether scholarly
or journalistic, seem to regard China as a 'bad influence', potentially undermining "years of international
efforts to link aid to better governance" (5)) and as propping up "dangerous regimes, producing a new cycle
of unsustainable debt, and damaging anti-poverty efforts across the region". (6))
SDI 2008 p. 30 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Predictions of Chinese aggression have been empirically denied for over 15 years – East Asia has created
mechanisms balancing powers to avoid tensions escalating into violence.
Goh ‘7, Evelyn, writer, International Security magazine, “Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia;
Analyzing Regional Security Strategies”, Winter 2007-2008 issue, Lexis, tk
The small and medium-sized states in Southeast Asia have faced significant geostrategic changes with the
end of the Cold War and the rise of China. Over the last decade, scholars have debated how these countries
would cope with growing Chinese power, and how their relations with the other major powers in the region
would change. Some analysts have suggested that the region is shifting toward a more China-centered
order, but this view is premature. Eschewing the simple dichotomy of balancing versus bandwagoning,
Southeast Asian countries do not want to choose between the two major powers, the United States and
China. This avoidance strategy is not merely tactical or time-buying; instead, Southeast Asian states have
actively tried to influence the shape of the new regional order. Key Southeast Asian states are pursuing
two main pathways to order in the region: the "omni-enmeshment" of major powers and complex
balance of influence. They have helped to produce an interim power distribution outcome, which is a
hierarchical regional order that retains the United States' dominant superpower position while
incorporating China in a regional great power position just below that of the United States. When the
Cold War ended in the early 1990s, many leading scholars offered a bleak prognosis for East Asia: with the
decline of the Soviet Union and the rise of China, the region would move toward an unstable multipolar
order, as the United States drew down its forces, Japan remilitarized, China's economic and military power
grew, and other countries in the region began to engage in arms races. 1 More than a decade and a half
later, however, East Asia has not descended into intense security competition with a high risk of violent
conflict as predicted; instead an interim order that incorporates the United States, China, and other
major regional players continues to prevail. Why has East Asia enjoyed relative stability and peace in the
post-Cold War era? The answer can be found partly in great power dynamics. The region has remained
stable since 1990 largely because the United States has maintained its web of alliances and its deep
economic and strategic involvement in the region; and it has avoided major conflicts partly because
China has chosen not to aggressively challenge the status quo. These great power policy decisions,
however, have also been influenced by the actions and persuasion of other regional states. In particular,
the relatively peaceful transition so far may be the result of two complementary strategies on the part
of key East Asian states such as Japan and leading countries of Southeast Asia: (1) the building of
regional multilateral institutions that serve to regulate exchanges, develop norms, and create regional
identity, thereby institutionalizing cooperation among the major powers and socializing China; and (2)
indirect balancing against potential Chinese (or other aggressive) power by facilitating the continued
U.S. security commitment to the region.
SDI 2008 p. 32 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
*****DOD NEG*****
SDI 2008 p. 33 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Solvency – Only by withdrawing from Iraq can we solve our readiness problem – any other
solution to readiness will not work absent withdraw – CP doesn’t link to elections – Iraq
withdraw is not a key issue anymore
Mike Soraghan, March 5, 2008, “Dems shift gears on Iraq The Hill”, JLK, Lexis
Congressional Democrats searching for a message that will resonate on the Iraq war are preparing an
argument that getting troops out of the conflict is the only way to rebuild a spent military. It's a less
ambitious argument than the "Out-of-Iraq now" proposals put forward last year, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other
top Democrats believe it will allow the party to criticize the war without being seen as criticizing those fighting it. It could also help
Democrats to portray themselves as protecting the military and national security. The Pentagon's commanders have
repeatedly testified that the Iraq war is straining the military, and Democrats say they can take that
foundation and add the extra step of saying the strain is the reason to withdraw troops. "This is about
America's security," said Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.). "We have an Army that can't deploy anywhere else in
the world." Or, as a staffer put it, "You can't rebuild an engine while you're driving along at 60 miles per
hour." A Democratic aide noted that numerous generals have complained that the Iraq war is stretching the
military too thin. "Who can argue with that?" the aide said. "You're not blaming the military for anything." The new angle on Iraq
reflects sentiments among Democratic leaders that they became too focused on opposing Bush's "surge" and then saw their push for
withdrawal falter when the surge was viewed as a military success. At the same time, the new strategy is not necessarily in sync with
other efforts on Iraq. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which overlaps with the Out-of-Iraq caucus, last week introduced
legislation calling for withdrawal of troops within a year. Anti-war groups are trying to link the Iraq war to the economic slowdown in
what they call an "Iraq/recession" campaign. The Senate last week debated a plan to withdraw troops within 120 days, and Republicans
seemed more eager to debate it than did Democrats. President Bush has backed off plans to draw troop levels down
to pre-surge levels, with little public backlash. Leadership aides say the exact legislative strategy for linking readiness to
withdrawal hasn't been developed as Democrats and their allies build their case. But Democrats will use the budget battle that begins this
week to showcase their differences with President Bush on veterans' healthcare and military readiness. Another potential legislative
vehicle is a military readiness resolution sponsored by Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas), both Armed
Services subcommittee chairmen. The resolution lists a host of shortfalls in the armed services and states, "Congress should restore and
maintain the ground forces." The resolution, which makes little mention of Iraq, has been repeatedly discussed at the ad hoc Iraq strategy
task force run by House Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.). Abercrombie said that in caucus meetings the resolution has
been discussed as "the central focus of our approach on Iraq." Republicans say that they're equally committed to making sure the
military has what it needs, but that the military doesn't need to withdraw from Iraq to have those needs met. "House Democrats' Iraq
policy is like a broken Magic 8-Ball," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). "No matter
what question you ask, the answer is always 'Retreat.' " The issue of "military readiness" is not new. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.)
complained that "the Army is broken" when he came out against the war in 2005. To House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike
Skelton (D-Mo.), restoring readiness is a somber, pre-eminent duty. The Democratic presidential candidates have also sounded off on the
theme. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) hit the issue hard a year ago in a sit-down session with the Center for American Progress.
Even then, she was commenting on criticism from the 2000 presidential campaign from then-candidate and Texas Gov. George W. Bush,
who charged that her husband, President Bill Clinton, had diminished the readiness of the military. "It wasn't true when he said it, but it
sure is true now. [Bush] has in a very deliberative way created conditions that are straining our military, underfunding it with respect to
what actually gets to troops on the ground and what they get when they get home." Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has touched on the issue
as well. The foreign policy portion of his campaign website states, "As a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces
are under pressure as never before," then stresses his commitment to rebuilding the military. With the
economy and other issues burning the legislative oxygen on Capitol Hill, Iraq has been pushed to the
back burner in recent weeks. But aides expect it to re-emerge later this month with the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq,
and in early April, when the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Capitol Hill to testify about the war. As Democrats
prepare for that debate, the readiness issue has garnered renewed interest in the top ranks of Democratic leadership. In the last few
weeks, Pelosi has released three official statements designed to highlight the comments of generals who say the military is reaching a
breaking point. "Americans are rightly concerned about how much longer our nation must continue to sacrifice our security for the sake
of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future," Pelosi said late last month, responding to comments by
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey that six years of war have left the Army "out of balance." House Democratic Caucus Chairman
Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) compiled a list of examples of National Guard shortfalls in 16 states that hampered their ability to react to natural
disasters or terrorist attacks. Still, some Democrats worry that using readiness as an angle of attack on Iraq could inject partisanship into
an issue where Republicans and Democrats, at least recently, have been trying to work together. Aides who've been trying to get
Republicans to sign onto the Ortiz-Abercrombie legislation have reported reluctance among some GOP members. The possibility
worries Skelton. "This is a national problem, and Iraq is a major cause, but readiness is not a political
football," Skelton said.
SDI 2008 p. 34 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Second, this argument does not apply, we have solvency advocates for all parts of our cp…states can do incentives
towards the market and DOD, and we can withdraw from Iraq
Third, they have absolutely no ev that says DOD is key to do the plan – so it is reciprocal.
SDI 2008 p. 37 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
AT Solvency
The plan is too vague to accomplish anything. It’s just one more statement of what the DOD
would like to accomplish but this just adds to the list of a huge list of far-flung initiatives.
Bennett 07 (Drake Bennett, May 27, 2007, The Boston Globe, JD, lexis)
The American military has a storied record as a technological innovator: the computer, the commercial
jetliner, and the Internet originated from military research and transformed modern life. And with billions to
spend it can provide a major proving ground for new energy technologies developed in the private sector. "In
terms of alternative energy, the Department of Defense is big enough, in certain sectors, to be the tipping
point," says Stuart Funk, an energy specialist at LMI who was once the Pentagon official responsible for fuel
operations. The effort has its skeptics. Even supporters are quick to point out that the Department of
Defense is unlikely to accomplish much unless it better organizes its far-flung initiatives. And
environmentalists are dubious of an institution that has more often been an adversary. They point out,
for example, that some of the ideas -- such as increasing the use of coal to make synthetic fuel -- could
actually be more environmentally damaging than the status quo. "It's a little bit early to tell whether
the Pentagon is going to be a force for progress or not on the issue of protecting the climate," said
David Hawkins, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Indeed, the
Pentagon's central goal is not to align the military with the environmental movement. It is to reduce
costs -- the Pentagon spent $13.5 billion on energy last year -- and cut the dependence of its fighting forces on foreign energy. A recent
Pentagon-commissioned study by LMI described the American military's reliance on oil as "unsustainable in the long term," the Globe
reported earlier this month. Still, the new energy consciousness coincides with a growing conviction among military and intelligence
analysts that the planet's changing environment, and the country's reliance on oil, are potent national security issues. And some voices
within the military are starting to espouse a worldview -- emphasizing the limits on natural resources and the volatility of ecosystems --
that is decidedly environmentalist in tone. "Clean technologies have become strategic, in part because the military, like the rest of us, is
realizing how fragile the environment is," said Kenan Sahin, CEO and founder of Tiax, a Cambridge-based technology development
firm working on several projects with the Department of Defense. Whether that means the military is becoming
environmentalist, or simply a smarter fighting machine, may be a distinction that makes less and less
of a difference. Early last year, in a paper titled "War Without Oil: A Catalyst for True Transformation," an Air Force lieutenant
colonel named Michael Hornitschek laid out his vision of the super-efficient American military of 2050. Army and Marine vehicles
would run on electric hybrid engines or fuel cells. Warship hulls would be nano-engineered to make them lightweight and more fuel
efficient. Surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft would be solar-powered, and individual soldiers would carry pocket hydrogen fuel
cells. Expeditionary bases would be capable of generating their own energy from wind, sunlight, biofuel, or garbage. Such a fighting
force has an element of "Star Wars fantasy," Hornitschek wrote. But the ideas in the paper are not that far from projects already being
funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in conjunction with university laboratories and companies like
DuPont, GE, and Hewlett Packard. For one project, DARPA is trying to develop a substitute jet fuel derived from plants such as palm
trees and jatropha shrubs. Currently, the Air Force is the largest consumer of energy in the Department of Defense, and every dollar
increase in the price of a barrel of oil raises its annual costs by $60 million, according to Kevin Billings, the Air Force's deputy assistant
secretary for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health. Another major challenge is the sometimes nightmarish
logistics of supplying energy to soldiers in the field. Fuel convoys in Iraq, for example, are favorite
targets of insurgent attacks. And with troops increasingly equipped with high-tech devices like satellite
phones, GPS locators, and night-vision goggles, energy isn't merely a matter of gasoline -- batteries are
also a vital military commodity. A typical soldier carries 10 to 27 pounds of batteries, according to DARPA. To help reduce
the load on the military's energy supply lines, DARPA is exploring longer-lasting fuel cells to replace current batteries, as well as
technologies, like high-efficiency solar cells and even mobile generators that run on discarded plastic packaging, to allow more power to
be generated in the field. Technologies like these would have uses far beyond the battlefield. Higher efficiency solar panels could make
solar power more cost-competitive with other forms of energy, and better fuel cells could be used for everything from storing energy
generated from solar arrays and wind farms to freeing cellphones from the need to be charged as often. Cheaper, more reliable jet fuel
would no doubt be a boon in the private sector, especially the airline industry, for whom fuel costs are a leading headache. And the same
technologies may have applications for other fuels as well. The first small samples of jet biofuels will be available in six to nine months,
according to Doug Kirkpatrick, the DARPA technologist in charge of the solar cell and jet fuel projects. He also predicted "fairly
dramatic progress" on the solar cells in the coming months. But independent energy analysts say the military's
primary contribution to clean energy is more likely to be as a customer than an inventor. One of the
difficulties for new energy technologies is the volatility of oil prices: an energy alternative that makes
good economic sense when oil is $60 a barrel becomes a financial disaster if oil drops to $30 a barrel,
and this makes companies reluctant to invest in such innovations. But the military remains the
country's single largest energy consumer, and it is willing to pay extra for reliability.
SDI 2008 p. 40 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Weaning the military from fossil fuels would be a herculean task- renewable energy would
challenge the department’s most deeply held assumptions
Bender 07 (Bryan Bender, May 1, 2007, The Boston Globe, JD, lexis)
Weaning the military from fossil fuels quickly, however, would be a herculean task - especially because
the bulk of the US arsenal, the world's most advanced, is dependent on fossil fuels and many of those
military systems have been designed to remain in service for at least several decades. Moving to
alternative energy sources on a large scale would "challenge some of the department's most deeply
held assumptions, interests, and processes," the report acknowledges.
Solvency isn’t dependent on the plan – it’s about the attitude of the military leaders
which the aff can’t fiat over.
Bender 07 (Bryan Bender, May 1, 2007, The Boston Globe, JD, lexis)
Achieving an energy transformation at the Department of Defense "will require the commitment,
personal involvement, and leadership of the secretary of defense and his key subordinates," the report
says.
We don’t need the plan – the military is already trying to do the plan – it’s just too difficult for
them to really implement.
Bennett 07 (Drake Bennett, May 27, 2007, The Boston Globe, JD, lexis)
Over the next three years, the US Air Force plans to add an important new class of vehicles to its fleet.
They can't fly. They have no weaponry. They look like golf carts, and none of them can break 25 miles
per hour. What they can do is save fuel. Although the Air Force hasn't decided exactly which models to
buy, some of the candidates are electric-powered, others run on ethanol, and even those that use traditional
gasoline boast fuel economies between 40 and 50 miles per gallon. By 2010, the Air Force promises, it will
have replaced nearly a third of the cars and trucks currently used on bases to transport airmen and supplies.
These "low-speed vehicles" are just one part of a broad effort by the American military to drastically
reduce its use of traditional fossil fuels at a time when global oil markets are unstable, gas prices are
approaching historic highs, and climate change is increasingly a matter of bipartisan political concern.
In scale and coordination the effort is not the Manhattan Project some critics say is needed. But as a loose
collection of initiatives, it is impressive in its breadth, encompassing the everyday and the exotic: from
energy efficient windows and light bulbs and geothermal plants to research into jet fuel that can be
made from weeds, portable generators that run on plastic waste, and even a fleet of satellites to harvest
solar power from space. It also, some analysts say, could have a dramatic impact on the broader effort to
move society away from fossil fuels.
SDI 2008 p. 41 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
No solvency DOD’s doesn’t have anyone to organize it’s energy initatives which means they fail.
Bennett 07 (Drake Bennett, May 27, 2007, The Boston Globe, JD, lexis)
The Department of Defense, he argues, could afford to spend far more than the $535 million it spent on
energy research programs last year. And it still doesn't have an official whose job it is to head its disparate
energy initiatives. "There's been a change in thinking, but an inadequate change in action," he said.
SDI 2008 p. 42 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
DA Environment 1NC
A. Link – the DOD will adopt alternatives that are cheap but crush the environment.
Bennett 07 (Drake Bennett, May 27, 2007, The Boston Globe, JD, lexis)
The Department of Defense, he argues, could afford to spend far more than the $535 million it spent on
energy research programs last year. And it still doesn't have an official whose job it is to head its disparate
energy initiatives. "There's been a change in thinking, but an inadequate change in action," he said.
However, he said, even the change in thinking is bound to have a positive impact. The broader question for
the future, many analysts say, is whether the military's various initiatives will turn out to be a true
environmental effort. Because the Pentagon's mission is to win wars, not fight global warming, it will
pursue energy sources that environmentalists abhor.
DA Oil – link
The plan would substantially decrease demand for oil.
Bender 07 (Bryan Bender, May 1, 2007, The Boston Globe, JD, lexis)
"The Pentagon's efforts in this area would have a huge impact on the rest of the country," Copulos
said. The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force
spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight operations. The Navy and Army are
close behind. Of all the cargo the military transports, more than half consists of fuel. About 80 percent
of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel. The military's energy consumption has steadily
grown as its arsenal has become more mechanized and as US forces have had to travel farther
distances.
C. violation – the plan isn’t a substantial increase in alternative energy incentives. The biggest
users of fuel the Air Force and the Navy starting doing parts of the plan a long time ago and a
large-scale shift will come soon when the DOD completes their long range study of these issues.
Barnes 7/31 (Julian E. Barnes, 7/31/08, Times, JD,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4242858882&f
ormat=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4242858803&cisb=22_T4242858802&tree
Max=true&treeWidth=0&csi=306910&docNo=1)
Military officials emphasize that the increases have not affected how combat operations are being conducted. The
Defense Department's biggest fuel users are the Air Force, which accounts for 52% of the fuel bill, and the
Navy, which uses 32%. Within those branches, conservation efforts are wide-ranging. A decades-old initiative
to scrub the hulls of Navy ships, reducing drag and making them faster and more efficient, is gaining new
importance. The Navy also is stepping up efforts to replace live exercises with virtual maneuvers that allow
sailors to train while keeping the ships in port. This year the Navy will conduct 124 "synthetic exercises," up
from 84 last year. A study last year showed that the initiative saved $160 million. The Air Force and the Navy
also are considering increases in flight simulator training, although a large-scale shift is likely to wait until
after a Defense Department study is completed by late next year.
2. Negative ground – the topic is huge with dozens of categories of incentives, the only
common element for predictable negative disads is based on the size of the plan mechanism
– we can get an oil or coal link to any case but if the aff is tiny then we won’t have a
realistic chance of winning uniqueness for those disadvantages.
3. Inherency – our evidence proves there isn’t any barrier to doing the plan. Don’t reward
them for writing a really vague plan.
SDI 2008 p. 51 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Incentives creating fifty billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year would be substantial –
but that is still a fair interpretation because it is small compared to worldwide production.
Jonathan Hibshman, J.D. Candidate, May 2008, Drake University Law School; M.S., 2004, Utah State
University; B.A., 2002, Utah State University, Fall 2007, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Utilizing Wind Power
to Offset Agribusiness Utility Costs, Lexis, CG
Wind power technology and implementation have increased substantially over the past two decades. n4
Roughly 50,000 turbines are in operation worldwide, generating approximately fifty billion kilowatt-
hours ("kWh") of electricity per year. n5 In proper perspective, current worldwide wind energy production
equals the amount of electricity that could be produced by eight large nuclear power plants. n6 This is just a
drop in the bucket, however, in terms of worldwide energy production capacity. The U.S. Department of
Energy estimates that 5,800 quadrillion British thermal units ("BTU"), or quads, of energy per year could be
produced [*477] using the wind. n7 This is fifteen times the current worldwide energy demand.
A. Interpretation
Energy efficiency is not Alternative Energy. They are distinct categories.
Alliance Investors, 3-31-08,
http://www.allianzinvestors.com/documentLibrary/mutualFunds/prospectuses/Allianz RCM Global Eco
Trends Prospectus.pdf.
EcoEnergy Sector. The Sub-Advisor considers the “EcoEnergy” sector to include the following two areas:
Altenative Energies and Energy Efficiency.
“Alternative Energies” include the provision of services and the manufacture, building, distribution,
delivery, transportation, planning, storage, research and other production of products or technologies
directly or indirectly connected to the provision or manufacture of alternative, especially regenerative,
forms of energy, or connected with the preparation, manufacture or distribution of the corresponding
preliminary products. This area also includes the provision and manufacture of alternative, especially
regenerative, forms of energy and the preparation, manufacture or distribution of the corresponding
preliminary products themselves.
The area “Energy Efficiency” includes the provision of services and the manufacture, distribution,
delivery, transportation, planning, storage, research and other production of products or technologies
directly or indirectly connected with the efficient use of energy or increasing energy efficiency.
B. Violation
The Affirmative provides incentives for energy efficiency not Alternative Energy.
C. Standards
1. Limits-They Under limit the Topic-this undermines Ground enabling the Affirmative to spike out
of our Disadvantages or Case arguments and doesn’t give us an opportunity to prepare.
2. Bright line- Our interpretation not only lists Alternative Energies, but moreover excludes the
Affirmative’s action. The Affirmative justifies any Affirmative that results in a net decrease of
Emissions; this skews negative ground.
3. Education- Debating outside of the resolution undermines the educational value of Debate. The
resolution provides a means of discussing unique topics i.e. international climate policy.
4. Predictability-The Negative can never predict an Affirmative that doesn’t constrain itself to the
resolution.
1. The counterplan is mutually exclusive – they use the mechanism endorsed by Stavins
which is “half of the program’s allowances would be allocated through auctioning and half
through free distribution” our counterplan uses an auctioning scheme for all of the permits.
Any permutation is severance of the hybrid system that they specified in their plan and in
the Stavins evidence. Severance permutations make the aff a moving target and should be
rejected.
2. The counterplan is net beneficial – auctions are better for the economy which is the internal
link to all their biggest impacts i.e. Khalizad, Bailey and Mead. The counterplan produces up to
$35 billion in benefits the plan is a net $10 billion loss to the economy.
Ian W. H. Parry, a fellow at Resources for the Future in Washington, D.C., 2007, “Are All Market-Based
Environmental Regulations Equal?”, http://www.issues.org/19.1/p_parry.htm
The effects of tradable permits are similar to those of emissions taxes. They raise production costs and
reduce economic activity. If a polluting company increases production, it must either buy permits to
cover the extra emissions or forego sales of its own permits to other companies. Either way, it pays a
financial penalty for producing emissions. Permits that are distributed to firms for free have adverse
effects on employment in the same way that emissions taxes do, but without the potential offsetting
benefits of recycling government revenue in other tax reductions. This has two important policy
implications. First, if permits were auctioned off by the government rather than given away for free,
then society would be better off, as long as revenue from permit sales would be recycled into other tax
reductions. Tax economists have estimated that for each dollar of revenue used to reduce income taxes,
there will be a gain in economic efficiency of around 20 to 50 cents. Lower income taxes increase
employment, and they also reduce distortions in the pattern of expenditure between ordinary spending and
"tax-favored" spending such as owner-occupied housing and employer-provided medical insurance. In the
carbon example above, the United States might be better off to the tune of $20 billion to $45 billion per year
if it had a carbon tax or auctioned permits policy rather than grandfathered permits. Second, the economic
cost of grandfathered permits can be substantially higher than previously thought. According to an
estimate by Roberton Williams, Lawrence Goulder, and myself, the cost to the United States of meeting
the initial Kyoto target by a system of grandfathered permits imposed on fossil fuel producers rises
from roughly $25 billion per year (in current dollars) to around $55 billion when their effect on reducing
employment and compounding labor tax distortions is included. In fact, taking account of fiscal
interactions might compromise the ability of grandfathered permits to generate overall net benefits for
society. Suppose that global environmental damage from carbon emissions (for example, economic
damage to world agriculture from climate change and the costs of protecting valuable land against sea
level rises) was $70 per ton. (This is actually on the high side compared with most damage studies, although
the estimates are subject to much dispute.) The initial Kyoto target for the United States would have
reduced carbon emissions by around 630 million tons in 2010, implying annual environmental benefits
of around $45 billion in current dollars. Using our cost figures and ignoring fiscal interactions, the
grandfathered permit scheme would produce an estimated $20 billion in environmental benefits. But
include fiscal interactions, and the policy fails the cost/benefit test, because costs exceed environmental
SDI 2008 p. 68 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
benefits by $10 billion. Only the emissions tax/auctioned permit policies pass the cost/benefit test,
producing net benefits of between $10 billion and $35 billion.
SDI 2008 p. 69 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Also, the counterplan avoids politics – giving free permits is very popular because it gives
carbon industries huge profits.
Frank J. Convery, Louise Dunn, Luke Redmond, and Lisa B. Ryan, writers for the OECD Global
Forum on Sustainable Development: Emissions Trading, 2003, “OECD GLOBAL FORUM ON
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: EMISSIONS TRADING”, NM,
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/60/2957631.pdf
The principle of acceptability - which is subject to test in the political marketplace - is to compensate
roughly for the net costs of carbon control. In practice, Pezzey (2002) conjectures that acceptability
probably requires a political principle of approximately compensating for the profit that an industry
loses because of carbon control. Grandfathering to fossil fuel industries while reducing total carbon
use would give these industries large monopoly profits which would overcompensate for their losses.
Pezzey recommends a hybrid system, with compensation requiring much less than half of total carbon
permits to be free. He proposes that the remaining auction revenues should be partly recycled as lower rates
of conventional taxation and partly given as lump sums to households. He argues that consumers also deserve
compensation for higher prices of fuel and carbon-intensive products. As regards new entrants, he makes the
case that free permits do not significantly distort competition by creating barriers to entry as long as the
proportion of free permits is chosen to compensate for the costs of carbon control, and if this proportion is
not altered to discriminate against foreign rather than domestic ownership of firms, or in favour of public
rather than private ownership.
SDI 2008 p. 70 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
) Auctioned permits are uniquely unpopular – “grandfathered permits” permits are politically manageable.
Spiegel ‘8 (Eric Spiegel is senior vice president at Booze Allen & Hamilton. PUBLIC UTILITIES
FORTNIGHTLY – March – lexis)
In a recent "carbon war game" exercise among seven major U.S. investor owned utilities, GHG restrictions triggered a transition
away from coal-fired generation, driving up real electricity prices by 5 percent a year for a decade in the coal-heavy markets (see
"Carbon Wargames," Fortnightly, December 2007). War game participants broadly agreed that increases of that magnitude would
set off a political firestorm. How likely is such an outcome, and how likely is it to trigger a reversal of GHG policy?
The answer seems to depend heavily on the details of the GHG-restriction program. If it consists of a national economy-
wide cap-and-trade program, and existing power-plant operators receive a continuing allocation of emissions allowances
proportional to their historical emissions, only stepped down gradually in proportion to the national cap, then the burden
will be fairly limited. In effect, the rest of the economy will subsidize the transition to non-coal generation by purchasing
allowances from the departing coal plants. However, if the cap-and-trade is not economy-wide, or if the allocations
largely are auctioned off, then the burden will fall directly on the coal-heavy regions. And the resulting price fly-up likely
will cause a vigorous push-back from both households and businesses in the affected areas. This is not an unlikely
scenario and strengthens the resilience of traditional coal--changing the game.
SDI 2008 p. 72 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Auctioned permit funds will spur clean energy research and development
Kit Batten, Benjamin Goldstein, and Bracken Hendricks, Kit Batten is the Managing Director for Energy
and Environmental Policy and is a Ph.D. ecologist, Benjamin Goldstein is a Research Associate with the Domestic
Policy Team and Fellows Department at American Progress, Bracken Hendricks is a Senior Fellow with American
Progress where he works on issues of climate change, 6-2-08, “Investing in a Green Economy Using Cap-and-Trade
Auction Revenue to Help American Families and Spur Clean Energy Innovation”,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/auction_revenue.pdf
The transformation of our aging energy infrastructure around the platforms of efficiency and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions represents perhaps the greatest engine for American innovation, productivity
growth, and job creation in the coming decades. Any cap-and-trade proposal that comes before the U.S.
Congress must fully recognize the importance of utilizing auction revenues from emissions permits to drive
public investment in the clean-energy economy and safeguard American consumers from any regressive
impacts (see sidebar on potential uses of auction revenue, page 8). Proposals that are overly generous in
their giveaway of emissions permits will result in a massive transfer of wealth to polluting companies,
instead of investing this revenue back into in the American economy. Thus, they will ultimately fall
short of the objective of creating a prosperous, fair, and low-carbon economy. The scale of the global
warming and energy challenges we face will require proactive federal leadership in both policymaking and
investment, and in public private partnerships, requiring a level of national leadership perhaps not seen since
the New Deal. Promoting capital investment, increasing research and development funding, and reducing
financial risk through smart public policies like loan guarantees, will leverage more rapid technological
breakthroughs and encourage commercialization, helping private industry to achieve economies of scale and
lowering the costs of clean energy and energy-efficient products and services for consumers. The EPA
concurs, arguing that “[S]ubstantial cost savings could be achieved by combining direct emissions
policies (e.g. cap-and trade or carbon tax) with technology push policies (e.g. technology and R&D
incentives) that correct for the market failure associated with the fact that the inventor of a new
technology can not appropriate all of the associated social benefits.” Revenue from a permit auction
could create a large new stream of resources to invest in these “technology push policies,” including:
clean energy research, development, and deployment; advancing lowcarbon transportation choices
including mass transit, vastly more fuel-efficient vehicles, and low-carbon sustainably produced biofuels;
training a new clean energy workforce able to rebuild our communities and the country; and preparing for
and adapting to the effects of global warming. While auction revenue is just one source of funding for
these key national priorities, it represents a major pool of public resources, and should not be allowed
simply to result in windfall profits and wealth transfers to polluting corporations and their
shareholders. Auction funds can also provide the resources required to offset any potential energy
price increases for middle- and low-income families. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates
that it would only require a modest 14 percent of the total value of emissions permits to completely offset any
increased energy costs for the bottom fifth of the income spectrum.10 And, according to the Congressional
Budget Office, “lawmakers could more than offset the price increases experienced by low-income
households or the costs imposed on workers in particular sectors by providing for the sale of some or all of
the allowances and using the revenue to pay compensation. Conversely, giving all or most of the
allowances to energy producers to offset the potential losses of investors in those industries as was done
in the cap-and trade program for sulfur dioxide emissions would exacerbate the regressivity of the
price increases.”
SDI 2008 p. 76 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
The cap and trade system has empirically failed - it rewards companies for failing to plan
for the future.
The Capital Times. (Madison, Wisconsin). July 5, 2008 RIGHT RESPONSES TO WARMING. LexisNexis
Academic. AP.
Equally unfortunate is the report's endorsement of a federal "cap and trade" program for greenhouse
gas emissions -- a so-called "free-market" initiative under which the right to pollute would be bought
and sold by corporations. Unfortunately, the "cap and trade" approach has been tried in Europe. It
has not been particularly effective in reducing emissions. And the plan, as proposed in the U.S., is
actually less well thought out and less fiscally responsible than the plans tried overseas. "Cap and
trade" is bad idea. Indeed, responsible environmental groups have taken the lead in rejecting "cap and
trade" schemes. It should be rejected. The task force recommends that the PSC provide incentives for
utilities to invest in research and development. Such an approach rewards wealthy corporations that have
failed to take basic steps to plan for the future. It's precisely the wrong approach. Energy companies
should be required to confirm that they are making substantial investments in R&D before any rate increases
are approved.
We don’t need the plan Carbon Markets and renewable energy jobs increasing now.
Lisa Roner, freelance journalist and corporate communications consultant, 7-25-08, “Green Jobs: Help Wanted”,
http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?contentid=5515, VP
As the need to address climate change and the growing energy crisis become more a question of “how” than
“if”, renewable energy and carbon markets are experiencing a surge in growth. But some experts fear
there aren’t enough skilled workers to meet the demand. Explosive growth in the “clean economy” is
already happening. The American Solar Energy Society estimates that the US already has 8.5 million
jobs in renewable energy and other energy-efficient industries. Meanwhile, specialist jobs in climate
change and carbon markets, including analysts, managers and carbon traders, tripled between April
2006 and April 2007 and are expected to increase 50-fold by 2012, according to environmental recruiting
company Acre Resources.
SDI 2008 p. 78 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
The emissions trading scheme established in the E.U. was unsuccessful, and undermined
the original purpose for which it was built. The U.S. should avoid a similar experience.
Keith Orchison, Weekend Australian, REVIEW; Pg. 3; June 30, 2007; LC
The international steel industry has set its face against the kind of economy-wide, cap-and-trade emissions
scheme being proposed for introduction in Australia, saying it produces perverse outcomes. The industry's
global lobby group, the International Iron & Steel Institute, which represents 150 companies in 52 countries
accounting for 70 per cent of world steel production, has called on governments to develop a global system
of sector-specific abatement agreements that will enable all the major global steel-producing countries to
phase out obsolete technologies. The scheme, it says, should be global, voluntary, technology-focused and
based on energy intensity. It argues that this form of abatement management can set moving benchmarks for
greenhouse gas emissions for different industries for an agreed assessment period, taking into account the
type of products produced and the processes used, then reward companies that beat the average for their
sector and punish those that fall behind. The industry says the form of economy-wide emissions trading
scheme embraced in the European Union means that companies that have been less energy-efficient in
their sector receive more credits than the most efficient, while companies setting out to build global
market share by expanding efficient production are penalized by being forced to buy extra credits.
Meanwhile inefficient companies can compensate for their inability to grow their market share by
selling unused allowances. Steelmakers account for up to 6 % of man-made carbon dioxide emissions
globally and are engaged in fierce competition with the aluminum industry for market share. ''The
reality,'' says IISI secretary-general Ian Christmas,'' is that aluminium requires 10 times as much energy to
provide metal as steel. In terms of climate change, it is a disastrous metal.'' He has warned governments in
Europe and Japan that the current vogue for cap-and-trade emissions systems will give a fundamental
advantage to steelmakers in Russia, China and other countries not embracing such schemes. European
operators of steel blast furnaces will be handicapped in such competition to the extent of $US135 a ton,
he says, and will quickly relocate to parts of the world where they are not disadvantaged. A scheme
that merely shifts manufacturing-related greenhouse gas emissions to other parts of the world with less
stringent controls will fail to adequately address the global warming issue, he argues.
SDI 2008 p. 79 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
The U.S. should avoid failure in the emissions trading system like that of the E.U.
James Canter, the New York Times Media Group, NEWS, pp. 1; Brussels; June 19, 2008; LC
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4242854179&f
ormat=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=101&resultsUrlKey=29_T4242854182&cisb=22_T4242854181
&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8357&docNo=106
As the United States moves toward action on global warming, practical experience with carbon markets in
the European Union raises a critical question: Will such systems ever work? Backers of carbon markets,
including the presumptive U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, see them as one of
the cheapest and most effective ways to control greenhouse gases in advanced economies. Yet the
experience in Europe, which established the world's largest greenhouse gas market three years ago, tells
a cautionary tale - one in which politicians and influential industries may be diverting carbon trading
from its original purpose of reducing planet-warming gases. ''We currently are in danger of losing yet
another decade in the fight against global warming,'' said Hugo Robinson of Open Europe, a research group
in London. On Wednesday, the European Environment Agency reported that carbon emissions from
industries participating in the carbon trading plan, known as cap and trade, continue to rise. Emissions
from factories and plants that trade pollution permits rose by 0.4 percent between 2005 and 2006 and
by 0.7 percent between 2006 and 2007, during the first two years of the system's operations. Europeans
took an early lead in efforts to curb global warming, championing the Kyoto agreement and implementing a
market-based system in 2005 to cap emissions from about 12,000 factories producing electricity, glass, steel,
cement, and pulp and paper. Companies buy or sell permits based on whether they overshoot or come in
beneath their pollution targets. Although the system also underpins Europe's claim to be leading global
environmental policy, EU officials acknowledge that establishing such a vast market has been more
complicated than they anticipated, and that its effectiveness so far has been limited. ''Of course it was
ambitious to set up a market for something you can't see and to expect to see immediate changes in
behavior,'' said Jacqueline McGlade, the executive director of the European Environment Agency. ''It's easy,
with hindsight, to say we could have been tougher,'' she said. A major stumbling block arose at the outset,
when some EU governments participating in the effort allocated too many trading permits to polluters
when the market was created. That led to a near-market meltdown after the value of the permits fell
by half, and called into question the validity of the entire system. Since then, EU officials have promised
tough reforms to fight against special interests, and the price of carbon permits has largely recovered. Yet a
ferocious lobbying battle is under way as EU regulators seek to overhaul the dysfunctional parts of the
market by charging polluting companies more and reducing the oversupply of pollution permits
traded within the system. A question that hangs over the European system - and that is likely to be of
major concern to U.S. policy makers - is whether the rules still can be tightened up sufficiently so that
industries eventually emit less and adopt cleaner technologies.
SDI 2008 p. 80 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Cap-and-trade process empirically fails in the European Union, and would ultimately fail if
implemented in the U.S.
Greg Weston, the Toronto Sun, Editorial/Opinion; National Affairs; 6-5-2008
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4241591412&f
ormat=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4241591415&cisb=22_T4241591414&tr
eeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=256740&docNo=8
While the premiers of Ontario and Quebec are promising a new carbon trading system to help fight global
warming, the same green scheme has all of Europe singing the blues. Since the beginning of 2005, the 27
countries in the European Union have had a so-called "cap-and-trade" program similar to what Dalton
McGuinty and his Quebec counterpart, Jean Charest, have in mind for the two provinces. British Columbia
is putting in place its own carbon trading program, and even the eco-challenged Harper government is toying
with the concept nationally. Most politicians prefer cap-and-trade to other climate change schemes
because it does not include the word "tax." Three years into the European experiment, the general
consensus seems to be it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. In theory, the cap-and-trade process
makes some sense. Government caps the allowable annual greenhouse gas emissions for each industry --
roughly measured in tons of carbon dioxide -- and gives saleable "credits" to companies that pollute less than
their limits. In turn, those firms can sell their credits to polluters that don't meet their emission limits. Dirty
firms get punished; clean ones are rewarded. Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, and the financial burden
for saving the planet is on industry, not consumers. At least, that's the theory. In practice, the European
experience with the largest multinational emissions trading scheme in the world was recently
summarized in Business Week magazine. "Consumer prices were up, energy company profits were up,
and carbon emissions were up -- an excellent result for the European Union's flagship climate change
policy." How did a good idea go so wrong? Suffice it to say that when it came to politicians saving votes or
the planet, it was no contest. Governments pressured by industry to make the process politically
painless for everyone -- for business, consumers and even for the biggest polluters -- succeeded in
rendering the whole system largely useless. First, national governments were allowed to give their
domestic industries billions of dollars worth of free credits -- so-called emissions permits -- that were
subsequently trading up to more than $50 per tonne of pollution in 2006. Second, industries begging
for a competitive break resulted in governments giving away more emissions permits than there were
emissions, ultimately causing the trading price to drop from above $50 to as low as $3, all but
eliminating any incentive for companies to cut pollution. Third, federal governments in almost every
country except the U.K. set their emissions limits so high that overall greenhouse gas pollution in
Europe actually went up over the past three years. PRICES RISE Big energy companies, among the
worst polluters on the continent, cashed in over $2 billion of emissions credits given to them for free,
while raising consumer prices. Following its spectacular flop, the European Union is now debating a
major overhaul of the cap-and-trade program, eliminating the freebies and slamming industry with
much tougher emission limits. As governments here ponder carbon trading for a cleaner planet, the lesson
from the European experience is the obvious -- no financial pain, no environmental gain. Good luck selling
that one at the locked gate of the local auto plant.
SDI 2008 p. 81 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
The Global Bank Crisis is Gone – global banks attracting new business now.
Greg Robb, senior reporter for MarketWatch in Washington, 7-17-08, “Global bank crisis is easing: Deutsche
Bank CEO”, MarketWatch, rks, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/financial-turmoil-easing-deutsche-
bank/story.aspx?guid=%7B6C31110D-A82A-4754-BEA9-F9E75C0D807F%7D&dist=msr_55.
The global financial-market turmoil that has plagued economies around the world is beginning to
dissipate, Deutsche Bank AG's chief executive said Thursday. "We are seeing the beginning of the end of
the crisis," Josef Ackermann told reporters. He said the U.S. housing-market collapse was "still a
tremendous challenge," but added that this was the nature of housing bubbles that have burst. The health of
the financial sector was beginning to improve, according to Ackermann, as banks deal with "legacy"
issues from the sudden collapse of the market for complex derivatives tied to U.S. home mortgages last
summer. "A lot has been achieved," he commented. Ackermann said that global banks were attracting
promising "new business." The head of Deutsche Bank spoke at the news conference in his role of the
chairman of the Institute for International Finance, a lobbying group for global financial institutions. Global
banks were hit the hardest by the financial-market turmoil. The IIF released a new report that laid out
many steps the banks plan to take to clean up their acts.
SDI 2008 p. 82 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
DA Coal – links
Cap and trade will cause the coal industry and the U.S. economy to collapse.
Murray at EFB. May 14, 2007. Carbon cap and trade scheme would be fatal to U.S. coal. LexisNexis Academic.
AP.
A cap-and-trade system for regulation of greenhouse gases would fail, and such a program would
severely damage the U.S. coal industry, according to Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray, whose fire-and-
brimstone type speech captivated attendees at the Eastern Fuel Buyers Conference in Orlando. Calling the
"so-called global warming issue" a human as well as environmental issue, Murray criticized politicians,
primarily Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for carbon emission constraint measures that have
been introduced into Congress that would ration the use of coal and therefore greatly reduce low-cost
electricity, eliminate numerous co al-related jobs and "inflict great hardship on America's families." "The
unfolding debate over atmospheric warming in the Congress, the news media and by the pundits has been
skewed and totally one-sided in that they have been preoccupied with possible, speculative environmental
disasters of climate change," Murray sa id. "However, few are giving adequate attention to the destruction
that we will definitely see for American working people from all of the climate change proposals that have
been introduced in the House and Senate to date. Indeed, the House and Senate lea derships have hijacked the
Committees with the most expertise and experience in dealing with this subject to control the debate and
railroad draconian anti-coal legislation through the Congress." Murray noted that coal is expected to
account for about 57 percent of power generation in the U.S. over the next 20 years, rising about five
percent from the current 52 percent generation. That growth is not possible with a cap-and-trade
program on CO 2 emissions, Murray said. "A cap-and-trade system will not work," he said. "It would
be disastrous for the coal industry in particular and for our economy in general. Momentum is
undoubtedly building for a cap-and-trade scheme in the United States, and unfortunately, many in t he
industry are helping to build this momentum for their own corporate gains." Murray listed a number of
companies he says are promoting constraints on coal use to achieve greater profits and/or competitive
advantages. They include Excelon, Entergy, British Petroleum, Shell Oil, Conoco-Phillips, Enhanced
Coverage LinkingConoco-Phillips, -Search using: Company Dossier Company Profile News, Most Recent
60 Days Caterpillar, Alcoa, DuPont, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, PepsiCo and General Motors. "These
companies support some sort of cap-and-trade scheme," Murray said. "Some of them hope to make short-
term profits by claiming tens of billions of dollars of credits for actions already taken or that will be taken
regardless. Others calculate that they will be hurt less by an emissions cap than their competitors. Still others
have decided that a cap is inevitable and that they need to get a seat at the table now so that they can
negotiate the best deal possible for themselves." If a cap-and-trade system is implemented on CO2
emissions, new technologies, including integrated gasification combined cycle or carbon capture and storage,
would not improve coal's future plight, Murray said. He said a recent MIT study confirms his conclusion.
"The study shows that IGCC is still a long way from being commercially viable and will raise costs
considerably," Murray said. "Carbon capture and storage would also raise costs significantly, and this
approach also faces huge political and legal obstacles. These include legal liability and monitoring and
property rights issues."
SDI 2008 p. 83 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
*****Elections updates*****
SDI 2008 p. 84 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Obama will win – His recent trip to Europe proved to voters, his ability to be
commander in chief.
The Xinhua News Agency, byline Zhang Bihong, 7/26/08, “Obama’s visit to Europe aims to boost
campaign,” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/27/content_8783525.htm MH
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wrapped up his three-day European tour
Saturday after meeting leaders of major U.S. allies and harvesting enormous popularity among the
public of the three countries he has traveled to. His high-profile visit to Germany, France and Britain
was viewed by observers here as an attempt to sharpen his diplomatic edge and boost election
campaign against rival Republican presidential candidate John McCain. It was imperative for Obama to
travel abroad to convince swing voters at home that he has the ability to lead his country and its
European allies.
Obama ahead in electoral votes – but McCain could still catch him.
The Statesman, byline Scott Shepard, 7/24/08, “Zogby Poll says Obama holds Large Lead in the Latest
Electoral College Count,” http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-
blogs/washington/washington/entries/2008/07/24/zogy_poll_says.html#postcomment MH
Pollster John Zogby says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a substantial lead over
Republican John McCain in the Electoral College. Zogby’s latest Electoral College map of the United
States has Obama with 273 electoral votes to 146 for McCain. In Zogby’s previous assessment of the
Electoral College map, Obama also had 273 but McCain had 160. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to
win the presidency. According to Zogby, 119 electoral votes are still too close to call. Said Zogby: “For the
time being, Obama maintains the edge and has the strength of a majority of electoral votes. His
triumphant foreign trip allows him to continue to define this race. But too many of these states are
close and a sizeable number are undecided or choosing a third party candidate. So there is a lot of
fluidity.”
SDI 2008 p. 91 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Our link evidence proves that the plan will increase independents supporting McCain,
because it’s so popular
Bush couldn’t enact any agenda with his present political capital.
Paul Harris, Staff Writer, 5-11-08, The Observer, “Lame-duck Bush back in the limelight,” SS, Lexis.
For Bush, who is fast becoming the forgotten man of America's political landscape, it has been a rare moment
back in the spotlight. The fact is that for months Bush has been largely irrelevant in American politics.
'He is an extremely lame duck. Nothing he does is really worthy of any attention at this moment,' said
Professor Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside. 'It seems like he is
just counting down the clock.' The term 'lame duck' is always given to two-term American Presidents in their
final year of office. As the political scene shifts to their inevitable successor, it becomes difficult for any
President to have a meaningful impact. Simply put: everyone waits for the new man (or woman) to take
power. But for Bush the problem has become particularly acute. He began his second term with a radical
domestic agenda to change social security and reform taxes. That was defeated, and then the Democrats won
control of Congress, meaning they could stymie any fresh legislation Bush puts forward. At the same time,
Bush's main legacy is the disastrous war in Iraq. That has seen his popularity ratings plunge to historic
lows, further reducing his waning political influence. 'He is one of the least popular Presidents we have
ever had. Even if he had an agenda now, he would not be able to enact it,' said Professor Seth Masket of
Denver University.
Bush’s political capital is low and he is losing the support of his party.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Staff Writer, 6-30-07, New York Times, “For President Bush, a Reversal of Fortune on His
Political Capital,” SS. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/washington/30bush.html
WASHINGTON, June 29 — After a string of Republican defections this week — on Iraq, immigration and
domestic eavesdropping — President Bush enters the final 18 months of his presidency in danger of
losing control over a party that once marched in lockstep with him. First, two prominent Republican
senators broke with the president on Iraq. Then, Mr. Bush’s party abandoned him in droves on the
immigration bill, sending the measure to its death in the Senate, despite the president’s fervent lobbying
for it. And when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to issue subpoenas to the White House
for documents related to its domestic eavesdropping program, three Republicans, including a longtime
loyalist, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, joined them, and another three did not take a position. For a
president who once boasted that he had political capital and intended to use it, the back-to-back
desertions demonstrated starkly just how little of that capital is left. With the nation turning its attention
to who will succeed Mr. Bush — and Republican presidential candidates increasingly distancing
themselves from him — even allies say it could become increasingly difficult for the president to assert
himself over his party, much less force the Democratic majority in Congress to bend to his will. “When you
are first elected, you have some momentum and you have more ability to persuade,” Senator Jeff Sessions,
Republican of Alabama, said in an interview. “In the last months of any administration, getting people to do
something simply because the president asks for it is less. That’s certainly true here.”
John W. Dean, former Council to the President, 11-19-04, FindLaw.com, “Does Bush Now Have Political Capital
to Spend? A Look at the Historical Record Suggests the Answer Is No,” SS.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041119.html
When one turns from Bush's few political assets to his liabilities, the precarious state of his political balance
sheet becomes apparent. He has major liabilities. Most are of his own making. None are under his control.
First, there is the continuing cost of anti-terrorism measures. In Osama bin Laden's November 1 taped
message he explained that Al Qaeda's policy is to "bleed[] America to the point of bankruptcy." That tactic,
he noted, was drawn from the 1980s Afghan Mujahedeen, with whom he fought - and who "bled Russia for
10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." Bush has offered no rational
explanation of how his endless war on terrorism can be won, and has all but admitted it can't be. As
long as Bush continues to take this position, continuing anti-terrorism expenses, and companion deficits, will
be inevitable.
Second, there is the Iraq war: It's killing Americans and further draining our resources, while at the
same time, proving to be a recruiting dream for terrorism organizers. The New Republic had it right
when it wrote that "[h]onest conservatives, even those who admire President Bush, know he didn't earn a
second term. They know he staked his presidency on a catastrophe, and that, by all rights, Iraq should be his
political epitaph." Put another way, Bush has yet to pay the piper for his Iraqi war, but sooner or later that
debt must be paid. Third, there are the humongous deficits Bush has created. True conservatives believe
Bush's out-of-control deficit spending must be stopped - and some felt so strongly that they even said,
pre-election, that he should not be given a second term. Those who held their tongue will speak now, and
Bush will pay the cost. Many are determined to halt Bush's programs (further spending and additional tax
cuts) if they will further grow the deficits. Fourth, there is the current, deep foreign policy schism within
the ranks of the GOP. Traditional conservatives oppose the Administration's neoconservative foreign
policy. The title of Pat Buchanan's latest book says it all: Where the Right Went Wrong: How
Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency.
Fifth, and finally, while Bush may have won the election battle, his war with Senator Kerry is anything but
over. As The Washington Post reported, Kerry "plans to use his Senate seat and long lists of supporters to
remain a major voice in American politics despite losing the presidential race last Tuesday, and he is
assessing the feasibility of trying again in 2008.” Vice President Al Gore faded from public life after Bush
defeated him in 2004. Kerry, however, seems to be planning a very different path. Having defeated the
President in three presidential debates, garnered the support of almost half of the nation's voters, and made
himself nationally known to all, Kerry will be an opponent to contend with, for Bush in the Senate, and for
the GOP in 2008, if he chooses to run. In light of all these realities - all of them liabilities for Bush -- Bush's
claim to new political capital is likely to prove to be fool's gold. Indeed, if the GOP should lose control of
the Senate in 2006, Bush and Cheney will be in dire straits. They have accumulated a reservoir of ill will
that could sink them. This presidency does not -- all claims to the contrary -- have a strong political balance
sheet. Bush had best spend cautiously the little capital he possesses.
All their claims about social security and immigration bills and the war on terror are false;
Bush did the right thing and his political capital didn’t suffer.
Bowling Green Daily News, 1-30-2008, “State of the Union Address was on Target,” SS, Lexis.
Also mentioned during the address were failed efforts by Bush and Congress to do something about Social
Security and immigration reform. To his credit, Bush expanded considerable political capital in
attempting to push Congress to address these critical issues, but they essentially went nowhere. Bush did
his part and now it's up to a future Congress and president to address them. The longer they fester the
more painful they will be to solve. Bush correctly described the war on terror as the defining event of this
century and said our generation must prevail. He noted the success of the surge while acknowledging that
the enemy is still dangerous. Bush made it clear that the soldiers in the field would have whatever they
needed to complete their mission. We hope that members of Congress who are against the war will
realize the importance of defeating the terrorists and ensure our troops are given what they need to
achieve victory. Bush's final State of the Union struck the right balance between a realistic, limited
agenda appropriate for an election year and a challenge to Congress to help steer the nation through a
period of uncertainty.
SDI 2008 p. 105 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
Ratifying Lost is critical to the power projection, the economy, national security,
environmental protection, and resource development.
The Daily News Miner, byline R.A. Dillon, Washington DC Correspondent, 7/27/08“Sen. Murkowski
pushes for ratification of Arctic treaty,” http://newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/27/sen-murkowski-pushes-
ratification-arctic-treaty/ MH
Sen. Lisa Murkowski last week called on her congressional colleagues to strengthen economic and
national security by ratifying the Law of the Sea convention. Murkowski’s comments come as warming
temperatures in the Arctic are shrinking the polar ice cap, opening up new shipping routes and raising
new resource development opportunities. Murkowski said the United States needs to establish a
comprehensive plan to address security, marine navigation, environmental protection and resource
development in the Arctic before other countries move into the region. “The Arctic is truly the last
frontier,” Murkowski said. “It is one of the few places on Earth where all the borders aren’t drawn on the
map yet, and some of those that are, are disputed.” Murkowski, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations
and Energy and Natural Resources committees, said the best way for the United States to protect its
interests in the Arctic is for Congress to ratify the United Nations treaty, which provides a legal
framework for governance in the Arctic. “I believe it is very important for the United States to be a party
to this treaty and be a player in the process, rather than an outsider hoping our interests are not
damaged,” Murkowski said Wednesday at a forum on Arctic policy sponsored by the Washington-based
think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies.
SDI 2008 p. 109 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
SDI 2008 p. 110 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
drillers who’s activities are unlikely to do much to quench the increased demand . Led by the US and China once again, oil demand promises more of the
same in 2005. Due to these market driven factors, the funds are scaling up their oil trading operations; particularly in Europe and Asia as
well in North America. In the US, the latest play by the investment banks and hedge funds is to buy physical oil and gas reserves in the
ground. This action has not only pushed out the forward curve and created greater open interest in the back months on the NYMEX WTI contract, but also
suggests that higher prices through 2010 are to be the order of the day. What our research has also demonstrated is that the hedge funds
are now investing in the energy complex in growing numbers and with a longerterm viewpoint. They are, and always
have been, involved in distressed asset securities – both debt and equity – but now increasingly seem to be taking a longer-term view with respect to these investments. This
has been evidenced by the funds flexing their shareholder muscle at British Energy and in other situations. Buying oil and gas reserves in the ground is just part of a picture in which hedge funds are
acquiring assets across the energy value chain in the upstream, midstream and downstream energy sectors.
The global oil markets have now reached a new plateau in oil prices. The majors have been slow to react to this phenomenon, but are now studying the
longe -term price affects. Another factor that has brought hesitancy to stepping up oil and gas drilling by the majors is that other commodity prices have also increased this year which has ballooned their exploration and production
budgets this year and next. What is different this time in the energy complex is that the entire sector is benefiting by higher prices. We see higher prices in the upstream,
That has never happened before. Usually, when the upstream is
downstream oil and gas markets but also a bull market in tankers, storage and every conceivable part of the energy supply chain.
making money, downstream refining is losing money. It wasn’t so long ago (only two years) that refining margins were depressed. Today they are robust.
B. Alternative energy decreases oil prices and puts hedge funds at risk
Patricia A. Cole, writer for the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, 3-25-2008, “Don’t tax parcels”, NM, Lexis
Rampant speculation in the commodities futures market is driving up prices out of proportion to
marketplace demand. The problem is speculators are increasingly buying and selling commodities such as
oil even though they have no intention of using the product. The unregulated speculators are pocketing
billions of dollars at our expense. The cost of food has gone up, the price at the pump has gone way up,
and I'm already concerned about how much more it will cost to heat my home this winter. I work in the
transportation services industry and I can see how the high cost of fuel is adding tremendous costs to our
customers who are passing those costs on to the buying public. The only winners are the speculators who are
extracting billions of dollars in profit. In the process, they are destroying our airline industry, weakening our
economy and hurting the loyal citizens of this country. To lower oil prices for all Americans we need to
increase domestic supply, exploration, alternative energy sources and conservation. We also must protect
bona fide speculation and hedging.
SDI 2008 p. 115 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
C. Even a small hedge fund collapse would ripple through the financial world and cause a
massive credit collapse
Henry C.K. Liu, chairman of a New York-based private investment group and writes for The Asia Times, 19 Sept 2006, “The Coming Showdown” <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-
list/2006w38/msg00010.htm>
A major showdown is shaping up between hedge funds, investment banks and commercial banks. Unlike LTCM, whose
trouble was one fund being too big to exit without massive loss, the current Achilles heel is the proliferation of funds all imitating each other,
with aggregate sums that defies orderly liquidation. Instead of one big fat man on a small row boat, no matter which side he moves, the boat overturns, we now have three thousand guys all
moving together from side to side on a ferry boat in a storm, each move rocking the boat harder until its
capsizes. The investment bank power houses are looking to make a killing from the demise of the hedge funds
on the theory that someone's loss is someone elses' gain in any market. The do this by having more capital than any one single hedge fund. The commercial banks are looking to high
profits from trading credit derivatives derived from the debts. The game is a three-legged stool that needs a cooperative symbosis among the three components
to stay afloat. When anyone of the three starts to seek gains at the expense of the other two, the game implodes and
quickly transforms into a game of survival of the earlier exit, which in financial terms is a systemic rout.
When the hedge fund industry loses $100 billion, that money goes to the parties betting against them, which
are the investment banks. The flow of funds is intermediated by commercial bank loans. The hedge fund investors as a group loses
$100 billion and the investment bank share holders get $100 billion less investment bankers' take. No big deal in the macro picture. The trouble is leverage. Most hedge fund
strategies rely on leverage to reap high profit and a loss of over 10% can be fatal, leaving the other two
components in the game with uncollectable collectables. And the meltdown begins with margin calls that distorts the flow
of funds. The housing bubble burst, while a heavy load, is not going to be the straw that will break the
camel's back. The straw will be the hedge funds.
Hedge market stumble causes global econ collapse as investors rush capital away from the US
Rex Nutting, writer for MarketWatch, July 26, 2007 “Subprime could create global crisis, economist says”
<http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/economist-world-one-hedge-fund-
collapse/story.aspx?guid=%7BC9E3B6A4-A22E-43D2-BA2A-EC4A8F61D2E4%7D>
"Unlike the financial crisis of a decade ago, however, global capital would likely flow away from U.S. markets,
not to them, as the genesis for the crisis lies within the U.S. financial system." After Bear Stearns was forced to write off the value of two
large hedge funds that had invested heavily in securities backed by subprime debt, it could take just one more "Bear-like event" for the
financial system to freeze up, "If there's another major hedge fund that does stumble, that could elicit a crisis of
confidence and a global shock," Zandi said. The potential "is quite high," he said. He gave it a one-in-five chance.
Zandi said global financial conditions have been supported by strong growth and substantial liquidity,
supercharged by "unprecedented risk tolerance." But that's changing. Global liquidity is drying up, with central banks
tightening. And risk is being re-priced.
SDI 2008 p. 119 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement