SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Index.......................................................................................................................................................................1 2AC India Deal Impact defense-Block...............................................................................................................3 2AC India Deal Impact Defense Block...............................................................................................................4 2AC India Deal Impact-Turn scenario...............................................................................................................5 2AC India Deal Impact-Turn scenario...............................................................................................................7 2AC India Deal Impact-Turn scenario...............................................................................................................8 2AC India Deal Link-Turn scenario...................................................................................................................9 2AC India Deal Link-Turn scenario.................................................................................................................10 2AC India Deal Link-Turn scenario.................................................................................................................11 2AC Economic Management ............................................................................................................................12 2AC Economic Management ............................................................................................................................13 2AC Economic Management ............................................................................................................................15 2AC Economic Management ............................................................................................................................16 1AR Economic Management- Cap solves block.............................................................................................17 1AR Economic Management Perm Block........................................................................................................18 1AR Economic Management Framework Block.............................................................................................19 AT: Backstopping CP..........................................................................................................................................20 AT: Backstopping CP..........................................................................................................................................21 A2: REnewables CP............................................................................................................................................22 AT : Saudi Arabia CP..........................................................................................................................................23 A2: Saudi Arabia CP...........................................................................................................................................24 A2 Russia scenario 1...........................................................................................................................................25 A2 Russia scenario 1...........................................................................................................................................26 A2 Russia scenario 1...........................................................................................................................................26 A2 Russia scenario 2...........................................................................................................................................28 A2 Russia scenario 2...........................................................................................................................................28 AT: Algae fails.....................................................................................................................................................30 AT: Algae fails.....................................................................................................................................................31 2AC AT: Food Prices DA...................................................................................................................................32 A2 DOHA da.......................................................................................................................................................33 AT: DOHA DA....................................................................................................................................................35 AT: Delegation CP – 2AC Block........................................................................................................................36 A2 Delegation CP-1AR ext. Perm.....................................................................................................................38 When the IRS and USFG work together the IRS takes the credit for the bill............................................38 A2 Delegation CP-1AR ext. D/B......................................................................................................................39 A2 Delegation CP-1AR ext. Solve DEf.............................................................................................................40 A2 Delegation CP-1AR ext. IRS no solve.........................................................................................................41 Our New York Times in 07 card proves that the IRS is overstretched and can’t possibly take on anymore responsibilities. If they don’t solve all of our impacts will happen ...........................................41 A2 Delegation CP-1AR ext. democracy...........................................................................................................42 A2: Elections DA 2AC........................................................................................................................................43 A2: Elections DA 2AC........................................................................................................................................43 A2: Elections DA 2AC........................................................................................................................................44 A2: Elec LOST impacts 2AC..............................................................................................................................45 -1-

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks A2:Elec Gag rule impacts 2AC..........................................................................................................................46 A2: Elec Iran impacts 2AC.................................................................................................................................47 AT: States CP.......................................................................................................................................................48 California DA 2AC..............................................................................................................................................49 AT: Lopez CP.......................................................................................................................................................50 ESA DA 2AC........................................................................................................................................................51 Economy DA 2AC...............................................................................................................................................53 AT: Federalism: Non-Unique............................................................................................................................54 AT Federalism: Link Takeouts..........................................................................................................................55 AT: Federalism-Federalism Bad Ethnic Conflict............................................................................................57 AT: Federalism-Federalism Bad Secession......................................................................................................58 AT Federalism: Federalism Bad Economy......................................................................................................59 AT: Russia Scenario............................................................................................................................................60 AT Russia: Russian Federalism Bad Civil War...............................................................................................62 AT Russia: Russian Federalism Bad Economy...............................................................................................63 AT: Indonesian Scenario....................................................................................................................................64 AT Indonesian Scenario: Indonesian Federalism Bad Economy.................................................................65 AT Indonesian Scenario: Indonesian Federalism Bad Secession.................................................................66


SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

1 ext. Haas 07 that our solvency checks any risk of international conflict through increasing US heg 2 our case will always outweigh on Tf because runaway warming accelerating towards extinction-that’s pearce 07 and probability because our economy is already on the break and could be easily collapse and nuclear conflict is greater in magnitude 3 india Deal wont hurt us-sino relations-several reasons

a. Indian alliance isn’t going to contain china and India has no interest in doing so Tellis 05, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Ashley, “US-India Partnership”, House International Relations Committee Testimony, 11/16/05
If I am permitted to digress a bit, let me say parenthetically, that advancing the growth of Indian power, as the Administration currently intends, is not directed, as many critics have alleged, at "containing" China. I do not believe that a policy of containing China is either feasible or necessary at this point in time. (India too, currently, has no interest in becoming part of any coalition aimed at containing China.) Rather, the Administration's strategy of assisting India to become a major world power in the twenty-first century is directed, first and foremost, towards constructing a stable geopolitical order in Asia that is conducive to peace and prosperity. There is little doubt today that the Asian continent is poised to become the new center of gravity in international politics. Although lower growth in the labor force, reduced export performance, diminishing returns to capital, changes in demographic structure, and the maturation of the economy all suggest that national growth rates in several key Asian states in particular Japan, South Korea, and possibly China are likely to decline in comparison to the latter half of the Cold War period, the spurt in Indian growth rates, coupled with the relatively high though still marginally declining growth rates in China, will propel Asia's share of the global economy to some 43% by 2025, thus making the continent the largest single locus of economic power worldwide.


SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

B. India won’t contain China, it wants strategic independence and good Chinese relations Financial Times 7/20/05
The broad case for partnership is compelling. India and the US are natural trading partners or, rather, would be if India's government made greater effort to release its huge economic potential. Closer business links and co-operation in space technology and agriculture should bring real gains. India and the US are also natural partners in promoting democracy around the world. India brings legitimacy to an agenda that many in the developing world see as bound up with US neocolonial interests. India is not likely to play the role some in Washington wish to ascribe to it, as the emerging military counterbalance to China. It wants strategic autonomy and good relations with China. But India can help US interests by contributing to a balance of influence that favours peace and democracy. Yet all of this would have been possible without selling out the global non-proliferation regime. This was a mistake that Congress should reconsider before drafting legislation to end sanctions. Offering India - a nuclear weapons state outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty - full civilian nuclear co-operation undermines the NPT. It smacks of double standards and will make it even more difficult to build a consensus on Iran and North Korea.

C. India won’t join anti china alliance The Economist 2/23/06
India certainly has no intention of joining an anti-China axis. Nor, for now, does it have to choose between two big suitors. China, which at first voiced reservations about the Indian nuclear deal with America, is now shrewdly acquiescent. Perhaps it hopes that American congressmen and Indian Communists will kill it anyway. Or perhaps it does not want to jeopardise its own fast-improving relations with India.


SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

4 And India Deal Good for several reasons


SDI 2008 STP A. The India deal is key to reinvigorating US/Indian relations

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Tellis 05, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Ashley, “US-India Partnership”, House International Relations Committee Testimony, 11/16/05
Since the character of our policy, leadership, and diplomacy will be critical to making such U.S.-Indian collaboration whether tacit or explicit possible, both the Administration and the Congress will have to partner in this regard. The most important contribution that the legislative branch can make here is by helping to change India's entitative status from that of a target under U.S. non-proliferation laws to that of a full partner. The Administration's civilian nuclear agreement with India is directed fundamentally towards this objective. To be sure, it will produce
important and tangible non-proliferation gains for the United States an argument I have elaborated in Attachment A to this testimony just as it will

at a grand strategic level, it is intended to do much more: given the lessons learned from over fifty years of alternating engagement and opposition, the civil nuclear cooperation agreement is intended to convey in one fell swoop the abiding American interest in crafting a full and productive partnership with India to advance our common goals in this new century. As Undersecretary of State Burns phrased it in his recent testimony, "our ongoing diplomatic efforts to conclude a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement are not simply exercises in bargaining and tough-minded negotiation; they represent a broad confidence-building effort grounded in a political commitment from the highest levels of our two governments."
bestow energy and environmental benefits on India. But,

Relations are key to preventing nuclear war NYT, 6/10/02

Military cooperation between India and the United States has remarkably quickened since Sept. 11, with a burst of navy, air force and army joint exercises, the revival of American military sales to India and a blur of high-level visits by generals and admirals. The fledgling relationship between American and Indian military leaders will be important to Mr. Rumsfeld in talks intended to put to rest fears of war between India and Pakistan. "We can hope this translates into some influence
and trust, though I don't want to overstate it," a senior American defense official said in an interview on Thursday. "I don't want to predict this guarantees success." The American diplomatic efforts yielded their first real gains on Saturday when India welcomed a pledge by Pakistan's military ruler to stop permanently the infiltration of militants into Kashmir. India indicated that it would soon take steps to reduce tensions, but a million troops are still fully mobilized along the border -- a situation likely to persist for months -- and the process of resolving the crisis has just begun. India has linked the killing of civilians in Kashmir to a Pakistan-backed insurgency

India itself made an unstinting offer of support to the United States after Sept. 11,
there and has presented its confrontation with Pakistan as part of the global campaign against terrorism.

and Washington responded by ending the sanctions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. With that, the estrangement that prevailed between the world's two largest democracies during the cold war, when India drew close to the Soviet Union and the United States allied with Pakistan, has eased. India, for decades a champion of nonalignment, seeks warmer ties with the United States in hopes of gaining access to sophisticated military technology and help in dealing with Pakistan. From the start of President Bush's term, some influential officials in his administration saw India as a potential counterweight to that other Asian behemoth, China, whose growing power was seen as a potential strategic

The United States is hoping its deeper military and political ties with India will give it some measure of leverage to prevent a war between India and Pakistan that could lead to a nuclear holocaust and
threat. But since Sept. 11, the priority has been terrorism.

would play havoc with the hunt for Al Qaeda in Pakistan.


SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks


both”, July 14
a civil nuclear cooperation between the US and India will facilitate them to become major allies so as to promote democracy in the region and beyond.

Fifthly, if the US abandons its hidden agenda to scuttle India's gas pipeline project with Iran through Pakistan and seriously forges nuclear cooperation, it would help sustain peace between New Delhi and Islamabad. A positive US outlook will also help alleviate concerns of American critics that Washington secretly uses the prospect of nuclear cooperation merely to scuttle the Iran-Pakistan-India gas project in its bid to isolate Tehran and pursue militarism there.
Democratization prevents global nuclear conflict Muravchik 01 Joshua, American Enterprise Institute, “democracy and

nuclear peace” july 11
The greatest impetus for world peace -- and perforce of nuclear peace -- is the spread of democracy. In a famous article, and subsequent book, Francis Fukuyama argued that democracy's extension was leading to "the end of history." By this he meant the conclusion of man's quest for the right social order, but he also meant the "diminution of the likelihood of large-scale conflict between states." (1) Fukuyama's phrase was intentionally provocative, even tongue-in-cheek, but he was pointing to two down-to-earth historical observations: that democracies are more peaceful than other kinds of government and that the world is growing more democratic. Neither point has gone unchallenged. Only a few decades ago, as distinguished an observer of international relations as George Kennan made a claim quite contrary to the first of these assertions. Democracies, he said, were slow to anger, but once aroused "a democracy . . . . fights in anger . . . . to the bitter end." (2) Kennan's view was strongly influenced by the policy of "unconditional surrender" pursued in World War II. But subsequent experience, such as the negotiated settlements America sought in Korea and Vietnam proved him wrong. Democracies are not only slow to anger but also quick to compromise. And to forgive. Notwithstanding the insistence on unconditional surrender, America treated Japan and that part of Germany that it occupied with extraordinary generosity.


SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

C. US-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION IS KEY TO ALL US NON-PROLIFERATION EFFORTS Indo-Asian News Service 2005 “US-India nuclear cooperation a win-win for

both”, July 14
Firstly, forging nuclear cooperation could encourage India to actively help the US in its non-proliferation efforts. India has already exhibited its clean track record and showed it is a responsible nuclear power: New Delhi's nuclear technology is primarily used for civil use; it has good track record on strict nuclear export controls and has institutionalised the nuclear export control with the passing of "The Weapons of Mass Destruction and Their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Bill, 2005"; and unlike some other countries India's nuclear arsenal has not led to any aggressive posture or militarism. Even the need for nuclear weapons is warranted by the compulsion of changed regional and international security environment. Also, aligning with India, a country wedded to nuclear morality, could provide the US moral authority to project itself as the champion of nuclear non-proliferation. Secondly, a fruitful outcome vis-?-vis civil nuclear cooperation could successfully pave way for India to join the Proliferation Security Initiative of the Bush Administration (PSI) in the US counter-proliferation efforts. India can prove to be a worthy and reliable partner in this regard. Already, a number of countries have allied with the US for counter-proliferation and carrying out interdictions in land, air and sea routes. India is one of the most resourceful countries that can offer support and expertise to help to the interdiction efforts in South Asia and Indian Ocean region, promoting counter-proliferation goals.

Unchecked, proliferation causes nuclear war and extinction.

Victor A. Utgoff 2002, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions” 2002 p. 87-90
In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.


SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

4 They’re non-unique : Bush will be able to pass the India deal in the Status Quo: Bush is pushing to get the deal done before January

Deb Riechmann. “Bush pushes US-India nuclear deal,” 7/8 2008
President Bush defended a languishing deal his administration negotiated to sell India nuclear fuel and technology, saying he reassured India's prime minister that the pact was important for both countries despite heavy opposition on both sides. Bush's meeting on Wednesday with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was one of a series of one-and-one sessions the president scheduled on the final day of the three-day G-8 summit of economic powers. "I respect the prime minister a lot," Bush said, speaking with reporters after their meeting. "I also respect India a lot. And I think it's very important that the United States continues to work with our friend to develop not only a new strategic relationship, but a relationship that addresses some of the world's problems. We talked about the India-U.S. nuclear deal — how important that is for our respective countries." Singh said, "In this increasingly interdependent world that we live in, whether it the question of climate change or whether it is a question of managing the global economy, India and the United States must stand tall, must stand shoulder to shoulder." If ratified by Washington and New Delhi, the pact would reverse three decades of U.S. policy by allowing the sale of atomic fuel and technology to India, which has not signed international nonproliferation accords but has tested nuclear weapons. In return, India, would open its civilian reactors to international inspections. U.S. critics worry the agreement could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia and weaken international efforts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. In India, critics say it would undermine India's weapons program and give Washington too much influence over Indian foreign policy. Singh's communist allies withdrew their support for his four-year-old coalition government on Tuesday to protest the government's plan to push forward with the nuclear deal. Bush is trying to prod Congress to approve the pact before time runs out on his administration in January. Before returning home late in the day, Bush was also meeting separately with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Chinese President Hu Jintao and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Many South Koreans have protested the recent resumption of U.S. beef imports. Both China and South Korea are important players in the international effort to get North Korea to scale back its nuclear weapons program.

Bush will get Congressional approval by September

Economic Times, “US plays 'time running out' tune again,” 7/9 2008 time_running_out_tune_again/articleshow/3212777.cms
The statement clearly shows that the US would like India to move fast to get the approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors so that the Bush administration can push for a NSG waiver before September. The aim is to get the nuclear deal to the US Congress before it goes into a recess in September ahead of the US presidential elections. With this deadline in mind, India had quietly approached the IAEA which has called a meeting of the board of governors on July 28 to approve the safeguards agreement.


SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

A deal is possible – Bush can use fears that India will get nuclear supplies from other sources to persuade Congress

Glenn Kessler. “Congress May Not Pass U.S.-India Nuclear Pact: New Delhi
Could Turn to Other Nations,”WashingtonPost7/9,2008,
Now, with the near impossibility of congressional passage by year-end, officials and experts have begun to focus on the possibility that other countries -- such as France and Russia -- would rush in to make nuclear sales to India while U.S. companies still face legal restrictions. "India doesn't need the U.S. deal at all" once the NSG grants approval, said Sharon Squassoni, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It was a fatal flaw in the logic of the U.S. Congress." A State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing congressional strategy, agreed. "I don't believe there is anything to prevent them from doing that, if we don't ratify it," he said, noting the irony of the United States not profiting from a deal it set in motion. But he suggested the administration would use that awkward situation to pressure Congress not to thwart potential business opportunities for American companies. "It is the hidden force of this agreement," the official said. "It is U.S. business that sees an opportunity

5. despite Critics, Bush empirically has high Political Capital Now:
bush has leverage now – fisa passage proves

associated press 7/9/08 (“Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill”)
Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping
and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans. The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would

sign it soon.

bush has capital now – gi bill approval

upi 7/9/08 (“New G.I. Bill to cost $100 billion”)
A G.I. Bill signed by U.S. President George Bush will cost $100 billion in veterans' education benefits over the next 10 years, budget officials say. The Congressional Budget Office never got a chance to formally present its figures because the bill, passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bush last week, had so much bipartisan support that it was never given a committee hearing. But CBO figures show it will
increase veterans' education benefits by $62.8 billion, or 170 percent of current education spending, over the period, the Politico, a Washington publication, reported Wednesday.

- 10 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

And 6., Turn: Alternative energy initiatives, such as the plan, cause partisan bickering and fights in Congress, which preempts nuclear deal passing in time

- 11 -

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks It doesn’t matter that Alt. energy is popular – FUNDING INCENTIVES CAUSES FIGHTS

International Oil Daily, “Congress Mulls Tax Credits,” AMERICAS 6/4/2008
There is wide bipartisan support for extending production tax incentives for solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and other renewable energy sources that are currently set to expire this year. The measure has been held up over internal squabbles among Democrats about how to pay for the tax breaks. Fiscally conservative Democrats in the House want to offset the cost of the tax breaks by repealing drilling incentives for the oil and gas industry, but that is a nonstarter with Senate Republicans. The renewable industry says Congress needs to act soon to avoid disrupting investment in alternative energy projects. Domenici said the renewable energy tax credits will pay for themselves by reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs. "But now, all of a sudden, Democrats have decided that we shouldn't extend these credits unless they are paid for," Domenici said. "The problem is that in this atmosphere, it is very difficult to find ways to do this that everyone can agree on.

Herald Sun, 7/3/08 [The Herald Sun, “Congress stalls tax credits,” 7/3/08 Lexis]
Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that tax credits for renewable energy make a great deal of sense. So why can't they agree on extending the credits for another year? The answer, we're sorry to say, is the kind of partisan wrangling that puts ideology above what's best for the country. At issue is a package of tax breaks worth about $50 billion over the next ten years, including tax credits for installing solar panels and for businesses that invest in research and development. Given the nation's desperate need to find alternative energy sources, this sort of tangible encouragement is sorely needed. Plus, nearly 400 companies, including Goldman Sachs and General Electric, have signed a letter urging the Senate to approve the bill, which has already passed the House. Democrats want to extend the credits, but Republicans are blocking the way because of how Democrats want to pay for it -- by closing a loophole that lets hedge fund managers shelter income offshore and by delaying a new tax benefit for multinational corporations.

1. Perm- Do Both. 2. No Link for Algae. Plan closes a “splash and dash” loophole that supports the Capitalism ideology. - 12 -

SDI 2008 STP 3. Frame work:

____/____ 2AC Blocks

A. interpretation The aff gets the plan and the neg gets the status quo or a competitive policy option. B. Reasons To Prefer 1. Key to predictable neg ground- there are an infinite number of alternatives that are impossible for the affirmative to predict. 2. Private actor fiat is bad- kills our ability to get offense in the 2AC 3. Kills topic specific education- kritik links are generic and link to every topic. C. It’s a voting issue- you should reject the alternative to preserve competitive equity. 4. Evaluation of consequences is the utmost ethical act – their ethic allows infinite violence Williams 2005(Michael, Professor of International Politics at the University of Wales—Aberystwyth, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations, p. 174-176)
A commitment to an ethic of consequences reflects a deeper ethic of criticism, of ‘self-clarification’, and thus of reflection upon
the values adopted by an individual or a collectivity. It is part of an attempt to make critical evaluation an intrinsic element of responsibility. Responsibility to this more fundamental ethic gives the ethic of consequences meaning. Consequentialism and responsibility are here drawn into what Schluchter, in terms that will be familiar to anyone conversant with constructivism in International Relations, has called a ‘reflexive principle’. In the

scepticism and consequentialism are linked in an attempt to construct not just a more substantial vision of political responsibility, but also the kinds of actors who might adopt it, and the kinds of social structures that might support it. A consequentialist ethic is not simply a choice adopted by actors: it is a means of trying to foster particular kinds of selfcritical individuals and societies, and in so doing to encourage a means by which one can justify and foster a politics of responsibility. The ethic of responsibility in wilful Realism thus involves a commitment to both autonomy and limitation, to freedom and restraint, to an acceptance of limits and the criticism of limits. Responsibility clearly involves prudence and an accounting for current structures and
wilful Realist vision, their historical evolution; but it is not limited to this, for it seeks ultimately the creation of responsible subjects within a philosophy of limits. Seen in this light, the Realist commitment to objectivity appears quite differently. Objectivity in terms of consequentialist analysis does not simply take the actor or action as given, it is a political practice — an attempt to foster a responsible self, undertaken by an analyst with a commitment to objectivity which is

Objectivity in the sense of coming to terms with the ‘reality’ of contextual conditions and likely outcomes of action is not only necessary for success, it is vital for self-reflection, for sustained engagement with the practical and ethical adequacy of one’s views. The blithe, self-serving, and uncritical stances of abstract moralism or rationalist objectivism avoid self-criticism by refusing to engage with the intractability of the world ‘as it is’. Reducing the world to an expression of their theoretical models, political platforms, or ideological programmes, they fail to engage with this reality, and thus avoid the process of self-reflection at the heart of responsibility. By contrast, Realist objectivity takes an engagement with this intractable ‘object’ that is not reducible to one’s wishes or will as a
itself based in a desire to foster a politics of responsibility. necessary condition of ethical engagement, self-reflection, and self-creation.7 Objectivity is not a naïve naturalism in the sense of scientific laws or rationalist calculation; it is a necessary engagement with a world that eludes one’s will.

A recognition of the limits imposed by ‘reality’ is a condition for a recognition of one’s own limits — that the world is not simply an extension of one’s own will. But it is also a challenge to use that intractability as a source of possibility, as providing a set of openings within which
a suitably chastened and yet paradoxically energised will to action can responsibly be pursued. In the wilful Realist tradition, the essential opacity of

Limits upon understanding provide chastening parameters for claims about the world provide challenging and creative openings within which diverse forms of life can be developed: the limited unity of the self and the political order is the precondition for freedom. The ultimate opacity of the world is not to be despaired of: it is a condition of possibility for the wilful, creative construction of selves and
both the self and the world are taken as limiting principles. and actions within it. But they also

- 13 -

SDI 2008 STP

social orders which embrace the diverse human potentialities which this lack of essential or intrinsic order makes possible.8 But it is
also to be aware of the less salutary possibilities this involves. Indeterminacy is not synonymous with absolute freedom — it is both a condition of, and imperative toward, responsibility.

____/____ 2AC Blocks

5. Perm- Do the plan and adopt the negative’s world view 6. Perm- Do the plan and withdraw from capital in all other instances 7. Capitalism has been working for hundreds of years, there’s no reason to reject it now. 8. Psychoanalysis BadPsychoanalytic critique causes passivity and destroys political struggle Paul Gordon, psychotherapist living and working in London, Race & Class, 2001, v. 42, n. 4, p. 30-1
All the tragedies of the political project of emancipation -- the evils of Stalinism in particular -- are seen as the inevitable product of men and women trying to create a better society. But, rather than engage in a critical assessment of how, for instance, radical political movements go wrong, they discard the emancipatory project and impulse itself. The postmodernists, as Sivanandan puts it, blame modernity for having failed them: `the intellectuals and academics have fled into discourse and deconstruction and representation -- as though to interpret the world is more important than to change it, as though changing the interpretation is all we could do in a changing world'.58 To justify their flight from a politics holding out the prospect of radical change through self-activity, the disappointed intellectuals find abundant intellectual alibis for themselves in the very work they champion, including, in Cohen's case, psychoanalysis. What Marshall Berman says of Foucault seems true also of psychoanalysis; that it offers `a world-historical alibi' for the passivity and helplessness felt by many in the 1970s, and that it has nothing but contempt for those naive enough to imagine that it might be possible for modern human- kind to be free. At every turn for such theorists, as Berman argues, whether in sexuality, politics, even our imagination, we are nothing but prisoners: there is no
The postmodernists' problem is that they cannot live with disappointment. freedom in Foucault's world, because his language forms a seamless web, a cage far more airtight than anything Weber ever dreamed of, into which no life can break . . . There is no point in trying to resist the oppressions and injustices of modern life, since even our dreams of freedom only add more links to our chains; however, once we grasp the futility of it all, at least we can relax.59 Cohen's political defeatism and his

faith of psychoanalysis lead him to be contemptuous and dismissive of any attempt at political solidarity or collective action. For him, `communities' are always `imagined', which, in his view, means based on fantasy, while different forms of working-class organisation, from the craft fraternity to the revolutionary group, are dismissed as `fantasies of self-sufficient combination'.60 In this scenario, the idea that people might come together, think together, analyse together and act together as rational beings is impossible. The idea of a genuine community of equals becomes a pure , `symbolic retrieval' of something that never existed in
conviction in the explanatory power of his new the first place: `Community is a magical device for conjuring something apparently solidary out of the thin air of modern times, a mechanism of re-enchantment.' As for history, it is always false, since `We are always

this is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense at that. Is history `always false'? Did the Judeocide happen or did it not? And did not some people even try to Did slavery exist or did it not, and did not people resist that too and, ultimately, bring it to an end? And are communities always `imagined'? Or, as Sivanandan states, are they beaten out on the smithy of a people's collective struggle? Furthermore, all attempts to legislate against ideology are bound to fail because they have to adopt `technologies of surveillance and control identical to those used by the state'. Note here the Foucauldian language to set up the notion that all `surveillance' is bad. But is it? No society can function without surveillance of some kind. The point, surely, is that there should be a public conversation about such
dealing with invented traditions.'61 Now, resist it? moves and that those responsible for implementing them be at all times accountable. To equate, as Cohen does, a council poster about `Stamping out racism' with Orwell's horrendous prophecy in 1984 of a boot stamping on a human face is ludicrous and insulting. (Orwell's image was intensely personal and destructive; the other is about the need to challenge not individuals, but a collective evil.) Cohen reveals himself to be deeply ambivalent about punitive action against racists, as though punishment or other firm action against them (or anyone else transgressing agreed social or legal norms) precluded `understanding' or even help through psychotherapy. It is indeed a strange kind of `anti-racism' that portrays active racists as the `victims', those who are in need of `help'. But this is where Cohen's argument ends up. In their move from politics to the

postmodernists may have simply exchanged one grand narrative, historical materialism, for another, psychoanalysis.62 For psychoanalysis is a grand narrative, par excellence. It is a theory that seeks to account for the world and which recognises few limits on its explanatory potential. And the claimed radicalism of psychoanalysis, in the hands of the postmodernists at least, is not a radicalism at all but a prescription for a politics of quietism, fatalism and defeat. Those wanting to change the world, not just to interpret it, need to look elsewhere.
academy and the world of `discourse', the

9. Alternative doesn’t solve

- 14 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

a. Capitalism solves for war Imperial wars pre-date capitalism by centuries, war is illogical under capitalism because it destroys wealth MacKenzie 3D.W. MacKenzie graduate student in economics at George Mason University Does Capitalism Require War? Monday, April 07, 2003

Perhaps the oddest aspect of these various, but similar, claims is that their proponents appeal so often to historical examples. They often claim that history shows how capitalism is imperialistic and warlike or at least benefits from war. Capitalism supposedly needs a boost from some war spending from time to time, and history shows this. Robert
Higgs demonstrated that the wartime prosperity during the Second World War was illusory[i]. This should come to no surprise to those who lived through the deprivations of wartime rationing. We do not need wars for prosperity, but does capitalism breed war and imperialism anyway? . The Romans, Alexander, and many others of the ancient world waged imperialistic wars. The Incan Empire and the empire of Ancient China stand as examples of the universal character of imperialism. Who could possibly claim that

History is rife with examples of imperialism

Imperialism precedes modern industrial capitalism by many centuries. Uneven wealth distribution or underconsumption under capitalism obviously did not cause these instances of imperialism. Of course, this fact does not prove that modern capitalism lacks its own imperialistic tendencies. The notion that income gets underspent or maldistributed lies at the heart of most
imperialism grew out of the prosperity of these ancient civilizations?

claims that capitalism either needs or produces imperialistic wars. As J.B. Say argued, supply creates its own demand through payments to factors of production. Demand Side economists Hobson and Keynes argued that there would be too little consumption and too little investment for continuous full employment. We save too much to have peace and prosperity. The difficulty we face is not in oversaving, but in underestimating the workings of markets and the desires of consumers. Doomsayers have been downplaying consumer demand for ages. As demand side economist J.K. Galbraith claimed, we live in an affluent society, where most private demands have been met. Of course, Hobson made the same claim much earlier. Earlier and stranger still, mercantilists claimed that 'wasteful acts' such as tea drinking, gathering at alehouses, taking snuff, and the wearing of ribbons were unnecessary luxuries that detracted from productive endeavors. The prognostications of esteemed opponents of capitalism have consistently failed to predict consumer demand. Today, consumers consume at levels that few long ago could have imagined possible. There is no reason to doubt that consumers will continue to press for ever higher levels of consumption. Though it is only a movie, Brewster's Millions illustrates how creative people can be at spending money. People who do actually inherit, win, or earn large sums of money have little trouble spending it. Indeed, wealthy individuals usually have more trouble holding on to their fortunes than in finding ways to spend them. We are never going to run out of ways to spend money. Many of the complaints about capitalism center on how people save too much. One should remember that there really is no such thing as saving. Consumers defer consumption to the future only. As economist Eugen Böhm-Bawerk demonstrated, people save according to time preference. Savings diverts resources into capital formation. This increases future production. Interest enhanced savings then can purchase these goods as some consumers cease to defer their consumption. Keynes' claim that animal spirits drive investment has no rational basis. Consumer preferences are the basis for investment. Investors forecast future consumer demand. Interest rates convey knowledge of these demands. The intertemporal coordination of production through capital markets and interest rates is not a simple matter. But Keynes' marginal propensities to save and Hobson's concentration of wealth arguments fail to account for the real determinants of production through time. Say's Law of Markets holds precisely because people always want a better life for themselves and those close to them. Falling interest rates deter saving and increase investment. Rising interest rates induce saving and deter investment. This simple logic of supply and demand derives from a quite basic notion of self interest. Keynes denied that the world worked this way. Instead, he claimed that bond holders hoard money outside of the banking system, investment periodically collapses from 'the dark forces of time and uncertainty, and consumers save income in a mechanical fashion according to marginal propensities to save. None of these propositions hold up to scrutiny, either deductive or empirical. Speculators do not hoard cash outside of banks. To do this means a loss of interest on assets. People do move assets from one part of the financial system to another. This does not cause deficient aggregate demand. Most money exists in the banking system, and is always available for lending. In fact, the advent of e-banking makes such a practice even less sensible. Why hoard cash when you can move money around with your computer? It is common knowledge that people save for homes, education, and other expensive items, not because they have some innate urge to squirrel some portion of their income away. This renders half of the market for credit rational. Investors do in fact calculate rates of return on investment. This is not a simple matter. Investment entails some speculation. Long term investment projects entail some uncertainty, but investors who want to actually reap profits will estimate the returns on investment using the best available data. Keynes feared that the dark forces of time and uncertainty could scare investors. This possibility, he thought, called for government intervention. However, government intervention (especially warfare) generally serves to increase uncertainty. Private markets have enough uncertainties without throwing politics into the fray. The vagaries of political intervention serve only to darken an already uncertain future. Capital markets are best left to capitalists. Nor is capital not extracted surplus value. It comes not from exploitation. It is simply a matter of people valuing their future wellbeing. Capitalists will hire workers up to the point where the discounted marginal product of their labor equals the wage rate. To do otherwise would mean a loss of potential profit. Since workers earn the marginal product of labor and capital derives from deferred consumption, Marxist arguments about reserve armies of the unemployed and surplus extraction fail. It is quite odd to worry about capitalists oversaving when many complain about how the savings rate in the U.S. is too low. Why does the U.S., as the world's 'greatest capitalist/imperialist power', attract so much foreign investment? Many Americans worry about America's international accounts. Fears about foreigners buying up America are unfounded, but not because this does not happen. America does have a relatively low national savings rate. It does attract much foreign investment, precisely because it has relatively secure property rights. Indeed, much of the third world suffers from too little investment. The claims of Marxists, and Hobson, directly contradict the historical record. Sound theory tells us that it should. The Marxist claim that capitalists must find investments overseas fails miserably. Larry Kudlow has put his own spin on the false connection between capitalism and war. We need the War as shock therapy to get the economy on its feet. Kudlow also endorses massive airline subsidies as a means of restoring economic prosperity. Kudlow and Krugman both endorse the alleged destructive creation of warfare and terrorism. Kudlow has rechristened the Broken Window fallacy the Broken Window principle. Kudlow claims that may lose money and wealth in one way, but we gain it back many time over when the rebuilding is done. Kudlow and Krugman have quite an affinity for deficits. Krugman sees debt as a sponge to absorb excess saving. Kudlow see debt as a short term nuisance that we can dispel by maximizing growth. One would think that such famous economists would realize that competition does work to achieve the goal of optimum growth based on time preference, but

While these economists have expressed their belief in writing, they could do more. If the destruction of assets leads to increased prosperity, then they should teach this principle by example. Kudlow and Krugman could, for instance, help build the economy by demolishing their own private homes. This would have the immediate effect of stimulating demand for demolition experts, and the longer term affect of stimulating the demand for construction workers. They can create additional wealth by financing the reconstruction of their homes through debt. By borrowing funds, they draw idle resources into use and stimulate financial activity. Of course, they would both initially lose wealth in one way. But if their thinking is sound, they will gain it back many times over as they rebuild. The truth is that their beliefs are fallacious. Bastiat demonstrated the absurdity of destructive creation in his original explanation of the opportunity costs from repairing broken windows. Kudlow is quite clear about his intentions. He wants to grow the economy to finance the war. As Kudlow told
this is not the case. some students, "The trick here is to grow the economy and let the economic growth raise the revenue for the war effort"[ii]. Kudlow also praises the Reagan Administration for growing the economy to fund national defense. Here Kudlow's attempts to give economic advice cease completely. His argument here is not that capitalism needs a shot in the arm. It is that resources should be redirected towards ends that he sees fit. Kudlow is a war hawk who, obviously, cannot fund this or any war personally. He instead favors using the state to tax others to fund what he wants, but cannot afford. He seems to think that his values matter more than any other's. Why should anyone else agree with this? Kudlow tarnishes the image of laissez faire economics by parading his faulty reasoning and his claims that his wants should reign supreme as a pro-market stance. Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to defend capitalism from alleged advocates of liberty, who employ false dogmas in pursuit of their own militaristic desires.

Capitalism neither requires nor promotes imperialist expansion. Capitalism did not create imperialism or warfare. Warlike societies predate societies with secure private property. The idea that inequity or underspending give rise to militarism lacks any rational basis. Imperialistic tendencies exist due to ethnic and nationalistic bigotries, and the want for power.
Prosperity depends upon our ability to prevent destructive acts. The dogma of destructive creation fails as a silver lining to the cloud of warfare. Destructive acts entail real costs that diminish available opportunities. The idea that we need to find work for idle hands in capitalism at best leads to a kind of Sisyphus economy where unproductive industries garner subsidies from productive people. At worst, it serves as a supporting argument for war. The more recent versions of the false charges against capitalism do nothing to invalidate two simple facts. Capitalism generates prosperity by creating new products.

War inflicts poverty by destroying existing wealth. There is no sound reason to think otherwise.

- 15 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

b. Total rejection of capitalism fragments resistance – the alternative never solves J.K. Gibson-Graham, feminist economist, 1996, End of Capitalism
Capitalism has become the intimate enemy. We have uncloaked the ideologically-clothed, obscure monster, but we have installed a naked and visible monster in its place. In return for our labors of creation, the monster has robbed us of all force. We hear – and find it easy to believe – that the left is in disarray. Part of what produces the disarray of the left is the vision of what the left is arrayed against. When capitalism is represented as a unified system coextensive with the nation or even the world, when it is portrayed as crowding out all other economic forms, when it is allowed to define entire societies, it becomes something that can only be defeated and replaced by a mass collective movement (or by a process of systemic dissolution that such a movement might assist). The revolutionary task of replacing capitalism now seems outmoded and unrealistic, yet we do not seem to have an alternative conception of class transformation to take its place. The old political economic “systems” and “structures” that call forth a vision of revolution as systemic
One of our goals as Marxists has been to produce a knowledge of capitalism. Yet as “that which is known,” replacement still seem to be dominant in the Marxist political imagination. The New World Order is often represented as political fragmentation founded upon economic unification. In this vision the economy appears as the last stronghold of unity and singularity in a world of diversity and plurality. But why can’t the economy be fragmented too? If we theorized it as fragmented in the United States, we could being to see a huge state sector (incorporating a variety of forms of appropriation of surplus labor), a very large sector of self-employed and family-based producers (most noncapitalist), a huge household sector (again, quite various in terms of forms of exploitation, with some households moving towards communal or collective appropriation and others operating in a traditional mode in which one adult appropriates surplus labor from another). None

If capitalism takes up the available social space, there’s no room for anything else. If capitalism cannot coexist, there’s no possibility of anything else. If capitalism functions as a unity, it cannot be partially or locally replaced. My intent is to help create the discursive conception under which socialist or other noncapitalist construction becomes “realistic” present activity rather than a ludicrous or utopian goal. To achieve this I must smash Capitalism and see it in a thousand pieces. I must make its unity a fantasy, visible as a denial of diversity and change.
of these things is easy to see.

c. Capitalism decreases poverty – we’ll be the only ones with uniqueness because poverty is rapidly decreasing in the world of globalization Norberg, author of In Defense of Capitalism, 2003
Johan, September 15,

This is the revolution that is transforming the world today. As the United Nations Development Programme has observed, in the last 50 years global poverty has declined more quickly than in the previous 500. If we allow globalization to continue, this trend will continue as well. The World Bank has calculated that a substantial free trade agreement would add as much as $520 billion to global incomes by 2015, lifting 144 million people out of poverty.

- 16 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Extend the MacKenzie in 03 evidence that states that imperial wars have happened long before Capitalism became an ideology. Capitalism is key to peace – markets decrease the potential for war Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, 11/15/2005
Doug, Spreading Capitalism is Good for Peace,

In a world that seems constantly aflame, one naturally asks: What causes peace? Many people, including U.S. President George W. Bush, hope that spreading democracy will discourage war. But new research suggests that expanding free markets is a far more important factor, leading to what Columbia University's Erik Gartzke calls a "capitalist peace." It's a reason for even the left to support free markets.
The capitalist peace theory isn't new: Montesquieu and Adam Smith believed in it. Many of Britain's classical liberals, such as Richard Cobden, pushed free markets while opposing imperialism. But World War I demonstrated that increased trade was not enough. The prospect of economic ruin did not prevent rampant nationalism, ethnic hatred, and security fears from trumping the power of markets. An even greater conflict followed a generation later. Thankfully, World War II left war essentially unthinkable among leading industrialized - and democratic - states. Support grew for the argument, going back to Immanual Kant, that republics are less warlike than other systems. Today's corollary is that creating democracies out of dictatorships will reduce conflict. This contention animated some support outside as well as inside the United States for the invasion of Iraq. But Gartzke argues that "the 'democratic peace' is a mirage created by the overlap between economic and political freedom." That is, democracies typically have freer economies than do authoritarian states. Thus,

while "democracy is desirable for many reasons," he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of Economic Freedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute, "representative governments are unlikely to contribute directly to international peace." Capitalism is by far the more important factor. The shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches. Free-flowing capital markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together and raise the economic price of military conflict. Moreover, sanctions, which interfere with economic prosperity, provides a coercive step short of war to achieve foreign policy ends.

Also extend the Norberg in 03 evidence that says that Capitalism decreases poverty because it increases the free markets. Also extend that the alternative can’t solve because it looks at Capitalism as a whole, instead of recognizing its individual parts. This is the Gibson-Graham 96 evidence. Lastly, extend the Gordon in 01 card. It talks about how to assume that all humans can think as one entity with the same thoughts ideas and morals is completely ridiculous. Debate very obviously counters that.

- 17 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Extend the Perm- Do Both. Pass the plan and reject capitalism simultaneously. Extend the No link argument from the 2AC. The plan doesn’t link to this Kritik. We close a loophole that would support capitalism. So the perm is not mutually exclusive. Both teams are now rejecting a capitalistic ideology.

Permutation solves their universal demands argument – universality only exists when particular struggles lay claim to universal politics
Butler, Professor of Rhetoric at Berkeley 2004 Judith The Judith Butler Reader, page 339-340 My sense is that universality takes on its life precisely when it exceeds the strategic intentions of its speaker and that it is extremely mobile. What does and does not count as universal, as the universal reach of human obligation and right? That is a question that is constantly on the
table. For instance, when the Vatican says that it is very interested in human rights but that homosexuality is an assault on “the human,” what it is in effect saying is that homosexual humans are destroying the human by virtue of their homosexuality, and the rights that pertain to humans do not pertain to them because they have in some sense disqualified themselves from the human by virtue of their homosexuality. If the homosexual then, nevertheless, gets up out of her or his abject state and says, “I am human, and I deserve some rights,” then in that moment there’s a certain paradox:

universality is actually being asserted precisely by the one who represents what must be foreclosed for universality to take place. This is one who’s outside of the legitimating structure of universality but who nevertheless speaks in its terms and makes the claim without
countries, so they made the case for human rights on other grounds. So what does this mean? It means that

prior legitimation in order to assume legitimation as a performative consequence of the claim itself. It seems to me that this is the position that gay rights activists are in time and time again, often in relation to other human rights activists groups. It took a long time, for instance, for Human Rights Watch or the ACLU or Amnesty International or other organizations to bring gay questions into human rights issues because they were afraid that they would lose the ability to have connections with certain any notion of universality is based on a foreclosure: there must be something that is not included within the universal; there must be something that is outside of it for the universal to make sense;

the notion of universality is in crisis. As Laclau points out,

there must be something that is particular, that is not assimilable into the universal. What happens when that particular – that particular identity that cannot lay claim to the universal and who may not – nevertheless lays claim to the universal? It seems to me that the very notion of universality is brought into an extremely productive crisis and that we get what might be understood as spectral invocations of the universal among those who have no established, legitimate right to make the claim. So, I like the idea that universality is a discourse that is driven into crisis again and again by the foreclosures that it makes and that it’s forced to rearticulate itself. Where I agree with the project of hegemony that Laclau and Mouffe lay out is that for me the process of a universality that is brought into crisis again and again by what is outside of itself is an open-ended one. Universality, in that sense, would not be violent or totalizing; it would be an open-ended process, and the task of politics would be to keep it open, to keep it as a contested site of persistent crisis and not to let it be settled.

- 18 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Extend Framework interpretation from the 2AC. The affirmative is only aloud to defend their plan, the negative should only be aloud to defend ONE Competitive policy option, OR the status quo; and nothing else. Extend the Reasons to Prefer: Predictability- The negative could use quite literally ANY alternative, making it impossible for the affirmative to defend themselves in the round. Skewing the rounds consistently in the direction of the negative team. Private actor Fiat- The negative could use any actor in their alternative. Ultimately destroying any chance the affirmative has of gaining offense in their 2AC. Topic specific Education- Each argument that the negative runs should be specific to affirmative case they are going against. If every plan links to the kritik, education is drastically decreased. Education is the entirety of debate. Extend the voting issue. The alternative must be rejected in order to preserve competitive equity in the round.

- 19 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks


(all of these cards are more recent than the 1NC)

OPEC no longer has the capacity to flood the market

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

OPEC can no longer influence prices
Sodhi 2008 (The Myth of OPEC, The center for independent studies The massive reserves of Saudi Arabia have also historically been a tool to encourage quota compliance. The Saudis, with their massive oil reserves and high levels of spare production capacity, have in the past threatened to flood the market with oil to engineer a collapse in price. With the world’s cheapest production costs and lots of spare capacity, it was a threat the Saudis could theoretically carry out. Not anymore. Saudi Arabia no longer has the buffer of excess production, and there is a lack of confidence in the sustainability of its largest fields. The long standing threat to flood the market with cheap oil has now become a bluff, and the other members of OPEC know it. OPEC goes to great trouble to pretend that it can influence prices. It holds regular meetings where it ordains a new production target with much ceremony. But honestly, you would have to be a mug to believe that OPEC countries are purposefully limiting production. When oil prices rise, so does the opportunity cost of sticking to the allocated quota. So while its possible to maintain a cartel when prices are low, you can bet your life that each member is pumping out as much crude as it possibly can at $140 a barrel.

- 20 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

OPEC can’t control pricing through flooding the market


Daily Star

June 23, 2008


Brown makes fuel plea to rich Saudis

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

It's the kind of thing he could do here at home." And Tory Alan Duncan blasted: "The

OPEC has lost control over prices- they’re on a downward spiral Brown 2008 (May, OPEC's Days Are Numbered,

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

- 21 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Renewable development is not dependent on high oil prices Environment News Service, 6-21-07,
While the report finds that high oil prices have driven investors into the renewable energy market, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner says many investors are choosing renewables regardless of oil prices. "One of the new and fundamental messages of this report is that renewable energies are no longer subject to the vagaries of rising and falling oil prices - they are becoming generating systems of choice for increasing numbers of power companies, communities and countries irrespective of the costs of fossil fuels, said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner, introducing the report Wednesday.

Security concerns drive renewable development-prices not key Gal Luft, executive director of Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, 7-5-07,
To insulate the U.S. further, President Bush seeks to double the size of the American oil reserve in the coming years. The President also seeks to reduce America's oil dependence through increased efficiency and to shift to alternative fuels. Applied in unison, these tactics advance the strategic goals of reducing global energy prices, protecting the West against supply disruptions, and limiting the flow of petrodollars to Tehran. This increased pressure on the Iranian regime could, over time, generate a much desired regime change. If Washington executes this strategy with expediency and determination, this outcome could be achieved before Iran becomes a nuclear power.

Even without high oil prices, the renewable energy industry will still grow: (non-UQ)
Science Letter July 8, 2008 HEADLINE: INTEGRITY INTERNATIONAL; Integrity International Launches Renewable Energy Staffing Division "While business ideas in the renewable energy field will work and fail, we project that the job opportunities will grow dramatically in the near term," Ahumada said. "Even without the recent spike in oil prices,
the pressure to increase renewable energy is strong and will continue to grow."

Prices will not fuel the transition. Ian Bremmer. "Prices Transform Oil Into A Weapon." International Herald Tribune. 27 Aug. 2005.
Second, petro-states are rethinking their assumptions about the elasticity of global demand for oil. When oil sold for $30 a barrel, they accepted the conventional view that substantial price hikes might lower demand - and hurt their bottom lines - as importing states actively looked for new sources of oil, energy alternatives and other ways to cut fossile-fuel consumption. Now that oil sells for well above $60 a barrel, without (so far) a sharp drop in demand, energy-exporting states are changing their minds. Some now believe they can push the price still further and increase profits without a drop in demand.

- 22 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

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

Aka Global Insight August 2, 2007 HEADLINE: Fitch Raises Outlook for Saudi Arabia's Sovereign Foreign Currency

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

2. Saudi Arabia is reforming their economy now
Erlend Paasche Saudi Arabia's economic liberalization Wednesday, December 12, 2007

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

3. High oil prices have allowed Saudi Arabia to reform its economy
Erlend Paasche Saudi Arabia's economic liberalization Wednesday, December 12, 2007

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

4. Dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia puts US at risk of terrorism

Sandalow January 22, 2007 ENDING OIL DEPENDENCE

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

- 23 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Saudi Arabia has reformed its economy and diversified away from oil

Al Mahfudh

Global Insight July

3, 2008 HEADLINE: Saudi Arabia Moves Up in Forbes' List of Best Countries for Business in 2008

Saudi Arabia made a substantial improvement this year moving up 37 places. Saudi

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

Dependence on Saudi Arabia for oil causes terrorism
Dr. John Scire Adjunct Professor of Political Science at UNR “Oil dependency, national security” February 10, 2008 Oil dependency forces the U.S. to support oil regimes that oppress their citizens. As a result, other states and the citizens of oppressive oil regimes see the U.S. as their real enemy. It isn't surprising that Osama bin Laden's first Fatwah was against the U.S. for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the oppressive Saudi Royal Family. U.S. oil dependency also strengthens worldwide Islamist terror campaigns as funding for these groups comes primarily from Middle Eastern Islamic charities, located primarily in Saudi Arabia. Because of oil dependency, we both motivate the terrorists and provide the money to fund their attacks on us. American oil dependency also strengthens other states opposed to
American foreign policy interests, such as Venezuela and Russia. Foreign policy options are further reduced when other oil importing countries, such as China, block our UN Security Council resolutions targeted at their sources of oil. This has already occurred in regard to Sudan and Myanmar.

Oil dependence on Saudi Arabia impedes out ability to fight terror
The Business Times Singapore January 9, 2002
THE United States' dependence on the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, for its crude oil supply is nothing new, but the Sept 11 terrorist attacks have trained the spotlight on this insatiable dependency that is fraught with considerable risks. Of course, the untimely Opec decision to cut production recently by 1.5 million barrels to "stabilise" the market did not help matters. Indeed, it has further angered critics who say the decision will slow the country's economic recovery, when it is in the midst of prosecuting a war against the Taliban. Willy-nilly, the Saudi connection comes at a price: the US guarantees protection of that kingdom under a treaty with Riyadh in return for steady oil supplies. The downside is that it has tied Washington's hands in dealing with terrorists and the Middle East peace process without stepping on sensitive Arab toes. No doubt, the debate about ending the reliance on Arab oil partly stems from the fear, however remote, of a Taliban-like force destabilising key oil suppliers such as Saudi Arabia. That fear is not misplaced considering that 15 of the Sept 11 hijackers were Saudis, and hundreds had slipped out to attend training in Osama bin Laden's Afghan camps.

- 24 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

LX-TURN High oil prices are collapsing democracy and creating increased authoritarianism in Russia States News Service June



To coincide with today's release of the Freedom House Nations in Transit 2008 report, three of the study's authors gathered at RFE/RL's Washington, DC

as oil and natural gas revenues surge in Russia and Central Asia, democratic institutions in these countries are eroding significantly. [Read more about the Nations in Transit 2008 Report] "The resource curse is taking root," Freedom House Director of Studies Christopher Walker told the group. "The growing authoritarianism in oil and natural gas-rich countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan is severely restricting the ability of democratic institutions to operate." According to the report, the regression in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia has occurred systematically and across sectors, including in the areas of electoral process, civil society, independent media and judicial independence. "Russia's decline in all of the report's categories over the past eight years is dramatic," said Robert Orttung, the author of the section on Russia and a
headquarters to discuss one of its key findings - that, Senior Fellow at the Jefferson Institute. "For years, Vladimir Putin has been using oil and natural gas revenues to build up his police forces and consolidate power in such a way that there


is no space for democracy to

Failure of democracy in Russia will cause global nuclear war
Muravchik 2001 (Joshua- Resident Scholar at the AEI, “Democracy and Nuclear Peace” July 14,, Date Accessed 7/29/2006)
That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as one of the most revolutionary years in all history, was inevitable. So many peoples were swept up in the democratic tide that there was certain to be some backsliding. Most countries' democratic evolution has included some fits and starts rather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole. Nonetheless,

the overall trend remains powerful and clear. Despite the backsliding, the number and proportion of democracies stands higher today than ever before. This progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization. If this is so, the
greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East where nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote.

- 25 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Sustained high oil prices would turn Russia into a petro-state, rife with poverty, corruption, and an inevitably collapsing economy Moises Naim (Editor) Jan/Feb 2004 Foreign Policy Russia's future will be defined as much by the geology of its subsoil as by the ideology of its leaders. Unfortunately, whereas policymakers can choose their ideology, they don't have much leeway when it comes to geology. Russia has a lot of oil, and this inescapable geological fact will determine many of the policy choices available to its leaders. Oil and gas now account for roughly 20 percent of Russia's economy, 55 percent of its export earnings, and 40 percent of its total tax revenues. Russia is the world's second largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia, and its subsoil contains 33 percent of the world's gas reserves. It already supplies 30 percent of Europe's gas needs. In the future, Russia's oil and gas industry will become even more important, as no other sector can be as internationally competitive, grow as rapidly, or be as profitable. Thus, Russia risks becoming, and in many respects may already be, a "petro-state." The arrest of oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky sparked a debate over what kind of country Russia will be. In this discussion, Russia's characteristics as a petro-state deserve as much attention as its factional struggles. Petro-states are oil-rich countries plagued by weak institutions, a poorly functioning public sector, and a high concentration of power and wealth. Their population is
chronically frustrated by the lack of proportion between their nation's oil wealth and their widespread poverty. Nigeria and Venezucla are good examples. That Russia has lots of oil is old news. What's

new is the dramatically enhanced role that changes in Russian politics, oil technology, and energy markets have given to its petrolcum sector. Throughout the 1990s, privatization in Russia and innovations in exploration and
drilling technologies brought into production oil fields that had hitherto been underperforming or completely off-limits. To energy companies worried about growing domestic instability among the major oil exporters of the Middle East, Russia became an even more attractive hedge. Regardless

of its political turmoil, Russia will continue to appeal to oil companies, which know how to operate profitably in countries with weak property rights and
unstable politics. Thus, while the Khodorkovsky affair may temporarily scare away some investors, Russia's beguiling geology will eventually attract energy companies that cannot afford to be left out of some of the world's richest oil reservoirs. But when

oil revenues flood a nation with a fragile system of democratic checks and balances, dysfunctional politics and economics ensue, and a petro-state emerges. A strong democracy and an effective public sector explain why oil has not distorted the United States or Norway as it has Nigeria and Venezuela. A lot of oil combined with weak public institutions produces poverty, inequality, and corruption. It also undermines democracy. No petro-state has succeeded in converting oil into prosperity for the majority of the population. An economy that relies mostly on oil exports inevitably ends up with an exchange rate that makes imported goods less expensive and exports more costly. This overvalued exchange rate makes other sectors--agriculture, manufacturing, tourism--less internationally competitive and hinders their growth. Petro-states also have jobless, volatile economic growth. Oil
generates export revenues and taxes for the state, but it creates few jobs. Despite its economic heft, Russia's oil and gas industry employs only around 2 million workers out of a total workforce of 67 million. Also, because the international price of oil is volatile, petro-states

suffer constant and debilitating economic boombust cycles. The busts lead to banking crises and public budget cuts that hurt the poor who critically
depend on government programs. Russia already experienced this effect in 1998 when the drop in oil prices sparked a financial crash. If oil prices fall below $20 a barrel, Russia will surely face another bout of painful economic instability. Petro-states also suffer from a narrow tax base, with the bulk of government revenues coming from just a few large taxpayers. In Russia, the 10 largest companies account for more than half of total tax revenues. Weak governmental accountability is a

The political consequences are also corrosive. Thanks to the inevitable concentration of the oil industry into a few large firms, owners and managers acquire enormous political clout. In turn, corruption often thrives, as a handful of politicians and government regulators make decisions that are worth millions to these companies.
typical side effect of this dependency, as the link between the electorate and government spending is indirect and tenuous. Nationalizing the oil industry fails to solve these problems: State-owned oil companies quickly become relatively independent political actors that are rife with corruption, inefficiency, and politicization, and can dominate other weak public institutions. Privatizing

the industry without strong and independent regulatory and tax agencies is also not a solution, as unbridled private monopolists can be as predatory as public ones.

In petro-states, bitter fights over the control and distribution of the nation's oil rents become the gravitational center of political life. It is no accident that the current crisis in Russia hinges on control of the country's largest oil company and the political uses of its profits. But Russia is not Nigeria and has yet to become a full-fledged petro-state. It is a large, complex country with a highly educated

population, a relatively strong technological base, and a still somewhat diversified economy. A strong

democracy could help Russia compensate for the economic and political weaknesses that plague all countries dominated by oil. Russia is still struggling to overcome the crippling effects of its ideological past. Let's hope it will also be able to avoid the crippling effects of its geological present.

- 26 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

- 27 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks


Oil price drop would have no effect on the Russian economy. Prices could get as low as $55 a barrel and the effect would still be insignificant
Russia & CIS Banking & Finance Weekly June

2008 headline: russia does not fear drop in oil prices - kudrin

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

Low oil prices will not affect Russia - they have shielded themselves from price decline and diversified their economy.
Belfast Telegraph, Mary Dejevsky, "Russia will not cut oil and gas production, Putin says" September 17, 2007 lexis
Mr Putin was answering questions from foreign Russia-watchers at his summer residence near the southern resort city of Sochi. What had prompted a response that should reassure Russia's Western customers, at least in the short term, was a comment by a senior official two days before to the effect that Russia's oil and gas bonanza was almost as much trouble as it was worth. He had said that, while Russia had benefited hugely from the high energy prices of recent years, these had also created problems. Because the Russian economy simply could not absorb so much money productively in such a short time, the

government had to spend much specialist time and energy on how best to use it. A proportion goes to the "stabilisation fund", now standing at $130bn, seen as an insurance against energy prices falling. Another share goes into an "investment fund" for infrastructure projects, higher pensions and public service salaries. What is left over is invested abroad, much of it in foreign bonds, to be as safe as possible. Russia's foreign investment policy was, the official said, deliberately"conservative". The official also said that
Russia was looking to invest more in foreign companies, and would already have done so but for what it saw as unwarranted suspicion of Russia's intentions and closet protectionism on the part of foreign governments. It was in this context that a participant in the discussion with Mr Putin asked this question: Why, if Russia found administering its new oil and gas wealth so burdensome, did it not consider cutting production? Keeping the stuff in the ground, he suggested, would have several beneficial effects for Russia. It would raise the world price, so yielding more money for less effort. It would, assuming no dramatic fall in prices in the near future, guarantee Russia a good income for many more years. And it would save ministers the time and effort involved in figuring out how to invest its windfall. The question clearly appealed to Mr Putin. He smiled and described the proposition as interesting, as he seemed to turn it over in his mind. But his response was categorical. "We will extend and increase production of both oil and gas, and we will do that because global demand is growing." He

said that Russia had no intention of banking on further rises in energy prices. "We remember that there was a time when coal was the main source of energy, and then all at once the price fell sharply. What good would come of speculating?" Russia, he said, "wants to behave responsibly" not for its own sake, but because "harmonious relations" with the rest of the world was as much in the national interest as high energy prices. Apparently alluding to Western charges that Russia used its position as an energy supplier as a weapon, Mr Putin said that
Russia had never " blackmailed" the world market. He went on: "We are not a member of Opec though we keep a close eye on what it does and one reason is that we don't have the level of state monopoly over energy production that most Opec countries have."

Russia’s economy has diversified: no impact Journal of Commerce 4/26/2004
Although Russia's remoteness from the U.S. - and its proximity to the huge European market - limits its potential as an economic partner, Russian companies such sectors as information technology, telecommunications and aerospace are becoming competitive, Marshall said. Even Russia's


- 28 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

agriculture sector is becoming viable. Last year, Russia became a net exporter of grain, which is "mind-boggling" to Marshall, who remembers the ineptitude of the Soviet era. "Yes, they are still heavily dependent on energy, but not completely. Sure, the foreign reserves of $85 billion - because of high energy prices - has helped. But it's not just that."

Russian economy is resilient. Bruce Stokes. "Don't Ignore the Russian Bear." Council on Foreign Relations. 2008.
A little less than a year ago, August 17 to be precise, the post-Cold War Russian economic experiment imploded. The ruble collapsed and debt payments to foreigners were frozen. Wall Street lost billions of dollars. Long Term Capital Management, one of the world's biggest hedge funds, had to be taken over by its bankers. Once burned, international investors yanked their capital out of all emerging markets— from Latin America to East Asia— causing world interest rates to spike. The global economy teetered on the edge of depression. But, much to the surprise of most economic pundits, international markets quickly righted themselves. The Russian economy proved far more resilient than anticipated. And, in retrospect, the events of August, 1998 were little more than a very large bump in the road. The lessons of this "crisis that wasn't" are now clear: Russia is not too big to fail (the volume of its debts do not dictate special treatment by its creditors); the financial world can cope with such failure; and the Russian economy can bounce back without much overt help from the West. But the impending $4.5 billion loan to Russia by the International Monetary Fund — reflecting Washington's gratitude for Moscow's help in Kosovo, continued fear of Russian nuclear proliferation and concern about Russia's internal political stability— demonstrates that Russia still remains too important for the world to ignore. This contradiction— not too big to fail, but still too big to flounder— highlights the friction inherent when economic policy is used to further geo-political goals. Up until a year ago, the Clinton Administration argued that aid to Russia was needed, in part, to avoid global economic collapse. August, 1998 exposed that rationale as a charade. Now American support for assistance to Russia can only be justified for two reasons: to reinforce Russia's transition to a market economy or as ransom in Moscow's continued strategic blackmail of the West. Evidence to justify the former is dubious. Its time to own up to the latter. Last summer's fleeting economic fright reflected Russia's staggering economic collapse. The ruble fell by more than 70 per cent in a couple of weeks. The economy shrank by 4.3 per cent. Real wages fell 41 per cent. But the crisis was cathartic. "The shock accomplished what reform was intended to achieve," said Anders Aslund, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. The banking system now functions better. Barter is declining. Most important, there has been no reversion to central planning, government-directed lending, industrial subsidies or government reliance on simply printing money.

- 29 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

A)First, their arguments about algae being impossible to mass produce are ridiculous. Extend our Freedman 07 card, stating that the entire transportation sector could easily be supported on algae biodiesel. Algae is clearly the best solution. B)Second, ignore their Biopact arguments that algae isn’t a capable alternative. It solves best.
The Boston Globe, October 23, 2007 Tuesday , EDITORIAL; Pg. A10
The holy grail for biodiesel researchers is to develop and stabilize algae as a source of vegetable oil. Certain forms of algae produce thousands of gallons of oil per acre, versus the 46 gallons of soybeans. Production would be either in large concrete ponds or giant test tubes. This would keep biofuels from being the exclusive domain of grain producers and agribusiness, already the villains in the just-released documentary, "Big Corn," which explores corn's role in the
obesity epidemic. Incentives are key to industry The Boston Globe, October 23, 2007 Tuesday , EDITORIAL; Pg. A10

by offering incentives to local firms that are improving biofuel technology and by ensuring that the state's drivers and homeowners have access to vegeta-ble-based alternatives to gasoline and oil. When the environmental and national security costs are added to the high price of heating oil, biofuels - especially ones that do not depend on relatively costly corn or soybeans - are a bargain. Investment in biofuels is increasing in the SQ Scott and Bryner in 6 ALEX SCOTT with MICHELLE BRYNER, Chemical Week, December 20, 2006 / December 27, 2006, Alternative Fuels; Rolling Out Next-Generation Technologies, PS Leading companies in a variety of industries, including chemicals and oil, are competing hard to secure a position in the market for alternative fuels, particularly biofuels. Firms such as BP, Broin Companies (Sioux Falls, SD), Cargill, DuPont, Iogen (McLean, VA), Novozymes, Shell, and Xethanol (New York) are developing novel process technologies and building manufacturing plants to establish themselves in the rapidly growing sector for fuels such as bioethanol, biodiesel, syngas produced from biomass, and hydrogen. Industry's assumption that the high price of crude oil -which today makes biofuels attractive -- will last, appears to be holding true.
Massachusetts can help put green fuel in auto and home heating tanks, both

C)Third, the neg’s time frame arguments are just plain wrong. Algae could be utilized as soon as next year as a stable energy alternative.
Beveridge in 7 JOHN BEVERIDGE, Herald Sun (Australia), February 1, 2007 Thursday , Powered by pond scum POND scum could be one answer to the renewable energy crisis. Researchers at Utah State have found that algae is a particularly good producer of biodiesel. They now plan to produce an algae-biodiesel that is cost-competitive by 2009. One of the big benefits of algae is that it is easy to grow and can yield thousands of litres of oil per hectare. The attraction of biodiesel is that it is a renewable fuel that is carbon-dioxide neutral. Its development has attracted
criticism due to the low yields when made from the current sources -- usually soybean or corn oil. ''This is perhaps the most important scientific challenge facing humanity in the 21st century,'' said Professor Lance Seefeldt. Algae will be ready to

U.S. researchers are working on extracting oil from algae -- a.k.a. pond scum -- and converting it to biodiesel fuel. The project calls for cost-competitive production of the pond scum biodiesel by 2009. Algae can produce up to 40,000 litres of oil per acre and can be grown virtually anywhere. Biodiesel is a clean and carbon-dioxide-neutral fuel that is becoming more
produce on mass scale by 2009 The Toronto Sun, February 7, 2007 Wednesday , Fill'er up with pond scum popular, but most of the current product comes from soybean and corn oil.

- 30 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

D)Finally, our Global Warming advantage outweighs. Algae application solves better than any other alternative.
Economist in 7
[The Economist September 22, 2007 Sea green; Alternative energy, LN, PS]


the sea (unlike the land) is not covered with plants is that it lacks crucial nutrients--iron, in particular. Add iron, the theory goes, and you will promote the growth of algae. These will absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and then conveniently sink when they die. Thus, over the course of a few decades, the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere will return to pre-industrial levels. Presto! Problem solved. Algae biodiesel is only a few years away and can be
ONE of the crazier ideas for dealing with global warming is to sprinkle the oceans with iron filings. One reason used in Jets Clover in 7 [Charles Clover, The Daily Telegraph (LONDON), May 9, 2007 Wednesday, Flying with algae air] COMMERCIAL airliners could be using biofuels made from algae within five years, Boeing, the world's largest aircraft manufacturer, said yesterday. It brings the prospect of more environmentally-friendly air travel decades closer than had been previously thought. The semi-tropical algae, which has a natural oil content, can be used to make biodiesel. Boeing is planning tests using conventional biodiesel next year with Virgin Atlantic and General Electric.

- 31 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

1.  Their uniqueness is bad ­ says there is still speculation that prevents full stability ­ food  prices are tied to oil prices which continue to increase 


2.  US production of corn for ethanol to food price spikes and instability 
McIntosh in 7 [Craig McIntosh, As Corn Ethanol Threatens, Algae makes Promises,­rising­over­biofuels­plus­algae­to­biodie/, Janurary 8th 2007,  PS]  The U.S. is undergoing a biofuel building blitz ­ 79 plants are under construction, 116 are operating and another 200 are 
in the planning stages.     That amounts to a lot of corn ­ 139 million tons, the study estimates. That's half the entire 2008 projected U.S. harvest.     "With the corn supplies tightening fast," the report warns, "rising prices will affect not only products made directly from  corn but also those produced using corn." That includes chicken, pork and beef.     "The risk is that soaring food prices could generate a consumer backlash against the fuel ethanol industry," the Earth  Policy Institute predicted.     Because the U.S. supplies 70% of the world's corn exports, the price spike could trigger "urban food riots" in Third  World countries.

3.  Turn ­ we increase food stability.  Extend across our food stability advantage. Development of algae as a biofuel means that the US doesn’t have to use corn to produce biofuel. All the corn that is used for biofuel now will be available to use for food after the plan.

4. Turn - Corn is only a transition tech—need long term solution like algae
Scott and Bryner in 6 ALEX SCOTT with MICHELLE BRYNER, Chemical Week, December 20, 2006 / December 27, 2006, Alternative Fuels; Rolling Out Next-Generation Technologies, PS

A recent study by Nexant (White Plains, NY) concludes that biodiesel and bioethanol derived from food crops such as corn will only be "transition" technologies, and that industry will move to socalled cellulosic biofuels derived from non-food crop biomass. There will also be an integration of technology platforms enabling production of biogasoline and biodiesel "sooner than some may believe," most likely in conjunction with electric power and chemicals, Nexant says.

- 32 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

1.  Not unique ­ Doha rounds have collapsed at every meeting: Cancun 03, Geneva 04, Paris  05, Hong Kong 05, Geneva 06, Postdam 07 ­ no reason why this one will be any different 2.  Doha Breakthrough Won’t Happen Reuters ’07 Routers, G4 talks collapse, throw trade round into doubt, Thu Jun 21, 2007

Talks between four of the world's big trade powers collapsed on Thursday, throwing the future  of global WTO talks on free commerce into deeper crisis. The United States and the European Union, representing rich nation interests, and Brazil and India,  for the developing world, were quick to blame the other side for the collapse of the meeting which had  been scheduled to run until Saturday. Diplomats and trade officials had warned it would be hard for the full 150­member state World Trade  Organisation to meet an end­July target for a deal, without a preparatory agreement by the so­called  G4 group of trade powers. But ministers insisted that despite the severe setback, the near six­year­old WTO negotiations ­­ seen  as a bulwark against creeping protectionism ­­ were not yet dead. "Potsdam, once again, was not very successful," Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told a news  conference. "It was useless to continue the discussion on the basis of the numbers put on the table." The four were attempting to overcome deep differences over how far to open up agricultural and  industrial markets and cut rich nation farm subsidies. "It (the failure) places a very major question mark on the ability of the wider membership of the  WTO to complete this round," EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson told journalists. "(But) it  does not in itself mean that the negotiations cannot be put back on track," he added. 2. No link ­ our plan would not be perceived as an overall increase in biofuel because we our  production of algae would trade off with the production of corn ethanol. 3.Their link is terrible ­ it doesn’t say that increasing support for algae production would  collapse the meeting. The last sentence actually says that creating new infrastructure and  encouraging R&D can save the DOHA ­ our aff does both of these. 4.  Their internal link is bad ­ there is no warrant for why the DOHA round is key to free trade.  Its just a one sentence statement.

- 33 -

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks 5.  Their impact card is terrible ­ peace between 1945 and 1970 cannot only be attributed to the  existence of free trade.

- 34 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

6.  DOHA  destroys ecosystems and entrenches poverty
Green Peace International 6 (Green Peace International 24 July 2006, Daniel Mittler is a Political Advisor with Greenpeace 
International, “Face it, Doha is dead”: time to look at alternatives to WTO,­is­dead) “As on climate change, Bush had nothing but sweet words to offer on trade; he is squarely to blame for this current impasse. The US’s  unwillingness to wean their large scale­agro businesses off their unfair support is an outrage” said Daniel Mittler, Trade Policy Advisor of  years”.  “The WTO failure today proves yet again, that the time of bulldozing the interests of the  

Greenpeace International. “Governments must now abandon the Doha talks that have been going nowhere over the last five 

developing world has passed,” added Mittler. “The global community must now act to put an end to trade   policies that promote the destruction of ecosystems and undermine the interests of the poor.”

b.  Poverty is spiritual and intellectual torture, wasting human potential
Angell 2000 (Marcia Angel, February/March 2000, American physician, author, and the first woman  to serve as editor­in­chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Pockets of Poverty,
A response to justice is good for our health, by Norman Daniels, Bruce Kennedy, and Ichiro Kawachi.  One need not  invoke some mysterious effect of inequality on health to make a very strong argument for lessening inequalities that lead  to deprivation at the low end of the scale. Poverty is crippling not only physically but intellectually and spiritually.  It cripples   any wealthy society that tolerates it on a large scale, as does the United States. In addition to the loss of human potential   and the social pathology that grows out of poverty, the costs include the callousness that injures the rest of society to it’s   presence, even as many people enjoy extraordinary riches. The fact that there are also health consequences of poverty, whether they are exacerbated by inequality or not, is doubly   punishing and adds greatly to the injustice.  Daniels, Kennedy, and Kawachi are right about that.  F. Scott Fitzgerald  famously pointed out that the rich are different from the rest of us.  But what is less well known is that he observes that no  difference that divides people is so important as that between the well and the sick.  I agree.

7.  No risk of passage too many divergent interests 
States News Service 8 (States News Service, March 2, 2008, Democrats, Off Course on Trade, LN) If that sounds defeatist, consider the reasons for Doha's failure. The global trading system has come   to include ever more countries, rendering negotiations eever more difficult. As Daniel Tarullo of  Georgetown University points out, the lag between the completion of one global trade round and the   next was five or six years even back when fewer than 100 countries were involved. But the Tokyo  Round, which had 102 members, was completed 12 years after the previous round concluded; and  the Uruguay Round (123 members) was completed 15 years after the Tokyo Round. The Doha Round  (151 members) stands at 13 years and counting. 8.  Case outweighs ­ evident that Doha breakthrough won’t happen, none of their link  arguments reach the impact of war ­ they have zero offense, while on the other hand passing  Doha entrenches poverty, causes spiritual and intellectual torture, and destroys ecosystems.  - 35 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

1. Perm – Do both 2. Solvency Deficit – The counter – plan can’t solve for “splash and dash”. The IRS can’t pass a piece of legislation. Extend LaJeunesse in 8, Liu in 5, and Mistral ’04 from the 1AC that indicates that not closing the “splash and dash” loophole will cause a trade war with the EU that will lead to global economic collapse. Cross- apply our Bearden 00 that economic collapse leads to nuclear war. 3. Double Bind either a. the cp isn’t perceived by businesses and can’t solve the case b/c people won’t take the incentives or b. the cp is perceived and it still links to the net benefits b/c its still federal government action.

4. The IRS can’t solve it doesn’t have enough resources
The New York Times in 07 (David Cay Johnston, The NY Times, March 9th, 07, I.R.S. Letting Tax Lawyers Write Rules The Internal Revenue Service is asking tax lawyers and accountants who create tax shelters and exploit loopholes to take the lead in writing some of its new tax rules. The pilot project represents a further expansion of the increasingly common federal government practice of asking outsiders to do more of its work, prompting academics and other critics to complain that the government is going too far. They worry that having private lawyers and accountants draft tax rules could allow them to subtly skew them in favor of their clients. The I.R.S. staff has been cut by a fifth in the last decade, even as Congress has made the tax code vastly more complex. The agency, in a formal notice, said it lacked the resources to issue as much guidance as taxpayers are seeking. Rule making is the heart of what Washington does, though it gets little news coverage. Once a bill becomes law it must be carried out through rules that range from advice memoranda to formal regulations, which are printed in the Federal Register. At that point, they are subject to public comment and at times public hearings before being revised and then formally adopted as the way the executive branch will carry out the new law. For many years, the government has relied on contractors to provide research and technical advice on regulations. Since 1980 one such firm, the Regulatory Group, has trained government employees in the art of writing regulations and has provided research and editorial consulting. It also works for private companies subject to regulation. I.R.S. rule making has been especially contentious, including decades of efforts by the I.R.S. general counsel's office to keep secret the guidance issued to agency executives and field personnel. Several regulation experts and tax lawyers warned of dangers if the tax police must enforce rules written by those skilled at devising tax-free paths through the maze of the Internal Revenue Code. Looking at the issue in its broadest terms, Gary D. Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization that tracks the Office of Management and Budget, warned that the Bush administration was turning over too much government responsibility to those it is supposed to be keeping an eye on. ''People would chuckle at letting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or OMB Watch write the laws,'' he went on, ''but that is what is being done by this administration, which keeps outsourcing more and more regulation work.'' - 36 -

SDI 2008 STP

5. <insert conditionality or dispo theory> 6. Agent Counter plans are bad
a. they steal are aff and force us to debate ourselves b. Decrease topic specific education c. Voting issue for ground and fairness

____/____ 2AC Blocks

7. Delegation ruins separation of powers which is key to democracy, without democracy a planetary war is inevitiable.
Sankatsing 04 (Dr. Glenn Sankatsing, 2004, Political Democracy, A democratic alternative to liberal democracy, Democracy is not about telling lies, not even about telling the truth, but about listening to the authors of history, to hear what people think and aspire, to feel their heart beat and to watch how people act on their own behalf. No other social body than people with awareness is, therefore, entitled or capable of securing development and, in the long run, social and physical survival. No paternalist option, not by patriarchy, colonialism or imperialism, can ever substitute participation, and no delegation can ever engender democracy, because paternalism paves the way to oligarchy. Appropriation of power by elites only created social and political disasters in national policy and at the global level, and harbors only polarization and extreme violence. The globalization of appropriation of power and inter-elite confrontation, marginal to the genuine interests of the people of the world, recently set off the first planetary war between reciprocal fundamentalisms giving rise to two rival brands of terrorism, which threatens the survival of the species. Representative democracy is the only viable road left open to pursue global harmony by providing the minimum conditions to overcome three imminent threats, the collision in development, the collapse of ecology and the confrontation in religion, every single one of which directly endangering the survival of humanity. Representative democracy, whose penetrating roots are anchored in justice, equality, freedom and solidarity, as non-negotiable basic values of human coexistence, is the only realm capable of offering a development-oriented project of society and a democratic response to usurpation of power.

- 37 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

1. Perm – Do Both Both the USFG and the IRS can do the plan which makes the cp non competitive 2. The perm avoids the link-WHEN THE IRS AND USFG WORK TOGETHER THE IRS TAKES THE CREDIT FOR THE BILL.

- 38 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Double Bind Extend the Double Bind - either 1. The plan isn’t perceived and businesses don’t take the incentives. If companies don’t perceive the incentives they don’t solve for our case. 2. The incentives are perceived. Extend the NY times in 2007 – Bush has recently received a lot of public criticism for delegating his authority to the IRS. This proves that people will pay attention and attribute the CP to Bush. This means they have no net benefit and in a world with no net benefit you should vote affirmative.


- 39 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Solvency deficit a. the CP can’t solve the Splash and Dash loop hole they can’t pass the piece of legislation that closes it. b. Extend our impact arguments from the 1 and 2ACs LaJeunesse in 8, Liu in 5, Mistral ’04, and Bearden 00 that proves that trade wars lead to nuc wars. c. Solvency deficit outweighs the net benefit. i. Timeframe – The EU is already threatening a trade war over “splash and dash” if we don’t solve the problem immediately there will be a trade war. Where as the impact of the net benefit won’t be felt until after January. ii. Probability – its much more likely the U.S. will go to war over the economy than <insert neg impact>

- 40 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks


- 41 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

1. Extend our Sankatsing 04 democracy prevents global war and

Delegation cripples democracy
CATO ’98 (CATO, 1998, The CATO Handbook, Institute advocating public policy, “The Delegation of Legislative Powers”,

The concern over congressional delegation of power is not simply theoretical and abstract, for delegation does violence, not only to the ideal construct of a free society, but also to the day-to-day practice of democracy itself. Ironically, delegation does not help to secure "good government''; it helps to destroy it.

- 42 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks


1. McCain will win-several reasons CBS News, 08( source) The poll contains troubling signs for Obama as he looks to mobilize the Democratic Party behind him following his long and sometimes bitter battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, however. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama in the general election. McCain leads Obama by 8 points among registered independent voters, considered a key voting block in November. The Arizona senator leads Obama 46 percent to 38 percent, with 11 percent of respondents undecided.Sixty-three percent of all voters-including more than hald of the democractic party voters- say the length of the Demoocratic primary battle has hurt the Democratic nominee’s chance. Just 27 percent say it has helped him.McCain is seen as “very likely” to be an effective Conmander in Chief by mnore registered voters than either Obama or Clinton. Thirty-nine percent of those surveyed said McCain is “very likey” to be effective, versus 25 percent for Obama and 22 percent for Clinton. Howeve, a majority says it is at least “somewhat likely” any of the three candidates would be effective.

2. Mccain will win-hillary defectors, independans, red states, and latin votes Perce, 08 (Joseph, editor@political bull, www.political Mccain will win) Help for McCain will come from former Clinton supporters that will come to his side during the November Election. According to a recent article on CBS News, "Twelve percent of Democrats say they will support McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who defected to President Bush in 2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama in the general election".The same article goes on to point out that McCain leads Obama by 8 votes among registered Independent voters.Two other important factors to consider in November are the Latino vote and the vote from the so-called "Red States". Despite claims that Obama is making in-roads in the Red States, the numbers seem to prove otherwise. Obama has won 14 red states and over half of them have not voted for a Democrat to be president in the general election in over 40 years, according to an article on the Washington Post. Obama will certainly have a tough time getting a majority of the Latino vote as well, as the Florida primary exemplifies (Despite the fact that it was not counted). Ultimately, it is my opinion for the reasons stated above, that McCain will win the 2008 election.

3. Polls are wrong-electoral votes favor McCain

- 43 -

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks Montopolic, 6/25/08 (Brian political correspondent, CBS news www. Obama is no Dukakis: The Illinois senator is a far more charismatic campaigner, and will not take the sort of time off from running for president that Dukakis disastrously did in 1988. And as Power Line points out, June polls have become far more predictive of final results since Dukakis’ failed run. But even now, McCain’s chances may be better than these early national polls suggest: CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder examined the general election map Friday and found that between base states and those leaning towards McCain, the Arizona senator could claim 220 electoral votes. Obama culd claim 212. Links 4. Bush is very unpopular to begin with, the country is too mad at him for not acting sooner, acting now will not increase his popularity dramatically CBS news, 08 (cbs news, June 21 2008, President Bush flawed energy) Most, if not all, of the damage was avoidable. Shortly after taking office, George W. Bush undertook a sweeping review of U.S. energy policy aimed at expanding the nation's supply of vital fuels. The "reality is the nation has got a real problem when it comes to energy," he declared on March 14, 2001. "We need more sources of energy." At that time many of the problems evident today were already visible. Energy demand in mature industrial nations was continuing to grow as the rising economic dynamos of Asia, especially China, were beginning to make an impact. By 2002 the Energy Department was predicting that China would soon overtake Japan, becoming the world's second-largest petroleum consumer, and that developing Asia as a whole would account for about one-fourth of global consumption by 2020. Also evident was an unmistakable slowdown in the growth of world production, the telltale sign of an imminent "peaking" in global output [see Klare, "Beyond the Age of Petroleum," November 12, 2007]. Because continued reliance on oil would mean increased reliance on imported petroleum, especially from the Middle East, Bush sought to deflect public concern by calling for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other protected areas. As a result, most public discourse on the Bush/Cheney plan focused on drilling in ANWR, and no attention was paid to the implications of increased dependence on imported oil — even though oil from ANWR, in the most optimistic scenario, would reduce US need for imports (now about 60 percent) by just 4 percent. It follows, then, that while the hike in prices is due largely to ever increasing demand chasing insufficiently expanding supply, the Bush Administration's energy policies have greatly intensified the problem, andering the majority of system at any cost, and by adding to the "fear factor" in international speculation through its bungled invasion of Iraq and bellicose statements on Iran, it has made a bad problem much worse.

5. No Link-Their evidence is terrible, their first card addresses how the 4 battleground states are key, and then the link evidence talks about how 51 percent of Americans believe alternative energy is the key issue, it will decide their vote. No where in this card does it link those 5 percent to the voters to being voters in the four key states, if Obama wins those states, then according to their avidence, he will win.

6. Warming not a key issue—its declining in public importance - 44 -

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks Enviroment and Energy Daily, 4/2/08 The percentage of Americans who said global warming requires immediate attention also declined over the two-year period, from 77 to 69 percent, raising a potential public opnion barrier for Congress. Somethin is not getting to the puclic about climate change. 7. .Linkk Turn- Tax credit is unpopular McElroy in 8 ( Anduin McElroy, will biodiesel tax credit be extended, May 2008, Biodiesel Magazine) Because the biodiesel tax credit is a tax pakage, it is difficutlt to add on to a bill. They Ways and means committee is the principle committee that has tauthority over tax legislation. A tax package was negotiated with the commeitee for the EISA, but it didn’t make the final bill. Because the administration dind not want a tax package in the energy bill, we are looking for other vehicles where the tax package will be welcome. 8. Tax credits are not popular with the public, they actually take money from them Hurst 08,( April 8th 2008, Clean energy tax credits will not be extended, google) “I would argue that wind is over-subsidized,” said Alexander. “Wind is a proven technology… and this amendment would focus on emerging baseload technologies.” The amendments are being considered as part of a housing and foreclosure package and they are completely unrelated to the House’s Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act (H.R. 3221), which would have rolled back tax breaks for oil companies in order to pay for the renewable tax incentives. The tax package last fell short of passage in the Senate in February - by a margin of one vote. These tax credits are part of a package, and may in fact cost the public money, this is one reason it is not poplar with them. I am a strong advocate of renewable energy, but I’m not totally convinced that federal tax credits are the most effective or efficient way of building a clean energy presence in our national portfolio.

9. Your impacts are empiraclly false, supporters have been crying wolf for 20 years

Bandow, 7/31/07(doug, American spectator) The LOST lobby issued a profusion of hysterical warnings of impending chaos and violence on the high seas, but nothing happened. Life went on as usual. No one other than the transies noticed the absence of a ratified LOST. However, internationalist goo-goos never rest and State Department employees act like moths around a light when they near a treaty. So President George H.W. Bush began negotiations to "fix" LOST, a process completed by the usual suspects in the Clinton administration. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proclaimed success in producing a new and improved variant of LOST, and the rush began: Washington signed as a cascade of ratifications brought the treaty into effect, leading to demands for formal American assent.
10. Customary International Law already solves all the nenefits of LOS ratification - 45 -

SDI 2008 STP Glodsmith and Rabkin, 07 (Jack, prof at Harvard, Washington post)

____/____ 2AC Blocks

Supporters note that many of the treaty's "freedom of the seas" provisions favor U.S. interests. But the United States already receives the benefits of these provisions because, as Negroponte and England acknowledged, they are "already widely accepted in practice." They maintain that ratifying the convention would nonetheless provide "welcome legal certainty." In recent years, however, the United States has not received much legal certainty from international tribunals dominated by non-American judges, and what it has received has not been very welcome. There is little reason to expect different results from these tribunals. President Bush invokes a different rationale for ratifying the convention, arguing that it would "give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." What this really means is that American views of the law of the sea, even on issues related to national security, could be outvoted by a majority in an international forum. How can this make us safer?

9. Alternate Causalities: Studies show Africans do not go to clinics for family planning because of social stigma. Caldwell 02 (John, the Australian national university) One solution to the problems of service density and motivation has been identified as social marketing,. Beegle concluded from her study of the situation in Tanzana that levels of contraceptive use could be raised if pharmacies dispensed pills and injectables. The availability of pills, injectables, pharmacies, and foams at pharmacies and siple medical stores ad raised levels of contraceptive practice sustantiall even though the costs were three to fice times those charged by the clinics. The anonomous nature f the market, the fact that one could purchase a method privately, and the no- questions asked approach resulted in the supplying of a much wider clientele. The same effect could be achieved, however, wer the national family planning program to provide contraceptive supplies to such outlets. 10.Empiraccly Denied-The gag rule hs been in effect, but the impacts have not happened, their timeframe is terrible, case outweighs

- 46 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

9. McCain’s hardline stance is limited to economic sanctions-he does not want a military strike Rosen-08(James Washnigtion, Americas elections headquerters, Fox) To that, John McCain, the likely Republican nominee said,”Channels of communication have been opened and will remain pen. I would continue to quote McCain, “but the time has now come for effective sanctions on Iran which will then…To be clear about his, E.D., neither Barack Obama nor Republican John McCain presently advocated a military strike, which is also why they are suspected of developing a nuclear weapons capability. 10. Even in the wake of Iran’s new missile testing, McCain’s stance is as moderate as Obama’s Strobel, 08(Warren, US news, Knight Ridder) The White House and two major presidential candidates, McCain and Obama, immediately condemned the missile launches. Obama, who has advocated direct talks with Iran, said they highlighted the need for “direct and aggressive diplomacy,” backed by tougher sanctions. McCain questioned the usefulness of past overtures to Iran and also called for more sanctions.

- 47 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

A. Perm, do both it’s double the solvency. Sanya Carleyolsen, PhD candidate Public Policy @ UNC, Summer 2006, “Tangled in the Wires,” 46 Nat. Resources J. 759, ln
A transition to wide-scale RE deployment will require continued government efforts to develop feasible and consistent economic incentives, comprehensive national- and state-level energy plans, and a stronger regulatory environment. State governments need to enhance their energy plans with tighter environmental targets and more extensive initiatives. Local governments need to expand the scope of planning initiatives to include policies that protect, legitimize, and advance RE development. All levels of government and public actors need to coordinate RE efforts in order to advance a more effective, cohesive movement.

B. Second, there is an obvious solvency deficit, the CP can’t solve international modeling, and therefore can’t access our global warming advantage. Robert K. Huffman, lawyer, and Jonathan M. Weisgall, VP at MidAmerican Holdings,Winter 2008, “Climate Change and the States,” Sustainable Development Journal,
However, it is difficult to see how a linked international cap-and-trade framework could be crafted so as not to constitute a compact or even a treaty, which would be impermissible under Article I, § 10, cl. 1, regardless of the presence or absence of congressional approval. In order to have a properly functioning linkage between markets, there would need to be guarantees regarding enforceability and permanence. Without legally enforceable guarantees about the quality of the credits being traded, the markets are unlikely to succeed. There would be a serious problem, for example, if an offset project in California created credits that were purchased by a steel manufacturer in France, and California de-linked itself from the markets. The problem of how the French manufacturer would account for the credits in the absence of a monitoring or verification mechanism to account for what is happening in California is a significant one. The only way to ensure the integrity of the credits being traded in the marketplace is to create a framework that is robust enough to protect all of the parties involved. This would presumably include the inability to voluntarily leave the program and would be most easily accomplished with some sort of central emissions registry that aggregates and processes data from all participants. These components are almost certain to create a compact under the Compacts Clause, which would then require congressional approval in order to be valid.

C. Even if they do get modeled internationally, the states will still be viewed as unconstitutional, tanking federalism and turning CP solvency. D. Federal action is key, states can’t solve for a number of reasons. Barry G. Rabe, University of Michigan, November 2002, Pew Center, “Greenhouse and Statehouse,”
There are, however, significant limitations facing any long-term strategy that relies primarily on the initiative of states. Many cases of state policy innovation in climate change are matched by other states that have proven indifferent or hostile to the issue. In turn, limited fiscal resources deter innovation, particularly given the current fiscal distress facing many states. Moreover, the very notion of a purely decentralized approach raises basic questions of efficiency. A potential tapestry of standards and programs that varied markedly from state to state could serve to heighten compliance costs for regulated parties as opposed to a more uniform approach. Nevertheless, the recent evolution of state policy poses a fundamental challenge to conventional thinking about the design of and political prospects for climate change policy in the United States and, in the process, offers a variety of policy options for possible adoption at the national level.

E. Finally, federal action is key Jacalyn R. Fleming, JD Albany, 2001, “The scope of federal authority,” 65 Alb. L. Rev. 497, p ln
Despite this history of deference to Congress, however, the Supreme Court is currently taking a hard look at whether the federal law in question is within Congress's constitutionally delegated authority. 11 Yet in the midst of this states' rights movement, one should remember that there is a need for a national policy in key areas beyond national defense. For instance,

- 48 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

federal authority is needed for issues that require a centralized solution due to their national significance. Environmental regulation is one such area. The centralization of environmental laws has numerous benefits, including uniformity and an increase in the pool of resources available to resolve the [*499] problem. 12 Similarly, federal laws are needed to provide minimum standards because states may face strong disincentives to enact or enforce environmental laws. 13 For example, states may focus on the monetary benefits from the added taxes and jobs gained from allowing development while ignoring the less obvious environmental effects such as cumulative impacts. 14 In turn, this may result in a "race to the bottom," where each local jurisdiction chooses short-term economic gain over the long-term health of the nation and the planet. 15

A. The California economy is on the brink because of budget deficits – the plan would force shortfalls or raising taxes, ensuring there’s no change a budget gets passed Evan Halper, LA Times, 7-1-2008, “State will pay,” ln
Legislators are making little progress closing a $15.2-billion shortfall. Democrats demand new taxes. Republicans say that is out of the question. Meanwhile, their inability to strike a deal threatens millions of Californians who rely on the government for healthcare and other services. Budget delays are not unusual. But the consequences will be particularly harsh this year. Many

- 49 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

of the healthcare clinics and other service providers that have used private loans to get by during past budget stalemates are unlikely to have easy access to such cash this year, as a result of the ongoing credit crunch brought on by the mortgage crisis. Independent service providers aren't the only ones that could soon be scraping to find money. Short-term bonds that finance officials rely upon to replenish state coffers cannot be sold without a budget in place, and getting them to market takes at least a month. The state may have to turn to a syndicate of investment banks for short-term financing, on terms that could prove costly, said H.D. Palmer, deputy director of the state Department of Finance. The financing could cost $140 million more than bond borrowing would have, he said. "In this budget environment," he said," I can think of a lot better uses for that money." Despite the grim state of affairs at the Capitol, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers Monday played down their failure to get a budget together and the dim prospects of reaching a deal soon. "I don't know at what stage they are in at this time," Schwarzenegger said at a news conference. "I know one thing, they are all working. . . . Everyone knows we are short on time. I think everyone knows it is a complicated, difficult budget." Schwarzenegger, who has been playing only a minor role in budget deliberations of late, turned the microphone over to Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. "We have been working," she said.
"We spent four hours yesterday working." Democrats in both houses have released budget plans that call for as much as $11 billion in new taxes. But so far they have not identified which taxes they would like to raise. Bass demurred again Monday. "We will see what happens as the process moves forward this week," she said. The governor later joked about his optimism that the state will not run out of cash by pulling out a personal money clip full of bills. "I still have some left," he said. Not all Republicans were in such good spirits. "Until we get to a spot where Democrats realize that taxes are not

going to work, it will be tough to move the budget forward," said Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis. Credit agencies will be watching closely: California has the second-lowest credit rating among states in the country, and some economists say a downgrade could be coming. The last time the state's creditworthiness was downgraded was during the budget crisis of 2003,
when its bond ratings fell to nearly junk status. The shortfall lawmakers faced then was roughly the size it is now.

B. California is key to the US economy Nutting, 11-9-2007, MarketWatch, “Could California be in recession?” lexis, tk
The state of California isn't taking any chances. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has ordered state agencies to plan for a 10% cutback in their budgets for next year, figuring that tax receipts could fall significantly along with home prices. California matters to the national economy, but trends in California do not necessarily presage what will happen nationally. About one in every eight Americans live in California. Its state gross product was $1.6 trillion in 2005, representing about 13% of the nation's economic output, slightly more than its 12% share of the population. In 2006, the median household income in California was $54,385, compared with $48,023 nationally. Between 1997 and 2005, California household incomes grew 4.4% annually, the fourth fastest growing state. Some of that growth came from the technology boom of the late 1990s, and some came from the housing boom, which, in just five years, doubled average home prices in the state to about $500,000. Now, of course, home prices are falling nationally, but especially in California. California's economy has a lot going for it. It's incredibly diverse, from the highest of high tech and Hollywood to the basic old-economy industries of agriculture, retail and manufacturing. California is by far the biggest farming state, with its annual output nearly three times its nearest competitor, Texas. California's agricultural output - nearly 20% of the nation's total -- matches the output of all the Farm Belt states combined. California accounts for about 11% of U.S. manufacturing output by value and 13% of construction. California accounts for 19% of the country's information services - including media and software. And it contributes 12% of the national output of financial services, trailing only New York in the financial sector.

C. Mead 92

A. No solvency, The counterplan tanks federalism by over-delegating federal powers to the states Stephen G. Calabresi, Law Prof @ NWU, March 2001, Annals of the American Academy of Political And Social Science, v574, p. 33
I fully agree that the Court ought to approach enforcement of the commerce clause and Section 5 power with restraint and that only in cases of egregious overreaching should acts of Congress be struck down. Congressional efforts to enforce the commerce power or Section 5 deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt both because of Congress’s greater information about the real world and because Congress is a coequal interpreter of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. But giving Congress the benefit of the doubt does not mean rubber-stamping everything that Congress has tried to do, as happened from 1937 to 1995. Sometimes in extreme cases, it is valuable for the Court to remind Congress of the constitutional values of federalism, and this is what I think happened in Lopez, City of Boerne, and Morrison. In each of these cases, Congress was attempting novel federalism solutions to problems that a majority of the states seemed to be handling very well. It was accordingly appropriate for the Court to slow Congress down by forcing it to take a second look at what it had in haste done in each of these areas (Calabresi 1995).

B. Sudden court extension of Lopez triggers a social backlash that undermines federalism - 50 -

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks Steven G. Calabresi, Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. “A Government of Limited and Enumerated Powers,” Michigan Law Review December, 1995
First, I do not think the federal courts can ignore the powerful reliance interests that have grown up around the statutes enacted during and after the New Deal in reliance on a broader understanding of the Commerce Clause. Congress itself can repeal statutes for federalism reasons, as it is now doing, without worrying about considerations of precedent. The legislative process is such that new laws can be phased in over a period of many years thus accommodating reliance interests quite readily. The judicial process is much more rigid, however, and sudden mass overrulings would cause social disruption that the Court could do little to soften. The likeliest social reaction, in my view, to a sudden judicial abrogation of the New Deal would be a constitutional amendment formalizing the currently flawed case law understandings of the scope of congressional power. This result wrongly would upset the public while setting back if not destroying the cause of federalism. I therefore think it would be a grave mistake for the Court to overrule abruptly key New Deal precedents, many of which even may be defensible under the functional theory of federalism set out in Part I.

C. No solvency, Congress will roll back contravening judicial decisions Steven G. Calabresi, Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. “A Government of Limited and Enumerated Powers,” Michigan Law Review December, 1995
Moreover, even when the Court is determined to resist the policy objectives of a lawmaking majority, Dahl demonstrates that "Congress and the president do generally succeed in overcoming a hostile Court on major policy issues." 193 Dahl shows that when the Court strikes down a major national policy initiative, Congress and the President typically repass the law in defiance of the Court. These arguments, confirmed in recent scholarship, 194 constitute an important rebuttal to those who profess fear that national judicial activism someday might lead to a dangerous weakening of the constitutional powers of the national government.

D. No solvency, it’s empirically proven most Lopez rulings are overturned Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 2003, p. 770
Unfortunately for the judiciary, despite Lopez and its progeny, the drive to federalize crimes continues. And though Lopez has been used to challenge many of these federal criminal laws, "to date, [Lopez] has been of assistance to few defendants." In fact, as of the summer of 1998, of the 400 Lopez challenges made to federal statutes, only three had been upheld.

A. Striking down congressional power to regulate energy would require overturning all of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause Peter Moyers, Princeton, Spring 1998, “Drug Legalization,” Princeton U.L.J., v. 11, iss. 2, 98/
Wickard v Filburn (1942) affirmed the decision in NLRB and granted additional power. The respondent in the case was found guilty of violating a law
prohibiting the production of more than 11.1 acres of wheat. Even though he did not sell his extra wheat, the Court found that the respondent along with others could possibly substantially affect the wheat market were they all to violate the quota. Although Filburn’s acts did not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce, many "Filburns" could do so. The risk of substantial effect was enough for congressional regulation. Therefore, Congress’ interest in stabilizing prices on the wheat market required farmers not to exceed the quota, even if the surplus was not used for commercial purposes. This decision granted Congress the power to regulate non-commercial, local activity if it presents the risk of "substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." These cases bring us to the most recent decision of U.S. v Lopez (1995). In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist notes that three categories of activity may be regulated by Congress under the power of the Commerce Clause. First, the channels of interstate commerce are open to congressional regulation. Second, Congress may regulate the persons or things, the instrumentalities, of interstate commerce. Third, an activity may be regulated if it has a substantial relation to interstate commerce, or more specifically, substantially affect interstate commerce. In Lopez, the government argued under the third category, attempting to show that the presence of firearms on school grounds has substantial relation to interstate commerce. The Court found the argument to lack force, asserting that the definition of substantial relation or effect the government was putting forth would transform Commerce Clause power into "a general police power of the sort retained by the States." This decision does not categorically reject the federalization of police powers but rather affirms the doctrine of substantial relation or effect. The Court was unwilling to build "inference upon inference" to see a substantial economic effect; the presence of firearms on school grounds was found to be too far removed from interstate commerce to come under the third category. The Court would be

faced with a similar case in the congressional policy of outlawing the use, sale and possession of drugs. In order for the congressional policy to prevail, it must show that the possession and use of drugs, sanctioned by the state policy, substantially affect interstate commerce. However, in order to be consistent with Lopez and Wickard, whose doctrine of substantial risk of effect has never been overturned, and in the absence of empirical evidence, the Court must recognize that even the risk of an activity substantially affecting interstate commerce is sufficient for legitimate congressional regulation. I find the activities

- 51 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

sanctioned by the state policy to be of sufficient risk of substantially affecting interstate commerce to find the congressional policy a constitutional regulation denying the practice of the activities sanctioned by the initiative. The state policy demonstrates the risks involved in allowing states, in the case of drug policy, to pursue different policies. As I argue above, the legalization of drugs within one state almost certainly will substantially burden the effective pursuit of drug use and possession prevention in other states. A neighboring state would have to create nearly impervious borders in order to remain faithful to its anti-drug policy; one wonders if the free flow of people to and from the state, let alone commerce, would remain a possibility. By upholding the constitutionality of the congressional policy, the Court would recognize and condemn the substantial burden a state pursuing an independent drug policy places on neighboring states. Admittedly, to the casual observer, the Court’s decision would appear to be a significant usurpation of states’ police powers and a step toward a unitary system. I agree that the Court ought to be wary of assaults on federalism. The decision should not be looked upon by future Courts as a precedent for allowing the nationalization of police powers, but rather as an affirmation of Congress’ power to regulate any activities, including crimes, that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In this case, the state policy creates a risk of substantially affecting interstate commerce. To deny Congress’ power in this case would be to overturn nearly all

Commerce Clause precedents as well as Marigold. And to overturn Marigold would be to all but eliminate any non-enumerated means Congress requires to pursue its powers and duties. Although to find for the federal government might blur the line of federalism, to find for the state would strip Congress of its power, granted in Marigold, to act beyond its enumerated means to pursue its enumerated duties. The latter I do not think our system can tolerate.

B. That would require striking down the ESA – it’s based on the commerce clause Mollie Lee, 11-1-2006, Yale L. J., “Environmental economics,”
When Congress enacted the ESA, it did so with very little debate and with overwhelming public support. (11) The environmental movement was at its peak, (12) and a nation of newfound environmentalists was eager to respond to wellpublicized stories about threats to the bald eagle, blue whale, polar bear, and other "charismatic fauna." (13) Endangered species already received some protection from statutes enacted in the prior decade, (14) but these statutes were limited in scope, and it soon became apparent that they were inadequate to prevent further extinctions. (15) Thus, in 1973 Congress adopted the ESA as a comprehensive approach to protecting threatened and endangered species throughout the nation. Congress relied chiefly on its Commerce Clause powers in passing the statute, (16) but the legislative history contains no explicit discussion of this constitutional authority. However, congressional findings and testimony suggest that Congress understood species extinctions as a problem with both commercial causes (17) and commercial consequences. (18) The causal link between commercial activity and species extinction is particularly prominent in the legislative findings for the statute. There, Congress noted that "various species offish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation." (19) While this finding suggests that Congress understood economic activity to be a primary cause of species extinction, Congress did not choose to protect endangered species by directly regulating economic activity. Instead, the ESA prohibited any activity that would jeopardize the continued survival of threatened and endangered species.

C. The ESA is critical to prevent species extinctions Union of Concerned Scientists 06
Biological diversity provides food, fiber, medicines, clean water, and many other products and services we depend upon every day. Yet nearly one-third of native species in the United States are at risk of disappearing. "As children, small creatures endlessly fascinate us; as adults, we can protect them so as to inspire future children." - Les E. Watling, Marine Ecologist It is clear that the ESA has given new hope for sustained survival to numerous species that were on the brink of extinction—less than one percent of species listed under the ESA have gone extinct since 1973, while 10 percent of candidate species still waiting to be listed have suffered that fate. In addition to the hundreds of species that the Act has protected from extinction, listing has contributed to population increases or the stabilization of population declines for more than 30 percent of listed species, as well as the recovery of such signature species as the peregrine falcon.

- 52 -

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks D. That causes extinction Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p
177 Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes.

A. The CP would be send a massive signal of unpredictability and confusion from the court Matthew Ford, Law Student at St John's University School of Law in New York. 9/15/05. “John Roberts, Stare Decisis, and the Return of Lochner: An Impetus to Jump-Start the Labor Movement.” Mr. Zine Magazine, A Project of the Monthly Review.
Our common law system is based largely on the idea of "stare create continuity so as to send

decisis," the idea that the rulings of judges are generally binding. Such a system is designed to a signal to society about what sort of behavior society will or will not tolerate, to avoid confusion certain to arise if laws are constantly changing, and to diminish the likelihood of agitating society as a whole or creating a backlash by
overturning laws that are widely valued. However, as Judge Roberts put it, "[S]tare decisis is not an inexorable command" ("Transcript: Day Two of the Roberts
Confirmation Hearings," 13 September 2004). The Supreme Court can overturn precedent when it sees fit, or, in the words of Roberts, "You have to consider whether [precedent has] created settled expectations that should not be disrupted in the interest of regularity in the legal system" ("Transcript: Day Two of the Roberts Confirmation Hearings," 13 September 2004). If Roberts sticks to his word, large, well-organized, militant groups such as the Women's Rights Movement should find comfort in the fact that Roberts has implicitly acknowledged that the overturning of such a key precedent as Roe v. Wade would likely lead to

large-scale upheaval by the well-organized feminist movement that would shake society so forcefully that to even fathom overturning the ruling is to start trouble.

B. Legal certainty is key to the economy Lars-Hendrik Röller, European policy perspectives, 2005, Economic Analysis and Competition Policy Enforcement in Europe,
The second challenge to economics and economists in competition policy is legal certainty. Predictability and legal certainty are important aspects of competition policy law. There is real economic value to transparency and predictable procedures. Running a successful businesses is all about the ability to be forward looking. Management decisions about technology, markets, competitors are complex and determine the success or failure of companies. Increased regulatory uncertainty raises costs, threatens survival and potentially reduces economic growth. More generally, clarity and credibility are likely to increase the effectiveness of a policy. The effectiveness of an antitrust agency is not solely determined by the decisions that it takes. To a large extent, the impact of an antitrust agency can be attributed to the decisions that it does not have to take. Indeed, if competition rules were well understood, and the consequences of breaking these rules are reasonably unattractive, less antitrust action would indeed be needed. In this sense, the credibility of the antitrust agency is a significant determinant of its effectiveness. The challenge to economics is to ensure that economic analysis does not come at the expense of legal certainty and predictability. As John Vickers recently pointed out,24 legal certainty and economic principles are not substitutes but complements. In other words, given the current state of affairs, we can get more of both, in particular in the context of guidelines. By enhancing predictability and legal certainty guidelines contribute towards the effectiveness of

competition policy.

C. Economic decline causes extinction Lt. Col, Tom Bearden, PhD Nuclear Engineering, April 25, 2000,
Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of the [wmd] weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then---as all the old strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will

- 53 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing

of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie.
Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.

A. Non-Unique: The Supreme Court ruled against the states in many key cases John Dinan, Executive director of the National Governors Association, 6-22-2008, Publius, “The state of American Federalism 2007-2008: resurgent state influence in the national policy process and continued state policy innovation,” rks, Lexis Nexis Academic.
The Court also ruled against state authority in three key preemption cases decided in early 2008, and by significant margins in each instance. In Riegel v. Medtronic, No. 06-179 (2008), in a ruling from which Justice Ginsburg alone dissented, on the grounds that it amounted to a "constriction of state authority" and "a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices," the Court held that the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) preempted state common-law challenges to medical devices that had been given premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Then, in Preston v. Ferrer, No. 06-1463 (2008), with Justice Thomas issuing a lone dissent, the Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California's Talent Agencies Act to the extent that it called for legal questions arising from a contract dispute to be initially referred to an administrative agency rather than an arbitrator, as specified in the federal law. Finally, in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Assn., No. 06-457 (2008), with Justice Ginsburg concurring and Justice Scalia concurring in part, the Court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 preempted a Maine law imposing various requirements on the transportation of tobacco products with an eye to reducing youth smoking. The Court reasoned: "to interpret the federal law to permit these, and similar, state requirements could easily lead to a patchwork of state service-determining laws, rules, and regulations."

B. Non-Unique, Bush and the conservative court have abandoned federalism – laundry list David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer, “No Federalism on the Right,” May 19, 2005,,2933,156260,00.html
Federalism has always been a key element of American conservatism. In his 1960 manifesto, The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater called for the federal government to "withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the Constitution reserves to the states." Ronald Reagan ran for president promising to send 25 percent of federal taxes and spending back to the states. As Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, Newt Gingrich stressed that "we are committed to getting power back to the states." Lately, though, conservatives -- at last in control of both the White House and both houses of Congress -- have forgotten their longstanding commitment to reduce federal power and intrusiveness and return many governmental functions to the states. Instead, they have taken to using their newfound power to impose their own ideas on the whole country. Conservatives once opposed the creation of a federal Education Department. Congressional Republicans warned, "Decisions which are now made in the local school or school district will slowly but surely be transferred to Washington…. The Department of Education will end up being the Nation's super schoolboard. That is something we can all do without.'' But President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act establishes national education testing standards and makes every local school district accountable to federal bureaucrats in Washington. President Bush and conservative Republicans have been trying to restrain lawsuit abuse by allowing class-action suits to be moved from state to federal courts. The 2002 election law imposed national standards on the states in such areas as registration and provisional balloting. A 2004 law established federal standards for state-issued driver's licenses and personal identification cards. President Bush's "Project Safe Neighborhoods" transfers the prosecution of gun crimes from states to the federal government. The administration is trying to persuade federal courts to block implementation of state initiatives on medical marijuana in California and assisted suicide in Oregon. Perhaps most notoriously, President Bush and conservatives are pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in all 50 states. They talk about runaway judges and democratic decision-making, but their amendment would forbid the people of New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California or any other state from deciding to allow same-sex marriage. Marriage law has always been a matter for the states. We should not impose one uniform marriage law on what conservatives used to call "the sovereign states." Most recently, we have the specter of the Republican Congress seeking to override six Florida court decisions in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, intruding the federal government into yet another place it doesn't belong. Asked on Fox News about the oddity of conservatives seeking to over-ride states' rights, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes responded: "Please! States' rights? Look, this is a moral issue."

C. Non-Unique, despite high state action and activity, states are still in need of more power. - 54 -

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks John Dinan, Executive director of the National Governors Association, 6-22-2008, Publius, “The state of American Federalism 2007-2008: resurgent state influence in the national policy process and continued state policy innovation,” rks, lexis
States have long been the primary policy innovators in the US federal system, and as Dale Krane has noted, state policy activism "appears to be increasing at an accelerating pace" during the Bush presidency (Krane 2007, 462). State officials continued to take the lead on anumber of issues in 2007-2008, at times acting when federal policy was not forthcoming, at times expressing disagreement with federal policy, and at times proceeding independently of federal policy-makers (Greenblatt 2007b; Tubbesing 2008). In fact, as John Kincaid and Richard Cole suggest in their article for this issue, public awareness andsupport for continued state policy innovation may well account for the post-2005 uptick in public support for state governments recorded in their annual opinion surveys. As Kincaid and Cole report, their 2007 survey saw a continued drop in the percentage of individuals responding that state governments "gave them the least for their money" and a notable increase in the percentage of survey respondents saying that state governments "need more power."

A. Congress checks a destruction of federalism - 55 -

SDI 2008 STP Justice Breyer, 5-15-2000, “United States v. Morrison et al.,” Dissenting Opinion,

____/____ 2AC Blocks

The majority, aware of these difficulties, is nonetheless concerned with what it sees as an important contrary consideration. To determine the
lawfulness of statutes simply by asking whether Congress could reasonably have found that aggregated local instances significantly affect interstate commerce will allow Congress to regulate almost anything. Virtually all local activity, when instances are aggregated, can have "substantial effects on employment, production, transit, or consumption." Hence Congress could "regulate any crime," and perhaps "marriage, divorce, and childrearing" as well, obliterating the "Constitution's distinction between national and local authority." Ante, at 15; Lopez, 514 U. S., at 558; cf. A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 548 (1935) (need for distinction between "direct" and "indirect" effects lest there "be virtually no limit to the federal power"); Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251, 276 (1918) (similar observation). This consideration, however, while serious, does not reflect a jurisprudential defect, so much as it reflects a practical reality. We live in a Nation knit together by two centuries of scientific, technological, commercial, and environmental change. Those changes, taken together, mean that virtually every kind of activity, no matter how local, genuinely can affect commerce, or its conditions, outside the State--at least when considered in the aggregate. Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U. S., at 251. And that fact makes it close to impossible for courts to develop meaningful subject-matter categories that would exclude some kinds of local activities from ordinary Commerce Clause "aggregation" rules without, at the same time, depriving Congress of the power to regulate activities that have a genuine and important effect upon interstate commerce. Since judges cannot change the world, the "defect" means that, within the bounds of the rational, Congress, not the courts, must remain primarily responsible for striking the appropriate state/federal balance. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 552 (1985); ante, at 19-24 (Souter, J., dissenting); Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. , (2000) (slip op., at 2) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (Framers designed important structural safeguards to ensure that, when Congress legislates, "the normal operation of the legislative process itself would adequately defend state interests from undue infringement"); see also Kramer, Putting the Politics Back into the Political Safeguards of Federalism, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 215 (2000) (focusing on role of political process and political parties in protecting state interests). Congress is institutionally

motivated to do so. Its Members represent state and local district interests. They consider the views of state and local officials when they legislate, and they have even developed formal procedures to ensure that such consideration takes place. See, e.g., Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48 (codified in scattered sections of 2 U. S. C.). Moreover, Congress often can better reflect state concerns for autonomy in the details of sophisticated statutory schemes than can the judiciary, which cannot easily gather the relevant facts and which must apply more general legal rules and categories. See, e.g., 42 U. S. C. §7543(b) (Clean
Air Act); 33 U. S. C. §1251 et seq. (Clean Water Act); see also New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 167-168 (1992) (collecting other examples of "cooperative federalism"). Not surprisingly, the bulk of American law is still state law, and overwhelmingly so.

B. The feds can regulate greenhouse emissions because of the commerce clause – the plan doesn’t hurt federalism Robert K. Huffman, lawyer, and Jonathan M. Weisgall, VP at MidAmerican Holdings,Winter 2008, “Climate Change and the States,” Sustainable Development Journal,
The United States’ system of federalism allows the federal and state governments to share power in certain areas, while each maintains exclusive areas where the other may not regulate. The power of the federal government is constrained by the Constitution and does
not include general police powers, which are reserved to the states.46 State governments, however, may not regulate certain aspects of interstate and foreign commerce, foreign affairs, and other areas of reserved federal power. When states take actions to regulate greenhouse gases, it raises questions about the extent of state authority to regulate the economy and the environment. Linking emissions trading programs or enacting auto emissions regulations brings states to the far end of their regulatory authority, given the transborder nature of emission trading and carbon dioxide emissions generally. This section explores the constitutional issues that can potentially arise from state actions to reduce GHG emissions. Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause, Article I, § 8, cl. 3, gives the federal government the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States[.]”47 The Supreme Court has long considered the Commerce Clause to be “an implicit restraint on state authority, even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute.”48 This concept is known as the Dormant Commerce Clause—wherein the Constitution acts as a prohibition on certain types of state actions that affect interstate commerce, invalidating the state law by negative implication.49 Although the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine has gained widespread acceptance, at least two current Supreme Court justices (Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas) reject it altogether. Regardless of these two justices, it is highly unlikely that a majority of the Court would reject the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine. Were the doctrine to be rejected by the Court, state actions would never be invalidated for conflicting with unexercised congressional power under the Commerce Clause, but would be subject to invalidation only for express or implied preemption by federal law.

C. American federalism isn’t modeled – multinational states prove Alfred Stepan, Professor of Government at Oxford and Columbia, 1999, Journal of Democracy 10.4, 19-34, “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model,” muse
In seeking to understand why some countries are reluctant to adopt federal systems, it is helpful to examine what political science has had [End Page 20] to say about federalism. Unfortunately, some of the most influential works in political science today offer incomplete or insufficiently broad

definitions of federalism and thereby suggest that the range of choices facing newly democratizing states is narrower than it actually is. In large part, this stems from their focusing too exclusively on the model offered by the United States, the oldest and
certainly one of the most successful federal democracies. One of the most influential political scientists to write about federalism in the last half-century, the late William H. Riker, stresses three factors present in the U.S. form of federalism that he claims to be true for federalism in general. 1 First, Riker assumes that every longstanding federation, democratic or not, is the result of a bargain whereby previously sovereign polities agree to give up part of their sovereignty in order to pool their resources to increase their collective security and to achieve other goals, including economic ones. I call this type of federalism comingtogether federalism. For Riker, it is the only type of federalism in the world. Second, Riker and many other U.S. scholars assume that one of the goals of federalism is to protect individual rights against encroachments on the part of the central government (or even against the "tyranny of the majority") by a number of institutional devices, such as a bicameral legislature in which one house is elected on the basis of population, while in the other house the subunits are represented equally. In addition, many competences are permanently granted to the subunits instead of to the center. If we can call all of the citizens in the

- 56 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

polity taken as a whole the demos, we may say that these devices, although democratic, are "demosconstraining." Third, as a result of the federal bargain that created the United States, each of the states was accorded the same constitutional competences. U.S. federalism is thus considered to be constitutionally symmetrical. By contrast, asymmetrical arrangements that grant different competencies and group-specific rights to some states, which are not now part of the U.S. model of federalism, are seen as incompatible with the principled equality of the states and with equality of citizens' rights in the post-segregation era. Yet although these three points are a reasonably accurate depiction of the political structures and normative values associated with U.S. federalism, most democratic countries that have adopted federal systems have chosen not to follow the U.S. model. Indeed, American-style federalism embodies some values that would be very inappropriate for [End Page 21] many democratizing countries, especially multinational polities. To explain what I

mean by this, let me review each of these three points in turn.

A. Federalism sparks ethnic conflict Willy Mutunga, Executive Director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, The Nation, May 20, 2001.
Federalism promotes localism, ethnic and racial xenophobia and undermines the sense of nationhood. Unsurprising the United States and Nigeria are living survivors of debilitating separatist wars between their regions; India, despite its federal miracle still bleeds from secessionist movements. The introduction of ethnic-based 'quasi-regionalism' in post-Mengistu Ethiopia has fuelled the conflict over the proposed Oromia state by members of the Oromo ethnic population. Majimboism in the early 1960s had let off the lid of secessionist movements, particularly by Kenyan Somalis in North Eastern Province and the clamour for an autonomous "Mwambao" on the Coast. There is no guarantee that this time around, majimboism will not trigger ethnic recidivism and separatist movements, especially in North Eastern, Coast and Eastern province where the Oromo population may lean towards the movement for an Oromia state. Federalism's main weakness is that it is a very expensive system that duplicates services and office holders at the regional and federal levels. It lacks uniform policies on such issues of national concern as laws regulating marriages, divorce, abortions, liquor, voting rights and public education. Rather than ensuring economic equity, as many proponents of majimboism assume, it sets those regions, states or cantons with a weak market-base, capital, and resources down the spiral of economic decline. It subjects local governments to double subordination-by the central and regional governments-and the citizens to triple taxation. At a time when the country's economy is on its knees, the feasibility of a well-financed transition is highly doubtful.

- 57 -

SDI 2008 STP B. This risk of ethnic conflict outweighs. 1. Risk World Policy Journal March 22, 1999

____/____ 2AC Blocks

"The defining mode of conflict in the era ahead," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared in 1993, "is ethnic conflict. It promises to be savage. Get ready for 50 new countries in the world in the next 50 years. Most of them will be born in bloodshed."Moynihan's apocalyptic vision is not untypical of the prevailing wisdom. History, it seems to many, has exacted its own revenge on what Francis Fukuyama so rashly suggested was the posthistorical world, in the form of conflicts sparked and sustained by ancient and incomprehensible hatreds and bloodlusts. To many analysts, class conflict is passe; the "proxy wars" of the Cold War era can, by definition, no longer occur; and even realpolitik, with rational states pursuing their clearly defined interests, seems dated. Ethnicity, it seems, is the new, dominant causality.

2. Magnitude Los Angeles Times, February 26, 1993
It is federalism and confederation that we should be pushing -- not ethnic independence. We should be tentatively exploring whether some type of Yugoslav confederation is a solution that would make it easier for different ethnic groups to live together in the new states. The problems we see in Bosnia are nothing compared to the bloodshed -- and the danger of fascists coming into control of nuclear weapons -- that would occur if huge multiethnic countries like India, Pakistan and Indonesia start disintegrating.

A. Federalism leads to secessionist fragmentation Michael Kelly, Director of Legal Research, Writing & Advocacy at Michigan State University's Detroit College of Law, 1999, Drake Law Review
However, as political sovereign entities, federations are inherently susceptible to fragmentation. Indeed, the fault lines along which a potential break can occur are usually already in place-fixed politically, historically, or both. This flows partially from the inherent internal inequality of their collective constituent parts. In the international legal system, individual nation-states are formally accorded equal legal status vis-a-vis each other. The reality, however, is that nation-states are clearly unequal in both power and ability. Likewise, federations generally accord equal legal status among their constituent parts, be they states, provinces, regions, or oblasts. And just as in the international system, the reality is that those constituent parts are often unequal in terms of development, population, and economic power. For example, just as France and Fiji share equal legal status on the international plane but are vastly unequal in reality, California and Rhode Island enjoy equal legal status under the United States Constitution, but are [*242] unequal in reality. The same comparisons can be made between many internal regions of almost any federation: Nizhniy-Novgorod and Yakutia in Russia, Uttar Pradesh and Manipur in India, Amazonia and Rio in Brazil, or Ontario and Prince Edward Island in Canada. Consequently, inequality is a fundamental feature in almost any federation, whether or not it breeds secessionist ideas on its own. Just as devolution has been seized upon by nation-states, federal or otherwise, as a way to address the self-deterministic aspirations of communities within their borders, so too has federalism been attempted by non-federal nation-states as a self- preservationist move toward the middle ground between separatists and advocates of stronger centralized government. The examples, however, of Mali, Uganda, Ethiopia, Zaire (now Congo), Nigeria, Kenya, and the Cameroons bear out the conclusion that these efforts, at least in post-colonial Africa, have generally failed, except for the notable recent example of South Africa under its new constitution. Consequently, while federated systems of government can work in multi-ethnic states, with the appropriate degree of top-down devolution of administration and self-government, it seems that they cannot be universally extrapolated to work in every instance. A. Recent Federated Break-ups Nonetheless, when inherent inequality is added to other, seemingly dormant, fragmentary ingredients such as historical, ethnic, religious, customary, or linguistic differences, a divisive stew can come to brew in which one of the

- 58 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

potatoes may try to jump out of the pot. Indeed, the recent federated crack-ups of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia demonstrate that the pot itself may burst, allowing all of the elements previously held together to spill forth and go their separate ways. While this Article does not address the political, theoretical, economic, or social failures of the communist philosophy that was applied to the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, it does take note of the fact that these were all federal systems, at least on paper, that spun apart into separate, smaller, more ethnically homogenous nation-states after the fall of communism in Europe. Table 3 delineates some previously federated nation-states that have broken down into smaller successor states during this decade.

B. Unbridled secession leads to global war and WMD use Gidon Gottlieb, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Diplomacy University of Chicago Law School, 1993, Nation Against State, p. 26-27
Self-determination unleashed and unchecked by balancing principles constitutes a menace to the society of states. There is simply no way in which all the hundreds of peoples who aspire to sovereign independence can be granted a state of their own without loosening fearful anarchy and disorder on a planetary scale. The proliferation of territorial entities poses exponentially greater problems for the control of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and multiplies situations in which external intervention could threaten the peace. It increases problems for the management of all global issues, including terrorism, AIDS, the environment, and population growth. It creates conditions in which domestic strife in remote territories can drag powerful neighbors into local hostilities, creating ever widening circles of conflict. Events in the aftermath of the breakup of the Soviet Union drove this point home. Like Russian dolls, ever smaller ethnic groups dwelling in larger units emerged to secede and to demand independence. Georgia, for example, has to contend with the claims of South Ossetians and Abkhazians for independence, just as the Russian Federation is confronted with the separatism of Tartaristan. An international system made up of several hundred independent territorial states cannot be the basis for global security and prosperity.

A. Federalism hurts economic stability. Sudarshan Gooptu, Economist with the Debt and International Finance Division in the International Economics Department of the World Bank. 2005. The World Bank Report: East Asia Decentralizes. “Making Local Government Work.” International experience since the early 1980s, especially in Latin America, suggests that without appropriate accountability and transparency mechanisms, decentralization can encourage dangerous opportunistic behavior by state and local authorities. If left unchecked, such opportunism could undermine macroeconomic stability. The most vivid manifestation of this phenomenon is the softening of subnational budget constraints (Rodden 2000a; World Bank 2002). Avoiding this risk depends on the ability of the central government to prevent subnational authorities from passing their liabilities to higher-level governments.12 This, in turn, requires institutional mechanisms to discipline borrowing by state and local governments.

- 59 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

A. Russian federalism is already weak – total lack of federal control Gregory Shvedov, director of media in Kavkaz, 6-19-2008, “Hearing,” FNS, ln
The first thing I want to touch base would be the lack of federal control. We saw this map on the screen, when we observed the video which was made by Memorial, and it was good to recognize that the Northern Caucasus is a small part of the south of Russia. But it was also good to recognize to what extent this is a part of Russia. Unfortunately, during the last year is we do see that it is less and less a region which is under the control of federal authorities. What do I mean by this? I don't mean that the separatist movement is really developed very much in the regions of the Northern Caucasus. Not this is the main point. The main point is that the level of control, the level of federalism in Russia in general is really very weak. And especially in the Northern Caucasus, we can hardly see that. These regions are part of a bigger Russia.

B. Russia isn’t federalist now – extensive central power proves. Alexander N. Domrin, former Chief Specialist of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Russian Supreme Soviet. Spring, 2006. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems. 15 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 515. “Comparative Constitutional Law at Iowa: From Fragmentation to Balance: The Shifting Model of Federalism in Post-Soviet Russia.” Adopted in December 1993 in the aftermath of a violent, bloody confrontation between the Russian Federal Parliament and the President (occurring in September and October 1993; with Yeltsin's troops killing hundreds of protesters and defenders of the Parliament and the Constitution), 32 the new Constitution of Russia created an "imperial presidency" (or "superpresidential") form of government in the country. As to the federal model, the Constitution essentially introduced a centralized [*523] federation with elements of a unitary system. Unlike in the Constitution of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), 33 the units themselves are formally defined as "subjects" rather than "constituent units" of the Russian Federation. 34 Article 71 of the 1993 Constitution defines the area of exclusive federal jurisdiction. 35 The area is extremely broad. It would be fair to say that most of contemporary Russian law is federal law. It includes the main Russian codes of legislation: the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Code of Arbitration Procedure; as well as almost all commercial law. 36 The areas - 60 -

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks of exclusive federal jurisdiction also include control over federal property, the federal budget, federal taxes, transport, communications, power generation, currency, the treasury, financial institutions, postal service, armed forces, defense and security, foreign policy, and foreign economic relations. C. Russia won’t model American federalism, if they’re federalist at all it’ll be Russian style. Evgueni Vladimirovich Pershin, second director of the Analytical Department of the Federation Council Apparatus. Kazan Federalist, 2003. Number 4 (8). “Issues in the improvement of Russian federalism.”
The current state of federal relations in Russia requires practical steps aimed at its fundamental modernization. However, we should not forget that Russian federalism is a national product. It will not and should not look like the American or German models. Understanding of the foreign experience is important only to produce an essentially new model of federal relations at the next stage of self-development, which the researchers will later call “the Russian model of federalism.”

D. Russia models Britain federalism not American federalism. Evgueni Vladimirovich Pershin, second director of the Analytical Department of the Federation Council Apparatus. Kazan Federalist, 2003. Number 4 (8). “Issues in the improvement of Russian federalism.” If we can find the optimal variant of territorial power organization for Russia in the vast foreign experience, it would probably be the devolution processes that are on the way in Great Britain, Spain and a number of other states. This experience is much closer to Russia than the experience of federal state in Germany or America. Devolution is also not a panacea but a way or a method to solve state building problems.

- 61 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

A. Russian devolution will lead to secession and civil war Steven R. David, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, Foreign Affairs Jan 1999
Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely.

B. Russian civil war leads to nuclear war with the US Steven R. David, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, Foreign Affairs Jan 1999 Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So - 62 -

SDI 2008 ____/____ STP 2AC Blocks far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.

A. Centralization is crucial to Russian economic growth and preventing corruption Olivier Blanchard and Andrei Shleifer, MIT Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research and Harvard
University, Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research. “Federalism with and without political centralization. China versus Russia,” Working Paper No. 00-15; Harvard Institute of Economics Research Paper No. 1889 Feb 2000. Over the last decade, China's GDP has grown at one of the highest rates in the world, Russia's at one of the lowest. The di®erence has come mostly from the growth of the new private sector. In China, the new private sector has thrived. In Russia, it has stagnated. Why this sharp divergence between private sector evolutions? In both countries, the evidence points to the importance of the behavior of local governments. In China, local governments have actively contributed to the growth of new ?rms (Oi [1992], Qian and Weingast [1997].) In Russia, local governments have typically stood in the way, be it through taxation, regulation, or corruption (Shleifer [1997], Johnson et al. [1997], McKinsey [1999], and EBRD [1999].)1 There are two main hypotheses for the attitudes of local governments in Russia: The ?rst, call it \capture", is that local governments have been captured by the initial rent holders, primarily by the old ?rms which dominated the Russian economy before the transition. In that view, local governments have worked both to generate transfers to these ?rms, and to protect them from competition by new ?rms. In this ?rst view, their hostile attitude vis a vis the new private sector has been deliberate. The second view, call it \competition for rents", is that the behavior of local governments has been instead the unintended result of administrative disorganization. Too many agencies have tried to extract rents from new private firms, making it unprofitable to create or run a private business, at least legally.2 These two lines of explanation are plausible, and not mutually exclusive. But they raise the obvious question of why things have been di®erent in China. Here again, there are two main hypotheses: The ?rst is that the initial rent holders were weaker in China than in Russia. China started its transition from a very low level of economic de- velopment. Its agriculture did not rely on large collective farms, and its industry had relatively few large entreprises. Russia, in contrast, started its transition as a fully industrialized economy, dominated by large state ?rms and collective farms. According to this view, the potential for capture was simply more limited in China than in Russia. The second points to the strength of the central government in China. Transition in China has taken place under the tight control of the communist party. As a result, the central government has been in a strong position both to reward or to punish local administrations, reducing both the risk of local capture and the scope of competition for rents (Huang [1998]). By contrast, transition in Russia has come with the emergence of a fledgling democracy. The central government has been neither strong enough to impose its views, nor strong enough to set clear rules about the sharing of the proceeds of growth (Shleifer and Treisman [1999], Treisman [2000]). As a result, local governments have had few incentives either to resist capture or to rein in competition for rents. The aim of this paper is to explore this last argument, and more gen- erally to explore the role of federalism in transition. The question is an important one: Based on the experience of China, a number of researchers have argued that federalism could play a central role in development (see in particular Qian and Weingast [1997], Roland [2000].) Indeed, a new term, \market preserving federalism" has been coined to emphasize the bene?ts of decentralization for Chinese growth. We agree, but with an important caveat. We believe the experience of Russia indicates that another ingredi- ent is crucial, namely political centralization. In doing so, we echo a theme ?rst developed by Riker [1964]: For federalism to function and to endure, it must come with political centralization.

- 63 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

A. Indonesian decentralization is failing now – health care. Samuel S. Lieberman, Staff Associate at the Center for Policy Studies of the Population Council. Joseph J. Capuno, Assistant Professor at the University of the Philippines School of Economics. AND, Hoang Van Minh, Vietnamese Doctor. 2005. The World Bank Report: East Asia Decentralizes. “Making Local Government Work.”
Indonesia has not clarified the health roles and responsibilities of central and lower governments after three years of decentralization. Nor has the country moved to emphasize core public health functions, or seen marked improvements in specific areas such as infectious disease control, pharmaceuticals, and human resources. Sectors besides health also have indeterminate policies, prompting advice to clarify assignments across levels of government and sectors (World Bank 2003a).

B. Federalism won’t happen in Indonesia – historical legacy. Anthony Smith, lecturer in international relations, Faculty of International Studies, International Pacific College, 9/1/2001. New Zealand International Review.
Aside from these specific cases of regional turmoil, the centre-province relationship has changed since the fall of Suharto in May 1998. The provinces have universally demanded some degree of power sharing after the demise of the very dominant centre that characterised the New Order Regime of Suharto. The provinces and districts now elect their own leaders, and are no longer subject to Jakarta's interference. To undercut anti-Jakarta sentiment it has been a political imperative to consider autonomy. Indonesia's situation would, on the face of it, lend itself to federalism, but there are some powerful barriers to the adoption of such arrangements. Indonesia was briefly a federal polity after the Dutch left Indonesia in 1949. In less than a year, however, the Republic of the United States of Indonesia was abandoned. It was seen as a colonial legacy, one designed to weaken the fledgling state.

C. The colonial legacy hampers any chance of Indonesian federalism. Andrew MacIntyre, Professor at Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, March 7 2000.“Does Indonesia Have to Blow Apart.”
So there are all sorts of questions being asked. Anybody looking at Indonesia from the outside would quickly say, "What this country clearly needs is a good dose of federalism." And yet federalism is a curiously dirty word in Indonesia. Which goes back to historical reasons, the way in which the Dutch meddled in Indonesia and tried to foist a federal system on them that was clearly designed to fail. There are very bad memories of federalism. It's a word that's not legitimate in public debate.

D. There is no move towards Indonesian federalism now. Samantha F. Ravich, fellow in the Asian Studies Program at CSIS. Summer 2000. The Washington Quarterly. “Eyeing Indonesia through the Lens of Aceh.”
The proposed solutions intended to co-opt the four constituencies of Aceh may only prove a short-term fix if a systemic change to the relationship between the center and the provinces does not occur. One possible option that should be considered is a federalist system. It is unfortunate that the word "federalism" is a loaded term in Indonesia. It is reminiscent of the offer made to Indonesia by the Dutch in the late 1940s as a weak substitute for independence. Despite this historical resonance, the idea is once again being debated in Indonesia. At the moment, most members of the policymaking community are against it. They argue that an archipelagic country is not conducive to a federalist system; that the nation-building process must be completed before the conceptualization of the nation is substantively changed; that the threat of disintegration rises with a weak central

- 64 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

government (the result, they believe, of a federalist system); and that national security will be compromised because the armed forces will not have the flexibility to contain sea-based infiltration.

A. Federalism in Indonesia undermines growth across the board. Jose Edgardo Campos, Senior Strategy Advisor for Public Sector Reforms, Department of Budget and Management, the Philippines. AND, Joel S. Hellman, Political Counsellor at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. 2005. The World Bank Report: East Asia Decentralizes. “Making Local Government Work.”
Not surprisingly, in neither country has decentralization fulfilled the governance goals predicted by the most optimistic theories. In Indonesia, which is still in the early stages of its reform, the initial impact on perceptions of governance and selected outcomes has not been positive. There is a widely held view that decentralization has exacerbated corruption and significantly increased policy uncertainty across different levels of government. Decentralization has also led to a greater regulatory burden on firms and questionable financial management practices. These problems have contributed to a general weakening of the investment climate, which has harmed Indonesia’s growth prospects. In the Philippines, which has a longer record of decentralization, the picture is more mixed. Overall, perceptions of corruption have declined, and service delivery standards have improved somewhat. However, the link between these outcomes and improvements in the accountability of local politicians is weak.

B. Indonesian federalism creates a fiscal nightmare and capital flight. George E. Peterson, Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute and former Professor at Harvard University. AND, Elisa Muzzini, of the World Bank. 2005. The World Bank Report: East Asia Decentralizes. “Making Local Government Work.” Countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia have opted for political decentralization, with local authorities formally recognized as autonomous bodies. Inherent in their powers is setting priorities for local budgets, including capital budgets. Concern has arisen in both countries as to whether this type of decentralization can sustain capital investment and maintenance. In particular, the transfer of large numbers of central government employees— subject to wage protection—to local rolls, and the legal and political difficulties of raising local revenues, subject subnational governments to budget pressures. In the face of such pressures, local governments are thought more likely to maintain employment levels rather than adjust their budgets to sustain investment. Within capital programs, spending on maintenance and repair is believed to be particularly vulnerable. Displacement of local investment has potentially serious consequences. The World Bank has estimated that, in Indonesia for example, some 60 percent of total development expenditures are now a local responsibility (World Bank and Asian Development Bank 2003; World Bank 2003b, 2003c).

- 65 -

SDI 2008 STP

____/____ 2AC Blocks

A. Indonesia federalism sparks separatism and causes state dissolution. Manila Standard, 7/28/05. “FEDERALISM NO PANACEA.”
As in Japan, a federal union of semi-independent states in Indonesia would have encouraged separatism, as indeed the weakening of the central government after the fall of Suharto has encouraged separatist movements in Aceh, Manado and elsewhere. (Largely Catholic East Timor separated from predominantly Muslim Indonesia during Suharto's watch, with the active encouragement of the western [i.e. nominally Christian] media.) Federalism is more suitable for countries with large, contiguous land masses - such as Russia, Canada, the US, Brazil, Australia, India, Mexico and Germany - where centrifugal forces have less appeal. Yet even among these examples, there are separatist movements in Canada, Russia and India. Archipelagic countries (Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines) are better off with unitary states. The recent threat of certain Filipino mayors and governors, to secede from the Republic if President Arroyo is forcibly removed from power, may be dismissed as harmless political noise, but they may be aberrations of our personalistic culture, in the absence of a nationalistic one. In which case, federalism will just lead to the break-up of the Republic on the whim of regional political bosses.

B. Federalism in Indonesia stokes secessionist tendencies. Catharin E. Dalpino, fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution. September 2001. Brookings Institution, Policy Brief #89. “Indonesia at the Crossroads.”
The greatest challenge to Indonesia's internal stability is the management of the numerous communal conflicts and secessionist movements in the provinces, which have erupted or become worse in the post-Suharto era. Each is a unique situation, but all have been exacerbated by a lack of attention by the Indonesian government in recent years as political elites have struggled among themselves for power in a changing system. The 1999 law to decentralize government is beginning to take hold and could lay the groundwork for more equitable and amicable relations between Jakarta and the provinces in the long-term. But in the short-run, because central government controls have loosened while provincial controls are not yet established, decentralization may only be pouring fuel on the flames of these conflicts.

C. Secession in Indonesia sparks secessionism throughout Asia. Catharin E. Dalpino, fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution. September 2001. Brookings Institution, Policy Brief #89. “Indonesia at the Crossroads.” Once a critical 'domino' in the cold war Asian security arena, Indonesia has new significance in the post-cold war world as a model for other countries in the process of rapid political and social change. As a Muslim-majority country, Indonesia's democratic experiment offers lessons for other societies with significant Muslim populations that are emerging from authoritarian rule. As the most ethnically diverse country in Asia, Jakarta's ability (or failure) to accommodate communal differences while maintaining national unity will influence stability in its neighbors with sharp internal divisions. If the fundamentalist province of Aceh withdraws from Indonesia, it will embolden separatist groups in the Philippine province of Mindinao and leaders of Malaysia's Islamic Party, which is gaining strength at the local level. Indonesia's experience in establishing democratic civilmilitary relations could have some influence on the course of political development in Burma, where the military is hinting it may restart political dialogue with the civilian opposition. The junta in Rangoon has publicly drawn parallels between the Indonesian and Burmese systems.

- 66 -